INDIAN CORRUGATED CASE MANUFACTURERS ASSOCIATION,MUMBAI vs. ITO (E) -1 (3), MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 3369/MUM/2018Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 February 2020AY 2014-154 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the exemption under Section 11 could not be denied solely based on the erroneous status mentioned in the return, especially since the assessee is a registered trust with charitable objects. The matter was remanded to the AO for fresh adjudication.

What were the facts?

The assessee, a company registered under Section 25 of the Companies Act and registered under Section 12A of the Income Tax Act, mistakenly declared its status as 'Company' instead of 'AOP(Trust)' in its PAN application and income tax return. This led to the disallowance of its exemption claim under Section 11.

What were the issues?

Whether the exemption under Section 11 can be denied due to a clerical error in declaring the assessee's status as 'Company' instead of 'AOP(Trust)' when it is a registered trust.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 11,Section 12,Section 13,Section 12A,Section 143(1),Section 154

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “C”, BENCH

Before: SHRI C.N. PRASAD, JM & SHRI M.BALAGANESH, AM

For Appellant: Shri Vipul Joshi & Shri Ashok Patil
For Respondent: Shri Kumar Padmapani Bora
Hearing: 04/02/2020Pronounced: 20/02/2020

आदेश / O R D E R PER M. BALAGANESH (A.M): This appeal in A.Y.2014-15 arises out of the order by the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-6, Mumbai in appeal No. CIT(A)-6/IT-4/119/2017-18 dated 26/03/2018 (ld. CIT(A) in short) against the order of assessment passed u/s.143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as Act).

2.

The only issue to be decided in this appeal is as to whether the ld. CIT(A) was justified in upholding the action of the ld. AO in disallowing

1.

M/s. Indian Corrugated Care Manufacturers Association the exemption u/s.11 & 12 of the Act in the facts and circumstances of the case.

3.

We have heard rival submissions and perused the materials available on record. We find that assessee is a company incorporated u/s.25 of the Companies Act, 1956. While applying for PAN, the assessee had mentioned the status as ‘Company’ instead of ‘AOP(Trust)’. The PAN allotted to the company is AACCI1723K. Even in the Income Tax Return, the assessee had mentioned its status as a ‘company’. The assessee trust is duly registered u/s.12A of the Income Tax Act. In respect of the surplus derived by it, the assessee claimed exemption u/s.11 in the sum of Rs.54,43,948/- while filing the return of income. But since the Income Tax Return was filed in the status of ‘Company’ instead of ‘AOP(Trust)’, the Central Processing Centre (CPC) / the ld. AO vide intimation dated 28/02/2016 determined the total income of the assessee at Rs.54,43,948/- after disallowing the claim of exemption u/s.11 of the Act. The assessee applied for rectification of the said intimation with a request to treat the status of the assessee as ‘AOP (Trust)’ instead of ‘Company’ and thereby grant claim of exemption u/s.11 of the Act. This rectification application u/s.154 of the Act was rejected by the CPC / ld. AO on the plea that assessee had changed its status from ‘company’ to ‘AOP(Trust)’ in Section 154 proceedings which tantamount to fresh claim made by the assessee which cannot be entertained in Section 154 proceedings. This action of the CPC / ld. AO was upheld by the ld. CIT(A). Aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before us.

4.

It is not in dispute that assessee had filed a rectified ITR-7 mentioning its status as ‘AOP(Trust)’ before the ld. AO. It is not in dispute that assessee is a ‘Trust’ (i.e. Section 25 company) duly registered

M/s. Indian Corrugated Care Manufacturers Association u/s.12A of the Act. But we find from the copy of intimation u/s.143(1) dated 08/12/2016, the CPC has accepted the status of the assessee as ‘AOP(Trust) and the return filed u/s.139(4A) of the Act. Having done so, the claim of exemption of the assessee u/s.11 of the Act could not be denied merely based on the status which has been erroneously mentioned by the assessee while filing its return of income. It is not in dispute that the objects of the assessee trust are charitable in nature. Both the parties admittedly stated that registration granted u/s.12A of the Act to the assessee trust is still in force. In this scenario, we are unable to persuade ourselves to accept to the action of the lower authorities in rejecting the claim of exemption u/s.11 of the Act. However, in order to ensure that assessee had duly complied with other conditions stipulated in Section. 11, 12 & 13 of the Act, we deem it fit and appropriate in the interest of justice and fair play, to remand this issue to the file of the ld. AO for denovo adjudication in accordance with law. The assessee is at liberty to adduce fresh evidence, if any, in support of its contentions. Needless to mention that the assessee be given a reasonable opportunity of being heard. Accordingly, the grounds raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.

6.

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.

More judgments on Section 11

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →