DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, (EXEMPTIONS), CIRCLE, PUNE vs. SOU. SUSHILA DANCHAND GHODAWAT CHARITABLE TRUST, KOLHAPUR

This Revenue’s appeal with assessee’s Cross Objection CO.No. 46/PN/22, arise against the CIT(A)-11, Pune’s order dated 30/07/2019, passed in case No. PN/CIT(A)-11/ACIT, Cen. Cir. /KOP /742 /2015-16, involving proceeding u/s. 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961; in short "the Act”. Heard both the parties. Case file perused.

It emerges during the course of hearing Revenue has pleaded two main substantive ground followed by it’s additional ground that the CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in holding that the assessee is eligible u/s. 11 exemption; since carrying section 12AA registration and that the Assessing Officer had rightly added disallowed/ added it’s education building fund claim of Rs.8,02,67,000/- in the nature of corpus donation u/s.11(1)(d) of the Act; respectively. The assessee’s cross-objection CO. No.46/PN/22 on the other hand seeks correct computation of it’s application of income.

We notice in this factual backdrop so far as the Revenue’s former twin substantive grounds regarding assessee’s eligibility of section 11 exemption based on the section 12AA registration is concerned, the issue is no more re integra in principle as this tribunal’s co-ordinate bench’s order dated 31.12.2012 has already adjudicated the same against the department. And Revenue’s Tax Appeal no. 1017 of 2014 stands admitted before the hon’ble jurisdictional high court on 16.01.2017. We thus reject the Revenue’s instant former twin substantive grounds.

Next comes the issue of correctness of corpus donation disallowance / addition of Rs.8,02,67,000/- on merits. A perusal of the assessment order dated 26.03.2014 reveals that the assessee could not prove all the relevant details thereof before the Assessing Officer. Coming to the CIT(A) order, Mr. Puranik could hardly dispute that the lower appellate discussion under CO.No. 46/PN/2022 A.Y. : 2011-12 Sou. Sushila Danchand Ghodawat Charitable Trust, challenge has nowhere commented on merits thereof right from para no. 2 to para 7 as it has simply gone by assessee’s registration u/s.12AA only. Suffice to say, section 250(C) of the Act stipulates that the CIT(A) has to frame his point of determination followed by a detailed adjudication thereupon in lower appellate proceedings. We do not find any discussion at all much less a detailed one dealing with the impugned issue of corpus donation in the CIT(A)’s order. The assessee’s paperbook running into 141 prima facie suggests that it had made additional submissions before the CIT(A) over and above the material which was placed before the Assessing Officer. Faced with this situation, we deem it fit appropriate the Revenue’s instant third substantive ground on merits deserts to be reverted back to the CIT(A) for his afresh adjudication on merits as per law within three effective opportunities of hearing. Ordered accordingly.

This Revenue’s appeal stands partly allowed for statistical purposes therefore.

The assessee’s Cross Objection CO no.46/PN/22 (supra) also follows suit as the necessary corollary.

This Revenue’s appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes and assessee’s Cross Objection CO no.46/PN/22 is CO.No. 46/PN/2022 A.Y. : 2011-12 Sou. Sushila Danchand Ghodawat Charitable Trust, accepted for statistical purposes in above terms. A copy of this common order be placed in respective files. Order pronounced in the Open Court on this 18th day of October, 2022.