The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Pathankot V. The Gurdaspur Improvement Trust, Gurdaspur

ITA 99/ASR/2012

• Counselvise Citation: 9920914 RSA 2012
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 2 month(s) 14 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 23-05-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Next Hearing Date: 20-05-2014
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 09-03-2012
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: SAMEER AGGARWAL
• Section: 143(3); 11

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AMRITSAR BENCH; AMRITSAR. BEFORE SH. H.S. SIDHU, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SH. B.P. JAIN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. NO. 99(ASR)/2012 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2007-08 PAN: AAALG0202A DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF VS. THE GURDASPUR IM PROVEMENT INCOME TAX, CIRCLE, PATHANKOT TRUST, HANUMAN C HOWK, GURDASPUR (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY: SH. MAHAVIR SINGH, DR RESPONDENT BY: SH. SAMEER AGGARWAL, CA DATE OF HEARING: 20.05.2014 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 23.05.2014 ORDER PER BENCH 1. THE REVENUE HAS FILED THE PRESENT APPEAL AGAINST THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 08.12.2011 PASSED BY LEARNED CIT(A), AM RITSAR, FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08 ON THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS: I. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE LEA RNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(APPEALS), AMRITSAR HAS E RRED IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS. 17,68,241/- ON THE GRO UNDS THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN GRANTED REGISTRATION U/S 12AA(I)( B)(I) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961. HOWEVER, IN THIS CASE THE ASS ESSEE HAS SHOWN INCOME AMOUNTING TO RS. 2,15,69,151/- AND EXP ENSE TO THE TUNE RS. 24,69,353/- I.E. ABOUT 11.4% OF THE TOTAL INCOME WHICH IS 2 I.T.A. NO. 99(ASR)/2012 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2007-08 LESS THAN 85%. THE ASSESSEE THUS DOES NOT FULFILL T HE CONDITION AS LAID DOWN IN PROVISIONS OF SECTION 11(1)(B) OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961. II. ON THE FACT AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE ORDE R OF THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX(APPEALS), AMRITSAR BE VA CATED AND THAT OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER BE RESTORED. III. APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO AMEND OR ADD ANY OR MORE GROUNDS OF APPEAL. 2. THE FACTS NARRATED BY THE REVENUE AUTHORITY ARE NOT DISPUTED BY BOTH THE PARTIES; THEREFORE, THERE IS N O NEED TO REPEAT THE SAME FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE. 3. AT THE TIME OF HEARING, LEARNED DR STATED THAT L EARNED CIT(A) HAS WRONGLY DELETED THE ADDITION OF RS. 17,6 8,241/- ON THE GROUND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN GRANTED REGIS TRATION UNDER SECTION 12AA(I)(B)(I) OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961 (IN SHORT THE ACT). THE ASSESSING OFFICER MADE THE AD DITION OF RS. 17,68,243/- TO THE ASSESSEES INCOME BY HOLDING THAT ASSESSEE DOES NOT QUALIFY FOR EXEMPTION UNDER SECTI ON 11 OF THE ACT AND THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS MADE SOME OTH ER ADDITIONS UNDER SECTION 40(A)(IA) OF THE ACT VIDE A SSESSMENT ORDER DATED 13.11.2009 PASSED UNDER SECTION 143(3) OF THE ACT. BUT THE LEARNED FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY DELE TED THE 3 I.T.A. NO. 99(ASR)/2012 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2007-08 ADDITION OF RS. 17,68,241/- BY WRONGLY HOLDING THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS UTILIZED THE AMOUNT IN DISPUTE FOR PUB LIC UTILITY. 4. AS REGARDS TO THE ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER UNDER SECTION 40(A)(IA) OF THE ACT, LEARNED CIT(A) HAS RIGHTLY CONFIRMED THE SAME FOR WHICH, THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT FILED ANY APPEAL. 5. ON THE CONTRARY, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSE E STATED THAT THE REVENUE HAS TAKEN INCORRECT GROUND. HE HAS GIVEN COPY OF INCOME AND EXPENDITURE ACCOUNT OF THE TRUST FOR THE FINANCIAL YEAR ENDING 31.03.2007 RELEVANT TO TH E ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. IT IS ALSO STA TED THAT THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE TRUST AMOUNTED TO RS. 2,15,69,1 51/- AND THE CORRESPONDING EXPENDITURE WAS RS. 1,98,00,907/- RESULTING IN A NET INCOME OF RS. 17,68,243/-. THUS, THE TOTAL AMOUNT SPENT BY THE ASSESSEE WAS 91.80% OF INCOME. HE FURT HER STATED THAT IF SUCH GROUNDS ARE PERUSED, THEN THE ENTIRE P RACTICE OF FILING OF GROUNDS OF APPEAL STANDS FRUSTRATED AND E VERY APPEAL CAN BE FILED AND DECIDED ON ALL MATTERS AND FACTS M ERELY BY SIMPLY RAISING THE PLEA THAT THE IMPUGNED ORDER BE VACATED. 4 I.T.A. NO. 99(ASR)/2012 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2007-08 6. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE RELEVANT RECORDS AVAILABLE WITH US, ESPECIALLY THE ORDERS PASSED BY THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES AND THE INCOME AN D EXPENDITURE ACCOUNT FOR THE YEAR ENDING 31 ST MARCH 2007 OF THE ASSESSEE TRUST, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE ASS ESSEE HAS NOT FILED DETAILS OF INCOME AND EXPENDITURE ACCOUNT FOR THE RELEVANT YEAR ENDING 31 ST MARCH, 2007 AND BOTH THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES HAVE ALSO NOT DISCUSSED THE DETAILS OF EXPENDITURE IN THEIR ORDERS. THEREFORE, IT IS NOT POSSIBLE FOR US TO ACCEPT THE PLEA OF THE ASSESSEE AND THE REVENUE AUTHORITY. ACCORDINGLY, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE, WE SET ASI DE THE MATTER TO THE LEARNED FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY TO DECIDE THE ISSUE IN DISPUTE AFRESH UNDER THE LAW AFTER GIVING OPPORTUNI TY TO THE PARTIES AND THE ASSESSEE IS ALSO DIRECTED TO PRODUC E THE DETAILS OF INCOME AND EXPENDITURE FOR THE YEAR ENDING 31 ST MARCH, 2007, ESTABLISHING THAT THE ASSESSEE TRUST HAS SPEN T MORE THAN 85% OUT OF THE TOTAL INCOME, I.E. 91.80%, AS ALLEGE D BY THE ASSESSEE. LEARNED FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY IS ALSO DIRECTED TO EXAMINE THE DETAILS OF INCOME & EXPENDITURE ACCOUNT FOR THE 5 I.T.A. NO. 99(ASR)/2012 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2007-08 YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION BEFORE DECIDING THE ISSUE IN DISPUTE AFRESH UNDER THE LAW. 7. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE I S ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES, AS INDICATED ABOV E. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 23 RD MAY, 2014 SD/./- SD/./- (B.P. JAIN) (H.S. SIDHU) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED: 23 RD MAY, 2014 /RK/ COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. THE ASSESSEE: THE GURDASPUR IMPROVEMENT TRUST, HA NUMAN CHOWK, GURDASPUR 2. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE, PATHANKO T 3. THE CIT(A), 4. THE CIT, 5. THE SR DR, I.T.A.T., TRUE COPY BY ORDER (ASSISTANT REGISTRAR) INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, AMRITSAR BENCH: AMRITSAR.