TMI Blog2017 (8) TMI 169X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ursement act as a custodian of the funds due to the deficient centres. Hence, such funds are not exigible to the tax in the hands of the custodian. However, the assessee has not presented the details of utilisation of accumulated funds related to the assessment year 2005-06 and subsequent assessment years. Hence, we are inclined to set aside the order of the lower authorities and remit the issue in dispute to the file of the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration. It is needless to say that an opportunity of hearing to be given to the assessee to the present assessee's case. With this observation, the issue raised by the assessee in its appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes. - I. T. A. No. 1003/Mds/2015 - - - Dated:- 17- ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... or were filed. After scrutinising the details filed and discussing the case with the authorised representative, the assessment was completed under section 143(3) of the Act on February 26, 2014 determining the total income at ₹ 3,26,56,820. 3. During the course of assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer found that the assessee accumulated ₹ 2,75,81,397 pertaining to the assessment year 2005-06 and the same was not utilised till the assessment year 2010-11. In response, the assessee stated that the amount accumulated during the earlier years were not distributed to various temples for the reason that approval under section 12AA of the Act for the Annadhanam Scheme of such temples were rejected and on appeal, registration ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sessing Officer brought it to tax for the assessment year 2011-12. Hence there is no procedural flaw in the action of the Assessing Officer in bringing to tax the sum of ₹ 2,75,81,397 under section 11(3)(c) of the Act. 4.1 Further, the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) observed that income and expenditure account for the year ended March 31, 2011 reveals that the assessee was in receipt of interest on fixed deposit and interest on savings bank account. The only expenditure was contribution to temples. The surplus statement for the assessment years 2003-04 to 2013- 14 reveals that the assessee is having surplus in excess of 15 per cent. every year except the assessment year 2007-08. Since the assessee is having surplus, o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... states that the entire accumulation will be subject to tax under section 11(3) of the Act, if the provisions of section 11(2) of the Act have been violated. In this case, there is clear violation of section 11(2) of the Act by the assessee by not utilising the amount set apart within the stipulated period i.e. within the assessment year 2010-11 of the Act. According to him there is no error in the order of the Assessing Officer in taxing the sum of ₹ 2,75,81,397 under section 11(3)(c) of the Act. Thus, he declined to interfere with the order of the Assessing Officer on this count. Regarding taxing the sum of ₹ 50,75,423 i.e. 15 per cent. of the gross total income pertaining to the assessment year 2005-06, the Assessing Officer ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... assessment year 2005-06 was also spent in the assessment years 2006-07, 2007-08, 2008-09, 2009-10 and 2010-11 and it was not pending to spend in this assessment year under consideration. According to the authorised representative there is no violation of provisions of section 11(2) of the Act. 5.1 On the other hand, the learned Departmental representative relied on the order of the lower authorities. 6. We have heard the parties, and perused the material on record. In our opinion as seen from the annexure to the grounds of appeal, the outstanding accumulated fund available in the assessment year 2011-12 is at ₹ 3,57,04,582. According to the assessee, it is the cumulative fund which was not carried forward from the assessment ye ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
