2001 (1) TMI 775

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....g aside the assessment order for the assessment year 1995-96. It is also contended in the grounds of appeal that the DIT(E) failed to appreciate that the assessment order has been passed under section 143(3) of the Act [and not under section 143(1) as held by the learned Commissioner of Income-tax] on full consideration of the facts and the materials placed on record. He also failed to appreciate that the claim for corpus donation had been allowed by the Assessing Officer after considering the facts of the case in the ratio of the appellate order in the matter of W.A. Ramchandra Raja Chandwala Trust v. First ITO. The order so passed can not be considered to be erroneous. In addition to this, the assessee is also relying on the following gr....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....Ch. Trust v. 1st ITO [ITA 1390 (Mad.)/84] which was fully considered by the Assessing Officer. The assessee had also filed the copies of directions letters from various donors those who had purchased coupons and after taking into consideration of the aforementioned materials, the Assessing Officer concluded that the coupons issued by the assessee trust should be treated as corpus receipts and allowed the exemptions under section 11(1)(d). The Commissioner of Income-tax invoking the provisions of section 263 held that the assessee had collected the donation in the form of coupons of Rs. 10,25,50,100 and Rs. 2.50 each. He found that the copy of coupons carried categorical inscription that the donations thereunder were made for augmenting cor....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....tion 263. The same principal has been laid down by the Hon'ble Allahabad High Court reported in 109 ITR 221 and also by Bombay High Court CIT v. Paul Brothers reported in [1995] 216 ITR 543. He has pointed out that the Assessing Officer had followed the decision of ITAT, Madras Bench and he had also considered all the facts of the case and after considering all the aspects he has given a particular findings. Thus, CIT can not superimpose his judgment while exercising his power under section 263. 6. The learned counsel for the assessee on merits also referred to the decision of ITAT, Bench, Bombay in the case of Dhirajlal Morarji Ajmera Charity Trust v. ITO [1984] 18 TTJ 375 and also referred to the decision of Jaipur Bench in the case of S....