TMI Blog2022 (9) TMI 1558X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ust has not advanced any arguments/submission controverting the order of the ld. CIT(A). In this situation, the Bench has no other alternative except to the confirm the action of the ld. CIT(A). Thus Ground No. 4 of the assessee is dismissed. Addition confirmed as non furnishing complete address of the person from whom corpus donation was claimed to have been received by the appellant - HELD THAT:- As assessee trust has not advanced any arguments/submission controverting the order of the ld. CIT(A).Thus Ground No. 5 of the assessee is dismissed. Disallowance of capital expenditure on account of Inverter - addition made by the AO in respect of the inverter claimed as application in form of purchase of inverter is also confirmed because the appellant has failed to furnish any documentary evidence to substantiate the claim - HELD THAT:- As assessee trust has not advanced any arguments/submission controverting the order of the ld. CIT(A). Thus Ground No. 6 of the assessee is dismissed. Exemption u/s 11 and 10(23C) denied - appellant had not submitted Form No. 10 as required u/s 11(2)(a) of the Act before the due date of filing of return of income - HELD THAT:- As appella ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 215235/- for both funds of students is quite wrong and unjustified. The Boys Fund. surplus of students fund can never be utilized at the discretion of Management but it has been controlled by Head of the institution for the welfare of students only. 5. That the disallowance of corpus donation of Rs. 108340/ Received From Manju Mittal (Rs 22500/-), Ram singh (Rs 34880/-) and Maitra saraswat (Rs 51000/-) is quite wrong and unjustified in view of complete address name with PAN supplied, As Previously the address supplied was old as per records available. 6. That the disallowance of capital expenditure on account of Inverter Rs 14000/- is also wrong as payment is being made by chque. 7. That the Ld CIT(appeals) has erred in not following the Board itself in Circular No. 52 dated December 30, 1970 which has accepted fixed deposit for duration of more than six months as a capital asset. Similar view has been taken in CIT v Hindusthan Welfare Trust (1994) 206 ITR 138 (Cal). The CBDT circular No 52 dated December 30,1970 has accepted fixed deposit for duration of more than six month as a capital asset. Fixed deposits (FDs), debentures and bonds are ordinarily capital a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d the query letter were issued from time to time. In response to notices issued the ld. AR of the assessee attended the proceedings. It is also noted that the assessee is a Registered as a Society under the Registration of Societies Act, 1958 and assessee is also registered u/s 12A(a) of the Act vide letter No. SIB/Sec12A(a)/CIT.Raj-1/2809 dated 22-01-1976 which is engaged in imparting education to the students alongwith other activities. It is further noted that the assesses society is in appeal against the order of the ld. CIT(A) who had confirmed the action of the AO as mentioned in the assessment order. 3.1 Apropos Ground No. 1 of the assessee, the facts as emerges from the order of the ld. CIT(A) are as under:- 4.3 I have gone through the assessment order, statement of facts, ground of appeal, written submission, remand report and rejoinder carefully. It is seen that the addition has been made by the AO on the basis of valuation report received from the DVO. The DVO has valued the cost of construction of building at Rs.36,97,900/-. The assessee has shown the investment at Rs. 28,37,361/-. The difference of Rs.8,60,539/- (Rs.36,97,900 Rs. 28,37,361) has been added by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n by the Trust only but the appellant has not taken into account surplus of both these schools into account while consolidating the total accounts of the Trust. Therefore, the addition of Rs.2,15,235/- made by the AO is held to be in accordance with the provisions of law. Hence, this ground of appeal is dismissed. 5.2 After hearing the ld. DR and perusing the materials available on record, the Bench noted that the assessee trust has not advanced any arguments/submission controverting the order of the ld. CIT(A). In this situation, the Bench has no other alternative except to the confirm the action of the ld. CIT(A). Thus Ground No. 4 of the assessee is dismissed. 6.1 Apropos Ground No. 5 of the assessee, the facts as emerges from the order of the ld. CIT(A) are as under:- 7.3 I have gone through the assessment order, statement of facts, ground of appeal, written submission, remand report and rejoinder carefully. It is seen that appellant had failed even to furnish complete address of the person from whom corpus donation of Rs.1,08,340/- was claimed to have been received by the appellant. Therefore, the addition of Rs.1,08,340/- made by the AO is hereby confirmed. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
