TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (2) TMI 1210
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e petitioner had filed return of income for the assessment year 2013-14 on 27.9.2013 disclosing NIL income after taking benefit of Section 11 of the Act. The return was taken in scrutiny by the Assessing Officer. He passed an order of assessment under Section 143(3) of the Act on 29.1.2016 in which he accepted the petitioner's declaration of NIL Income. To reopen such assessment, the Assessing Officer issued the impugned notice which, as can be seen was done within a period of four years from the end of relevant assessment year. In order to do so, he had recorded following reasons:- "Reasons for re-opening of assessment u/s. 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for A.Y. 2013-14 1. The assessee is a trust which is registered with the Di....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... as Reimbursement of expenses. Hence, the claim of exemption u/s 11 was denied. 4.1 In this regard, the assessee had not furnished any documents regarding agreement between P.D. Hinduja Hospital & Reseach Centre (PDHNHRC) during the course of proceedings for A.Y. 2014- 15. 4.2 Definition of Income as per 2(24)(iia) is reproduced as under:- Voluntary contribution received by a trust created wholly or partly for charitable or religious purposes or by an institution established wholly or partly for such purposes [or by an association or institution referred to in clause (21) or clause (23), or by a fund or trust or institution referred to in sub-clause (iv) or sub-clause (v) [or by any university or other educational institution refer....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....HNHMRC is using the assessee trust as a tool so that there should not be any objection regarding denial of Section 11 of the I.T. Act, 1961 of PDHNHMRC. Here, the assessee is only a tool in the hands of PDHNHMRC and the payment which should have been paid by itself. It has used assessee as a tool to distinguish its transaction. Hence, the assessee has routed the funds through PDHNHMRC which should have been paid by itself to distinguish the transaction. 4.8 Section 13(3)(b) reads as under:- The person referred to in clause 1 of sub-section (1) and subsection (2) are the following namely:- any person who has made a substantial contribution to the trust or institution, that is to say, any person whose total contr....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....housand rupees; From the plain reading of the above section 13(1)(c) & 13(2)(g) of the I.T. Act, 1961 it is clear that the transaction of assessee with PDHNHMRC is covered u/s. 13(1)(c) & 13(2)(g) r.w.s. 13(3) OF THE I.T. Act, 1961. 4.9 Accordingly, provision of Section 13(1)(c) & 13(2)(g) r.w.s. 13(3) of the I.T. Act, 1961 were invoked and exemption u/s. 11 was denied to the assessee. 5. In A.Y. 2013-14 as well, the assessee has received Rs. 76,59,018/- from PDHNHRC and again spent it on the officers / Directors of PDHNHRC and claimed it as reimbursement of expenses. Here, PD Hinduja National Hospital & Research Centre (PDHNHRC) is covered u/S. 13(3)(b) of the I.T. Act, 1961 as it has donated / given a sum of Rs. 76,59,018/- to....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ted 16.7.2018. Such objections were rejected by the Assessing Officer by order dated 24.8.2018 upon which this petition has been filed. 4. Mr. Naniwadekar, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has raised following two main contentions:- (i) The Assessing Officer has proceeded on entirely erroneous factual basis. The impugned notice should, therefore, be quashed; (ii) Even going by the reasons recorded by the Assessing Officer, it cannot be stated that any income chargeable to tax in the hands of the assessee had escaped assessment. In other words, the reasons recorded lack validity. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the Revenue opposed the petition contending that the Assessing Officer has recorded proper rea....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s not accurate and in fact, the petitioner trust had received a sum of Rs. 68.16 lacs from Hinduja Hospital. However, a mere minor inaccuracy in indicating the figure in the reasons recorded, would not shake the very foundation of the reasons so as to nullify the notice of reopening based on such reasons. We are also prepared to proceed on the basis as contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that there may be some differences in the situation emerging out of the return for the assessment year 2014-15 and the present one. Nevertheless, when we examined the situation in the present year, on the basis of reasons recorded by the Assessing Officer, we are unable to accept either of the two contentions. Once, we proceed on the basi....