THE DELHI HIGHER EDUCATION AID TRUST,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, WARD- 2(3), NEW DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 7609/DEL/2017Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 January 2022AY 2012-134 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the issue required remittance back to the AO for de novo adjudication. The CIT(A) had not properly examined the facts and circumstances, and to prevent miscarriage of justice, the matter was restored to the AO.

What were the facts?

The assessee trust challenged an addition of Rs. 4,15,80,000/- to its taxable income. The CIT(A) did not admit additional evidence submitted by the assessee regarding compliance with Section 11(5) and Section 11(2) of the IT Act.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) erred in not admitting additional evidence regarding compliance with Section 11(5) and Section 11(2) of the IT Act, and whether the matter should be remanded to the AO for fresh adjudication.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 144,Section 11(5),Section 11(2)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(1)Show list

Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH “G” NEW DELHI

Before: SHRI CHALLA NAGENDRA PRASAD & SHRI PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA

For Appellant: Shri Aadarsh Tiwari, Advocate, Shri Umesh Takyar, Sr. DR

आदेश/O R D E R

PER PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA, AM:

1.

The captioned appeal has been filed at the instance of the assessee seeking to challenge the order passed u/s.144 of the IT Act, 1961 dated 09.06.2017 passed against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (A)-40, Delhi (‘CIT(A)’ in short).

2.

As per its grounds of appeal, the assessee had challenged the addition Rs.4,15,80,000/- to the taxable income of the assessee trust.

3. When the matter was called for hearing, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee as well as the Ld. SR. DR for the revenue submitted in unison that certain additional evidence were placed before the CIT(A) by the assessee which were not admitted by the CIT(A). The issue has not been examined by the CIT(A) on merits. The proof of investment under section 11(5) of accumulative profits under section 11 (2) was not admitted as additional evidence under Rule 46A of the I.T. Rules 1962.

4. Having regard to the submissions made in tandem as well as to the facts of the case, the dispute raised in the present appeal requires to be remitted back to the AO. The assessment in the instant case was made u/s. 144 of the Act. The assessee has failed to furnish the proof of evidence of amount accumulated under section 11 (2) as per the objects prescribed u/s. 11 (5) of the Act before the AO. The AO has, therefore, denied the benefit of accumulated available for exemption u/s. 11 of the Act. The CIT(A) has also refused to admit the additional evidence to demonstrate the compliance of section 11(5) for the purpose of availment of benefits under section 11 (2) of the Act without properly weighing the facts and circumstances of the case.

5. Having regard to the observations made by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Tinbox Company Vs. CIT 249 ITR 216 (2001) and to prevent miscarrige of justice, we deem it expedient to restore the issue back to the file of the AO for denovo adjudication of the issue in accordance with law after taking into account the evidence and the defence propagated on behalf of the assessee. Needless to say, the AO shall frame the assessment after giving reasonable opportunity to the assessee for setting out its case. The order of the CIT(A) is accordingly set aside and the issue is restored to the file of the AO.

6.

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

This Order pronounced on 11/01/2022 Sd/- Sd/- (C.N.PRASAD) (PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Dated 11 /01/2022 True Copy Neha आदेश क� ��त�ल�प अ�े�षत / Copy of Order Forwarded to:- 1. राज%व / Revenue 2. आवेदक / Assessee 3. संबं)धत आयकर आयु+त / Concerned CIT 4. आयकर आयु+त- अपील / CIT (A) 5. /वभागीय �2त2न)ध, आयकर अपील�य अ)धकरण, अहमदाबाद / DR, ITAT, Ahmedabad 6. गाड8 फाइल / Guard file.

More judgments on Section 11(5)

All 401 judgments and leading authorities on Section 11(5) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →