SARVA SIDDHI RAJA GANAPATHY TRUST,MUMBAI vs. ACIT (CPC), BANGALORE ( ORIGINAL JURISDICTION WITH ITO (E) - 2 (2), MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 3951/MUM/2019Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 September 2021AY 2010-114 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had not given sufficient opportunity to the assessee and that the pending Section 12A application was a crucial factor. The matter was therefore set aside and remanded for fresh adjudication.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal arose from an order of the CIT(A) upholding the rejection of exemption claims under Section 11. The assessee contended that the CIT(A) did not provide sufficient opportunity to be heard and that their application for registration under Section 12A was pending.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) erred in rejecting exemption claims without providing sufficient opportunity to the assessee, especially when the Section 12A registration was pending.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 11,Section 12A,Section 143(1)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “G” BENCH, MUMBAI

Before: SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, VP & SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, AM

For Appellant: Shri Mehul Shah, AR
Hearing: 31.08.2021Pronounced: 17.09.2021

O R D E R भहावीय स िंह, उऩाध्मक्ष के द्वाया / PER MAHAVIR SINGH, VP: This appeal of the assessee is arising out of order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)]-1, Mumbai [in short CIT(A)], in Appeal No. CIT(A)-1/8/ACIT9CPC)/2016-17 vide dated 09.04.2019. The Assessment was framed by the Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, (CPC), Bangalore (in short ACIT / AO) for the A.Y. 2014-15 vide order dated 09.01.2016 under section 143(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter ‘the Act’).

1.

“1. On the facts, and in the circumstances of the case, and in law, the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeal) erred in not giving sufficient opportunity of being heard.

2.

On the facts, and in circumstances of the case and in law, the learned commissioner of income-tax (Appeal) erred in upholding action of the Assessing Officer in rejecting the claim of the appellant for exemption of income of Trust under section 11 of the income tax Act, 1961 without appreciating that the application for registration was pending with the office of learned DIT(E).

3.

On the facts, and in circumstances of the case, and in law, learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeal) erred in holding that since there was no effective Registration available to the Appellant under section 12A, the Appellant did not qualify to be eligible for exemption under section 11; and not only that, no deduction could be allowed for application of money for charitable objects.” At the outset, the learned Counsel for the assessee stated 3. that the CPC Bangalore sending intimation under section 143(1) of the Act and making prima facie adjustment and actually these are not subject matter of prima facie adjustment being where Sd/- Sd/- (ए रयपऔय यहभान/ S. RIFAUR RAHMAN) (भहावीय स िंह /MAHAVIR SINGH) (रेखा दस्म / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) (उऩाध्मक्ष / VICE PRESIDENT) भुिंफई, ददनािंक/ Mumbai, Dated:17.09.2021 ुदीऩ यकाय ,व .ननजी चिव/ Sudip Sarkar, Sr.PS

More judgments on Section 11

All 7,190 judgments and leading authorities on Section 11 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →