TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2013 (2) TMI 209
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Tax Act, 1961, (hereinafter will be referred to as "the Act"). The assessee has been regularly submitting the returns and the Revenue granted exemption. But in respect of the assessment year 2001-2002, the assessment was reopened under Section 148 of the Act. During the course of that proceedings, the assessments, beginning from the assessment year 1997-1998 onwards till 2000-2001 were also reopened. 2. The assessments were finalised under Section 143 (3) read with Section 147 of the Act holding that the claim for exemption under Section 10 (22) was not tenable. The Assessing Officer also made additions amounting to Rs.21,00,000/-, which were the loans received from Swamiappan (Rs.4,00,000/-), Rajendran (Rs.5,00,000/-) and Bharga....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n the circumstances of the case, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal is right in law in rejecting appellant's appeal? 2) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal is right in law in rejecting and holding that the addition u/s 68 was possible even where the income of the appellant was exempt under Section 10 (22) of the Act? 3) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal is right in law in holding that there was no violation of the principle of natural justice since an opportunity to cross examine Mr.Bhargarwathraj was not granted to the appellant inspite of his request?" 6. The main contention of the learned counse....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ted in 247 ITR 290 (Fakir Mohammed Haji Hasan vs. CIT) wherein it has been held as follows:- "... The provisions of Sections 69, 69A, 69B and 69C, treat unexplained investments, unexplained money, bullion, etc., and unexplained expenditure as deemed income where the nature and source of investment, acquisition or expenditure, as the case may be, have not been explained or satisfactorily explained. Therefore, in these cases, the source not being known, such deemed income will not fall even under the head "Income from other sources." 7.1. Per contra, the learned counsel for the appellant contended that, (a) The assessee has satisfactorily explained the source of income by producing confirmation letters from two o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n overall view of the matter, the object is to make profit. The issue involved in this case is with reference to the phrase "solely for educational purposes" when there was surplus left incidentally from the activities carried on by the educational institutions. Only in this context, it was held that the decisive or acid test is whether on an overall view of the matter, the object is to make profit. (ii) (2000) 243 ITR 229 (CIT v. A.M.M.Arunachalam Educational Society). Section 10(22) of the Income tax Act, 1961 exempts "any income" of an educational institution which would clearly include dividend income as well. Granting of exemption to the income of the educational institutions is to enable such institutions to uti....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....denial had created doubt in the mind of the taxing authorities that the money would not have been spent for educational purposes. But, as contended by the learned counsel for the appellant, when the authorities entertained doubt about genuineness of the transaction, the Tribunal ought to have afforded opportunity for the assessee to cross examine the disputant. 7.4. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal had given a finding that the assessee had not chosen to take steps to produce the donor and therefore he is not entitled to seek an opportunity to cross examine. It is not a case where the assessee has suppressed the income. The nature and source of credit alone is brought under challenge by the revenue. The revenue has not accepted th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....oner of Income Tax, who could have initiated proceedings for withdrawal of exemption. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal has upheld the order of the Assessing Officer. The very receipt of money by the appellant for the purpose of running the activities of educational institutions itself has been doubted by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. Hence the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal is justified in going into the facts which was incidental to the question of law raised and no estoppel plea can be raised by the assessee. Further, it was noticed by the Assessing Officer that in a suit filed between Trust members, there was asset sharing compromise was arrived at. 7.7. From the overall facts and circumstances, it is evident that unless i....