TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (8) TMI 1874
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e Incometax Act, 1961 [in short 'the Act']. For assessment year 2015-16, the assessee filed the return of income on 23/09/2015 declaring NIL income after setting aside for accumulation a sum of Rs. 1,15,00,000/- for future development of the Hospital run by the Trust. The Central Processing Centre of the Depart ['CPC'], while processing the return of income u/s 143(1) of the Act, vide intimation dated 21/10/2016, disallowed the accumulation of Rs. 1,15,00,000/- claimed by the assessee and recomputed the assessee's income at Rs. 1,17,41,751/-. 2.2 Aggrieved by the intimation u/s 143(1) of the Act dated 21/10/2016 for assessment year 2015-16, the assessee filed an application u/s 154 of the Act before the Assessing Officer (AO) seeking rec....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....of the Act r/w Rule 17 of the Income-tax Rules, 1962 [in short 'the Rules'] which required the assessee to file Form No.10 electronically along with the return of income and which the assessee failed to do. The ld. DR emphatically supported the order of the AO in the matter. 3.3 Per contra, the ld. AR for the assessee supported the impugned order of the ld.CIT(A) and reiterated the submissions put forth before the ld.CIT(A) vide letter dated 08/01/2018 which is extracted at para 5.2 of the impugned order. 3.4.1 We have heard the contentions of both parties and perused and carefully considered the material on record, including the provisions of section 11(2) of the Act and Rule 17 of the Rules. There is no dispute with respect to the f....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....l-reasoned and cogent finding rendered by the ld.CIT(A) (supra) and therefore, uphold the same. Consequently, the grounds raised by Revenue are dismissed. 4. In the result, Revenue's appeal for assessment year 2015- 16 is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on 14th August, 2018. ============= Document 1 The order of the Ld. CIT (A) is opposed to Law and facts of the case. 2. Claim of accumulation u/s 11(2) 2.1 on account of assessee's failure to spend 85% of the Total Income and the failure to comply with section 11(2) read with rule 17 of the Income Tax Rules, 1962. Document 2 2.2 The Ld CIT(A) erred in considering the manual submission of Form No. 10 though as per the rule 17 r.w.s 11(2), every ass....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nually before the AO. It is submitted that the AO disallowed the claim for accumulation u/s.11(2) on the ground that Form No.10 was not e-filed. 5.4 The Apex court in CIT V Nagpur Hotel Owners Association (2001) 114 Taxman 255 (SC) held as under: 6. It is abundantly clear from the wordings of sub-section (2) of section 11 that it is mandatory for the person claiming the benefit of section 11 to intimate to the assessing authority the particulars required under rule 17 in Form No. 10 of the Act. If during the assessment proceedings the Assessing Officer does not have the necessary information, question of excluding such income from assessment does not arise at all. As a matter of Document 4 5.5 fact, this bene....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ent. In the case at hand it is evident from the records of the case that the respondent did not furnish the required information till after the assessments for the relevant years were completed. In the light of the above, we are of the opinion that the stand of the revenue that the High Court erred in answering the first question in favour of the assessee is correct, and we reverse that finding and answer the said question in the negative and against the assessee. In view of our answer to the first question, we agree with Mr. Verma that it is not necessary to answer the second question on the facts of the case. The CBDT circular no. 14(XL-35) dated 11.4.1955 requires the Departmental Officers to draw the attention....