M/S. OM PRAKASH SHARMA EDUCATIONAL & CHARITABLE TRUST,MODINAGAR vs. ADDL. CIT, GHAZIABAD

PDF · subscribers
ITA 4061/DEL/2016Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 February 2017AY 2010-116 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal noted that the lower authorities had not considered the extensive documentation submitted by the assessee. Therefore, the issues related to donations and denial of deduction u/s 11 were set aside and restored to the AO for fresh adjudication.

What were the facts?

The assessee, an educational and charitable trust, appealed against additions made by the AO and confirmed by the CIT(A). The assessee did not press the ground related to unsecured loans but argued that regular donations were wrongly treated as anonymous and deduction u/s 11 was wrongly denied.

What were the issues?

Whether regular donations were wrongly treated as anonymous, and if the denial of deduction u/s 11 by invoking Section 13(1)(c) was justified, especially when crucial documents were not considered by lower authorities.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 11,Section 13(1)(c)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH: ‘SMC’ NEW DELHI

Before: SHRI H. S. SIDHU

This appeal is filed by assessee against the Order dated 29.3.2016 passed by the Ld.CIT(A), Muzaffrnagar relating to Assessment Year 2010-11 on the following grounds:-

On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the following actions of the AO:

1.

Making an addition of Rs. 1,95,000/- by mistreating

the regular donations received as anonymous donation;

2. Making an addition of Rs. 8,50,000/- on account of unsecured loan treating the same as unexplained;

3.

Not allowing deduction u/s. 11 of the Income Tax

Act, 1961 (The Act) of wrong invoking the provision of section 13(1) of the Act.

All the above actions being arbitrary, erroneous, misconceived and unjust must be quashed with directions for relief.

2.

Facts narrated by the revenue authorities are not disputed by both the parties, hence, the same are not repeated here for the sake of brevity.

3. During the course of hearing, Ld. Counsel of the assessee with regard ground no. 2 relating to addition of Rs. 8,50,000/- has stated that he is not pressing this ground. However, with regard to ground no. 1 Ld. Counsel of the assessee has stated that the AO has mistreated the regular donations received as anonymous donation and with regard to ground no. 3 he stated that AO wrongly not allowed the deduction u/s. 11 of the I.T. Act, 1961 invoking the provision of section 13(1)(c) of the I.T. Act. In this behalf, he filed a Paper Book containing pages 1 to 141 having the copy of the Written Submissions filed before the CIT(A); Application under Rule 46A to submit additional evidence to CIT(A); written submissions filed before CIT(A); Copy of Trust Deed; Copy of 12A Certificate; copy of ITR, Audit Report, Balance sheet, Profit and loss account etc; details of fixed assets; details of car payment made and RC of other car owned by the Trustee; copy of 80G certificate; list of donors; copy of confirmation, ITR, PAN ID proof of all donors. In view of the above, he requested that with regard to ground 1 & 3, the lower authorities has not considered the written submissions and the documents attached with the Paper Book as mentioned hereinabove, which needs to be considered at the level of the AO in the interest of justice. Hence, he requested that the issues involved ground no. 1 & 3 may be set aside to the file of the AO with the direction to decide the same afresh under the law, after giving adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee.

4.

On the contrary, Ld. DR opposed the request of the Ld. Counsel of the assessee and relied upon the orders of the authorities below. .

5.

I heard both the parties and perused the records. I have gone through the order passed by the revenue authorities, Paper Book filed by the assessee. I find that during the hearing, Ld. Counsel of the assessee has not pressed the ground no. 2 relating to addition of Rs. 8,50,000/-, hence, the same is dismissed as such. I further find that with regard to ground no. 1, it was the contention of the Ld. Counsel of the assessee that the AO has mistreated the regular donations received as anonymous donation and with regard to ground no. 3 it was the further contention that AO has wrongly not allowed the deduction u/s. 11 of the I.T. Act, 1961 invoking the provision of section 13(1)(c) of the I.T. Act. I note that during the hearing, Ld. Counsel of the assessee has filed a Paper Book containing pages 1 to 141 having the copy of the Written Submissions filed before the CIT(A); Application under Rule 46A to submit additional evidence to CIT(A); written submissions filed before CIT(A); Copy of Trust Deed; Copy of 12A Certificate; copy of ITR, Audit Report, Balance sheet, Profit and loss account etc; details of fixed assets; details of car payment made and RC of other car owned by the Trustee; copy of 80G certificate; list of donors; copy of confirmation, ITR, PAN ID proof of all donors. However, in my considered opinion, the lower authorities has not considered the documents attached in the shape of paper book which are very essential to be examined for the adjudication of the issues involved in ground no. 1 & 3.

6.

Keeping in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the view that in this case the issues involved in ground no. 1 & 3 requires fresh adjudication at the level of the AO, hence, the issues in dispute are set aside and restored back to the file of the AO to decide the same afresh after giving adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee.

7.

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced in the Open Court on 17/02/2017.

More judgments on Section 11

All 7,190 judgments and leading authorities on Section 11 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →