2008 (12) TMI 249

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... of Fr. B. Albert, who is the president of the society. The AO found that Fr. Albert purchased a Tata Sumo vehicle in his name by utilizing the funds of the society. Therefore, there was clear violation of the provisions of s. 13(1)(c) r/w s. 13(3) of the IT Act, 1961 ('the Act'). Accordingly, the AO denied exemption under s. 11 of the Act. The learned representative, submitted that the invoice of the motor car and the registration certificate stands in the name of Fr. Albert. Therefore, it is a clear case of violation of s. 13(1)(c) of the Act. The learned representative, further submitted that the CIT(A) allowed the claim of the assessee on the ground that the registration certificate was rectified subsequently and therefore the vehicle s....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e society rectified the same, by way of rectification and got the registration certificate in the name of the society. Therefore, as on to date, the Tata Sumo vehicle stands in the name of the society. Therefore, there was no contravention of s. 13(1)(c) of the Act. The learned representative, submitted that Fr. Albert is an ordained Roman Catholic and he has no family. The entire services of Fr. Albert is for the society and the church. Fr. Albert is residing within the premises of the society and he has no independent activity of his own as such. Therefore, entire expenses incurred by Fr. Albert is only for the activities of the society. Therefore, it cannot be construed that there was any violation of s. 13(1)(c) of the Act. The learned ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....he society to the extent of Rs. 16 lakhs was pledged as security to the bank for enabling one of the members of the society to avail a loan without adequate security and consideration. It was also found by the AO that for purchase of land, the assessee routed the entire transaction through an AOP in which all the members were directors and employees of the assessee. Therefore, the AO found that there was violation of s. 13(1)(c) of the Act, and the CIT(A) confirmed his view. On further appeal, the Tribunal confirmed the orders of the lower authorities. On further appeal before the Andhra Pradesh High Court, it was contended on behalf of the assessee that this was a sole incident of the misutilisation and therefore, this could not be taken v....