Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR
Before: SHRI V. DURGA RAO & SHRI K.M. ROY, ACCOUNTANT, MEMBER
Date of Hearing – 01/08/2024 Date of Order – 06/08/2024
O R D E R PER K.M. ROY, A.M.
The instant appeal has been filed by the assessee challenging the impugned order dated 22/12/2023, passed by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, [“learned CIT(A)”], for the assessment year 2017–18.
In its appeal, the assessee has raised following grounds:– “1. That considering the facts of the case, the learned CIT (appeals) erred in confirming disallowance of claim of depreciation at Rs.810408/-. The disallowance made is improper, unjust and deserves to be cancelled.
2. That considering the facts of the case the learned the learned CIT (appeals) erred in confirming the addition of Rs.23,32,216 holding that there is contravention of Sec. 11(5) of I.T. Act, 1961. The addition of Rs.23,32,216/- is improper & deserves to be deleted.
3. That any other ground/s that may be raised at the time of hearing.”
Shree Hindu Smashan Sanstha ITA no.85/Nag./2024
Facts in brief are that the assessee is a public trust registered under section 12AA of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ("the Act") and engaged in activity of providing facility for cremation of dead bodies by fire and by gas. The learned CIT(A) confirmed the addition of ` 23,32,216 under section 11(5) of the Act made by Assessing Officer holding that there is contravention of section 11(5) of the Act on account of investment in fixed deposits with NBFC. Besides this, the learned CIT(A) confirmed the disallowance of claim of depreciation at ` 8,10,408, though the cost of these assets are not claimed as deduction under section 11 of the Act in earlier or current year.
There is no representation from the side of the assessee.
The learned Departmental Representative vehemently supported the order of the authorities below. However, we have gone through the records meticulously. The assessee has made out a case that it has not claimed the fixed asset as an application of income and if that be so, there is no scope of disallowance of depreciation, since it will not tantamount to double benefit.
Upon perusal of the Balance Sheet, we find that there is no addition to fixed assets. Hence the claim of depreciation is allowed in accordance with the provisions of section 11(6) of the Act.
As regards the addition of ` 23,32,216, on account of investment in violation of provisions of section 11(5) r/w section 13(1)(d) of the Act, we find that there is no scope of adding back the investment as an income only. The income arising out of such investment could only have been added. Hence, there is no merit in the addition. We fail to understand as to how an Page | 2
Shree Hindu Smashan Sanstha ITA no.85/Nag./2024 asset disclosed in Balance Sheet can be added to the total income under any provisions of the Act. Accordingly, both the grounds raised by the assessee are allowed in entirety.
In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed. Order pronounced in the open Court on 06/08/2024