Tribunal directs AO to verify double additions, upholds charitable nature of activities, and affirms deletion of gratuity expenses.

The Tribunal partly allowed the appeals, directing the AO to verify claims of double additions and decide afresh. It upheld the CIT(A)'s decision on the charitable nature of the appellant's activities, following a precedent set by the ITAT's order for AY 2011-12. The Tribunal found no need to interfere with the CIT(A)'s deletion of additions related to gratuity expenses.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Legality and jurisdiction of the CIT(A) and assessment orders.
2. Denial of exemption under Section 11 of the Income Tax Act.
3. Nature of activities conducted by the appellant and their alignment with the objects of the appellant society.
4. Non-allowance of accumulation of income under Section 11(3) of the Act.
5. Disallowance of provisions for doubtful debts and arrears of salary.
6. Addition of interest and other income credited to the reserve fund.
7. Deletion of additions related to gratuity expenses.
8. Double addition issues.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Legality and Jurisdiction of the CIT(A) and Assessment Orders:
The appellant contended that the orders passed by the CIT(A) and the assessment orders are "illegal, bad in law and without jurisdiction." This issue was raised in all the appeals but was not adjudicated separately as it was considered general in nature.

2. Denial of Exemption Under Section 11:
The appellant argued that the CIT(A) erred in confirming the AO’s order denying exemption under Section 11 of the Act. The Tribunal found that the issue of publishing newspapers being a charitable activity was covered in favor of the appellant by a previous ITAT order dated 17.09.2019 in the appellant's own case for AY 2011-12. The Tribunal held that the appellant is a charitable institution and not involved in any trade, commerce, or business, thus not attracting the mischief of the Proviso of Section 2(15). Consequently, the denial of exemption under Section 11 was not upheld.

3. Nature of Activities and Alignment with Objects of the Society:
The AO argued that the activities of running a newspaper were commercial in nature and not in accordance with the objects of the appellant society. The Tribunal, however, found that the appellant's activities were charitable and aligned with the society's objectives. This was based on the precedent set by the ITAT's order for AY 2011-12, which declared the publishing of newspapers as a charitable activity.

4. Non-Allowance of Accumulation of Income Under Section 11(3):
The appellant contended that the AO's addition of income deemed under Section 11(3) amounted to double addition since the appellant had already increased its assessable income by the same amount. The Tribunal directed the AO to verify whether the addition indeed amounted to double addition and to decide the issue afresh.

5. Disallowance of Provisions for Doubtful Debts and Arrears of Salary:
The AO disallowed provisions for doubtful debts and arrears of salary, which the appellant argued were already added back to the assessable income. The Tribunal directed the AO to verify whether these disallowances resulted in double addition and to decide the issue afresh.

6. Addition of Interest and Other Income Credited to Reserve Fund:
The AO added interest and other income credited to the reserve fund, which the appellant argued had already been included in the assessable income. The Tribunal directed the AO to verify whether this addition resulted in double addition and to decide the issue afresh.

7. Deletion of Additions Related to Gratuity Expenses:
The AO disallowed gratuity expenses, but the CIT(A) accepted the appellant's submission that the details of payment were provided during the assessment proceedings. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, finding no need for interference.

8. Double Addition Issues:
The appellant argued that several additions made by the AO amounted to double additions. The Tribunal directed the AO to verify these claims and decide the issues afresh, ensuring no double additions were made.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal partly allowed the appeals for statistical purposes, directing the AO to verify claims of double additions and decide afresh. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision on the charitable nature of the appellant's activities, following the precedent set by the ITAT's order for AY 2011-12. The Tribunal found no need to interfere with the CIT(A)'s deletion of additions related to gratuity expenses.

---