ITAT Bangalore Judgments — March 2019

The Tribunal held that the accumulation of income under section 11(1)(a) of the Act should be allowed as claimed by the assessee, which is on the gross income. The Tribunal relied on the decision of the Bangalore Bench in the assessee's own case for AY 2011-12, which in turn followed the Supreme Court's decision in CIT vs. Programme for Community Development Organisation. The Supreme Court held that a charitable trust is entitled to accumulate twenty-five per cent of its income derived from property held under trust, and this percentage should be applied to the income before deducting expenditures that constitute application of income. The Tribunal noted that any expenditure in the shape of application of income is not to be taken into account for determining the 25% accumulation. The operative direction was to allow the exemption as claimed by the assessee.

The Tribunal held that the penalty notice issued by the AO was invalid because it did not specify whether the penalty was for concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars. Consequently, the penalty proceedings were also deemed invalid.

The Tribunal upheld the order of the Principal CIT, finding that the AO had not conducted proper enquiry on disputed issues. The Tribunal noted that the assessee participated in the revised assessment proceedings and found no reason to interfere with the CIT's direction.

The Tribunal found that written submissions were indeed filed by the assessee on the date of hearing, and the CIT(A) had dismissed the appeal for non-prosecution without considering them. Therefore, the Tribunal restored the appeals to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer (AO) had not made proper inquiries into the provisions for interest on fixed deposits and election/general body expenses. Therefore, the CIT's action in revision was upheld for the first appeal.

The Tribunal found that written submissions were indeed filed on the date of hearing, and the CIT(A) had dismissed the appeal for non-prosecution without considering them. Therefore, the Tribunal restored the appeals to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer (AO) had not made proper inquiries into the provisions for interest on fixed deposits and election/general body expenses. Therefore, the CIT's action in revision was upheld for the first appeal.