TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (7) TMI 837
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....me accepted by the department since beginning. Prayed to delete the addition of Rs. 1,69,068/- u/s. 68. 2. That under the facts and laws, the learned CIT(Appeal) further erred in confirming the grounds raised that without deciding the objection raised for notice u/s. 143(2) and 142(1) with case laws, the order passed by learned AO u/s. 144 of IT Act ignoring the objections and case laws raised by the appellant is bad is law, arbitrary and not justified . Prayed that the objection petition was pending before the AO and without deciding the objection, the order passed u/s. 144 may kindly be quashed as held by ITAT-Mumbai in the case of M/s. Shivsagar Veg. Restaurant vs. Addl. Commissioner of ITMumbai ITA No. 5686/M/2004 AY 2001-02. Also, the assessee trust has raised additional grounds of appeal which reads as under: 3. That under the facts and the law, the assessment has been made by the learned DCIT, Circle-2(1), Bilaspur without issuing Notice u/s. 143(2) in time, the notice issued by the ITO-1(2), Bilaspur dated 23.09.2011 is without jurisdiction, therefore, the assessment is null & void and be annulled. 4. That under the facts and the law, the Ld. CIT(Appeals) erred i....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....69C of the Act Rs. 4200/- 3. Excess of income over expenditure Rs. 4,30,588/- 4. Ramayan A/c., Gujarati Samaj A/c, Kayam Punya Tithi fund u/s. 68 of the Act Rs. 1,69,068/- 4. Aggrieved the assessee trust carried the matter in appeal before the CIT(Appeals) but without success as regards the addition of Rs. 1,69,068/- (supra). For the sake of clarity, the observations of the CIT(Appeals) are culled out as under (relevant extract): "Ground No.4: Without deciding the objections raised for notice u/s. 143(2) and 142(1) with case laws, the order passed u/s. 144 of IT ignoring the objections and case laws raised by the appellant is bad in law, arbitrary and not justified. Decision: After issuance of the notice u/s. 143(2) on filing of return of income u/s. 139(1) of I.T. Act, the assessee's duty is to produce all evidences on which he relies in support of his return of income is the clear language of notice u/s. 143(2) and notice u/s. 142(1) empowers the AO to raise specific queries as the AO deems fit. There is no scope for any objection to be raised by the assessee. If he has any objection for notice u/s 142(1) pertaining to the queries the remedy is to file the writ pe....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ved towards corpus fund under the head Kayam Tithi Fund, Page 3 to 10 of Paper book of additional evidence As the aforesaid documents will have a strong bearing on the adjudication of the grounds of appeal raised before me and could not be filed by the assessee before the lower authorities, therefore, the same, in all fairness, are admitted. 8. Shri G.S. Agrawal, the Ld. Authorized Representative (for short 'AR') for the assessee trust submitted that as observed by the CIT(Appeals), the assessee trust is registered by the Commissioner of Income Tax, Bilaspur vide his order u/s. 12AA(1)(b)(i) of the Act, dated 08.12.2004, Page 1 of APB. Elaborating further, the Ld. AR submitted that the A.O had grossly erred in treating the contributions received by the assessee trust on account of Ramayan a/c., Gujrati samaj a/c. and Kayam Punya Tithi fund a/c. aggregating to Rs. 1,69,068/- as unexplained cash credit u/s. 68 of the Act. The Ld. AR submitted that as the aforementioned amounts were received by the assessee trust as voluntary contributions with specific directions as regards the manner of their utilization, therefore, the same being in the nature of corpus receipts could not....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sdictional A.O was beyond the stipulated time period, and thus, no valid jurisdiction could have been assumed for framing of the assessment based on the same. Elaborating further, the Ld. AR submitted that as per the order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax, Bilaspur u/s. 12AA(1)(b)(i) of the Act, dated 08.12.2004, the jurisdiction over the case of the assessee trust was vested with the ACIT, Circle-1(1), Bilaspur, Page 1 of APB. Apart from that, the Ld. AR had taken me through the Notification/Corrigendum No.2/2001/2002 dated 01.08.2001, 1/2003-2004 dated 28.04.2003 and dated 14.07.2005, 20.07.2005, 26.08.2005 issued by the Government of India, Ministry of Finance, which, inter alia, provided that all cases of public charitable/religious trust falling within the jurisdiction of following A.Os, viz. (i) ITO-1(1), Raipur; (ii) ITO-1(2), Raipur; and (iii) ITO-1(3), Raipur, claiming exemption u/s. 10(22), 19(22A), 10 (23A) and Sections 11, 12 & 13 of the Act would stand vested with the DCIT/ACIT-1(1), Raipur, Page 1 to 6 of APB. Also, the Ld. AR had drawn my attention to the Notification dated 18.01.2010 issued by the Government of India, Ministry of Finance, which had once agai....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ord, it transpires that the assessee after receiving notice u/s. 143(2) of the Act dated 23.09.2011 from the ITO, Ward-1(2), Bilaspur had failed to call in question his jurisdiction within the stipulated time period, i.e. one month from the date of service of the aforesaid notice. Although, I find from a perusal of the letter issued by the ACIT, Circle-2(1), Bilaspur dated 06.11.2012 that the assessee trust vide its letter dated 06.06.2012 had objected to the jurisdiction assumed by the ACIT, Circle- 2(1), Bilaspur, i.e. within the stipulated time period of 30 days as contemplated in sub-section (3) to Section 124 of the Act, Page 19-20 of APB (reply dated 02.01.2024 filed by the Ld. DR) but the same would not carry its case any further. As the assessee trust had not objected to the notice issued by the ITO-1(2), Bilaspur dated 23.09.2011 (received on 28.09.2011) within the stipulated time period of 30 days as contemplated in Section 124(3) of the Act, therefore, it cannot be permitted to have questioned the validity of the jurisdiction in the course of the present proceedings before me. Accordingly, I am unable to persuade myself to subscribe to the claim of the assessee trust to ....