TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (10) TMI 163
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ia that:- "1. The impugned order dated 17.12.2025 passed by the Id. Addl./JCIT(A)-2, Lucknow u/s 250 of the Act is bad in law and on facts of the case, for want of jurisdiction and various other reasons and hence, the same kindly be quashed. 2. The Id. Addl./JCIT(A)-2, Lucknow erred in law as well as on the facts of the case in confirming the order passed by CPC u/s 143(1) dated 29.10.2024 treating the entire gross receipts of Rs. 15,84,820/- as taxable income and raising demand of Rs. 3,69,760/-, which is totally contrary to the provisions of law and facts of the case, and hence kindly be deleted in full. 3. The Id. CIT(A) erred in law as well as on facts in not applying the provisions of Section 11 and 12A of th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ted. 7. The Id. CIT(A) erred in not appreciating that the powers of CPC u/s 143(1) are limited to prima facie adjustments only and cannot be used for making additions on complex issues requiring detailed examination. The adjustment made treating entire gross receipts as income goes beyond the scope of Section 143(1) and is without jurisdiction. 8. The Id. CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal without properly appreciating that no show cause notice was issued before making the adjustment, thereby violating principles of natural justice. The appellant was not given adequate opportunity to explain the discrepancies. 9. The Id. AO/CPC erred in charging interest u/s 234A, 234B & 234C of the Act. The appellant totally d....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sessee has incurred expenditure to the extent of 86.72% of the gross receipt. It is also not in dispute that the gross income of Rs. 15,84,818/-, includes donation and interest income was treated as total income and the Revenue department raised a demand of Rs. 3,69,760/-. It is also not in dispute that the assessee had filed its return of income for the year under consideration along with audit report in Form 10BB. 6. Keeping in view the aforesaid undisputed facts, Ld. CIT(A) proceeded to decide the appeal by returning findings as under:- "7. Decision: After reviewing the facts and submissions, this office finds that the appeal is without merit and liable to be dismissed. While the appellant has correctly show....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ilable at page 12-19 of the paper book in which assessee has duly explained the discrepancies. The discrepancies arisen in this case amounting to Rs. 2,10,505/- earmarked for charitable activities in the income tax return has also been reflected in the audit report. 8. We are of the considered view that when we examine the discrepancies arisen, may be due to the mistake or negligence on the part of the financial advisor of the trust are curable if the same is examined by the Assessing Officer. However in this case CPC has a limited scope of adjustment in a summary manner and as such assessed without any enquiry or investigation. The Coordinate Bench of Tribunal in case of Gangji Shamji Chedda (Princewala) Charitable Trust vs. DCIT in ITA....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....,98,782/- in the return of income, it is not going to effect the Revenue of the department. 12. Now next question arises for determination is "when the assessee has not filed the revised return and revised audit report has been filed after 4 years then how the relief sought for by the assessee seeking deletion addition of Rs. 15,84,818/- is to be decided." 13. In view of the fact that the assessee trust is entitled for exemption u/s 11 of the Act as it has applied a sum of Rs. 13,74,313/- being 86.72% of the total donation to carry out its charitable activities, hence receipt is not chargeable to tax. In these circumstances net surplus of Rs. 2,10,505/- could be chargeable to tax, however again an amount of Rs. 2,10,505/- being 15% of....