UNITED CHURCH,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, EXEMPTION WARD, VISAKHAPATNAM

PDF · subscribers
ITA 340/VIZ/2019Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam07 February 2020AY 2011-122 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that since the assessee did not possess 12A registration, the Assessing Officer was justified in treating it as an Association of Persons (AOP) and taxing its income at the maximum marginal rate (MMR). This decision was confirmed by the CIT(A).

What were the facts?

The assessee, M/s. United Church, filed an appeal against the CIT(A)'s order upholding the Assessing Officer's decision. The appeal was filed with a delay of 42 days, which the tribunal condoned due to sufficient cause.

What were the issues?

The primary issue was whether the assessee, a church, could be taxed at MMR as an AOP when it lacked 12A registration.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 12A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, VISAKHAPATNAM “SMC” BENCH, VISAKHAPATNAM

Before: SHRI V. DURGA RAO, HON’BLE

For Appellant: Shri R.L.N. Somayajulu, CA
For Respondent: Shri B.Rama Krishna, Sr.DR
Hearing: 03/02/2020

Assessee by : Shri R.L.N. Somayajulu, CA. Department By : Shri B.Rama Krishna, Sr.DR Date of hearing : 03/02/2020. Date of pronouncement : 07/02/2020. O R D E R This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-9, Hyderabad, dated 30/01/2019 for the Assessment Year 2011-12.

2.

There is a delay of 42 days in filing this appeal. The assessee has filed an affidavit wherein he explained belated filing of the appeal. I find that there is a sufficient cause in condone the delay. Accordingly, delay is condoned.

3.

The only issue involved in this appeal is whether ld. CIT(A) is justified in upholding the order of the Assessing Officer by treating the assessee as AOP and levy the tax at MMR. The case of the (M/s. United Church) assessee is that assessee is a Church, therefore taxing at MMR is not correct. The Assessing Officer has taxed at MMR on the ground that assessee is not having 12A registration, the same is upheld by the ld. CIT(A). When the assessee is not having 12A registration, the Assessing Officer has rightly treated the assessee as AOP and taxed at MMR, which was rightly confirmed by the ld.CIT(A). Thus, I find no reason to interfere with the order passed by the ld. CIT(A). Thus, this appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed.

4.

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed. Order Pronounced in open Court on this 07th day of Feb., 2020.

More judgments on Section 12A

All 6,064 judgments and leading authorities on Section 12A →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →