Whether amount mentioned in form 10 or in accounts is to be considered for accumulation u/s 11(2)?

Respected Members

?

Empower yourself with knowledge! Discover today's income tax case law through this insightful YouTube video. Click on the link to gain a deeper understanding of the case."

?

YouTube video link for Hindi video:?https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CsqfIUJHkfw

?

YouTube video link for English video:?https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PQCT2WrvWLU

?

YouTube shorts video link:?https://www.youtube.com/shorts/MbDQ9rzLaGI

?

Short note of today's case law for quick reference:

?

[2024] 113 ITR (Trib) (S.N.) 1 (ITAT[Bang])

[BEFORE THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL — BANGALORE "A" BENCH]

?

VAIDIC DHARMA SANSTHAN

v.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (EXEMPTIONS)

?

GEORGE GEORGE K. (Vice President) and

WASEEM AHMED (Accountant Member)

?

June 18, 2024.

?

1. The assessee was a public charitable trust engaged in providing religious and spiritual education to the public at large.

?

2. The assessee showed amount of Rs. 4 crore accumulated under form 10 on tentative basis which was approved by way of resolution in the meeting of board of trustees for A.Y. 2013-14.

?

3. The actual amount accumulated as per audited accounts and income tax return was Rs.3,13,07,781/-

?

4. The amount utilized by assessee? in A.Y. 2018-19 out of amount accumulated in A.Y. 2013-14 was 3,13,07,781/-

?

5. The A.O. added on amount of Rs. 86,92,219/- as the difference between unutilized amount i.e. amount accumulated as per form 10 & amount utilized in A.Y. 2018-19. CIT(A) confirmed the addition.

?

6. ITAT held the financial statements and computation of income were filed with ITR but they were not filed before authorities.

?

7. Meaning there by that these documents were already available with the authorities but they did not look into them.

?

8. In the interest of justice and fair play, the matter was to be remanded for fresh adjudication.

?

9. The assessee had shown non-corpus fund as 31.03.2018 at Rs. 46.12 CR. and investment shown in section 11(5) was Rs. 26.41 CR.

?

10. A.O. made addition of difference on the allegation that difference had not been invested in the manner u/s 11(5) which contravened the provisions of 13(1)(d) Section. CIT(A) confirmed the addition.

?

11. ITAT held that balance sheet showed that the capital fund shown by assessee was utilized in fixed assets, capital work in progress and current assets.

?

12. Such amount represented the application of income and therefore was to be excluded while calculating the amount to be invested under the provisions of section 11(2) read with Section 11(5) of the Act.

?

13. Nevertheless assessee had not represented the facts properly and therefore matter is to be remanded to A.O.