TMI Blog2018 (11) TMI 641X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Assessing Officer, which is within his powers. But by no stretch of imagination it can be accepted that the first appellate authority is making enhancement while commenting on the powers of the CIT(Exemptions). First appellate authority has crossed his powers in deciding the appeal and, therefore, his findings have to be set aside. Coming to the action of the Assessing Officer, find that the AO has doubted the surplus ₹ 6,36,591/- without examining each and every item of income. Therefore, restore this issue to the file of the AO. AO is directed to examine each and every item of income and decide the issues afresh after allowing reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Accordingly, the enhancement is set aside a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... x. The notice u/s.251(2) therefore, is only technical compliance of the mandate in the provision. 4. The CIT(A) erred in confirming additions made by the AO without even applying his mind to averments evidence placed before him in this regard, and passing a speaking order. 3. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the assessee is a Resident Welfare Association and registered under the Registrar of Societies, Meerut vide Certificate No. 1573 dated 25.02.2009. The assessee is also registered u/s 12AA of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'] by the CIT, Ghaziabad. 3. Return for the year was selected for scrutiny assessment and during the course of scrutiny assessment proceedings and on ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... action of the Assessing Officer but also treated the entire receipts as income of the assessee. 7. Aggrieved by the action of the first appellate authority, the assessee is in appeal before me. 8. The ld. AR vehemently stated that since past many years, benefit of Doctrine of Mutuality was allowed to the assessee-society. It is the say of the ld. AR that the CIT(A) has no jurisdiction to comment upon the action of the CIT(Exemptions]. The ld. AR further stated that the first appellate authority should not have questioned the grant of registration u/s 12A of the Act by the CIT(Exemptions]. The ld. AR concluded by stating that the order of the first appellate authority is bad in law. 9. Per contra, the ld. DR strongly supported the f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
