TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (7) TMI 1827
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... case. 2. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 3,14,00,000/- on account of application of unutilized accumulation made u/s.11(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for earlier assessment year despite the fact that the assessee had failed to furnish the correct details of the purpose for which the accumulation was utilized? 3. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in giving a finding as to whether the assessee had produced any documentary evidence in support of its claim that the addition to fixed assets i.e. construction of building during the current year, was financed by the funds accumulated u/s.11(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 in the preceding financial years; 4. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in coming to the conc....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... in F. No. 718/10A/VOL./B1/C-58 on 06.01.1982. 2.2 The return of income for A.Y. 2016-17 was filed by the assessee on 29.09.2016 declaring 'NIL Income' after claiming exemption u/s. 11 of the Act. The case was selected for scrutiny by CASS. The assessment u/s. 143(3) of the Act was completed on 25.12.2018 by determining the total income at Rs. 8,93,02,628/-. In the assessment order, the Ld.AO made the following additions: a) Disallowance of Rs.3,14,00,000/- claimed to have been utilized out of accumulation from previous year; and b) Disallowance of Rs.8,70,00,000/- being Capital Expenditure in nature. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld.AO, assessee preferred appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). 3. The Ld. CIT(A) conside....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....at it is not the case of the Ld.AO that, the expenditure are not incurred at all. The Ld. CIT(A) thus deleted the disallowance of Rs. 3.40 crores. 3.3 On the issue of the revenue expenditure incurred towards purchase of solar lanterns to rural areas and water treatment plant set up to supply drinking water to drought area in Kolar and Chikkaballapur districts. The Ld. CIT(A) rejected the Ld. AO's contention that, the beneficiaries to the facilities setup by the assessee is not known, due to which, the deduction claimed was denied. The Ld. CIT(A) was of the opinion that the beneficiaries are all backward people in the remote village and the welfare of this section of the public, amounts to charitable activity, which is as per the objects ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tailed by the assessee. 4.3 He supported the order of the Ld.CIT(A) and submitted that assessee is providing facility to the entire village and that the beneficiaries cannot be independently identified by names. The Ld.AR in support furnished bank statements, audited balance sheet for the year under consideration as well as the immediately preceding assessment years to ascertain the fact that the expenditure was actually incurred by the assessee that forms part of the block of the assets. We have perused the submissions advanced by both sides in the light of records placed before us. 5. We note that in the balance sheet for the year under consideration, the assessee added to the fixed assets, equipment that has been set up by way o....