TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (10) TMI 1328
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ition of Rs. 10,41,64,945/- made by the assessing officer on account of unexplained expenditure u/s 69B of the Income-tax Act, 1961." 2. Heard the learned Representatives of both sides at length and perused the case-records. 3. Briefly stated the facts are such that the assessee-society filed return of income of relevant AY 2013-14 at a total income of Rs. Nil. The case was selected for scrutiny and the assessment was finalized u/s 143(3) at a total income of Rs. 11,93,72,920/- after making certain additions. Aggrieved by assessment-order, the assessee filed appeal to Ld. CIT(A) and got relief qua the addition. Now, the revenue has filed this appeal against the order of Ld. CIT(A). 4. We proceed to adjudicate grounds in seriatim. Ground No. 1: 5. In this Ground, the revenue claims that the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 1,51,29,975/- made by Assessing Officer on account of excess income over expenditure. 6. The precise facts qua these grounds are such that on the basis of statement of one Shri Ramesh Kumar Yadav, the revenue-authorities found that Shri Ramesh Kumar Yadav was a security-guard receiving annual salary of Rs. 78,000/- from one sc....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... self-defeating and devoid of any merit. Provision of section 13(2)( d) is very clear which says that if services of trust are made available to specified person without adequate remuneration or other compensation, then such sum shall be "deemed to have been used" for the benefit of specified person. Admittedly these services were provided by assessee trust to Shri Sudhir Agarwal, without any payment and for free, hence, such expenses are hit by the provision of section 13 of the Act. There is no documentary evidence or otherwise to presume that such services were made available to the specified person in lieu of his service to assessee trust, so argument remained to be theoretical, nothing more. Therefore, in view of categorical provision Shri Agrawal Education & Welfare society of disallowance of Rs. 78,000/- added by the AO in AY 2013-14 is upheld." 9. We find that the Ld. CIT(A) has passed a well-reasoned order holding that the entire exemption u/s 11 / 12 is not lost. We do not find any infirmity in the order of Ld. CIT(A). Hence the same is uphold and Ground No. 1 of revenue is dismissed. Ground No. 2: 10. In this Ground, the revenue claims that the Ld. CIT(A) has er....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... report have already been deleted by my Ld. predecessor vide order of appeal Nos. CIT(A)-3/BPL/IT-287 to 290/2014-14 dated 29.08.2017 and CIT(A)-3/BPL/IT-291 to 296/2014-15 dated 16.07.2018. Therefore, following the "rule of consistency" order passed by my Ld. Predecessors in the case of the assessee and other assessee of the same group is also followed and thereby issue is treated as covered. It has been held in the case of CIT vs. Velimalai Rubber Co. Ltd. (Ker) 181 ITR 299 that through the principal of res judicata is not applicable to income tax proceedings but when a question of law or fact was decided in assessee's own case for an earlier assessment year and an identical question came up for consideration for a later year, tribunal was justified in placing reliance on earlier decision. In view of above discussion, it is held that reference made to the District Valuation Officer u/s 142A of the Act by the AO for valuation of college building was not legally valid. The AO resorted to making reference u/s 142A to DVO without pointing out any defects in books of accounts and without even rejecting the books which is a sine qua non for making reference to DVO as held by Hon'bl....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ion for rejection of books of accounts. The Gujarat High Court held that once it was apparent from the records that while making the reference to DVO, the Assessing Officer had not rejected the books of account, then the reference made to DVO was not in consonance with the provisions of law and hence such reference was invalid. With these submissions, Ld. AR Shri Agrawal Education & Welfare society argued that when the reference made u/s 142A without rejecting the books of account is in itself invalid, consequently the addition made is also invalid. 16. That brings us to understand the law of section 131(1)(d) and 142A of the Income-tax Act, 1961. With the able assistance of learned Representatives of both sides, we are able to understand the legislative history of these sections. It is observed from submissions that initially there was no specific provision in Income-tax Act, 1961 to enable the assessing authorities to make reference to DVO for ascertaining value / cost of investment, etc. However, the Assessing Authorities used to make reference u/s 131(1)(d) but such action was held be non-maintainable in Amiya Bala Paul 130 taxmann 511 (SC). Thereafter, the Union Legislature....