9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (10) TMI 1205X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... assessment that the necessary conditions for the exemption wee not fulfilled by the assessee during the relevant assessment year. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the ld. CIT(A) is not justified in accepting the contentions of the assessee and not accepting the findings of the AO in violation of Rule 46A of the IT Rules." 3. The appeal is time barred by 1510 days. The revenue has filed condonation petition u/s. 253(5) of the Income tax Act, 1961, wherein, it is stated that the appellate order dated 27.3.2013 passed by the ld. CIT(A)-II, Bhubaneswar was received in the office of CIT on 13.5.2013. However, due to restructuring of the department, the office of the ACIT (Exemptions), Bhubaneswar was created on 15.11.2014 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ginning of his assessment order that although in the case of this appellant registration u/s. 12AA had been granted, it would not be entitled to the benefit of Sec. 11 "because of the reasons elaborately discussed hereunder". As a matter of fact, unless there is a conclusive decision on this issue, the disallowance/additions under different heads would not be of any meaning or importance because the heads of expenditure would not be relevant as expenditure would then be relevant as application of income. Therefore, it is important to make some analysis of the AO's observation against grant of benefit u/s. 11. 3. The trust is accumulating funds in the shape of FDs from year to year. The AO seems to have analysed the objectives of the t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... or appointment of contractors and suppliers and the chairman had dictatorial powers of functioning. Although this discussion has been made under the head "improper maintenance of accounts", here the AO is basically questioning the functioning of the trust itself. It is however not brought on record that the trust was functioning in contravention of the; provision of registered trust deed. Therefore, it is best left to the trust as to how the trustees manage its functioning on the basis of their mandate. The AO is not empowered to substitute his views for such functioning at all. This will not contravene any provision of Sec. 13 so as to debar the trust from the benefit of Sec. 11. The appellant has submitted elaborate explanation on the AO& ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rman was only for the purpose of college and secondly an expenditure of Rs. 4,79,000/- for 2 to 3 days for 11 members appeared to him to be excessive. Accordingly, the AO is of the opinion that expenses would be hit by the provisions of Sec. 13(2)(1) of the I.T. Act. 5.1. I have carefully gone into the details pertaining to the aforesaid expenditure. It is seen that for the governing body meeting, seven members had come from USA. The Chairman Dr. R.K Mishra and his family members and friend who were governing body members and were NRIs and were staying in USA. These members had come for the meeting by bearing the flight charges to India. The trust was to bear their expenses for accommodation, local conveyance and food etc. Accordingly, as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ting to Rs. 1,07,669/- (Rs. 5,7451- + Rs. 1,924 + Rs. 1,00,000/-) out of total expenses of Rs. 36,11,228/-. Out of Rs. 1,07,669/-, two small amounts were made in cash and Rs. 1,00,000/- was made in cheque. Request was made to the parties for issue of duplicate bills/receipts which could not be produced before the remand officer since the concerned parties have not complied to our request. 6.1. Even if one presumes that the bills are not available for these expenses, I do not understand as to how that will contribute in any way for rejection of the appellant's claim u/s. 11. If the trust is assessed as a commercial institute for its commercial income, only then the sum of Rs. 1,07,669/- could be disallowed as expenditure in computation ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... However, ld. CIT DR could not point out any specific error in the order of the ld. CIT(A). 7. In view of above, we concur with the findings arrived at by ld. CIT(A). Ld. CIT(A) had called remand report from the Assessing Officer but the AO has not objected to the written submission filed by the assessee trust. Therefore, the ld. CIT(A) is fully justified in directing the AO allow exemption u/s. 11 of the Act. As regards the acceptance of submission of the assessee in violation of Rule 46A as claimed by the department, we find that after receiving the various written submissions and documents, the CIT(A) had called for the remand report and after getting the remand report, the explanation of the assessee was called for and the rejoinder was ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
