TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (7) TMI 740
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ded the amount of Rs. 2,64,260/- being out of the amount accumulated in F.Y. 2019-20 and therefore, the learned CPC had rightly made the addition of Rs. 2,64,260/-. 3] The learned Addl. CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the amount of Rs. 2,64,260/- was not included in the amount of Rs. 10,37,511/- and therefore, there was no question of making any addition of Rs. 2,64,260/- made by the learned CPC. 4] The learned Addl. CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the amount of Rs. 2,64,260/- being the amount accumulated in F.Y. 2019 20 was separately spent and the same did not form part of the expenditure of Rs. 10,37,511/- and the same was very clear from the balance sheet and Income and Expenditure account of the applicant trust and therefore, there was no reason to confirm the addition of Rs. 2,64,260/-. 5] The learned Addl. CIT(A) erred in holding that the claim of the appellant was misleading without understanding and appreciating the correct facts of the case and hence, the addition made of Rs. 2,64,260/- may kindly be deleted. 6] The learned Addl. CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the reason given by the CPC for making the disallowance was totally diffe....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e trust amounted to Rs. 10,37,511/- and the amount of Rs. 2,64,260/- was part of the said amount. Thus, he has stated in para 5.7 of his order that after excluding the amount of Rs. 2,64,260/- from the total expenditure of Rs. 10,37,511/-, only an amount of Rs. 7,73,251/- was incurred towards the objects of the trust out of the income of the current year. 1.4] He has held that the amount applied towards the expenditure on the objects of the trust of Rs. 10,37,511/- was found to include an amount of Rs. 2,64,260/- being the amount accumulated in F.Y. 2019-20. Thus, according to the learned CIT(A), the assessee's claim is incorrect and not supported by documentary proof. He has held that the claim made seems to be misleading and hence, he has confirmed the disallowance made. 1.5] The assessee submits that the disallowance made is not justified at all. At the outset, it is submitted that the copy of the income and expenditure account is given on page 42 of the paper book. From the perusal of the same, it would be noticed that the total income during the year under consideration is Rs. 12,15,545/- and the expenditure incurred out of the current year's income t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....023. Thus, the assessee filed Return of Income u/s.139(1) within the statutory time. The Assessee claimed exemption u/s.11 of the Act. 4.1 The Return of Income was processed by CPC. An order u/s.143(1) of the Act, dated 02/12/2024 was passed by Centralized Processing Center (CPC) partly disallowing assessee's claim for exemption u/s.11. The CPC made a disallowance of Rs. 2,64,260/-. Aggrieved by the order u/s.143(1) of the Act, the Assessee filed an appeal before the ld.CIT(A) and also filed an application u/s.154 before the CPC. The CPC vide its order dated 04/02/2025 u/s.154 of the Act, rectified the mistake allowing the entire claim of exemption and arriving at Total Income of Rs. NIL as per the Return of Income filed by the Assessee. 4.2 However, the Ld.CIT(A) vide order dated 11/02/2025 held as under : Quote "5.11 It has been explained in detail in paras 5.6 to 5.8 that owing to the information furnished in the ROI filed and the audit report with regard to the amount of Rs. 2,64,260/- the adjustment was made in the intimation. The claim of amount applied being expenditure towards objects of the trust was Rs. 10,37,511/-was logically found to include the amount o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....correct and factually wrong. Therefore, Ld.CIT(A) has erred in confirming the disallowance made u/s.143(1) of the Act. Therefore, the order of ld.CIT(A) is quashed. 5.1 It is also a fact that the CPC vide its order dated 04/02/2025 had rectified the mistake and accepted the Return of Income showing NIL income. Thus, even the CPC has accepted that the adjustment made by the CPC vide order u/s.143(1) was incorrect and factually wrong. 6. In these facts and circumstances of the case Grounds of appeal number 1 to 6 raised by the assessee are allowed. 8. Vide Ground Number 7, Assessee has asked for appropriate cost, however, during the hearing Ld.AR for the Assessee submitted that the assessee is not pressing for the said ground. Accordingly the ground number 7 is dismissed. 8.1 No ground was amended altered hence Ground Number 8 is dismissed. 9. Accordingly appeal of the assessee is partly allowed. Order pronounced in the open Court on 30 May, 2025. ============= Document 1 Aggregate of inname referred to in sectiona 11, 12 and souluns 10(23C)(v). 3 10(23℃)(v),10(23℃)(vi) and 10(23C)(wa) derived during the previous your excluding voluntary contributio....