SREE SREE MOHAN MANDIR ASHRAM TRUST,BIRBHUM vs. ITO, WARD-2(1) EXEMP. PREVIOUSLY ADIT CIR., 33, SURI, DURGAPUR

PDF · subscribers
ITA 6/KOL/2022Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata22 April 2022AY 2015-164 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the disallowance of a claim for exemption under Section 11(2) cannot be made as a prima facie adjustment during the processing of a return under Section 143(1). Such issues require adjudication by the Assessing Officer.

What were the facts?

The assessee trust claimed deduction under Section 11(2) of the Income Tax Act. The processing of the return under Section 143(1) disallowed this claim. The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal against this disallowance.

What were the issues?

Whether a claim for deduction under Section 11(2) can be disallowed during the summary processing of a return under Section 143(1) without proper adjudication. Whether the disallowance violates principles of natural justice.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 11(2),Section 143(1)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, KOLKATA BENCH ‘A(SMC

Before: SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, HON’BLE & SHRI SONJOY SARMA, HON’BLE]

order

: April 22, 2022 ORDER

PER SONJOY SARMA, JM

1.

This is appeal filed by the assessee against the order of Ld. CIT(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre dated 15.11.2021 for A.Y. 2015-16. The assessee in this appeal has taken the following grounds of appeal:

“i. For that the order of the authorities below is arbitrary, opposed to requirement of law and not tenable in law. ii. For that order of the CIT(A) is neither tenable in law nor in facts and is void ab initio opposed to requirement of law and bad in law. iii. For that disallowance of claim of Rs. 33,70,738/- u/s 11(2) of the Act u/s 143(1) of the Act is opposed to requirement of law, without jurisdiction and bad in law. Such action is neither tenable in law nor in facts. iv. For that the order of the authorities below without providing opportunities of being heard is not tenable in law and denial of natural justice. v. For that the appellant craves leave to amend, alter, add, delete or substitute any other grounds of appeal before or at the time of hearing of the appeal.”

2. In this case, the intimation u/s 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was processed electronically by the central processing centre of Income Tax Department situated at Bangalore for A.Y. 2015-16. While doing so, the claim of the assessee for deduction u/s 11(2) of the Act was disallowed.

3. Aggrieved by the order, the appellant preferred an appeal before the ld. CIT(A) and ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the appellant.

4.

The ld. AR submitted that the order of the authorities below was passed without providing opportunities of being heard, therefore, it is not tenable in law and it is denial of natural justice. The ld. AR relied on the following decision in defence of his argument: “i. Shree Shree Mohanananda Samaj (ITA 1187 & 1188/Kol/2018) ii. Paramarth Sadhak Sangh (ITA 1235/Kol/2018) iii. Parmartha Sadhak Sangha (ITA 580/Kol/2019)”

5.

On the other hand, the ld. DR relied on the decision of the CIT(A) and supporting the order of lower authorities.

6.

We have heard rival contentions and perused the records placed before us. The assessee raised five grounds of appeal before us, ground no. 1, 4 & 5 are general in nature, therefore, no need for adjudication. Ground no. 2 & 3 are goes roots of the case, hence we going to decide the same. While

3 Assessment Year: 2015-16 Sree Sree Mohan Mandir Ashram Trust going through the case, we find that the co-ordinate bench of the Tribunal in the case of Shree Shree Mohanananda Samaj Seva Samity being ITA No. 1187 & 1188/Kol/2018 observed as under: “Be as it may, disallowance in question cannot be made as a prima facie adjustment, while processing the return u/s 143(1) of the Act. The issue whether the assessee is entitled for exemption u/s 11(2) of the Act and the issue whether the activities of the assessee confirm the provisions u/s 2(15) of the Act and the provision of section 11(1)(e) Act cannot be adjudicated while processing the return u/s 143(1) that too by a machine. Hence we delete the disallowance made and direct the AO to allow the claim of the assessee.”

7.

Keeping in view of the fact and the circumstances of the case and relying on the decision of co-ordinate bench (supra) we are of the view that while processing the return u/s 143(1) of the Act, the issue whether the assessee is entitled for exemption u/s 11(2) of the Act cannot be adjudicated. Hence, we direct the AO to verify the claim of the assessee afresh and pass appropriate order in accordance with law.

More judgments on Section 11(2)

All 762 judgments and leading authorities on Section 11(2) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →