2022 (9) TMI 583

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....07(1), dated 27/02/2019 arising out of the order passed U/s. 154 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [the Act] dated 21/12/2018. 2. The assessee filed a condonation petition stating that the Ld. CIT(A) has mentioned the order date as 27/02/2019 instead of 27/02/2020. The Learned Authorized Representative [the Ld. AR] submitted that the request was placed before the Ld. CIT(A) to issue a corrigendum for change of date of order from 27/2/2019 to 27/2/2020. The Ld. AR also submitted that as per the dates of hearing in the CIT(A) order, the last date of hearing was completed on 18/2/2020 and hence order cannot be dated as 27/2/2019. The Ld. AR further submitted that the assessee was awaiting response w.r.t corrigendum, and as no response received fr....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ee has not filed Form-10 within the stipulated time as prescribed U/s. 11(2) of the Act. The Ld. AO further noted that the assessee has incurred an amount of Rs. 22,07,314/- and has reported in ITR-7 in the column "capital account". However, on verification of the records, the AO found that Rs. 22,07,314/- is shown under the headings "sundry debtors". The Ld. AO therefore rejected the claim of the assessee and disallowed a sum of Rs. 19,25,733/-. The Ld. AO further noted that even though the assessee has shown gross receipts of Rs. 4,06,56,090/-, the gross receipts collected amounted to Rs. 3,92,90,568/- as per the income and expenditure account. Accordingly, the Ld. AO calculated the application of income for charitable purposes at Rs.3,14....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ter considering the additional evidences, remand report and the rejoinder to the remand report, the Ld. CIT(A) relying on the decision of the Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT vs. Thanthi Trust reported in [1982] 137 ITR 735 dismissed the appeal of the assessee. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before us. 4. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: "1. The order of the Ld. CIT(A) is erroneous both on facts and in law. 2. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in not considering the amount paid in advance towards purchases and services as utilization of the amount. 3. The Ld. CIT(A) ought to have considered the amount of Rs. 19,25,733/- as spent for the purpose of the ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....the assessee. The Ld. DR relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Kerala High Court in the case of CIT vs. Shree P. Subramoniam Religious Trust [2009] 179 Taxman 144 (Kerala). The Ld. DR pleaded that the order of the Ld. Revenue Authorities be upheld. 6. We have heard both the sides and perused the material available on record and the orders of the Authorities below. We find from the order of the Ld. AO that the assessee has claimed exemption U/s. 11 of the Act while filing ITR-7 claiming it as capital account. However, the Ld. AO observed that the amount is shown under the heading "sundry debtors" but no capital expenditure was incurred as stated by the assessee. Admitted facts are that the assessee has also not filed Form-10 to claim accu....