← Back to search

SAMPURNA FAMILY TRUST,KOLKATA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, MUMBAI

PDF
ITA 6676/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 February 20253 pages

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, MUMBAI BENCH “F” MUMBAI

Before: SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT () & MS. KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL () Assessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Ms. Sutana Roy Choudhary
For Respondent: Mr. Manish Sareen, CIT-DR (on behalf of Sr. DR)
Hearing: 10/02/2025Pronounced: 11/02/2025

PER OM PRAKASH KANT, AM This appeal by the assessee is directed against order dated 06.11.2024 passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) – National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [in short ‘the Ld. CIT(A)’] for assessment year 2017-18, raising following grounds:

I.
For tha the ass exempt
143(1) the said to the la
II.
For tha return f defectiv
FORM I in ITR-7
said Ac
Section of Rs.
sustain
III.
For tha sum of returne not disp
IV.
For tha the app compris
Compan interest u/s 10( tax free said Ac
V.
For tha
Trust o instead said ret made u lawful e
VI.
For tha appella due to return e
VII.
For tha appella said Ac fact tha
VIII.
to file r be rectif
IX.
For tha adjustm
Section the bas claimed
X.
For tha of Rs. 1
143(1) o
S
ITA at the order passed by Ld. CIT(A) dated 06.1
sessment year 2017-18 in confirming the a ed income of Rs. 15,83,820/- by the intim of the Income tax Act, 1961( hereinafter refe d Act') is erroneous, bad, perverse and in co aws and facts.
at Ld. CIT(A) ought to have appreciated tha filed by the appellant in FORM ITR-7 was erro ve as the appellant ought to have filed its ITR-V to claim its unlawful exemptions, the s
7 being invalid could not be processed u/s 14
ct and thus the assessment/ adjustment ma
143(1) of the said Act disallowing the exemp
15,83,820/- is bad, perverse, arbitrary nable in the eyes of law.
t Ld. CIT(A) erred in holding that the appellan
Rs. 54,24,864/- for the said assessment yea d income of the appellant is Rs. 38,41,040/- puted t Ld. CIT(A) ought to have considered that the pellant Trust was exempted from tax inasm sed of dividend income from Domestic Priva ny of Rs. 969,474/- ( exempted u/s 10(34)) t on IREDA Tax Free Bond of Rs. 5,98,500/ -
(15)(iv)(h) ) and Long Term Capital Gains on e bonds of Rs. 15,846/- (exempted u/s 10( ct.
t Ld. CIT(A) ought to have considered that the ought to have filed it's return in FORM ITR- d erroneously filed the same in FORM ITR-7 an turn is not valid in law, no adjustment could under Section 143(1)(a) of the said Act disal exemptions.
at Ld. CIT(A) ought to have appreciated ant Trust despite of best efforts couldn't rectify the portal being closed and the time to f expired.
at Ld. CITA) was not justified in holding ant didn't file revised return under Section 13
ct to claim exemption correctly without appre at the time by which the appellant was notifie revised return expired and thus the same co ified nor a revised.
at Ld. CIT(A) erred in holding that the ment was made under Section 143(1)(a)(ii
139(9) of the Act as claimed by the appella sis of records no violation is found on the d by the appellant.
at Ld. CIT(A) was not justified in confirming th
15,83,820/- at the stage of proceedings und of the said Act thereby dismissing the appeal
Sampurna Family Trust
2
A No. 6676/MUM/2024
11.2024 for addition of mation u/s ferred to as ontradiction at since the oneous and s return in said return
43(1) of the ade under.
pted income y and not nt earned a ar when the which was e income of much as it ate Limited
) ; accrued
( exempted the sale of (35)) of the e appellant
-V but had nd thus the have been llowing the d that the y the return file revised g that the 39(5) of the eciating the d, the time uld neither impugned i) and not ant and on records as he addition der Section .

XI.
For tha dismiss pervers
2. At the very outs before the bench tha appeal. A formal w placed on record. In stands dismissed as w
3. In the result, th
Order pronoun (KAVITHA RA
JUDICIAL M
Mumbai;
Dated: 11/02/2025
Rahul Sharma, Sr. P.S.

Copy of the Order forward
1. The Appellant
2. The Respondent.
3. CIT
4. DR, ITAT, Mumbai
5. Guard file.

////

S
ITA at the impugned order of CIT( A) dated 06. sing the appeal is otherwise bad, erron se.
set, learned counsel for the asse at the assessee seeks to withdr ritten request for withdrawal n view of the aforesaid submiss withdrawn.
he appeal of the assessee is dism ced in the open Court on 11/0
/-
S
AJAGOPAL)
(OM PRAK
MEMBER
ACCOUNTA ded to :

BY ORDER

(Assistant Re

ITAT, Mu

Sampurna Family Trust
3
A No. 6676/MUM/2024
11.2024 in neous and essee submitted raw the present has also been sion, the appeal missed.
02/2025. KASH KANT)
ANT MEMBER
R, gistrar) umbai

SAMPURNA FAMILY TRUST,KOLKATA vs INCOME TAX OFFICER, MUMBAI | BharatTax