TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (9) TMI 364
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the Revenue has raised the following grounds: - "1. Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in deleting the addition made by the Assessing Officer u/s. 11(3) of the Act to the tune of Rs. 5,36,41,905/-without considering that the assessee's claim of application of funds was inconsistent with the returns of income filed for earlier years and was not substantiated with proper documentary evidence during the assessment proceedings? 2. Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in deleting the addition made by the Assessing Officer u/s. 11(3) of the Act to the t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rcumstances of the case and in law, the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in deleting the addition made by the Assessing Officer u/s. 11(3) of the Act to the tune of Rs. 5,36,41,905/- despite the fact that during the course of assessment proceedings, the assessee failed to furnish ledger accounts, complete bank statements, and proper bills/vouchers for various expenses, and whatever was furnished was incomplete and haphazard after availing repeated opportunities provided to assessee? 6. Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has failed to consider that during the assessment proceedings, the assessee disputed the sanctity of its own statut....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r 2018-19. 5. The Assessing Officer ("AO"), vide order dated 29/05/2021 passed under section 143(3) read with section 144B of the Act, disagreed with the submissions of the assessee and held that accumulation of previous years is not supported by the figures in the ITR or Form 10B. The AO further held that the assessee has also not explained why the entire application has been claimed in the year under consideration, if the funds were applied during the preceding years up to the financial year 2016-17. The AO held that the assessee was indulging in a manipulative exercise, and when it was confronted with the declaration made for the year, it had made claims which are not supported by the declarations made in the ITR or Form 10B for the p....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....consistent claim of the assessee that due to a "punching error", the sum of INR 5,26,41,905 was inadvertently reported by the assessee in Schedule-I of the ITR for the year under consideration. We find that it is the claim of the assessee that all the accumulation made by the assessee during the previous assessment years, i.e. till financial year 2015-16, was spent during the financial year 2016-17, and therefore, during the year under consideration, it was left with no accumulated funds to be spent. In this regard, we find that during the assessment proceedings, the assessee filed the following details: - F. Year Gross Income A 15% B To Be Spent (A-B) =C Accumulated of earlier Year D Total Amt to be Spen....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....able or religious purpose during the previous year (6) Balance amount available for application (7) = (2) - (4) - (6) (7) Amount deemed to be income within meaning of sub- section (3) of section 11 (8) 1 2011-12 7909107 Religious 0 0 7909107 0 0 2 2012-13 10585716 Religious 0 0 10585716 0 0 3 2013-14 13274135 Religious 0 0 13274135 0 0 4 2014-15 12862635 Religious 0 0 12862635 0 0 5 2015-16 9010312 Religious 0 0 9010312 0 0 TOTAL 5364....