TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (11) TMI 548
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed under section 13(3) of the Act i.e. specified as persons, namely, Dr. Sunita Yadav and Dr. Shailendra Yadav for a lent of Rs.7,40,000 and Rs.26,30,000/- respectively. In order to verify the same, a notice u/s 142(1) was issued to the assessee. In response, assessee has submitted as under :- "The following amounts were outstanding as on 31.03.2018 against the specified persons : (i) Dr. Shailendra Singh Rs.26,30,000/- (ii) Dr. Sunita Yadav Rs.7,40,000/- With the aforesaid amount as paid against their appointment as Doctor in the hospital of the society, however due to some technical reasons their appointment was not accepted by CCIM, New Delhi, hence the amount paid for their services rendered, as advance recoverable from above persons which was not received back till 31.03.2018. As regards details of security taken and interest charged from these persons, it is submitted that the payment was made as salary, hence there is no question of any security or interest payment." 3. Further assessee was asked to authenticate and justify with the documentary evidences for the claim of appointment of Sunita Yadav and Shailendra Yadav for such....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....versed and debited to their accounts to recover from them. However due to financial constraints they could not repay the outstanding amount. 3. That as regards justification and documentary evidences of non-acceptance the appointment by CCIM it is respectfully submitted that any written communication of non acceptance has not been given by CCIM inspection team. Since their qualification/experience did not met the requirement as per the CCIM their acceptance as denied by the inspection team." 4. After considering the above submissions, the Assessing Officer rejected the same with the following observations :- i) As per the sale agreement executed on 15.07.2014 between M/s. Jay Singh Shikshan Sansthan (first party) and Dr. Shailendra Singh (second party) a sum of Rs. 20,00,000/- was paid as advance to Dr. Shailendra Singh against sale of land bearing Khasra No. 278, 279 & 322 situated at Vill. Manikpur, Pargana- Mohammdabad Tehsil Farrukhabad, Distt. Farrukhabad measuring 0.1133 hectare. ii) Dr. Shailendra Singh was liable to complete the legal compliance within a period of 6 months or extended time as may be agreed but not later than 2 years. i....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Credit 7-4-2017 By Salary Teaching Staff SALARY FROM 18.03.17 TO 31.03. 17 Journal 40,000.00 30-4-2017 By Salary Teaching Staff SALARY FROM 01.4.17 TO 30.4.17 Journal 1,00,000.00 31-5-2017 By Salary Teaching Staff SALARY FOR MAY 17 Journal 1.00,000.00 30-6-2017 By Salary Teaching Staff SALARY FOR JUNE 17 Journal 1,00,000.00 31-7-2017 By Salary Teaching Staff SALARY FOR JULY 17 Journal 1,00,000.00 31-8-2017 By Salary Teaching Staff SALARY FOR AUGUST 17 Journal 1,00,000.00 28-9-2017 To Bank of India A/c No. 761910210000077 Being Payment By Chq.No.10606 Payment 7.40.000.00 : 30-9-2017 By Salary Teaching Staff SALARY FOR SEPT. 17 Journal 1,00,000.00 31-10-2017 By Salary Teaching Staff SALARY FOR OCT. 17 Journal 1,00,000.00 30-11-2017 By Salary Teaching Staff SALARY FOR NOV. 17 Journal 1,00,000.00 31-12-2017 By Salary Teaching Staff Journal 1,00,000.00 31-1-2018 By Salary Teaching Staff SALARY FOR JAN. 18 Journal ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Delhi and filed detailed submissions which are reproduced at the impugned order. After considering the above submissions, ld. CTI (A), ld. CIT(A) found that the findings of the Assessing Officer to the extent of provisions of section 13(3) is found to be correct. However, he directed the Assessing Officer to restrict the disallowance to the above violations and direct the Assessing Officer to recalculate the taxable income of the assessee as per section 11 of the Act and restrict the disallowance to the extent of Rs. 36.70 lakhs with the following observation :- "Further, the Ld. Assessing Officer has erred in law and on facts in arriving at an erroneous conclusion that the provisions of section 13 were violated by assessee. There is no violation of any of the provision of section 13 particularly section 13(1 )(c) and section13(3)(c) of the Income Tax Act, as has been invoked in the case and alleged in the body of the Assessment Order. The inferences drawn by the Ld. Assessing officer are patently erroneous and are not based out of material available on record. Further the Ld. Assessing Officer has erroneously invoked the provisions of Section 13(1)(c) & 13(3)(c) ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....any purposes. It is a matter of fact that the advance paid by assessee, compared to the present market value of the immovable property is clearly beneficial to the interest of the assessee. I have gone through the facts of the case. While the AO has taken the correct stance that the expenditure of Rs. 33.70 lakhs paid to the two doctors is in violation of the provisions of section 13 of the Act, the disallowance of exemption u/s 11 of the Act does not seem to be correct. In doing so, the AO has overlooked the provisions of the CBOT instructions, where it has been clarified vide Circular No. 387 dt. 06.07.1984 that any disallowance made under Section 13 shall be confined to the extent of expenditure found made/incurred in violation of provisions Section 13. Hence, in the facts and circumstances of the instant case, the benefit of Section 11 could at best be denied only to the extent of Rs. 33.70 Lacs. I have hence no hesitation in directing the AO to recalculate the taxable income, after denying the benefit of section 11 to the extent of RS.33.70 lakhs." 7. Aggrieved with the above order, Revenue is in appeal before us raising the following grounds of a....