TMI Blog2022 (12) TMI 1267X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e case of the assessee that the assessee trust has not earned the business income and income from other sources - Thus, the AO while completing the assessment u/s. 143(3) and denying the exemption u/s. 11 of the I.T.Act has failed to consider the above two items to arrive at the correct income to be assessed and taxed at Maximum Marginal Rate. Under these circumstances, the order passed by the AO in our opinion has become erroneous as well as prejudicial to the interest of the revenue and therefore, the ld.CIT(E), in our opinion was fully justified in invoking the provisions of section 263 of the I.T.Act. Accordingly, the order passed by the ld.CIT(E) is upheld and the grounds raised by the assessee are dismissed. - ITA No.220/Hyd/2022 - ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... The AR of the assessee appeared from time to time and filed the necessary details. 3.1 During the course of assessment proceedings the AO noted that assessee trust has advanced loan to trustees Shri. D.Ravi and Shri D.Jagdish Prasad of Rs.1,50,000/- and Rs.3,36,114/- respectively. However, in the balance sheet it was shown as other sundry debtors. He noted that under identical circumstances, in the previous assessment year i.e. 2014-15 on the similar issue, exemption was denied and the same is pending before the ld.CIT(A). He, therefore, confronted the same to the assessee. Rejecting the various explanations given by the assessee and observing that assessee trust has utilized its funds by giving advances to interested parties u/s. 13(3) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed above. 2. Consequent upon the CBDTs notification No. 65/2014 dt. 13.11.2014 (F. No. 187/38/2014 ITA -I) U/S 120 (1) (2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (So No. 2754(E) published in Gazette of India, extraordinary part - II, sec 3(11) on 22-10-2014 subsequent notification in this regard, jurisdiction over your case, stands assigned to CIT(E), Hyderabad. 3. In the mean time, I have called for and examined the assessment record for the A Y 2015-16, in your case and found that the assessment order dated 22.12.2017 passed u/s 143(3) of the IT Act, 1961 ( the Act in short) in your case, by the ITO (Exemptions)-3 , Hyderabad, is erroneous, in so for as, it is prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. 4. It is stated that for t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 18.03.2020 when your case is fixed for hearing on the said date at 11.30 AM. 7. You are requested to attend hearing on the said date at stipulated time and furnish your explanation. In case of failure to comply with this notice, issued u/s 263 of the Act, it will be presumed that you have nothing to say in the matter, and I shall proceed to pass necessary order in accordance with law. 4.1 The AR of the assessee appeared before the ld.CIT(E) from time to time and filed the requisite details. However, the ld.CIT(E) was not satisfied with the arguments advanced by the assessee. He observed that the assessee during the course of scrutiny proceedings has submitted revised computation of income showing income from business of Rs.68,74,8 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... much later 16.01.2020. 3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the basis on which the revision order is passed is non-existent, and therefore, the revision order dated 30.03.2021 under section 263 of the Act by the Id. commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions) cannot be sustained on facts and in law 4. on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Id. commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions) has not pointed out any error or prejudice in the show cause notice or in the order impugned and therefore the order impugned cannot be sustained and deserves to be quashed for these and other grounds that may be urged, it is prayed that the appeal may be allowed. 7. The ld. Counsel for the assessee, referring to the or ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd 12 of the I.T.Act, on the ground that assessee trust has advanced loan to trustees Shri D.Ravi and Shri D.Jagdish Prasad of Rs.1,50,000/- and Rs.3,36,114/- respectively in violation of provisions of section 13(1)(c) of the I.T.Act. It is also an undisputed fact that the AO while completing the assessment did not consider the income form business of Rs.68,74,854/- and income from other sources of Rs.20,95,897/- to arrive at the income to be assessed. It is not the case of the assessee that the assessee trust has not earned the business income of Rs.68,74,854/- and income from other sources of Rs.20,95,897/-. Thus, the AO while completing the assessment u/s. 143(3) and denying the exemption u/s. 11 of the I.T.Act has failed to consider the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
