AI Drafter 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (6) TMI 226
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... high amount as advance. The assessee was required to give particulars of recovery of the same. The assessee was required to submit specific details in respect of Rs. 15,10,000/- advance given to Shri Durlabh Mahto and Rs. 8,78,905/- advance given to Shri Bhim Vishwakarma. The assessee was required to file relevant ledger copy of the accounts. The assessee informed that the documents have been lost and it is unable to produce the same. The assessee filed copy of a letter written to Police Station that it was carrying two bundles in Auto rickshaw on 14.11.2011, which were lost. The Assessing Officer observed that the assessee has not stated the reasons for giving advance to Shri Durlabh Mahto and has also failed to file details of the alleged identity of the recipients of advance. Therefore, he held that the assessee had no credible explanation for utilisation of funds ostensibly stated to be given as advances. Therefore, he assumed that the assessee has applied the money for the purpose other than for which it has been granted exemption under section 10(23C)(vi) of the Act and added the same to the income of the assessee. 4. On appeal before the CIT(A), the assessee submitted th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....y sub- clause (vi) of clause 23C of Section 10 of the income tax Act, 1961 read with Rule 2CA of the Income tax Rules, 1962 has granted approval to the assessee u/s 10(23C)(vi) of the Income tax Act, 1961 for the years 2009-10, 2010-11 and 2011-12 and the Hon'ble Chief Commissioner of Income tax, Ranchi vide Notification dated 27th September, 2012 vide Memo No.CCIT/Ran/Tech/10(23C/5/2011- 12/6748-68 dated 27th September, 2012 had also granted approval to the assessee u/s.10(23C)(vi) of the Income tax Act, 1961 for the F.Y. 2011-12 onwards. In the present case vide F.No.64 of 2006 dated 23.5.2007 the National Commissioner for Minority Education Institutions had issued a certificate to the assessee wherein it has been mentioned that Xavier Institute of Social Services, Purulia Road, Ranchi, Jharkhand managed by the Xavier Institute of Social Service, Ranchi exclusively is a minority education institution within the meaning of section 2(g) of the National Commissioner for Minority Education Institutions 2004. This certificate had also declared that this institution is a minority educational institution covered under Article 30 of the Constitution of India. It is also to be noted that ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....smissed. 11. Ground No.2 of appeal reads as under: "That the CIT(A) is not justified in deleting the addition under the head 'depreciation'. The CI(A) has not appreciated the fact that claiming of depreciation in case of trust is amount to double deduction, also assessee has placed no bills./vouchers for maintenance expenditure." 12. The Assessing Officer observed that the assessee institute has claimed to have added a sum of Rs. 3,38,42,325/- during the financial year 2008-09. From the accounts, it is also observed that the assessee has claimed to have spent Rs. 1,02,98,103.15 on the maintenance of building and other assets. The assesse was asked to furnish the details and supporting evidences to justify the amount incurred on maintenance. The assessee produced only ledger but could not produce bills and vouchers in support of its claim. The assessee was also requested to furnish approved plan for building and other particulars regarding the size and cost. But as claimed by the assessee, the documents were lost. In view of above, the Assessing Officer held that the application of amount had not been incurred for educational purposes and, therefore, disallowed Rs. 1,....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....appeal reads as under: "That the CIT(A) is not justified in deleting the addition under the head 'advance payment to Shri Durlabh Mahto' to the tune of Rs. 4,66,000/-. The CIT(A) failed to appreciate the fact that advance payment to Shri Durlabh Mahto cannot be treated as application of income for educational purposes. 19. The Assessing officer observed that the assessee institute had given Rs. 4,66,000/-- to Shri Durlabh Mahto during the year under consideration. In absence of any details filed by the assessee, the Assessing Officer treated this amount to be spent not for the educational 'Purpose and added back to the total income of the assessee. 20. On appeal before the CIT(A), ld counsel of the assessee argued that the society has engaged Mr. Durlabh Mahto as its lawyer for assisting it with various legal matters and payment made to him by the appellant institute in lieu of services provided by him. The counsel of the assessee has also contended that the amount paid to Mr. Mahto is in connection with appellant's education activities and has to be deducted to arrive at the income available for application to charitable and religious purposes. 21. The CI....