TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2013 (12) TMI 609
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r 2008-09. The appeal has been preferred on the following substantial questions of law:- "1. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Hon'ble ITAT has erred in law in directing the Assessing Officer to condone the delay and irregularity in filing form no.10 if the assessee has spent the amount in next year ignoring the non-compliance of statutory provisions of filing from 10 within prescribed limit and that the delay in filing of form no.10 can only be condoned by the Commissioner of Income Tax as per CBDT Circular No.273 dated 3.6.1980. 2. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Hon'ble ITAT has erred in law in directing the Assessing Officer to allow the exemption claimed by the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t is at Rs.81,99,026/- made up of the following. Thus total application of fund is at Rs.1,79,09,731/- i.e. (Rs.97,10,705/- + Rs.81,99,026/-). In brief out of total receipts of Rs.2,21,86,240/-, the application of fund is only to the extent of Rs.1,79,09,731/- which is only at 80.72%. As the application of funds is less than 85% and there is no application u/s 11 (2) along with the return, the exemption u/s 1 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is not available to the assessee. Accordingly, vide notice dated 18.12.2009 and dated 29.12.2009 the assessee was required to explain why the exemption u/s 11 may not be disallowed. Vide letter dated 4.3.2010, the assessee furnished its reply as under:- "That the Trust is carrying on activi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Shri Dinesh Mohan, Advocate and not by Secretary or the President of the Society. Dissatisfied with the order, the assessee filed appeal before Ld CIT (A) who after going through the submissions and on the basis of material on record, allowed the benefit of capital expenditure of Rs.81,99,026/- and reduced the taxable income to Rs.42,75,263/- by making the following calculation. Net income as Per P&L A/c Rs.1,00,74,289/- Add: Capital receipt on account of sale of land Rs.24,00,000/- Rs.1,24,74,289/- Less:capital expenditure Rs.81,99,026/- Rs.42,75,263/- The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal relying upon CIT v. Zirat Mir Syed Ali Hamdani, Srinagar decided by Jammu & Kashmir High Court and CIT v.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e benefit of such exclusion, and once the assessment is so completed, it would be futile to find fault with the assessing authority for having included such income in assessable income of the assessee. Therefore, even assuming that there is no valid limitation prescribed under the Act and the Rules even then. It is reasonable to presume that the intimation required under Section 11 has to be furnished before the assessing authority completes the concerned assessment. In the present case the application under Section 11 (2) was not filed with the return. The information, however, was given during the process of the assessment, before the assessment was completed. The assessee had given notice under Section 11 (2) (a) of the Act read with Rul....