TELUGU UNION BAPTIST CHURCH,BERHAMPUR vs. ASST DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX, CPC

Shri Radha Krishna Sahu, Shri Radha Krishna Sahu, ld AR appeared for the assessee and Shri the assessee and Shri Charan Dass, Sr. , Sr. DR appeared for the revenue.

The appeal is time barred by 02 days. The assessee has filed condonation petition supported by affidavit for condoning the delay on the ground that as the treasurer of the appellant Trust was 70 years age and suffering from joint pains and dullness, the first appellate order was out of his memory and, therefore, there was delay of 2 days in filing the appeal. It was prayed that delay of 2 days may be condoned and appeal may be adjudicated on merits. We find that the contention given by the assessee for condoning the delay has not been found to be false. Consequently, we condone the delay of 2 days and admit the appeal for adjudication.

It was submitted by ld AR that the assessee is a charitable trust registered u/s.12A of the Act. It was the submission that registration was granted to the assessee on 25.3.2022. The impugned assessment year is 2019-20. The assessee had filed its return of income on 21.7.2020. The intimation came to be issued, wherein, the CPC has disallowed the entire expenditure claimed by the assessee. It was the submission that rectification application u/s.154 of the Act filed by the assessee was also rejected against which the appeal has been field to the ld CIT(A). It was the submission that the disallowance of expenditure is not permissible insofar as even if the revenue decides to hold that the assessee is not eligible for benefit of deduction u/s.11 & 12 of the Act, income would have been assessed under the head “business” and expenditures are allowable. It was the submission that this was clearly a debatable issue, which could

In reply, ld Sr DR vehemently supported the order of the Assessing Officer and ld CIT(A).

We have considered the rival submissions. A perusal of the facts in the present case clearly shows that in the intimation u/s.143(1) of the Act under the guise of arithmetical error being corrected, the entire expenditure claimed by the assessee has been disallowed. It is not permissible when issuing an intimation u/s.143(1) of the Act. Consequently, the intimation issued by the CPC in the case of the assessee for the assessment year 2019-20 is found to be erroneous and being entered into a debatable issue, same stands quashed.

In the result, appeal of the assessee stands allowed.