AI Drafter 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (1) TMI 282
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ion 143(3)/11 of the Income Tax Act 1961, (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'), dated 11.01.2013. 2. The assessee has raised the revised grounds of appeal as under: "1.That ld. CIT(A) has erred in denying benefit u/s 11 of IT Act by applying explanation to Section 11(2) of the IT Act, 1961 without appreciating the fact that the sum of Rs. 2283087/- has been applied /spent for educational purposes out of current year's income and there was no application for accumulation.^ 2.That ld. CI(TA) could not appreciate the precedents for earlier years under similar faascstes sasnmde cnitr cinu ma satlatongceetsh earn dd ifhfearse dnet amlta tnhnee irs. s ue which was not the subject matter of 3....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Science. This institution was approved by the Govt. of Rajasthan by a notification dated 29.03.2008 in the name of "Singhania University". Therefore, the ''Samity'' is the creator of Singhania University. Shri D.C Singhania is the "Settlor" of the assessee trust. Based on the above facts, it was noted by the AO that the "'Samity'" was the interested person within the meaning of Section 13(3) of the IT Act. The AO noted that the fund so transferred of Rs. 22,83,087/- from the 'Trust' to the 'Samity' was for the mutual benefit, as both the assessee 'Trust' & 'Samity' were claiming exemption u/s 11 on income of Rs. 22,83,087/-. Therefore, the AO observed that the assessee is not entitled to the benefit of tax exemption u/s 11. The AO after....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....income and this way, the CIT(A) denied the exemption U/s 11 of the Act. 5. Not being satisfied with the order of ld. CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before us. The ld. Counsel for the assessee has submitted before us that ld. CIT(A) was wrong in denying benefit u/s 11 of the Act by applying Explanation of section 11(2) of the I.T Act. The ld. CIT(A) ignored the fact that the sum of Rs. 22,83,087/- has been applied/spent for educational purposes out of current year's income. The ld. Counsel also pointed out that ld. CIT(A) has dealt with the issue which was not the subject matter of the assessment order. Therefore, the ld. CIT(A) passed the order altogether on different footing and on different logic by applying the explanation of secti....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ld. DR for the Revenue has submitted that it is not clear that which is the property from which the Trust had derived rental income. It is also not clear that why the assessee trust used the services of LFMS consultants for this small amount. The assessee trust did not submit the agreement copy with LFMS consultants. The assessee trust also did not submit agreement copy of rental income, that is, from whom the assessee trust is getting rental income. Whether assessee is the owner of rental income, and the property from whom the rental income was derived, had not been proved by the assessee, therefore these basic information was not available on the record of AO, hence order passed by AO should sustain. 7. We have head the rival submissio....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f deduction at both ends, that is, an application by the assessee and as income by the recipient. Therefore, CIT(A) held that such payments should not be treated as application of income as per explanation of section 11(2), and this way, he denied the exemption. We note that as per submissions of ld DR for the Revenue, the basic information were not available on record such as: (i)Property from which the rental income of the trust has derived, that is rental agreement and assessee's Trust entitlement to receive rental income. (ii) Agreement between Singhania Foundation Education 'Trust' and Singhania Foundation Education 'Samity' about use of services of service providers namely, International Legal Consultants Ltd. and....