IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “A” MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) AND MS. KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL (JUDICIAL MEMBER) ITA No. 3743/MUM/2023 Assessment Year: 2015-16 ACIL Navasar Jan Rural CIT(A) (National Faceless Appeal Development Foundation, Centre) Delhi and AO (National 408, New Udyog Mandir No. 2, Vs. Faceless Appeal Centre,) Mogul Lane Mahim (West), CIT(A) (National Faceless Appeal

Mumbai-400016. Centre) Delhi and AO (Exemption, Ward 1(1), Mumbai.

PAN NO. AAATA 0898 E Appellant Respondent Assessee by : Ms. Priti Kamble (Accountant) Revenue by : Mr. Manoj Kumar Sinha, Sr. DR Date of Hearing : 29/02/2024

Date of pronouncement : 01/03/2024

ORDER

PER OM PRAKASH KANT, AM

This appeal by the assessee is directed against order dated 22.09.2023 passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) — National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [in short ‘the Ld. CIT(A)’] for assessment year 2015-16, raising following grounds:

1. The Ld. AO and Ld CIT (A) has erred in law and in facts in making impugned addition Rs. 30,63,405/-by not appreciating that in facts are all application of income of the Trust:

The details of impugned additions are as under:-

Sr. No. Particulars Amount Rs.

1. 1 Old balances and advances w/ off 3,50,499

2. 2 Old assets w/ off 26,80,906 roy aren

3. 3 Investments w/ off 32,000 30,63,40

2. 2. The Ld. AO and Ld. CIT (A) erred in appreciating that the form 10 for AY 2015-16 was indeed filed voluntarily by the assesee before the completion of the assessment for AY 20L5-16. The LD. AO failed to follow binding precedents. The Ld. AO did not ask any question/ did not seek any details/ did not send any notice before non consideration of accumulation 85% accumulation u/s. 11(1)(a) on Gross Receipts.

3. 3. The Ld. AO and Ld CIT{A) erred in granting accumulation u/s. 11(1)(a) short by Rs.2885498/-.

4. 4. The Ld. AO did not ask any question/ did not seek any details/ did not send any notice seeking details and without appreciating the facts made impugned additions as mentioned in para 1 herein.

5. 5. The Ld. AO did not inform any defect in form no. 10 ( for accumulation) and also did not inform for any late filing of form no.10 and without any show cause denied accumulation.

6. 6. LD CIT (A) failed to appreciate that the late filing of form No.10 was duly allowed by CBDT circular and judicial precedents

7. 7. Ld. CIT (A) did not consider the contentions of the assesse on application of Income.

2. Briefly stated facts of the case are that the assessee is registered as a charitable institution with the Director of Income-tax (Exemption), Mumbai u/s 12A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’) vide Registration dated 19.08.1980. The Trust filed its return of income for the year under consideration declaring income at Rs. Nil. The return of income filed by the assessee was selected for scrutiny assessment and statutory notices were issued and complied with. The Assessing Officer observed that assessee claimed old balance written off amounting to Rs.3,59,499/- , old assets write off of Rs.26,80,906/- and loss of investment of rs. 32,000/-, totaling to Rs.30,63,405/-, towards application of fund.

The Assessing Officer disallowed the same as this was nothing but claim of setting off of loss incurred. Further, the Assessing Officer roy aren noted that the Form No. 10 was filed on 28/07/2017 by the assessee showing accumulation of Rs.1,02,55,516/-, which was belated , thus not accepatbale and therefore, the exemption claimed u/s 11(2) of the Act was denied to the assessee and total income was assessed at Rs.59,48,903/-.

3. On further appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the grounds raised by the assessee observing as under:

“4.1.1 There is no further discussion on the findings by the A.O. in his order.

However appellant has made details submission in the appeal procedures. The appellant also relied upon few cases wer