VIDYA SAGAR CHARITABLE TRUST,BHUBANESWAR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-2(2), BHUBANESWAR

PDF · subscribers
ITA 263/CTK/2016Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack09 November 2017AY 2009-105 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal noted that the assessee has since been granted registration under Section 12AA. Therefore, the orders of the lower authorities were set aside, and the matters were remanded back to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.

What were the facts?

The assessee, a charitable trust, was denied exemption under Sections 11 & 12 as it lacked registration under Section 12AA. The Assessing Officer and CIT(A) confirmed various additions including rent, cessation of liability, and donations. The assessee appealed these orders.

What were the issues?

Whether the denial of exemption under Sections 11 & 12 was justified without Section 12AA registration, and the validity of various additions made by the AO.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 11,Section 12,Section 12AA,Section 40(a)(ia),Section 41,Section 37

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, CUTTACK BENCH, CUTTACK

Before: S/SHRI N.S SAINI & PAVAN KUMAR GADALE

For Appellant: Shri B.D.Ojha, aR
For Respondent: Shri A.K.Mohapatra, CIT DR
Hearing: 08/11

1 ITA Nos. 263 to 266 /CT K/ 2016 Asse ssment Years :2 00 9-2 010 t o 20 12- 201 3

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CUTTACK BENCH, CUTTACK

BEFORE S/SHRI N.S SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, JUDICIAL MEMBER

ITA Nos.263 to 266 /CTK/2016 Assessment Years :2009-2010 to 2012-2013

Vidya Sagar Charitable Vs. ACIT, Circle 2(2), Trust, Plot No.A-103, Sahid Bhubaneswar. Nagar, Bhubaneswar. PAN/GIR No.AAATV 4014 D (Appellant) .. ( Respondent)

Assessee by : Shri B.D.Ojha, aR Revenue by : Shri A.K.Mohapatra, CIT DR

Date of Hearing : 08/11/ 2017 Date of Pronouncement : 9 /11/ 2017

O R D E R Per N.S.Saini, AM These are appeals filed by the assessee against the separate orders

of the CIT(A)- 3, Bhubaneswar all dated 11.3.2016 for the assessment

years 2009-2010 to 2012-2013, respectively.

2.

The assessee has raised following grounds of appeal in the

respective assessment years as under:

2009-2010

“ 1. Because that the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-3, Bhubaneswar erred in law as well as in fact by confirming the disallowance of the benefit u/s 11 & 12 of the Act when the matter for grant of registration u/s 12AA of the Act is pending for disposal before the Hon'ble Commissioner of Income-Tax, Bhubaneswar.

2.

Because that the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-3, Bhubaneswar erred in law as well as in fact by confirming the addition of

2 ITA Nos. 263 to 266 /CT K/ 2016 Asse ssment Years :2 00 9-2 010 t o 20 12- 201 3 Rs.20,95,000/- towards amount paid in respect of rent U/s 40(a)(ia) of the Act which is contrary to evidence on record since the income of the appellant is exempt U/s 11 of The IT. Act, 1961 and part of the amount is no more payable at the year end.

3.

Because that the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-3, Bhubaneswar erred in law as well as in fact by confirming the addition of Rs.8,80,400/- u/s 41 of the Act towards cession of the liability and same is liable to be deleted.

4.

Because that the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-3, Bhubaneswar erred in law as well as in fact by confirming the addition of Rs.2,40,305/- in respect of donations paid which is contrary to the evidence on record and same is liable to be deleted.”

2010-2011

1.

Because that the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-3, Bhubaneswar erred in law as well as in fact by confirming the disallowance of the benefit u/s 11 & 12 of the Act when the matter for grant of registration u/s 12AA of the Act is pending for disposal before the Hon'ble Commissioner of Income-Tax, Bhubaneswar.

2.

Because that the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-3, Bhubaneswar erred in law as well as in fact by confirming the addition of Rs.49,27,045/- u/s. 37 towards payment of interest which is contrary to the evidence on record as the income of the appellant has been treated as income from business.

3.

Because that the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-3, Bhubaneswar erred in law as well as in fact by confirming the addition of Rs.3,66,425/- (Rs.1,48,800 + 2,17,625) towards expenses incurred u/s.40(a)(ia) of the Act which is contrary to evidence on record as the AO has treated the income of the appellant as income from business.”

2011-12 1. “Because that the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-3, Bhubaneswar erred in law as well as in fact by confirming the disallowance of the benefit u/s 11 & 12 of the Act when the matter for grant of registration u/s 12AA of the Act is pending for disposal before the Hon'ble Commissioner of Income-Tax, Bhubaneswar.

2.

Because that the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-3, Bhubaneswar erred in law as well as in fact by confirming the addition of Rs.33,37,858/- u/s. 37 towards payment of interest which is contrary to the evidence on record as the income of the appellant has been treated as income from business.

3 ITA Nos. 263 to 266 /CT K/ 2016 Asse ssment Years :2 00 9-2 010 t o 20 12- 201 3 3. Because that the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-3, Bhubaneswar erred in law as well as in fact by confirming the addition of Rs.13,05,759 (Rs.3,63,134 + Rs.9,42,625/-) towards expenses incurred u/s.40(a)(ia) of the Act which is contrary to evidence on record as the AO has treated the income of the appellant as income from business.”

2012-2013

1.

Because that the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-3, Bhubaneswar erred in law as well as in fact by confirming the disallowance of the benefit u/s 11 & 12 of the Act when the matter for grant of registration u/s 12AA of the Act is pending for disposal before the Hon'ble Commissioner of Income-Tax, Bhubaneswar.

2.

Because that the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-3, Bhubaneswar erred in law as well as in fact by confirming the addition of Rs.17,87,139/- u/s. 37 towards payment of interest which is contrary to the evidence on record as the income of the appellant has been treated as income from business.

3.

Because that the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-3, Bhubaneswar erred in law as well as in fact by confirming the addition of Rs.19,66,665/- and Rs.7,13,520/- towards expenses incurred u/s.40(a)(ia) of the Act which is contrary to evidence on record as the AO has treated the income of the appellant as income from business.

4.

Because that the CIT(A), Bhubaneswar erred in law as well as in fact by confirming the addition of Rs.66,501/- towards expenses incurred for charity & donation which is out of operational contingency and contrary to the evidence on record.”

3.

Both the parties before us submitted that exemption u/s.11 & 12

was denied to the assessee as the assessee was not having registration

u/s.12AA of the Act. It was submitted that the Tribunal vide its order

dated 12.10.2017 in ITA No.303/CTK/2016 has allowed registration

u/s.12AA of the Act to the assessee and, therefore, all the issues involved

in these appeals are to be restored back to the file of the Assessing

Officer for adjudication afresh.

4 ITA Nos. 263 to 266 /CT K/ 2016 Asse ssment Years :2 00 9-2 010 t o 20 12- 201 3 4. In view of above submission of both the parties, we set aside the

orders of lower authorities and remand the matter back to the file of the

Assessing Officer to re-adjudicate the issues involved in these appeals in

the light of registration now granted to the assessee u/s.12AA of the Act

to the assessee.

5.

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for

statistical purposes.

Order pronounced on 9 /11/2017. Sd/- sd/- (Pavan Kumar Gadale) (N.S Saini) JUDICIALMEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Cuttack; Dated 9 /11/2017 B.K.Parida, SPS Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. The appellant :Vidya Sagar Charitable Trust, Plot No.A-103, Sahid Nagar, Bhubaneswar. 2. The Respondent. DCIT, Circle 2(2), Bhubaneswar 3. The CIT(A)-3, Bhubaneswar 4. Pr.CIT-3, Bhubaneswar 5. DR, ITAT, Cuttack 6. Guard file. //True Copy// BY ORDER,

SR.PRIVATE SECRETARY ITAT, Cuttack

5 ITA Nos. 263 to 266 /CT K/ 2016 Asse ssment Years :2 00 9-2 010 t o 20 12- 201 3

More judgments on Section 11

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →