THE PHILANTHROPIC SOCIETY OF THE ORTHODOX CHURCH ,KOLKATA vs. ITO (EXEMPTION), WARD - 1(3), KOLKATA , KOLKATA

For that in view of the facts and in the circumstances the AO is wholly unjustified to allow deduction with respect to accumulation u/s. 11 (2), while processing the income tax return u/s. 143(1) dated 15.09.2016, only for Rs. 1,00,00,000/- as against claim of Rs.l,25,00,000/- vide ITR filed by the society and thereby allowing total deduction of Rs.3,83,64,3291- only as against the claim of the appellant at Rs. 4,08,64,329/- in its ITR and the Ld. CIT(A) is wholly unjustified in further directing the AO to allow the claim to the appellant as per its ITR filed, after examining whether the activities of the appellant were covered u/s. 2(15) of I. T. Act, 1961, which is wholly beyond the purview of processing u/s. 143(1) and the details of registration of society having duly been furnished in the ITR filed by the society and the society having duly been allowed benefit of sec. 11 from year to year and in view of the facts and in the circumstances the claim of accumulation u/s. 11(2) may kindly be directed to be allowed at Rs.1,25,00,000/- and consequentially claim of total deduction may kindly be directed to be allowed at Rs4,08,64,329/- as per ITR and in view of the facts and in the circumstances it may kindly be held accordingly.”

Learned Authorized Representative at the outset takes me to the CIT(A)’s directions issued to the Assessing Officer as under:- “The appellant is a Registered Charitable Trust u/s 12A of the Act. The appellant claimed that its income of Rs.4,08,64,329/- was applied for charitable purpose and it (appellant) claimed exemption u/s.11(1) & 11(2) of the Act. The appellant claimed deduction of Rs.1,25,00,000/- u/s. 11(2) of the Act but the AO, during the curse of proceeding, has allowed deduction of Rs.1,00,00,000/- only to the appellant. The appellant also claimed that the AO, in the impugned intimation u/s. 143(1) of the Act, has allowed deduction of Rs.3,83,64,329/- against the claim of the appellant of Rs.4,08,64,329/-. The AO is directed to see whether the amount of exemption claimed by the appellant is properly utilized towards charitable purposes or not. The AO is further directed to examine the activities of the appellant whether they are covered u/s. 2(15) of the I.T Act, 1961.If the same is found true and the appellant’s claim is found truly complaint with the provisions of Sec. 11(1)/11(2) of the Act, then exemption/deduction claimed by the appellant may be allowed. In case of contrary facts, disallowance made by the AO stands confirmed.”

I have given my thoughtful consideration to rival contentions. I notice first of all that the CIT(A) has simply set aside the assessee’s lower appeal back to the Assessing Officer with specific directions without even making it sure as to whether the taxpayer had been served the relevant hearing notice(s) or not. Coupled with this, Mr. Bhattacherjya fails to dispute that the CIT(A) is no more vested with “set aside”

The Philanthropic Society of the Orthodox Church Vs. ITO (Ex) Wd-1(3), Kol. Page 3 jurisdiction as per u/s. 251(1) (a) with effect from 01.06.2001. It has further come on record that CIT(A)’s remand directions have simply brushed aside the assessee’s case without even discussing the basic facts followed by a detailed adjudication u/s. 250(6) of the Act. I therefore deem it appropriate to restore the instant lis back to the CIT(A) for appropriate adjudication as per law after affording adequate opportunity of hearing to the assessee.