TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Revenue's appeal dismissed on assessment validity, exemption breach, unexplained investments, and cash additions</h1> <h3>Dy. Commissioner of Income-tax, (Central) -I, Bhopal Versus Shriniwas Education Society, Bhopal</h3> Dy. Commissioner of Income-tax, (Central) -I, Bhopal Versus Shriniwas Education Society, Bhopal - TMI Issues Involved:1. Deletion of additions based on non-jurisdictional High Court decisions.2. Deletion of additions for alleged violation of Section 13 of the Income-tax Act, 1961.3. Deletion of additions due to income over expenditure.4. Deletion of additions under Section 69B for unexplained investments.5. Deletion of additions under Section 69A for unexplained cash.6. Non-adjudication of specific grounds by CIT(A).Summary:Issue 1: Non-Jurisdictional High Court DecisionsThe revenue argued that the CIT(A) erred in relying on non-jurisdictional High Court decisions while ignoring the Allahabad High Court decision in CIT vs. Raj Kumar Arora. The Tribunal found that the Raj Kumar Arora decision pertained to 'completed/unabated years' and was not relevant to the assessee's case. The Tribunal also noted that the decision was not valid after the Supreme Court's decision in PCIT Vs. Abhishar Buildwell Pvt. Ltd. Consequently, these grounds were dismissed.Issue 2: Violation of Section 13The AO added Rs. 1,28,000/- and Rs. 1,44,000/- for AY 2011-12 and 2012-13 respectively, alleging that the assessee charged less rent to related parties, violating Section 13. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, which found that only 1,200 square feet was rented out at market rates, not the entire 6,000 square feet as assumed by the AO. Therefore, the CIT(A)'s order was upheld, and these grounds were dismissed.Issue 3: Income Over ExpenditureThe AO denied exemption under Sections 11/12 due to alleged violation of Section 13, treating the net surplus as taxable income. The Tribunal found this issue to be consequential to the Section 13 violation issue. Since the Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision on Section 13, these grounds were also dismissed.Issue 4: Unexplained Investments under Section 69BThe AO made additions based on a DVO report, alleging unexplained investments in buildings. The CIT(A) deleted these additions, holding that the reference to the DVO was non-maintainable without finding defects in the books of account. The Tribunal upheld this decision, citing the Supreme Court's ruling in Sargam Cinema Vs. CIT and ITAT Indore's decision in the assessee's own case. These grounds were dismissed.Issue 5: Unexplained Cash under Section 69AThe AO added Rs. 2,35,474/- for unexplained cash found during a search. The CIT(A) deleted this addition, noting that the AO did not point out any specific errors in the cash book. The Tribunal found the cash amounts to be normal petty cash balances and upheld the CIT(A)'s decision. These grounds were dismissed.Issue 6: Non-Adjudication of Specific GroundsThe assessee argued that the CIT(A) did not adjudicate certain grounds in the first appeal. The Tribunal directed the CIT(A) to adjudicate these grounds appropriately after giving the assessee an opportunity to be heard. Consequently, the assessee's cross-objections were allowed.Conclusion:The revenue's appeals were dismissed, and the assessee's cross-objections were allowed. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decisions on all contested issues and directed the CIT(A) to adjudicate the remaining grounds raised by the assessee.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
