RAVINDRA SHIKSHAN PRASARAK MANDAL,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER (EXEMPTION), THANE

PER SAKTIJIT DEY, V.P.: This is an appeal by the assessee against the order dated 24.06.2024 passed by the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi pertaining to Assessment Year (AY) 2014-15. 2. The dispute in the present appeal concerns denial of claim of exemption under Section (u/s.) 11 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter called the ‘Act’). AY 2014-15 3. Briefly the facts are, the assessee is stated to be a Charitable Trust registered under the Provisions of Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950 and stated to be engaged in imparting education by running school from Nursery to 10th Standard. The assessee is also registered u/s. 12A of the Act. For the assessment year under dispute, assessee filed its return of income on 30.09.2014, declaring NIL income after claiming exemption u/s. 11 of the Act. In course of assessment proceeding, the Assessing Officer wanted to verify the veracity of assessee’s claim of exemption u/s. 11 of the Act. Accordingly, he called upon the assessee to furnish various details. While going through the details furnished by the assessee, he observed that the assessee had paid remuneration amounting to Rs.18,58,500/- to a specified person, which is unreasonable and excessive. Hence, such act on the part of the assessee violates the provisions of Section 13(1) (c) (ii) read with Section 13(2)(c) of the Act. He further observed that the assessee had given interest free loan to one of the trustees. It is also in violation of aforesaid provision. Alleging such violation, the Assessing Officer ultimately concluded that assessee is not entitled to claim exemption u/s. 11 of the Act. In similar line, he passed the assessment order. Against the assessment order so passed, the assessee preferred an appeal before the First Appellate Authority. However, vide the impugned order assessee’s appeal was dismissed. AY 2014-15 4. Before us, learned counsel appearing for the assessee submitted that various submissions made and evidences furnished in course of appellate proceeding have not at all being considered/examined by First Appellate Authority. He submitted, identical orders were passed by the First Appellate Authority in assessee’s case in A.Ys 2015-16 and 2017-18. He submitted, taking cognizance of the fact that the First Appellate Authority has dismissed the appeal without properly considering the facts and material on record, the Tribunal has set aside the orders of the First Appellate Authority. Learned counsel submitted, since various evidences furnished before the First Appellate Authority were not properly examined and which requires to be examined by the Assessing Officer, the proper course would be restore the issue to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication. In this context, he drew our attention to the order of the Tribunal for the A.Y. 2017-18. 5. The learned Departmental Representative (DR) relied upon the observations of the First Appellate Authority. 6. Having considered rival submissions, we find, under identical facts and circumstances, the orders passed by learned First Appellate Authority, the assessee’s own case in A.Ys. 2015-16 and 2017-18 have been set aside and issues have been restored back to the First Appellate Authority and the Assessing Officer, respectively. However, considering the fact that AY 2014-15 Order pronounced in the open court on 13/01/2025. (GIRISH AGRAWAL) (SAKTIJIT DEY) (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) (VICE PRESIDENT)

Mumbai, Dated: 13.01.2025
Aks/-

Copy of the Order forwarded to :

The Appellant, The Respondent, The CIT, The DR ITAT & Guard File

BY ORDER,//

Sr. Private Secretary/ Asst.