Petition seeking rectification dismissed, upheld excess salary repayment, corrected administrative expenses oversight.

The Tribunal dismissed the petition seeking rectification of a consolidated order, stating it would amount to a review not permitted under the Act. It upheld the decision to allow 50% of the excess salary paid to the society's Secretary and corrected an oversight on administrative expenses under FCRA Rules 2011. The Tribunal partly allowed one petition and dismissed another, emphasizing compliance with statutory provisions and legal precedents.

---

---

Issues:
1. Rectification of consolidated order passed by the Tribunal dated 08.10.2018 in I.T.A. No.09/Chny/2017 and I.T.A. No. 36/Chny/2017.
2. Excess salary payment to the Secretary of the society in terms of section 13(2)(c) of the Act.
3. Interpretation and application of Foreign Contribution (Regulation) Rules 2011 regarding administrative expenses of the association.

Issue 1: Rectification of Consolidated Order:
The assessee sought rectification of the consolidated order passed by the Tribunal, which was dismissed as there was no mistake apparent on record warranting rectification under section 254(2) of the Act. The Tribunal adjudicated the cases raised in both the appeals filed by the assessee and Revenue, emphasizing that rectification would amount to a review of the order, not permissible under the Act.

Issue 2: Excess Salary Payment to Secretary:
Regarding the excess salary paid to the Secretary of the society, the Tribunal upheld the decision of the ld. CIT(A) to allow 50% of the disallowance of salary paid to the Secretary. The Tribunal found no reason to interfere with this decision as it was not disputed by the Department. The Assessing Officer's concern about the charity aspect and compliance with FCRA Rules 2011 were addressed, leading to the dismissal of the assessee's petition.

Issue 3: Interpretation of FCRA Rules 2011 on Administrative Expenses:
In the matter of the appeal filed by the Revenue, it was argued that the FCRA Rules 2011 do not apply to the Society, and there was a mistake apparent in the Tribunal's order. The Tribunal acknowledged an oversight in mentioning administrative expenses as 95.4%, which was corrected to not more than 50% as per FCRA Rules 2011. The Tribunal followed the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court to reverse the findings of the ld. CIT(A) and restore that of the Assessing Officer, partly allowing the petition filed by the assessee.

In conclusion, the Tribunal dismissed M.P. No. 221/Chny/2018 and partly allowed M.P. No. 222/Chny/2018, emphasizing the adherence to statutory provisions and legal precedents in determining the issues raised in the appeals.

---