Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee, Shree Koteshwar Mahadev Public Trust, filed an appeal against the order of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). The appeal arose from an assessment order passed under section 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The assessee raised several grounds of appeal, including disallowance of deductions and expenses, and the generation of a demand.
Held
The Tribunal noted that the grounds of appeal were identical to those in the assessee's own case for assessment years 2014-15 and 2015-16, which had been restored back to the Assessing Officer. Following the principle of consistency, the Tribunal restored the present appeal to the file of the Assessing Officer.
Key Issues
Whether the disallowance of deductions and expenses, and the subsequent demand, were justified, and whether the appeal should be restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration.
Sections Cited
11, 12, 143(1), 254(1), 12AA
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
िनधा�रती की ओर से /Assessee by Shri P.M. Jagasheth, CA राज� की ओर से /Revenue by Shri Mukesh Jain– Sr-DR सुनवाई की तारीख/Date of hearing 01.01.2025 उद्घोषणा की तारीख/Date of 01.01.2025 pronouncement Order under section 254(1) of Income Tax Act PER PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER: 1. This appeal by assessee is directed against the order of Ld. Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals)/Addl/JCIT(A)-2, Guwahati [for short to as “Ld.CIT(A)] dated 05.09.2024 for assessment year (AY) 2013-14, which in turn arises out of assessment order passed by Centralized Processing Center, Bangalore/ Assessing Officer under section 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) dated 01.05.2015. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:-
1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case as well as the law on the subject, the learned Commissioner of the Income tax (Appeals) has erred in confirming the action of the Assessing Officer, CPC, Bangalore in (A.Y.13-14) Shreekoteshwer Mahadev Public Trust not allowing deduction of Rs.8,47,257/- claimed u/s 11 and 12 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case as well as the law on the subject, the learned Commissioner of the Income tax (Appeals) has erred in confirming the action of the Assessing Officer, CPC, Bangalore in disallowing expenses of Rs.8,47,257/-.
3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case as well as the law on the subject, the learned Commissioner of the Income tax (Appeals) has erred in confirming the action of the Assessing Officer, CPC, Bangalore in generating demand of Rs.2,12,580/- as per intimation u/s 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
4. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case as well as the law on the subject, the learned Commissioner of the Income tax (Appeals) has not offered adequate opportunities to hear the case and passed ex-parte order and hence the case may please be set aside and restored back to the CIT(A) or AO.
5. It is therefore prayed that the above addition may please be deleted s learned Members of the tribunal may deem it proper.
Appellant craves leave to add, alter or delete any ground(s) either before or in the course of the hearing of the appeal.” 2. Rival submission of both the parties heard and record perused. The Ld. Authorized Representative (Ld.AR) of the assessee submits that grounds of appeal raised by assessee is covered in favour of assessee by the decision of SMC Bench of this Tribunal in assessee’s own case for assessment years 2014- 15 and 2015-16 in and 640/Srt/2024 dated 24.10.2024. The assessee filed appeals before CIT(A) for three assessment years i.e., AYs 2013-14, 2014-15 and 2015-16. The appeals for assessment years 2014-15 and 2015-16 were adjudicated vide order dated 18.04.2024 and 30.03.2024 (A.Y.13-14) Shreekoteshwer Mahadev Public Trust by Ld.CIT(A), however appeal for assessment year 2013-14 was adjudicated by Ld.CIT(A) vide order No. ITBA/APL/S/250/2024-25/1068383094(1) dated 05.09.2024. The Ld.AR of the assessee submits that present appeal, facts are identical to the facts for assessment years 2014-15 and 2015-16 (supra) on the issue of limitation for filing appeal before Ld. CIT(A) as well as on merit. As appeals for assessment years 2014-15 and 2015-16 (supra) has already been restored back to the file of Assessing Officer, therefore, by following the principal of consistency, this appeal may also be restored back to the file of Assessing Officer.
On the other hand, Ld. Sr-DR for the Revenue after going through the order of Tribunal in assessment years 2014-15 and 2015-16 (supra) dated 24.10.2024 submits that this appeal may also be restored back to the file of Assessing Officer.
We have considered the rival submissions of both the parties and have gone through order of lower authorities carefully. On careful perusal of facts and grounds of appeal
in hand as well as from the order of Tribunal in appeal for AY 2014-15 & 2015-16, we find that there no difference either in facts or the grounds. We further find that on similar set of facts, appeals for assessment years 2014-15 and 2015-16 were restored back to the file of Assessing Officer vide order dated 24.10.2024 (supra). The operative part of the order is reproduced below:
5. I have considered the submission of both the parties and have gone through the orders of the lower authorities carefully. Firstly, I propose to consider the issue of delay in AY 2014-15 in filing appeal before the ld. CIT(A). I find that on similar set of facts, similar delay in appeal for A. Y. 2015-16 was condoned by (A.Y.13-14) Shreekoteshwer Mahadev Public Trust the Id. CIT(A), however, the delay in appeal for the impugned assessment year is not condoned. I find that both the appeals are filed together. Both the appeals were adjudicated by same Id. CIT(A), despite the fact that in both the years, a different order was passed i.e. in accepting cause of delay in A.Y. 2015-16 and denying the condonation of delay in A.Y. 2014-15. Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case and the plea of assessee that the assessee came to know about processing of return only when return of income for A.Y. 2018- 19 was filed. Further, considering the fact that delay in filing appeal before the Id. CITA) was not intentional or deliberate, therefore, the order of Id. CIT(A) in not condoning the delay in A.Y. 2014-15 is set aside and the delay in filing appeal before the Id. CIT(A) Is condoned. Now adverting to the merit of the case.
6. It is settled law that the appeal is a continuation of original proceeding i.e. assessment proceedings. It is also a matter of fact that the assessee is allowed registration under Section 12AA vide order dated 31/10/2017. I find that coordinate bench of Ahmadabad Tribunal in Shree Bhanushali Mitra Mandal Trust vs. ITO (supra) held that exemption under section 11 could not be denied to the trust of it got registration during pendency of appeal. I also find that CBDT in its Circular No. 1/2015 while considering the hardship in genuine cases and in order to provide benefit of Section 11 and 12 in respect of assessment year which was pending on the date of registration, if objects and activities of the trust are same on the basis of which registration was allowed. Thus, keeping in view the fact that the assessee is allowed registration under Section 12AA of the Act, therefore, the matter is remanded to the file of Jurisdictional Assessing Officer with direction to verify the fact and allow appropriate relief to the assessee in accordance with law. Needless to direct that before passing the order the Assessing Officer shall allow opportunity to the assessee. the assesse is also directed to provide all the details to the Assessing officer.” 5. Considering the fact that similar appeals for assessment years 2014-15 and 2015-16 has already been restored back to the file of Assessing Officer by condoning the delay in filing similar appeal before CIT(A), therefore, following (A.Y.13-14) Shreekoteshwer Mahadev Public Trust the principle of consistency, this appeal for assessment year 2013-14 is also restored back to the file of Assessing Officer with similar direction. 6. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes in above terms. Order pronounced in the open court at the time of hearing on 01/01/2025.
Sd/- Sd/- (BIJAYANANDA PRUSETH) (PAWAN SINGH) लेखा सद�/Accountant Member �ाियक सद�/Judicial Member सूरत / Surat Dated: 01/01/2025 Dkp Outsourcing Sr.P.S* आदेश की �ितिलिप अ�ेिषत/ Copy of the order forwarded to : अपीलाथ�/ The Appellant ��थ�/ The Respondent आयकर आयु�/ CIT िवभागीय �ितिनिध, आयकर अपीलीय आिधकरण, सूरत/ DR, ITAT, SURAT गाड� फाईल/ Guard File // True Copy // By order/आदेश से,
सहायक पंजीकार आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, सूरत