BEAWAR BAL VIKAS SAMITTEE,BEAWAR vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS), JAIPUR

PDF · subscribers
ITA 358/JPR/2018Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur26 October 2018AY 2017-185 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the assessee's application was filed within the time prescribed by the fourteenth proviso to Section 10(23C)(vi). Therefore, the approval should have been granted from Assessment Year 2017-18.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed an application for approval under Section 10(23C)(vi) on January 5, 2017. The CIT (Exemptions) granted the approval but made it effective from Assessment Year 2018-19, instead of the requested Assessment Year 2017-18.

What were the issues?

Whether the approval under Section 10(23C)(vi) should be granted from the assessment year applied for, considering the application was filed within the stipulated time.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 10(23C)(vi)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, JAIPUR BENCHES, JAIPUR

Before: SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, JM & SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 358/JP/2018

For Appellant: Shri Manish Vyas (CA) jktLo dh vksj ls@

PER VIJAY PAL RAO, JM : This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order dated 17th January,

2018 passed by the ld. CIT (Exemptions), Jaipur under section 10(23C)(vi) of the

I.T. Act. The assessee has raised the following grounds :-

“ On the facts and circumstances of the case the learned CIT (Exemptions) was not justified in providing the approval under section 10(23C)(vi) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 with effect from Assessment Year 2018-19 as ordered on page no. 03 of the Approval Order, in spite of fact that the application was received in the office of the learned CIT (Exemptions) on 5th January, 2017 and approval should have been granted on and from Financial Year 01.04.2016 to 31.03.2017 i.e. from Assessment Year 2017-18.”

2.

The only grievance of the assessee in this appeal is that the approval granted

by the ld. CIT (Exemptions) is from assessment year 2018-19 instead of the

2 ITA No. 358/JP/2018 Beawar Bal Vikas Samittee, Beawar.

assessment year 2017-18. The assessee filed application in Form No. 56D seeking

approval under section 10(23C)(vi) of the IT Act. The ld. CIT (Exemptions) has

granted the approval to the assessee vide impugned order from assessment year

2018-19 onwards.

3.

The ld. A/R of the assessee has submitted that the assessee filed the application on 5th January, 2017 and, therefore, as per the fourteenth proviso to

section 10(23C)(vi) the approval ought to have been granted for the assessment

year 2017-18. He has further submitted that the assessee furnished all the relevant

record including the books of account for last 4 years for the examination of the ld.

CIT (Exemptions), hence the approval granted from the assessment year 2018-19 is

not justified when the application of the assessee was filed well within the time as

per the fourteenth proviso to section 10(23C)(vi).

4.

On the other hand, the ld. D/R has relied upon the impugned order of the ld.

CIT (Exemptions) and submitted that the assessee has amended the objects on

18.01.2018, therefore, the ld. CIT (Exemptions) is right in granting the approval

from the A.Y. 2018-19.

5.

We have considered the rival submissions as well as the relevant material on

record. We note that the ld. CIT (exemptions) was satisfied with the objects of the

assessee being charitable in nature as well as genuineness of the activity of the

assessee after examination and verification of the relevant record. However, while

granting the approval, the ld. CIT (Exemptions) has stated that this order is

applicable for the assessment year 2018-19 onwards. The ld. CIT (Exemptions) has

not given or recorded any reasons for granting approval from A.Y. 2018-19 when

there is a specific provision as provided in fourteenth proviso to section 10(23C)(vi)

as under :-

3 ITA No. 358/JP/2018 Beawar Bal Vikas Samittee, Beawar.

“ Provided also that in case of the fund or trust or institution or any university or other educational institution or any hospital or other medical institution referred to in the first proviso makes an application or after the 1st day of June, 2006 for the purpose of grant of exemption or continuance thereof, such application shall be made on or before the 30th day of September of the relevant assessment year from which the exemption is sought.”

Thus the fourteenth proviso to section 10(23C)(vi) requires the assessee to make an application on or before 30th September of the relevant assessment year from which

the exemption is sought. In the case in hand, the assessee undisputedly filed the application on 5th January, 2017 and, therefore, the application was filed well within

the time as provided under the said proviso and hence there was no reason for not

granting the exemptions from the assessment year 2017-18. Accordingly, in view of

the facts and circumstances of the case as well as in the light of the fourteenth

proviso to section 10(23C)(vi), we modify the impugned order of the ld. CIT

(Exemptions) that the exemption is applicable from the A.Y. 2017-18.

6.

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed.

Order is pronounced in the open court on 26/10/2018.

Sd/- Sd/- (foØe flag ;kno) (fot; iky jkWo ½ (VIKRAM SINGH YADAV ) (VIJAY PAL RAO) U;kf;d lnL;@Judicial Member ys[kk lnL;@Accountant Member

Jaipur Dated:- 26/10/2018. Das/

4 ITA No. 358/JP/2018 Beawar Bal Vikas Samittee, Beawar.

आदेश की प्रतिलिपि अग्रेषित@ब्वचल वf जीम वतकमत वितूंतकमक जवरू

1.

The Appellant- Beawar Bal Vikas Samittee, Beawar. 2. The Respondent – The CIT (Exemptions), Jaipur. 3. The CIT(A). 4. The CIT, 5. The DR, ITAT, Jaipur 6. Guard File (ITA No. 358/JP/2018) vkns'kkuqlkj@ By order,

सहायक पंजीकार@ Aेेपेजंदज. त्महपेजतंत

5 ITA No. 358/JP/2018 Beawar Bal Vikas Samittee, Beawar.

More judgments on Section 10(23C)(vi)

All 517 judgments and leading authorities on Section 10(23C)(vi) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →