9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (12) TMI 1171X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... neous as well as prejudicial to the revenue. 3. For adjudicating this issue let us look at the fault pointed out by the Ld. CIT(E) to interfere with the action of AO while passing the assessment order u/s. 143(3) of the Act dated 30.12.2019 which is discernable from the Show Cause Notice (SCN) issued by Ld. CIT(E) dated 22.01.2021 which reads as under: "Verification of assessment folder for the A.Y. 2017-18, revealed that the assessee has filed the return of income on 31.10.2017 declaring total income of Rs. Nil. Scrutiny assessment u/s. 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was completed on 30.12.2019 determining total income at Rs. 34,81,240/-. On further verification of assessment records, it has been found that the following exemption w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nalysis of the Schedule I, it can easily be proved that the said Schedule is incorrect. In the Schedule, it is submitted that Rs. 8,53,939 is surplus and has been set apart u/s. 11(2). However, in column no. 4, it is submitted that out of the amount set apart (i.e. Rs. 8,53,939/-), Rs. 4,50,172/- has been applied before the beginning of the Financial year i.e. before 01.04.2016. How an amount can be applied for an year before its beginning when there is no deficit in preceding years? In fact, Rs. 8,53,939/- is derived at after deducting the purchase of fixed assets of Rs. 4,50,172/-. The amount of purchase of fixed assets (Rs. 4,50,172/-) has wrongly been entered in column no. 4. Hence, the purchase of Rs. 4,50,172/- is the application made ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t in schedule I of ITR, in respect of application of Rs. 4,50,172/- claimed from such set apart amount during the year under consideration, and compute the income accordingly." 6. Aggrieved the assessee is before us. 7. We have heard both the parties. According to Ld. AR there was a mistake while filling up the Schedule-I submitted along with Return of Income (RoI) and after rectifying the same, a copy was filed before the Ld. CIT(E). However, it has been ignored by the Ld. CIT(E) while passing the impugned order. The Ld. AR drew our attention to page 26 (PB) which is Schedule-I to RoI, column 4, where the mistake happened wherein the assessee had entered under column 4 which reads "Amount applied for charitable/religious purposes upto th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... question of assessee applying Rs. 4,50,172/- before the beginning of F.Y. i.e. before 01.04.2016, when there is no deficit in preceding year has not been answered by the Ld. CIT(E)/DR. So the apprehension of Ld. CIT(E) that assessee has thus claimed double deduction is erroneous and on wrong assumption of fact. So taking note of the relevant contents of page 31 PB (supra) and page 45 PB (supra), we do not find any omission on the part of AO while framing the assessment order on this issue. Therefore, the AO rightly did not draw any adverse inference on the issue which was pointed out as a fault by the Ld. CIT(E). Therefore, in the facts & circumstances discussed (supra), we find that the Ld. CIT(E) has erroneously usurped the revisional ju ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
