TMI Blog2014 (3) TMI 469X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... under the other income head cannot be added to the receipts – it cannot be understood what exactly the Tribunal meant by making a statement that 'no man can make profit of himself' - the Tribunal has not explained what exactly this Rs. 17 lakhs amounts to - The order of the Tribunal does not provide a clear picture as to what this amount of Rs. 17 lakhs represents - If Rs. 17 lakhs is not counted as receipts, the total receipt would come within one Crore. If Rs. 17 lakhs is added, it crosses one Crore - Thus if this Rs. 17 lakhs is added, the entire scenario would change - In the absence of any particulars, the matter is remitted back to the Tribunal for clarification - It has to consider the source of Rs. 17 lakhs alone so as to consider ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt year in question but also assessment years 2003-04 and 2004-05. While considering the main issue, all the three years came to be taken up together by virtue of a common order by the Tribunal. So far as 2003-04, it is apparent that assessee was entitled for exemption under Section 10(23C) (iiiad) and the Assessing Officer was given a direction to modify the assessment orders giving exemption to the appellant. This came to be challenged before the Tribunal and the Tribunal allowed the appeal by remanding back the matter to the First Appellate Authority to reconsider the same. In that context all the three assessment years came to be taken up together. 4. The application of assessee for registration under Section 12A of the Act was rejec ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the year ended with 31.03.2005, opined, the total receipt comes to Rs. 95,90,170.83 which includes interest on deposits and voluntary contribution. There is no dispute so far as this aspect of the matter is concerned. There is also reference to Rs. 17,00,000/- shown as income under other head in the statement of computation of income. The reading of entire paragraph 8 with reference to Rs. 17 lakhs, we feel, probably the Tribunal opined that the amount of Rs. 17 lakhs shown under the other income head cannot be added to the receipts. We are unable to understand what exactly the Tribunal meant by making a statement that 'no man can make profit of himself'. However, the Tribunal has not explained what exactly this Rs. 17 lakhs amounts ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ture what this amount of Rs. 17 lakhs represents. If Rs. 17 lakhs is not counted as receipts, the total receipt would come within one Crore. If Rs. 17 lakhs is added, it crosses one Crore. Thus if this Rs. 17 lakhs is added, the entire scenario would change. In the absence of any particulars before us, we are of the opinion, the matter deserves to be remanded back to the Tribunal for clarification what exactly this Rs. 17 lakhs would indicate and why it should be either included in receipts or excluded from receipts. So far as Rs. 95,90,170.83, it is admitted that the receipts are interest on deposits and voluntary contribution. The Tribunal need not reopen the issue pertaining to ₹ 95,90,170.83. It has to consider the source of Rs. 1 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
