GUJARAT INDUSTRIAL INVESTMENT CORPORATION LIMITED EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND,GANDHINAGAR vs. THE ITO, WARD-1(EXEMPTIONS), AHMEDABAD
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “SMC” BENCH, AHMEDABAD
Before: DR. BRR KUMAR & SHRI SIDDHARTHA NAUTIYAL
PER SIDDHARTHA NAUTIYAL - JUDICIAL MEMBER:
This appeal has been filed by the Assessee against the order passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), (in short “Ld. CIT(A)”),
ADDL/JCIT (A)-2, Guwahati vide order dated 26.02.2025 passed for A.Y.
2022-23. 2. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:
“1. Whether, on facts and in circumstances of the case and in law, Ld. CIT(A) has erred in confirming the adjustment u/s. 143(1) of the act amounting to Rs.43,49,352?
Whether, on facts and in circumstances of the case and in law, Ld. CIT(A) has erred in charging “Gross Income” instead of “Net Income” while processing return u/s. 14391) of the act? Asst. Year –2022-23 - 2–
Without prejudice to what has been stated above, whether, on facts and in circumstances of the case and in law, Ld. CIT(A) has erred in not allowing deduction of Rs.41,32,006/- u/s. 57 of the Income tax act?
Whether, on facts and in circumstances of the case and in law, Ld. CIT(A) has erred in not allowing exemption u/s 10(25) r.w.s. 2(38) of the I.T. Act amounting to Rs.43,49,352?
Further, appellant craves leave to add, amend, alter or withdraw all or any ground of appeal.”
The brief facts of the case are that the assessee, a trust, filed it’s return declaring Nil income under the head "Income from Other Sources". The Centralized Processing Centre (CPC), Bengaluru processed the return under Section 143(1) of the Income Tax Act (Act) and made an adjustment of ₹43,49,352/-, thereby computing the total income at that amount. The adjustment was made on account of the disallowance of exemption claimed under Section 10(23AAA) of the Act.
The assessee filed appeal before CIT(Appeals) against the intimation order passed CPC. The assessee contended during appellate proceedings before CIT(Appeals) that its income was actually exempt under alternative provisions as well, namely Sections 10(25) or 10(38) read with Section 2(38) of the Act, even if exemption under Section 10(23AAA) was not allowable. Asst. Year –2022-23 - 3– Asst. Year –2022-23 - 4–
income under any other applicable provision of the Act, as claimed by the assessee during appellate proceedings. In view of the above, and in the interest of justice, we deem it appropriate to set aside the order passed by the CIT(Appeals) and restore the matter to the file of the Juri ictional Assessing
Officer (JAO). The JAO shall examine the alternate claim of exemption under Sections 10(25) or 10(38) read with Section 2(38) of the Act, after giving the assessee an adequate opportunity of being heard and to furnish the necessary evidence in support of such claim. We clarify that we have not expressed any opinion on the merits of the claim, and the JAO shall decide the issue in accordance with law.
In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. This Order pronounced in Open Court on 06/08/2025 (DR. BRR KUMAR) JUDICIAL MEMBER Ahmedabad; Dated 06/08/2025
TANMAY, Sr. PSआदेश की Ůितिलिप अŤेिषत/Copy of the Order forwarded to :
1. अपीलाथŎ / The Appellant
2. ŮȑथŎ / The Respondent.
3. संबंिधत आयकर आयुƅ / Concerned CIT
4. आयकर आयुƅ(अपील) / The CIT(A)-
5. िवभागीय Ůितिनिध, आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, अहमदाबाद / DR, ITAT, Ahmedabad
6. गाडŊ फाईल / Guard file.
आदेशानुसार/ BY ORDER,
उप/सहायक पंजीकार (Dy./Asstt.