Late Sh. Chaju Ram Garg Memorial Trust (Regd.), Chandigarh V. ITO, Chandigarh

ITA 1331/CHANDI/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 130 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 8234 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 month(s) 30 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 08-03-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 09-12-2016
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: S K MITTAL
• Keywords: Source of fund
• Section: 12A; 11

Judgement Text

1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CHANDIGARH BENCHES, SMC, CHANDIGARH BEFORE SHRI BHAVNESH SAINI, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO. 1331/CHD/2016 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2010-11 LATE SH. CHAJU RAM GARG MEMORIAL VS. THE ITO, WARD- 4(2), TRUST (REGD.), CHANDIGARH CHANDIGARH PAN NO. AAATL6400F (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SH. PRIKSHIT AGGARWAL RESPONDENT BY : SH. S.K. MITTAL DATE OF HEARING : 01.03.2017 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 08.03.2017 ORDER THIS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN DIRECTED AGAI NST THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A)-2, GURGAON DATED 29.09.2016 FOR ASSESSMENT Y EAR 2010-11 CHALLENGING THE ADDITION OF RS. 2,12,505/- BY DISAL LOWING THE EXPENSES. 2. THE AUTHORITIES BELOW NOTED THAT THE ASSESSEE TR UST IS NOT REGISTERED U/S 12A OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961 AND, THEREFORE, NOT ELIGIBLE TO EXEMPTION U/S 11 OF THE I.T. ACT. IT WAS FURTHER N OTED THAT THERE WAS AN INTEREST INCOME OF RS. 3,97,171/- AND DONATION OF R S. 51,600/- AGAINST WHICH THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED EXPENSES OF RS. 2,12,505 /- ON ACCOUNT OF AUDIT FEE, DONATION, BANK CHARGES, LEGAL CHARGES AND SCHO LARSHIP FEE. THE 2 ASSESSING OFFICER WAS OF THE VIEW THAT SINCE BOTH T HE SOURCES OF INCOME I.E. INTEREST AND DONATION RECEIVED ARE IN THE NATURE OF INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES, THEREFORE, NO EXPENSES EXCEPT WHAT HAS BEE N PROVIDED U/S 57 OF THE ACT IS PERMITTED AGAINST SUCH RECEIPTS. SINCE T HE DEBITING OF SUCH EXPENSES IS NOT IDENTICAL TO THE EARNING OF INCOME AS DECLARED, THEREFORE, THE SAME ARE NOT ALLOWABLE U/S 57 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT. LD. CIT(A) FOR THE SAME REASONS CONFIRMED THE ADDITION. 3. AFTER CONSIDERING THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS, I AM NO T INCLINED TO INTERFERE WITH THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. LD. COUN SEL FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT ABLE TO DEMONSTRATE THE PERMISSIBILITY OF THIS EXPENDITURE AGAINST THE SOURCE OF INCOME AS MENTIONED IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER S. SINCE THE DEBITING OF SUCH EXPENSES ARE NOT INCIDENTAL TO THE EARNING OF INCOME AS DECLARED, THEREFORE, AUTHORITIES BELOW HAVE CORRECTLY DISALL OWED THESE EXPENSES. THERE IS NO MERIT IN THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE AND THE SAME IS, THEREFORE, DISMISSED. 4. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DIS MISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT. SD/- (BHAVNESH SAINI) JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED : 08 TH MARCH, 2017 RKK COPY TO: 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CIT 4. THE CIT(A) 5. THE DR 3