M/s. Drikung Charitable Society, Mysore V. Income-Tax Officer (Exemptions), Ward-1, Mysore

ITA 1363/BANG/2019

• Counselvise Citation: [2022] 105 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7339 (ITAT-BANGALORE)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 9 month(s) 8 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 08-03-2022
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2014-2015
• Appeal Filed On: 30-05-2019
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: V. SRINIVASAN
• Keywords: Revision of order; Deemed to accrue or arise in india
• Section: 263; 11

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SMT. BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No.1363/Bang/2019 Assessment year: 2014-15 M/s. Drikung Charitable Society, Kagyudpa Monastery, Bylakuppe Post, Periyapatna, Mysore Dist. 571 104. PAN: AAATD 1893Q Vs. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions), Bengaluru. APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant by : Shri V. Srinivasan, Advocate Respondent by : Dr. Manjunath Karkihalli, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru. Date of hearing : 09.03.2022 Date of Pronouncement : 09.03.2022 O R D E R Per Chandra Poojari, Accountant Member This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order dated 22.3.2019 of the CIT(Exemption), Bangalore for the assessment year 2014- 15 on the following grounds:- “1. The order passed by the learned CIT [E] u/s 263 of the Act, in so far as it is against the appellant, is opposed to law, equity, weight of evidence, probabilities, facts and circumstances of the case. 2. The learned CIT [E] failed to appreciate that there was no error much less an error prejudicial to the interest of the revenue in the order passed by the learned Assessing Officer warranting revision u/s.263 of the Act and consequently, the ITA No.1363/Bang/2019 Page 2 of 4 order passed by the C.I.T. is opposed to law and facts of the appellant's case and requires to be cancelled. 3. The learned CIT [E] is not justified in holding that the deemed income u/s.11[3] of the Act, requires to be taxed separately and cannot form part of income that qualifies for exemption u/s. 11[1][a] or 11[2] of the Act under the facts and in the circumstances of the appellant's case. 4. The learned CIT [E] ought to have appreciated that there was no requirement to bring to tax deemed income u/s. 11 [3] of the Act and there was no statutory provisions that required treatment of deemed income u/s. 11[3] of the Act separately unlike provisions made for taxation of anonymous donation u/s. 115BBC of the Act and hence, the computation made by the appellant and accepted by the learned A.O. cannot be regarded as erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of revenue under the facts and in the circumstances of the appellant's case. 5. The learned CIT [E] ought to have further appreciated that the deemed income u/s.11[3] of the Act, was permitted to be treated on par with current income in the statutory return Form ITR-7 and there was no requirement for taxing the deemed income u/s.11[3] separately under the facts and in the circumstances of the appellant's case. 6. Without prejudice to the above, the learned CIT[E] is not justified in assuming power u/s. 263 of the Act without appreciating that there was no error prejudicial to the interest of revenue in as much as there were two views in the matter of treatment of deemed income u/s.11[3] of the Act, and hence, the view adopted by the learned A.O. in treating the same on par with current income of the appellant could not be said to be erroneous under the facts and in the circumstances of the appellant's case. 7. Without prejudice to the above, the learned CIT [E] erred in holding that the appellant cannot claim accumulation u/s.11[2] of the Act, out of deemed income u/s.11[3] of the Act, under the facts and in the circumstances of the appellant's case. ITA No.1363/Bang/2019 Page 3 of 4 8. The learned CIT [E] ought to have appreciated that the appellant had claimed accumulation u/s.11[2] of the Act, out of current income and there was excess application of current income to the extent of Rs.81,16,929/-, which was set-off against the deemed income u/s.11[3] of the Act, and thus, there was no justification to deny the benefit of accumulation to the extent of Rs.81,16,929/- under the facts and in the circumstances of the appellant's case. 9. For the above and other grounds that may be urged at the time of hearing of the appeal, your appellant humbly prays that the appeal may be allowed and Justice rendered and the appellant may be awarded costs in prosecuting the appeal and also order for the refund of the institution fees as part of the costs.” 2. At the time of hearing of the appeal, the ld. AR for the assessee has filed a memo dated 9.3.2022 stating that the assessee wishes to withdraw this appeal and accordingly he requested for withdrawal of the appeal. In the circumstances, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed as withdrawn. Pronounced in the open court on this 9 th day of March, 2022. Sd/- Sd/- ( BEENA PILLAI ) ( CHANDRA POOJARI ) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Bangalore, Dated, the 9 th March, 2022. /Desai S Murthy / ITA No.1363/Bang/2019 Page 4 of 4 Copy to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR, ITAT, Bangalore. By order Assistant Registrar ITAT, Bangalore.