Income Tax

Form 10B income accumulation amount inadvertent mistake. Income Tax authorities were misconceived in denying the claim for the difference-ITAT

Form 10B income accumulation amount inadvertent mistake. Income Tax authorities were misconceived in denying the claim for the difference-ITAT

 

ABCAUS Case Law Citation:
ABCAUS 1110 (2017) (01) ITAT

Assessment Year : 2003-04
Date of Pronouncement: 20-01-2017

Brief Facts of the Case:
The assessee was a charitable trust registered u/s 12AA of the Income tax Act, 1961. For the relevant Assessment Year it filed a return of income declaring NIL income and the assessment was finalized u/s 143(3) accordingly. in the return of income, assessee had made a claim in terms of exercise of the option available under Explanation-2(b) to Sec. 11(1)(a) of the Act of Rs.79,54,625/-. However, in the prescribed Audit report Form No. 10B the amount of such accumulation deemed to have been spent on the objects of the Trust was stated at Rs.75,78,521/- in contrast to Rs.79,54,625/- as claimed in return of income. Thus the difference of Rs.3,76,104/-  was treated by the Assessing Officer (AO) as the amount that had escaped assessment within the meaning of Sec. 147/148.

Accordingly, the AO reopened the assessment by issuing notice u/s 148 on the ground that income to the extent of Rs.3,76,104/- had escaped assessment and made the addition.

The CIT(A) upheld the action of Assessing Officer u/s 147/148.

Contentions of the Assessee:
The assessee claimed that the difference was only an arithmetical error and that the amount of Rs.79,54,625/- stated in the computation of total income was the correct figure and that the amount of Rs.75,78,521/- stated in Form no. 10B was an inadvertent mistake.

Observations made by the Tribunal:
The Tribunal observed that in the proceedings before the lower authorities, assessee obtained and furnished a revised certificate from the Auditors substantiating the mistake.

It was observed by the Tribunal that the explanation of assessee was that the amount stated in Auditors Report in Form No. 10B was an inadvertent mistake. It was quite also clear that in the subsequent Assessment Year when assessee actually spent the said sum, the claim made was to the extent of Rs.79,54,625/-. The claim of application of income to the extent of Rs.79,54,625/- with respect to Assessment Year 2003-04 stood accepted in the assessment for Assessment Year 2004-05, which has been finalized u/s 143(3).

Therefore, the Tribunal opined that the furnishing of Form no. 10B at an understated figure was ostensibly a mistake and the action of income-tax authorities was quite misconceived having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case.

Held:
Order of CIT(A) was set aside with direction to AO to delete the addition made.

Download Full Judgment

Share

Recent Posts

  • Income Tax

Dividing total turnover by 365 days to arrive at daily cash sale is based on conjectures and surmises

Dividing total turnover by 365 days and concluding that assessee could not have made such cash sale on a single…

2 days ago
  • Empanelment

NERIST Arunachal Pradesh invites EoI for Empanelment of Chartered Accountant firm

NERIST Arunachal Pradesh invites EoI for Empanelment of Chartered Accountant firm North Eastern Regional Institute of Science and Technology, (NERIST)…

3 days ago
  • Empanelment

Sibsagar University invites EoI for Appointment of Internal Auditor for 01.08.2024 to 31.03.2026.

Sibsagar University invites Expression of Interest (EOI) for Appointment of Internal Auditor  Sibsagar University invites Expression of Interest (EOI) from reputed…

3 days ago
  • Income Tax

Andhra Pradesh High Court struck down Section 147A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 as unconstitutional

In a recent judgment Andhra Pradesh High Court struck down Section 147A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 as unconstitutional.…

4 days ago
  • consumer-protection

Compensation to borrower upheld as bank did not verify construction progress before loan disbursals to builder

Bank was liable to pay compensation to borrower as it did not verify the progress of construction before loan disbursals…

5 days ago
  • Prevention of Money Laundering Act 2002

No timeline mentioned in PMLA to forward arrest order & material in possession to Adjudicating Authority

No timeline mentioned in PMLA to forward the arrest order and the material in possession to the Adjudicating Authority. It…

5 days ago