TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (9) TMI 1144
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... section 143(1) of the Income Tax twice with the incorrect demand raised on the assessee. The final tax was determined after passing the rectification by the CPC twice under the application filed under section 154. 4. That the rectification application under section 154 was filed with the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer also and till today no order is passed by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer and this facts is not considered by the CIT(Appeals) while passing the order. 5. That the CIT(Appeals) has never asked for any reconciliation statement for the disallowances and considered the CPC incorrect Computation of Income as correct without having any documentation or reply from the Income Tax Department." 2. At the time of hearing, ld. AR of the assessee brought to our notice relevant facts and submitted his submissions. He submitted that as against the return of income filed by it for Assessment Year 2021-22 on 25.02.2022 at page 1 to 49 of PB, the CPC, by way of an intimation issued under section 143(1) dated 25.11.2022, made an adjustment of a sum of Rs. 1,87,54,757/-as additional income. 3. Further he submitted that, against the said intimation, the as....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d in the computation section of the return of income is Rs. 40.81 crores. The difference between the amount picked up by the CPC, namely Rs. 42.69 crores, and Rs. 40.81 crores represent the interest received on account of investment of foreign contribution in eligible investments. 10. He further submitted that as also shown in the return of income itself at page 40 of the PB, the total income other than voluntary contribution has been shown at Rs. 7,23,26,452/-. The break-up of this amount is at page 12 of the PB, where interest income is shown at Rs. 4,96,83,410/- and other income from the core activities of the trust is shown at Rs. 22,26,15,783/-.Hence, the interest of Rs. 4.96 crores shown in the return of income includes the interest received from on foreign contribution funds as well as domestic funds. Further, he submitted that there is no section in the return of income which mandates the assessee to disclose interest on foreign contribution invested during the year and interest on local contribution invested during the year separately. Therefore, a consolidated amount of Rs. 4.96 crores as interest has been reflected. 11. Further ld. AR also took us to page 50 of the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....plained. The ld. CIT(A) also stated that there is yet another amount of Rs. 43.54 crores under the head "Total Foreign Grant" in the income and expenditure account, which further throws up more confusion in the representation made by the assessee. 17. He submitted that the ld. CIT(A) has not properly looked at the composition of Rs. 43.54 crores at page 54 of the PB which is the audited income and expenditure account, where foreign grant has been shown at Rs. 40.81 crores and other income have been shown at Rs. 2.72 crores. The break-up of Rs. 2.72 crores are at page 60 of the PB i.e. audited income and expenditure account, which shows income from investment, being interest on foreign grants invested, and other income, which has been reported in the total amount of Rs. 7.23 crores in the return of income at page 12 of the PB. 18. Hence, all the incomes have been duly reported under separate heads, and the only mistake that has arisen is because the CPC mistakenly took the figure reported under FCRA, which included interest on the FCRA contribution invested in the bank in India, whereas the assessee has included this interest separately and has also shown voluntary contributio....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Rs. 45,23,50,997/- 192 Rs. 43,39,88,587/- 196 Rs. 9,29,45,591/- 197 23. He further submitted that the perusal of the above demonstrates that the manner in which the assessee has disclosed foreign contributions and voluntary contributions has remained unchanged in the preceding years. The Revenue, having accepted the very same methodology in earlier assessment years, cannot, in the absence of any change either in the factual matrix, arbitrarily adopt a contrary stand in the year under consideration. 24. He submitted that it is pertinent to note that neither the CPC nor the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) has recorded any findings demonstrating any change in the nature of the assessee's activities, the accounting methodology consistently followed by it, or the statutory reporting requirements governing the relevant assessment year. In the absence of any distinguishing feature, the departure from the consistently accepted position is wholly unwarranted and contrary to the settled principles governing tax jurisprudence. 25. He submitted that the aforesaid principle is squarely supported by the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Radh....