TMI Blog2018 (10) TMI 1176X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... me in view of the decision of this Tribunal in the case of Kuttukaran Foundation [2012 (4) TMI 78 - ITAT COCHIN]. CIT(A) could have directed the Assessing Officer to examine whether the activities carried on by the assessee is in accordance with the object clause of the Trust. Neither the CIT(A) nor the Assessing Officer have examined this issue. AO in this case, at the threshold, rejected the claim of the assessee under section 11 of the Act by observing that since the Trust has not obtained the approval of the Commissioner of Income-tax for amendments made by it in the memorandum and rules and regulations, and also not obtained prior approval for expanding its operations beyond the limits of the country, the Trust is not eligible for c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 91/- on the ground that the action of the Assessing Officer in holding that the appellant is not registered u/s. 12A, is without jurisdiction. 2) The CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition of ₹ 28,79,704/- on the ground that the action of the Assessing Officer in holding that the appellant is not registered u/s. 12A, is without jurisdiction. 3. The facts of the case are that the assessee is a Trust registered u/s. 12A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. For the assessment year 2012-13, the assessee filed its return of income declaring total income at Rs. Nil after claiming refund of ₹ 46,360/-. While framing the assessment u/s. 143(3) of the Act, the Assessing Officer determined the total income as follows: ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nter alia, carried the matter in appeal before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) deleted the addition of ₹ 89,70,582/- by observing that the finding of the Assessing Officer that the assessee is not registered u/s. 12A of the Act, is without jurisdiction. The CIT(A) observed that without cancelling registration u/s. 12A of the Act, the Assessing Officer cannot deny the benefit of section 11 and 12 of the Act. It was observed that the assessee had applied 85% of the receipt for the objectives of the Trust. Hence, the CIT(A) deleted the addition of ₹ 59,14,791/-. Similarly, while deleting the addition of set apart amount of ₹ 28,79,704/-, the CIT(A) observed that since the assessee-Trust is duly registered u/s. 12A of the Act, the Asse ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sessing officer is without jurisdiction. This Tribunal is of the opinion that the assessing officer has exceeded his jurisdiction in rejecting the registration and assessing the assessee as AOP . As already observed, it is open to the Commissioner to consider the case of the assessee and pass necessary order u/s. 12AA(3) of the Act. 6.1 However, the CIT(A) could have directed the Assessing Officer to examine whether the activities carried on by the assessee is in accordance with the object clause of the Trust. Neither the CIT(A) nor the Assessing Officer have examined this issue. The Assessing Officer in this case, at the threshold, rejected the claim of the assessee under section 11 of the Act by observing that since the Trust has n ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
