INSTITUTE MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE ITI JHALAWAR,JHALAWAR vs. ITO WARD JHALAWAR, JHALAWAR

ITA 41/JPR/2025Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur05 May 2025AY 2014-1543 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the authorities below were not justified in treating the returns as invalid solely on the ground that they were not filed within the time prescribed under Section 139(1). The Tribunal noted that the third proviso to Section 148, which disallows returns filed beyond the allowed period from being deemed as a return under Section 139, was inserted only w.e.f. 01.04.2023 and was not applicable to the assessment years in question. Prior to this amendment, returns furnished under Section 148 were to be treated as returns required to be furnished under Section 139. The Tribunal also found merit in the assessee's contention that they were not required to furnish a return under Section 139(1) or 139(4C) as the department had not brought to its notice that the assessee's total income (without giving effect to Section 10) exceeded the maximum amount not chargeable to tax. Consequently, the Tribunal concluded that the authorities below erred in disallowing the claims for exemption under Section 10. The appeals were allowed, and the impugned orders were set aside. The issue of charging interest under Sections 234A, 234B, and 234C was not expressly decided as the primary issue of exemption was allowed.

What were the facts?

The assessee, an AOP (Trust) for ITAT Jaipur Bench, filed appeals against the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, for assessment years 2013-14 and 2014-15. The appeals challenge assessment orders dated 21.03.2022 passed under Section 144 read with Section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, by the National Faceless Assessment Centre. The dispute arose because the assessee claimed exemption under Section 10(23C)(iiiad) on interest income of Rs. 28,50,637/- for AY 2013-14 and Rs. 27,47,673/- for AY 2014-15. The Assessing Officer denied this exemption and confirmed the additions, citing non-filing of the return of income within the due date prescribed under Section 139(1) and the assessee's registration under Section 12AA being granted only on 19.02.2019.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the impugned orders and actions taken under Section 147/148 read with Section 144B are bad in law, illegal, invalid, void-ab-initio for want of jurisdiction, without proper approval, barred by limitation, and for various other reasons, hence liable to be quashed? (Question of law and fact, turning on Sections 147, 148, 151). 2. Whether the addition of Rs. 28,50,637/- (AY 2013-14) and Rs. 27,47,673/- (AY 2014-15) by confirming the denial of exemption under Section 10(23C)(iiiad) is erroneous, considering the assessee's eligibility and the material on record? (Question of law and fact, turning on Section 10(23C)(iiiad)). 3. Whether the charging of interest under Sections 234A, 234B, and 234C is erroneous and liable for deletion? (Question of law and fact, turning on Sections 234A, 234B, 234C). Assessee's Contentions: The assessee argued that the notices and assessment orders were bad in law and void-ab-initio. They contended that the exemption under Section 10(23C)(iiiad) should be allowed as the income was utilized for the objects of the society, and there was no fraudulent intention for not filing the return within the due date. They urged that the returns filed under Section 148 should be treated as valid returns filed under Section 139(1). The assessee also argued that they were not required to file a return under Section 139(1) or 139(4C) as their total income, without giving effect to Section 10, did not exceed the maximum amount not chargeable to tax. They also submitted that the proviso to Section 148 disallowing returns filed beyond the period allowed was inserted only w.e.f. 01.04.2023 and was not applicable to the relevant period. Revenue's Contentions: The revenue argued that the returns filed in response to Section 148 notices were required to be filed within the prescribed period, and failure to do so justified declaring the returns invalid and declining exemptions under Section 10.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 144,Section 147,Section 148,Section 151,Section 139(1),Section 139(4C),Section 234A,Section 234B,Section 234C,Section 12AA

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(21)Show list

Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, JAIPUR BENCHES,SMC” JAIPUR

Before: SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM & SHRI NARINDER KUMAR, JM

For Appellant: Adv. राजस्व की ओर से /
Hearing: 19/03/2025Pronounced: 05/05/2025

PER: RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM On being aggrieved by the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [ for short CIT(A) ] dated 25/11/2024 the above named assessee preferred the present appeal. The dispute relates to the assessment years 2013-14 & 2014-15. The said order of the Id. CIT(A) arises because the assessee has challenged the assessment order dated 21.03.2022 passed under section 144

The order continues below.

Read the full judgment

A free account opens 10 full judgments a month. Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.

Create a free accountSign in

See plans and prices

The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.

More judgments on Section 147

All 49,210 judgments and leading authorities on Section 147 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →