THE INCOME TAX OFFICER (EXEMPTION) WARD-1, MANGALORE vs. M/S URSULINE FRANCISCAN CONGREGATION, MANGALORE

The present appeal is filed by the Revenue against the order of the CIT (A), Mangaluru, dt.30.01.2018, for the assessment year 2014-15, on the following grounds :

It was the case of the Revenue that the CIT(A) without recording proper reasons had decided the issue in favour of the assessee by following the order passed by the CIT (A) for the earlier assessment year, namely, A. Y. 2012-13 and the finding of the CIT (A) as given in para 6.3, read as under :

It was submitted by the Ld. DR that the finding recorded by the CIT (A) is required to be based on the material and no document was filed by the assessee before AO , nothing was discussed by the authorities , the documents are now filed at pages 54 to 61 of the paper book before Tribunal , which were required to be examined from the prospective of violation under section 11 and 13 of Act whether the foreign contribution received by the assessee were towards the corpus or on account of voluntary contribution. The Ld. DR had also relied upon the SMC decision of the Tribunal in ITA.1027/Bang/2017, dt.04.08.2017, wherein at para 3 & 4, it was held as under : 3. I have considered the rival submissions. I find that the revenue Has raised as many as 8 grounds but the only grievance of the revenue is that the learned CIT (A) has erred in accepting the claim of the assessee that the amount of foreign contribution received by the assessee of Rs. 176,54,741/- and interest levied of Rs. 40,70,332/- on deposit made from such foreign contribution funds is not forming part of income of the assessee. I find that after adding back, these two amounts total Rs. 217,25,914/-, the A.O. allowed deduction on account of utilization of foreign contribution to the extent of Rs. 139,94,030/-, general expenses Rs. 7,495/- and accumulation to the extent of Rs.32,58,887/- (15% of Rs. 217,25,914/-) and assessed the income of the assessee at Rs. 44,65,502/-. But neither before the A.O., nor before CIT (A) and nor before the tribunal, any evidence has been filed about the stated directions of the donors. Hence, under these facts and in the interest of justice, I feel it proper that the matter should go back to CIT (A) for a fresh decision. Hence, I set aside the order of CIT (A) and restore the matter back to his file for a fresh decision with the direction that the assessee should, produce the stated Directions received from the donors as being claimed and thereafter, the CIT (A) may obtain remand report from the A.O. and thereafter, the matter should be decided by CIT (A) by way of a speaking and ITA.1086/Bang/2018 Page - 4 reasoned order in the light of the provisions of section 11(1) (d) and the judgment of Hon'ble Karnataka High Court rendered in the case of CIT vs. Canara Organization. for Development and Peace (Supra) after providing adequate opportunity of being heard to both sides.

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is allowed for statistical purposes. The Ld. DR submitted that the matter is required to be remanded back to the file of CIT (A) to examine afresh in the light of the observation of the Tribunal (supra).

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is allowed for statistical purpose.