TMI Blog2013 (4) TMI 600X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ch. The Order under appeal has been passed without even adverting to the afore-quoted written submissions filed by the assessee before the CIT (A). Therefore, it would be in the interest of justice to remit this case to the file of the CIT (A), to be decided afresh, in accordance with law on affording due and adequate opportunity of hearing to the assessee. The assessee, no doubt, shall cooperate in the proceedings before the CIT (A) - appeal of the assessee allowed for statistical purposes. - ITA No.1698/Del/2011 - - - Dated:- 12-4-2013 - Shri A. D. Jain And Shri T. S. Kapoor,JJ. For the Appellant : Shri Gautam Jain, Advocate For the Respondent : Shri Tarun Seem, Sr. DR ORDER Per A. D. Jain, Judicial Member Thi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... issions dated 03.02.2010 (copy at APB 23-31), the assessee submitted, inter alia, as follows:- "4. In fact the accountant of the appellant did, appear on the said date, but I was asked by the assessing authority to come after some days verbally. But unfortunately, his attendance was not noted on 09.12.09. When he again attended office later on, he was confirmed that case was going to be time barred, it has been finalized and the assessment made Ex-parte u/s 144 of the I income tax act. The assessment finalized u/s 144 is thus unjustified and is liable to be set aside. 4 (a) In any case, without prejudice to the above said contention Ld A.O. wrongly assessed surplus income amounting to Rs. 1,19,723/-, which had been claimed by the appell ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y by various donors is unjustified. The Ld A.O. is wrong in holding that the appellant has no details of these donations are made by some anonymous persons. 1n fact, there are complete details of such donors in its account books. Now, the ground of appeal are discussed as under The 1st ground of appeal is general in nature. The 2nd ground of appeal is against completing the assessment U/s 144 of the act. In spite of the fact that all requisite information, in the possession of the appellant, was already filed/explained to the Ld AO. on different dates and this fact has been accepted by the Ld A.O in para 3 page 2 of the assessment order under appeal. Under these circumstances the Ld A.O. should have passed the order U/s 143(3) of th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of Pine Grove International Charitable Trust vs, Union of India reported at 2 Saral e-taxation page 102. And as such your good self is prayed to allow the exemption claimed U/s 10(23C) (iiiad) of the act. The 4th ground of appeal is against addition of Rs. 1594000/- made u/s 115BBC(i) of the act. This section applies only where no detail of contribution has been maintained by the institution. Your appellant is maintaining complete details of the persons who had contributed towards corpus of Rs. 15,94,000/-. The appellant was asked by the Ld A.O. to file such details in the next week but when the accountant of the appellant reached the office of the Ld A.O. he was told that your case has been decided and as such the required details could ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ent of that object, a primary school is being run. He relied upon the case law of jurisdictional High Court in CIT vs. Haryana Warehousing Corporation, 43 ITR 580 wherein it was held that if the primary or predominant object of any Institution is charitable, any other object which might not be charitable but which is ancillary to dominate purpose -eligible as valid charitable institution. The AR further submitted that the case law of Queens Educational Society of Uttrakhand High Court has been reversed by the jurisdictional High Court in the case of Pinegrove International Charitable Trust vs. UOI and therefore exemption claimed u/s 10 (23C) (iiiad) is allowable. I have considered the issue and the submissions made by the AR. Section 10(2 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d a statement before me giving list of 82 donors who contributed not more than Rs. 20,000/- each. I have considered the issue and the submissions made by the AR. No cogent reasons have been brought on record by the AR as to why the said details could not be furnished before the A.O. Further, no application for admission of additional evidence of the contributions mark by donors has been filed before me. Therefore, I deem it proper not to entertain this evidence. In view of the above, the action of the A.O. in making the addition u/s 115BBC (i) of Rs. 15,94,000/- is upheld and the ground of appeal is dismissed." 6. Concerning Ground No.4, it was held by the Ld. CIT (A) that:- "5.3 With regard to the charging of interest u/s 234B of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
