Loading judgment…
Facts
The Revenue appealed the CIT(A)'s order deleting an addition of Rs. 4,42,543/- made on account of income not offered in the original return but offered in a belated revised return. The Revenue also contested the allowance of exemption under Section 11(2) due to cancellation of 12A registration.
Held
The Tribunal dismissed the appeal as not maintainable, citing CBDT Circular No. 9/2024 which sets a monetary limit for filing appeals. The tax effect in this case was Rs. 4,42,543/-, significantly below the Rs. 60 Lakhs limit, and the circular applies to pending appeals.
Key Issues
Whether the appeal is maintainable given the low tax effect below the monetary limit specified in CBDT Circular No. 9/2024. Whether exemption under Section 11(2) was rightly granted despite alleged cancellation of 12A registration.
Sections Cited
11(2), 12AA(3), 250
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “B’’ BENCH: BANGALORE
Before: SHRI LAXMI PRASAD SAHU & SHRI KESHAV DUBEY
Assessment Year : 2015-16 Asst. commissioner of Income Tax Rajiv Gandhi University of Health Sciences 4th T Block Jayanagar – 560041 Room No. 606, 6th Floor Karnataka Unity Building Annexe Vs. P. Kalinga Rao Road – 560027 PAN : AAALF0023C Karnataka APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessee by : Sri Suman Lunkar, CA Department by : Sri Muthu Shankar, CIT DR Date of Hearing : 31.07.2025 Date of Pronouncement : 31.07.2025 O R D E R PER KESHAV DUBEY: This appeal at the instance of the revenue is directed against the order of the ld. CIT(A)/NFAC dated 22.11.2023 vide DIN & Order No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2023-24/1058121040(1) passed u/s.250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”).for the A.Y.2015-16.
The Revenue has raised the following grounds of appeal: - “I. The order of Ld. CIT(A) is opposed to facts and circumstances of the case; II. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition made by the AO on account of income of Rs.4,42,543/- not offered for taxation for A.Y.2015-16 despite the fact that the said income was not offered for taxation in the original Return of Income filed on 28.10.2015 which is a valid Return; III. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition made by the AO on account of income of Rs.4,42,543/- not offered for taxation for A. Y.2015-16 on the ground that the same was offered for taxation by the assessee in the revised Return of Income for A.Y.2015-16 while the Revised Return so filed was belated and not valid; Rajiv Gandhi University of Health Sciences Page 2 of 4. IV. The Ld.CIT(A) erred in allowing assessee's claim of exemption u/s. 11(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 although the 12A registration granted to the assessee had been cancelled by the learned DIT(Exemptions) vide order dated 08.11.2011 u/s.12AA(3) and the assessee was not eligible for exemption u/s.11(2), despite the fact that the AO had rightly denied the exemption; V. The appellant craves leave to add, alter or amend all or any of the Grounds of Appeal
before or at the time of the hearing of the appeal; VI. The order of the Ld. CIT(A) may be set-aside and the order of the AO may be confirmed”.
3. On going through the above grounds of appeal, we take a note of the fact that the Revenue has mainly challenged the deletion of income amounting to Rs.4,42,543/- not offered for taxation in the original return of Income but offered for taxation in revised return which is belated & hence not a valid return. Further, the revenue in the Ground No. IV above has also contested that the ld. CIT(A)/NFAC erred in allowing assessee’s claim of exemption u/s 11(2) of the Act although the 12A registration granted to the assessee had been cancelled by the DIT(Exemptions) vide order dated 08.11.2011 under section 12AA(3) of the Act.
The ld. AR of the assessee Smt. Suman Lunkar, CA during the course of hearing on 21/01/2025 fervently submitted that the Registration u/s 12A of the assessee was not cancelled by the Department and if cancelled, the due process including the service of the cancellation Order was not followed. This Bench vide Order sheet dated 21/01/2024, had directed the ld. DR to produce the copy of cancellation of 12A registration certificate and accordingly the Ld. Departmental Representative drew our attention to the copy of e-mail from the ld. DCIT(Exemptions), Bangalore stating the fact that as per the records, the CIT(E) has not withdrawn the 12A registration. Although the assessing officer(AO) mentioned this in the assessment order, the computation sheet reflects a 15% benefit. This being so, this ground of the revenue is dismissed.
Rajiv Gandhi University of Health Sciences Page 3 of 4 5. Now with regard to the deletion of income not offered for taxation in the original return of Income, the total tax effect as per Form No.36 is Rs.4,42,543/- only which is way below the monetary limit specified under the Board Circular No. 9 of 2024 dated 17.09.2024. We are of the opinion that Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT v. Delhi Race Club Limited In ITA 128 of 2008 order dated 03.03.2011 by following the earlier order dated 02.08.2010 in ITA 179/ 1991 in the case of CIT Delhi-III v. M/s. P.S. Jain & Co. held that such circular would also be applicable to pending cases also.
From the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court, it is clear that orders / Instructions / Directions issued by the CBDT by way of circular are applicable for pending cases also. Therefore, keeping in view the ratio laid down in the aforesaid referred two cases, we are of the considered view that Circular No. 9/2024 dated 17.09.2024 issued by the CBDT are also applicable for the pending cases and in the said circular monetary tax limit for not filing the appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal is Rs. 60 Lakhs whereas in the present appeal the total tax effect as stated by Ld. DR is only Rs. 4,42,543/-. Further, it is affirmed in the circular that it shall also apply to the SLP/Appeals pending before Supreme Court / High Court / Tribunal which may accordingly be withdrawn. In view of the above, without going to the merits of this issue, we dismiss the appeal filed by the revenue as not maintainable.
In the result, appeal of the revenue stands dismissed.