Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2015 (5) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2015 (5) TMI 1155 - AT - Income TaxReopening of assessment - Held that:- CIT(Appeals) noted in the impugned order that detailed analysis of the case have been made by the Assessing Officer which were put up before higher authorities for approval of the re-assessment of the case. CIT(Appeals) also noted that the Additional CIT, after examining the record has duly approved the re-opening of the assessment by noting "It is a fit case for issue of notice under section 148". Therefore, proper mind had been applied by the authorities below for giving sanction for re-opening of the assessment. Considering the facts of the case in the light of the above discussion and the fact that assessee has failed to rebut the finding of facts recorded by the authorities below, we do not find any justification to interfere with the order of CIT(Appeals) on these issues. Ground Nos. 5 & 6 of the appeal of the assessee are accordingly, dismissed. Disallowance under section 11 of the Act - registration granted under section 12AA - Held that:- Assessing Officer rightly found that assessee's activity does not fall within the meaning of "The advancement of any other object of general public utility under section 2(15) of the Income Tax Act". The ld. CIT(Appeals) also noted in the impugned order that facts of the case of the assessee are identical to that of PUDA [2006 (6) TMI 141 - ITAT CHANDIGARH-B] as was contended by the assessee before him. CIT(Appeals) was therefore, justified in following the decision of ITAT Chandigarh Bench in the case of PUDA (supra). It was also found that when income of M/s. Omaxe Ltd. was taxable which earned 85% of the income, then how the income of the assessee at 15% from the same Joint Agreement with M/s. Omaxe Ltd. would be exempt and how the assessee could claim exemption of income under section 11 of the Act. The authorities below have correctly analyzed the facts and material on record before giving adverse finding against the assessee denying exemption u/s 11 of IT Act. Status of artificial jurisdictional person against status of AOP (Trust) - Held that:- CIT(Appeals) noted that facts are similar as were considered in assessment year 2009-10 in which status of assessee has been taken as artificial jurisdictional person. It was also noted that in the similar case of Patiala Improvement Trust for assessment year 2003-04 and 2004-05, ITAT held that the status of assessee should be of artificial jurisdictional person. Therefore, finding the issue to be same, ld. CIT(Appeals) confirmed the order of Assessing Officer and dismissed this ground of appeal of the assessee. Nothing is argued from the side of the assessee. Therefore, we do not find any justification to interfere with the order of CIT(Appeals) in confirming the order of the Assessing Officer taking the status of artificial jurisdictional person by following the order of the Tribunal in the case of Patiala Improvement Trust. Ground No. 4 of the appeal of the assessee is accordingly, dismissed. We have already confirmed orders of the authorities below denying exemption under section 11 of the Act, therefore, donation is not allowable deduction because it is not connected with business activity of the assessee. Further expenditure of ₹ 10.47 Crores cannot be allowed because assessee has failed to explain nature of the business expenditure before the authorities below. Even before us no details have been furnished. Therefore, in the absence of any details or evidences, we do not find any justification to interfere with the orders of the authorities below. This ground of appeal of the assessee is accordingly, dismissed.
|