TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2014 (11) TMI 1026
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....4-05, Revenue has filed appeal on the following grounds: "1. That the ld. CIT (A) has erred in law as well as on the facts and circumstances of the case in deleting the disallowance the claim of exemption u/s. 10(23c)(iiiad) of the IT Act, 1961. On this issue the Department has filed further appeal before Hon'ble High Court. 2. That the ld. CIT (A) has erred in law as well as on the facts and circumstances of the case in deleting the addition of Rs. 240000/- on account of rent at Jaipur office as made by the AO. 3. That the ld. CIT (A) has erred in law as well as on the facts and circumstances of the case in deleting the addition of Rs. 203360/- on account of car expenses as made by the AO. 4. That the ld. CIT (A) has erred in law as well as on the facts and circumstances of the case in deleting the addition of Rs. 277818/- on account of interest made by the AO. 5. That the ld. CIT (A) has erred in law as well as on the facts and circumstances of the case in deleting the addition of Rs. 20090/- on account of donation as made by the AO." 2.2 In ITA No. 922/JP/2011 for A.Y. 2005-06, Revenue has filed appeal on the following grounds: "1. That the ld. CIT (A) has erred in....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ting the disallowance u/s 40(a)(in accordance with) of Rs. 9,60,000. 3. That the ld. CIT (A) has erred in law as well as on the facts and circumstances of the case in deleting the disallowance of Rs. 1,20,000/- on a/c of rent paid to Director's & family members. 4. That the ld. CIT (A) has erred in law as well as on the facts and circumstances of the case in deleting the disallowance of Rs. 2,40,000/- on a/c of salary paid to Sh. R. K. Singh, Smt. Sunita Singh and Sh. Rakesh chauhan. 5. That the ld. CIT (A) has erred in law as well as on the facts and circumstances of the case in deleting the disallowance of Rs. 74,024/- on a/c of vehicle running (Car expenses) maintenance of depreciation for personal use." 3. First we take ITA No. 497/JP/2011 for A.Y. 2003-04. 3.1 Assessee is a registered society with Registrar of Societies, Alwar, vide registration no. 6/alwar/88-89 dated 26.04.1988. 3.2 Assessing Officer in its order dated 21.02.2006 stated that assessee society has violated the condition laid down by Section 10(23c)(iiiad), hence not entitled to claim exemption u/s. 10(23c)(iiiad). Assessing Officer stated that financial aid and support for a sum of Rs. 21,20,000/- was....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... no. 177 dated 20.02.1999. Besides this, photo copy of letter no. 565 dated 10.01.2007 was received from Income Tax Officer, War- 2, Sriganganagar along with copies of balance sheet of NCT for A.Y. 2002-03, 03-04 & 04-05, which proves the activities of NCT and its existence. CIT(A) also considered list of students submitted by assessee, wherein it was found that students belong to every caste and creed and trust was not confined to one lingual minority only. By virtue of provisions of Section 10(23c)(iiiad) total income of Samiti was exempted from tax which says that any income received by any person on behalf of any university or other educational institutions existing solely for educational purposes and not for purpose of profit, if the aggregate annual receipts of such university or educational institutions do not exceed the amount of annual receipts as may be prescribed. The CIT(A) found that Samiti is satisfying all four conditions i.e. assessee is a education institution, it exists solely for education purposes, it does not exist for the purpose of profit as there is no other source of income from any other activity other than education and activities incidental thereto and t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... be disallowed for the same reasons as were discussed in immediately preceding assessment year. Apart from above, Assessing Officer observed that excessive and unreasonable payments to Shri R K Singh, Secretary, smt. Sunita Singh and Shri Rakesh Chauhan for their residential premises claimed to have been taken for facility of hostels of students of nursing college. These persons have been paid Rs. 2,40,000/-, Rs. 1,20,000/- and Rs. 1,20,000/- respectively for this purpose. Similarly, Rs. 2,40,000/- as also been paid to Chairman/President of Samiti for his residential premises situated at Jaipur which has no concern of activities of samiti carried out wholly at Alwar but it was claimed to be a branch office of the society. Samiti was also already having a premium vehicle Opel Astra Car in earlier years and during the year under consideration one more premium vehicle i.e. Tata Safari was purchased. No log book and any other details are maintained for use of these vehicles. In view of above facts and circumstances, Assessing Officer disentitled the exemption u/s. 10(23c)(iiiad) and stated that income of assessee should be assessed under head 'income from business & profession' as ass....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... as bogus and not genuine. vi. Disallwoance u/s. 40(a) Rs. 1,60,000/-, advances made to M. P. Jha Rs. 1,00,000/- and Rs. 60,000/- to Sudhanshu as no TDS made on these payments. Thus, income of samiti computed including excess income over expenditure Rs. 42,01,589/- as total income declared as per return and various disallowance of Rs. 14,56,023/- assessed at Rs. 56,57,612/-. 5.4 Matter was carried before First Appellate Authority, wherein various contentions were raised. In this regard, CIT(A) having considered the same, allowed the appeal of assessee for all these three years. Same has been opposed before us. Ld. Departmental Representative supported the order of Assessing Officer while ld. Authorized Representative supported the order of CIT(A) on this issue. 5.5 After going through rival submissions and material on record, we find that assessee samiti filed its return for the relevant assessment years under consideration at NIL claiming exemption u/s. 10(23c)(iiiad), while Assessing Officer has made additions of excess of income over expenditure treating the same as income declared as per return, which was not found justified by CIT(A) and could not be assessed as income fr....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....osed before us on behalf of Revenue, inter alia submitting that the order of CIT(A) be set aside and that of Assessing Officer be restored on the issue. On other hand, ld. Authorized Representative supported the order of CIT(A). 7.3 After going through rival submissions and material on record, we find that assessee samiti filed its return for the relevant assessment year under consideration at NIL claiming exemption u/s. 10(23c)(iiiad), while Assessing Officer has made additions of excess of income over expenditure treating the same as income declared as per return, which was not justified observed by CIT(A) and further held that same could not be assessed as taxable income disallowing the claim of exemption u/s. 10(23c)(iiiad). Assessee has claimed same expenses during A.Y. 2003-04 which were not disallowed by Assessing Officer but in A.Y. 2004-05, 05-06 & 06-07 various expenses like car expenses, interest, hostel rent, salary, donation etc. have been disallowed. Assessing Officer in respective assessment orders in consideration has mentioned that facts and circumstances of the cases under consideration are same as of earlier year. In this background, it was not justified to disa....