Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
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 ‘B’, NEW DELHI
Before: SH. N. K. BILLAIYA & SH. AMIT SHUKLA
This appeal by the revenue is preferred against the order of the CIT(A), Dehradun dated 16.03.2018 pertaining to A.Y. 2014-15.
The only grievance of the revenue read as under :-
The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and facts in deleting
the additions of Rs.6,43,93,753/- made by the AO against surplus of income while the assessee was holding a valid certificate u/s. 12 A of the I. T. Act.
Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the assessee was registered under U.P. Act No. XVI of 1939. Originally the society has been granted registration u/s.12AA of the I. T. Act 1961. The society is engaged in the following activities :-
During the course of the scrutiny assessment proceedings the AO noticed that the assessee has claimed exemption u/s. 11 of the IT Act, 1961. However, he could not find certificate u/s. 12A for the year under consideration. The AO found that the certificate u/s. 12A as furnished by the assessee is dated 20.10.2014 and the application for certificate u/s. 12A was made on 09.10.2014. The AO accordingly denied the claim of exemption u/s. 11 of the Act and treated Rs.6,43,93,753/- as business
Assessee agitated the matter before the CIT(A) and furnished all the relevant documents/ certificates for the eligibility of section 11 of the Act. After considering the submissions and the relevant documentary evidences the CIT(A) held as under :-
“15. After going through all the documents, the observations and conclusions of the undersigned are as below. It may also be mentioned that the submissions of the assessee were sent to the AO for remand report. All the conclusions below are after taking the observation of the AO in remand report. i) There is an order on record for A.Y. 2012-13 which refers to registration being granted to #assessee u/s 12A. The order u/s 143(3) also gives a number of the circular of the CIT(Lucknow) which granted the' registration. ii) The assessee has placed on record several other subsequent orders wherein it has been clearly mentionedthat the assessee is a society registered u/s 12AA. There has never been the issue of the assessee not having a valid registration u/s 12AA. iii) The assessee has submitted Form 10 on 29.09.2014 to the ITO, Srinagar, Garhwal, Uttarakhand in manual form. This was also electronically submitted later in December 2016.
There is a decision of the Supreme Court of India in Nagpur Hotel Owners Association 247 ITR 201 saying that delay in submitting Form 10 for claim of exemption u/s 11 can be condoned and the form can be submitted on a later date.
The assessee has regularlyreceived benefit u/s 80G and exemption u/s 10(23C) has also regularly been issued in favour of the assessee. These benefits would not have been extended to the assessee had it not had the valid registration u/s 12A.
The AO in his remand report has also mentioned that the assessee is a renowned place of worship and continuously registered u/s 80G of the I.T. Act, 1961.
With regard to issue of fresh certificate u/s 12AA valid from 20.10.2014, the AO in his remand report submitted that the earlier AO opined that the assessee is not eligible for exemption u/s 11 in the absence of valid certificate u/s 12A. Further, it may be mentioned that there have been no change in the aims and objectives of the assessee and therefore, the fresh registration would even apply to the earlier years. In any case, that the assessee had valid registration u/s 12A in earlier years as apparent from the records (including that of the department itself). The assessee has applied for the fresh registration u/s 12A only because the earlier
order went missing. The Uttarakhand floods are well known natural calamity and that certain documents of the assessee went missing in that, is a completely acceptable explanation. Under these circumstances, the addition made by the AO is deleted.”
Before us though the DR strongly supported the assessment order but could not bring out any factual error in the findings of the CIT(A). The counsel reiterated what has been stated before the CIT(A).
We have given a thoughtful consideration to the orders of the authorities below. It is an undisputed fact that the certificates/ documents were lost in the Uttarakhand floods. It is also not in dispute that the assessee trust has been granted the registration u/s. 12A since 1972. Since all the certificates / documents have been furnished and examined by the CIT(A). We do not find any reason to interfere with the findings of the CIT(A). The appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed.
In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed.
Decision announced in the open court in the presence of both the representatives on 08.07.2021.