In the instant case, the admitted facts were that the objects of the assessee society were for welfare of resident of the colony and other maintenance services of the colony. Section 12AA requires that the Commissioner(Appeals) is to satisfy himself about the objects of the society and genuineness of the activities. Whether the object of the society was charitable or not was to be examined. Section 2(15) provides the definition of charitable purposes.
The whole case revolves upon the lease deed dated 24.12.2004 executed between the lessor, Smt. Sudha Saraswat and the assessee-society through which the land measuring 5150.48 sq. meter was let out to assessee society for 30 years. Copy of the lease deed is appended with the assessment order. The assessee paid Rs. 10,000/- as premium and agreed to pay Rs. 150/- per month as rent of the demised property, i.e., 1800/- per annum.
Since in this case, the land is acquired compulsorily and no amount of compensation has been received by the assessee and further, the matter is still pending before the Hon’ble Allahabad High Court and has not attained finality, therefore, the provisions of section 2(47) (iii) and (v) section 45(5) would not apply in the case of the assessee.
It is not in dispute that there were cash deposits of the equivalent amounts in the bank accounts of the creditors just before advancing loan to the assessee or on the date of issuing cheques to the assessee. In the case of the creditor, ‘RS’, his bank statement is filed in which Rs. 2,50,000 has been deposited, but neither it is mentioned that it was cash nor it is mentioned how the amount similar to the credit was credited in his bank account.
Section 149 of the 1961 Act, which provides the period limitation, categorically provides that no notice under Section 148 shall be issued after the period prescribed has lapsed. Once a notice is issued within the period of limitation, jurisdiction becomes vested in the Assessing Officer to proceed to reassess.
Smt. Amita Agarwal v. ACIT (ITAT Agra) -Assessee filed her return wherein income arising from sale of shares was shown as ‘Long-term Capital gain’ – Assessing Officer, however, brought said amount to tax under head ‘Income from other sources’ – On appeal before Tribunal, Judicial Member, allowed assessee’s claim in light of overwhelming evidences produced by her to prove genuineness of transaction – Accountant Member, however, in view of order passed in case of Baijnath Agarwal v. Asstt. CIT [2010] 40 SOT 475 (Agra)(TM) took a different view
The learned Judicial Member had confirmed the order of CIT(A) quashing the reassessment proceedings both on the basis of invalidity of notice having been issued on the dead person and the service of notice on legal heir of assessee beyond the period of limitation, whereas the learned Accountant Member set aside the order of ld. CIT(A) holding the reassessment proceedings as valid having been initiated after issuing valid notice and its proper service. The Third Member vide his opinion dated 8-12-2010 concurred with the decision reached by learned Judicial Member on invalidity of notice having been issued on the dead person thereby rendering the reassessment proceedings as void and agreed with the learned Accountant Member on the validity of service of notice holding that the notice could be validly served beyond the time-limit prescribed under section 149 of the Income-tax Act.
It was the duty of the A.O. to bring on record sufficient evidences and material to prove that the documents filed by the assessee were bogus, false or fabricated and the long term capital gain shown by him was actually his income from undisclosed sources.
Where the Assessing Officer has not carried out necessary enquiry which ought to have been carried out for allowing deduction to the assessee under section 40(b), the order passed by the Assessing Officer was erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue and CIT has rightly invoked the provisions of section 263.
Order can be revised if and only if the twin conditions, viz., one that the order is erroneous and two – that to that extent it is prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue co-exist.
