Loading judgment…
Facts
The Revenue appealed against the CIT(A)'s order which allowed relief for late filing of an Audit Report in Form 10B and deleted interest charged under sections 234A/B/C. The CIT(A) also held that the assessee filed the return within the time limit. The CPC had initially taxed corpus contributions.
Held
The Tribunal held that there is no substance in the Revenue's grounds of appeal. It was established that the law permits accepting the audit report in Form 10B at any stage of assessment, and the requirement is directory, not mandatory.
Key Issues
Whether the CIT(A) erred in allowing relief for late filing of Audit Report in Form 10B and deleting interest, and if the assessee's return was filed within the permissible time limit.
Sections Cited
143(1), 12A(1)(U), 139(1), 234A, 234B, 234C, 12AA, 11
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Detected automatically from the text. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH: ‘E’: NEW DELHI
Before: SHRI S RIFAUR RAHMAN & SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA
ORDER
PER ANUBHAV SHARMA, JM:
This appeal has been preferred by the Revenue against the order dated 27.10.2023 of Commissioner of Income Tax, Appeal, Chennai, [hereinafter referred to as ‘CIT(A)’] in Appeal No. NFAC/2019-20/10075580 arising out of an appeal before it against the order dated 24.12.2021 passed u/s 143(1) of the Income Tax ITA No.-3647/Del/2023 National Skill Development Fund Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred as ‘the Act’) by the CPC, Bengaluru for Assessment Year 2020-21. 1.1 The revenue has raised the following grounds: “
1. Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in allowing relief for late filing of Audit Report in Form 10B which is against the Provisions of Section 12A(1)(U) of the Act.
2. Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in holding that the assessee has filed the return within the time limit available u/s 139(1) for AY 2020-21, but the same was e-verified on 19.02.2021 and the postponement is also permissible.
3. Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the interest charged u/s 234A/B/C of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
4. The appellant craves leave to add, to alter or amend any grounds of appeal raise above at the time of hearing.”
2. On hearing both the sides we find that CPC has taxed the corpus contributions in intimation u/s 143(1) of the Act. In appeal, ld. CIT(A) has taken into account the fact that the Audit report in Form no.10B is filed on 15/02/2021 and documentary evidence affirming the same was submitted by the assessee in response to the notice u/s 250. Similarly, proof of having filed the return of income on 15/02/2021 has also been submitted. Though the return was filed within the time limit available u/s 139(1) for AY 2020-21, it was e-verified on 19/02/2021 and ld. CIT(A) has observed that the postponement which is also permissible. Then 2 ITA No.-3647/Del/2023 National Skill Development Fund there is no dispute to the fact that the assessee is also registered u/s.12AA and the benefit of exemption u/s.11 is available. Thus ld. CIT(A) has committed no error in holding that having complied to the conditions laid down under S.12A(b) and 12A(ba), there is no reason to deny the claim of exemption u/s.11 to the assessee. Once the assessee is found to be eligible for exemption u/s.11, other issues which are outside the scope of adjustment u/s.143(1)(a) does not require separate adjudication as the same is outside the scope of summary adjustments.
We are of the considered view that there is no substance in the grounds of appeal
of the Revenue as the law is now settled that the audit report in Form 10B can very well be accepted at any stage of assessment. Reliance is placed on the decisions of CIT vs. Shahzedanand Charity Trust, 228 ITR 292 (P&H); CIT vs. Jayant Patel, 248 ITR 199 (Mad) and CIT vs. Magnum Exports Pvt. Ltd., 262 ITR 10 (Kol) that Form No. 10B can be submitted before the appellate authority and it is sufficient compliance since the requirement is directory and not mandatory.