KHUBI RAM RAM SARAN DAS DHARMADA TRUST,DELHI vs. PR. CIT (E), DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1795/DEL/2021Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 April 2022AY 2017-183 pages

In favour of the assessee: the assessee's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that since the delay in filing the audit report was condoned by the CIT under Section 119(2)(b) and the AO rectified the order accordingly, the CIT(A) was not justified in sustaining the denial of exemption.

What were the facts?

The assessee claimed exemption under Section 11. The CPC denied this exemption initially due to a belated audit report. However, the CIT (Exemption) condoned the delay under Section 119(2)(b), leading the AO to pass a rectification order allowing the exemption.

What were the issues?

Whether exemption under Section 11 can be denied solely on the ground of a belated audit report when the delay has been condoned by the competent authority under Section 119(2)(b).

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 11,Section 119(2)(b),Section 143(1),Section 154

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH “SMC” NEW DELHI

Before: SHRI CHALLA NAGENDRA PRASAD

Hearing: 15.03.2022

आदेश /O R D E R This appeal is filed by the Assessee against the order of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) dated 10.11.2021 for AY 2017-18 in sustaining the order of the Central Processing Centre, Bengaluru in denying exemption claimed u/s 11 of the Act.

2.

At the outset, Ld. Counsel for the assessee submits that while processing the return u/s 143(1) CPC, Bengaluru denied exemption claimed u/s 11 for the reason that audit report was filed belatedly. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee referring to page 25 of the Paper Book

1.

I.T.A.No.1795/Del/2021 submits that the Assessing Officer passed rectification order allowing the exemption claimed u/s 11 of the Act based on an order passed u/s 119(2)(b) of I.T. Act by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption), New Delhi who has condoned the delay in submissions of Form No. 10B for the assessment year under consideration. Therefore, it is submitted that in view of the order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption) u/s 119(2)(b) condoning the delay in submission of audit report and Form 10B the Ld. CIT(A) (NFAC) is not justified in sustaining the order passed by the CPC, Bengaluru u/s 143(1) in denying the exemption u/s 11 of the Act.

3.

Ld. DR fairly submitted that an order u/s 119(2)(b) was passed condoning the delay in submission of Form No. 10B for the assessment year under consideration by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption) and the Assessing Officer following the said order allowed the relief claimed by the assessee.

4.

On hearing both the sides and perusing the order of the authorities below and the rectification order of the Assessing Officer passed u/s 154 it is very much clear that the Ld. CIT(A)(Exemption), New Delhi passed an order u/s 119(2)(b) condoning the delay in submission of Form No. 10B by the assessee for the AY 2017-18. Based on the said order the Ld. Assessing Officer rightly passed rectification order dated 19.03.2021 allowing the exemption claimed u/s 11 by the assessee. Hence, the I.T.A.No.1795/Del/2021 order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) in sustaining the order of the CPC, Bengaluru is not sustainable. Hence, the order of the Ld. CIT(A) is set aside.

5.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed.

Order pronounced in the open court on 28/04/2022

More judgments on Section 11

All 7,190 judgments and leading authorities on Section 11 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →