CENTRE FOR CHILD AND WOMAN DEVELOPMENT,BHUBANESWAR vs. ACIT, CPC, BANGALORE

आयकर अपीऱीय अधिकरण, “एस.एम.सी” न्यायपीठ,कटक IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “SMC” BENCH CUTTACK BEFORE SHRI N.S.SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपीऱ सं./ITA No.334/CTK/2016 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2013-2014) Centre for Child and Woman Vs. ACIT, Centralized Development, Processing Cell, HIG-93, 2nd Floor, Lumbini Vihar Bangalore Chandrasekharpur, Bhubaneswar-751021 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./ PAN/GIR No. : AAATC 5317 Q (अपीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. निर्ााररती की ओर से /Assessee by : Shri P.C.Sethi, AR राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue by : Shri D.K.Pradhan, DR सुनवाई की तारीख / Date of Hearing : 30/11/2017 घोषणा की तारीख/Date of Pronouncement 30/11/2017 आदेश / O R D E R This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the CIT(A)-3, Bhubaneswar, dated 16.05.2016. 2. The sole issue involved in this appeal is that the CIT(A) erred in not deleting the addition made by the AO of Rs.13,67,410/-. 3. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee filed return of income showing Nil income. In the return of income the assessee has shown total receipts during the year Rs.97,38,098/- and amount applied for charitable purpose in India during the previous year Rs.69,09,976/-. The assessee claimed Rs.28,28,122/- as amount accumulated or set apart for application to charitable or religious purposes and that it did not exceed 15% of income derived from property held in trust wholly or in part only for such purposes u/s.11(1)A of the Act. In processing return u/s.143(1) of the Act, this amount was reduced to Rs.14,60,715/- which resulted in

2 ITA No.334/CTK/2016 assessing the total income of the assessee of Rs.13,67,407/- at the maximum marginal rate and raising demand of Rs.5,22,663/- on the assessee. The assessee filed rectification petition u/s.154 of the Act on 03.02.2015 and the AO passed the order reducing the demand to Rs.3,06,064/-. 4. The assessee being aggrieved by the order of AO preferred appeal before the CIT(A) challenging the determination of income at Rs.13,67,410/-. The assessee contended that out of total receipts of Rs.97,38,098/-, Rs.84,96,556/- was the grant received during the year and the balance amount of grant of Rs.17,27,337/- included in the above gross receipt was receipt for the next year. Thus, if the receipt of the year is taken at Rs.84,96,556/-, which included the opening balance of Rs.13,07,622/- at the beginning of the year. During the year the assessee has utilized Rs.69,76,055/- which constituted 86.37% of the total receipts of the year and, hence, no addition of Rs.13,67,410/- is warranted. The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee on the ground that the assessee failed to prove that grant of Rs.17,27,337/- is having legal obligation towards specific purpose. 5. The AR of the assessee reiterated the submissions made before the AO and the CIT(A), and submitted that before disposing of the appeal the assessee the CIT(A) has not allowed any opportunity to the assessee to explain its case and prayed that matter should be remanded back to the file of CIT(A) for fresh adjudication of the issue.

3 ITA No.334/CTK/2016 6. Ld. DR, on the other hand, vehemently opposed the submission of the assessee and submitted that ld. CIT(A) has very categorically stated that no evidence was produced by the assessee to prove that grant of Rs.17,27,337/- which is having legal obligation towards specific purpose and has not filed any evidence even before the Tribunal to controvert this finding of the CIT(A). Therefore, the order of CIT(A) should be confirmed. 7. In the above background of the case, I find that the AR of the assessee has only argued that the CIT(A) before disposing of the appeal of the assessee has not allowed opportunity to the assessee to explain its case. I find that in the processing of the return of income of the assessee u/s.143(1) of the Act, deduction was restricted to Rs.14,60,715/- as against Rs.28,28,122/- claimed by the assessee out of the total receipts during the year being 15% of the amount of the total receipts. Thus, the income was assessee was assessed at Rs.13,67,407/-. Against this, the assessee filed appeal before the CIT(A) contending that out of total receipts of Rs.97,38,098/-, Rs.17,27,377/- was the grant received during the year for spending in the subsequent year. Therefore, the AO was not justified in restricting the deduction to Rs.14,60,715/- in place of Rs.28,28,122/- claimed by the assessee and making an assessment of the assessee at Rs.13,67,407/-. This plea came to be dismissed by the CIT(A) for lack of evidence filed before him. Even before the Tribunal, no evidence has been produced in support of his contention so as to controvert the findings of the CIT(A). Hence, I find no merit in this appeal of the assessee. Accordingly, this appeal of the assessee is dismissed.

4 ITA No.334/CTK/2016 8. In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on this 30/11/2017. Sd/- (N. S. SAINI) ऱेखा सदस्य / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER कटक Cuttack; ददनांक Dated 30/11/2017 प्र.कु.मम/PKM, Senior Private Secretary आदेश की प्रनिलऱपप अग्रेपषि/Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथी / The Appellant- 2. प्रत्यथी / The Respondent- 3. आयकर आयुक्त(अपील) / The CIT(A), आयकर आयुक्त / CIT 4. निभागीय प्रनतनिनर्, आयकर अपीलीय अनर्करण, कटक / DR, ITAT, Cuttack 5. गार्ड फाईऱ / Guard file. 6. सत्यापपत प्रतत //True Copy// आदेशािुसार/ BY ORDER,

(Senior Private Secretary) आयकर अपीऱीय अधिकरण, कटक / ITAT, Cuttack