NARMADA WELFARE SOCIETY,JABALPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER (EXEMPTION), JABALPUR

PDF · subscribers
ITA 125/JAB/2023Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur07 January 2025AY 2018-19Bench: SHRI KUL BHARAT, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI, NIKHIL CHOUDHARY (Accountant Member)3 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal noted that the assessee had opted to settle the appeal under the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme, 2024. Consequently, the appeal was treated as withdrawn and dismissed as infructuous.

What were the facts?

The assessee society appealed against the CIT(A)'s order confirming an addition of Rs. 50,00,000 on account of investment made under Section 54EC. The delay in investment was attributed to the society's composition and a desire to avoid litigation.

What were the issues?

Whether the addition of Rs. 50,00,000 on account of delayed investment under Section 54EC was justified, and whether the delay was due to reasonable causes.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 54EC

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, JABALPUR BENCH “DB”, JABALPUR

Before: SHRI KUL BHARAT & SHRI, NIKHIL CHOUDHARY

For Respondent: Shri Alok Bhura, CIT(DR)

PER KUL BHARAT, VICE PRESIDENT.:

1.

This appeal, filed by the assessee, against the impugned order dated 24/07/2023 of learned Commissioner Income Tax (Appeals) [hereinafter referred as the “Ld.CIT(A)”]/National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) for the assessment year 2018-19. The Assessee has raised the following grounds of appeals: -

1. On the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case the learned Commissioner of Income tax (Appeal) was not justified in Confirming the addition of Rs.50,00,000 on account of investment made by the appellant under section 54EC of the IT Act even though delay in investment was duly explained.

2.

The learned Commissioner of Income tax (Appeal) was not justified in confirming the addition of Rs.50,00,000 on account of investment made by the appellant under section 54EC of the IT Act and thereby denying the deduction claimed in the ITR without appreciating that delay in making the investment was caused due to reasonable reasons and only due to the fact that society is a group of various members who always believe to avoid lawsuits/litigations.

3. On the facts and circumstances of the case the learned Commissioner of Income tax (Appeal) was not justified in confirming the addition of Rs.50,00,000 on account of investment made by appellant by ignoring the various case laws cited by appellant and thus order is bad in law and non rebuttal by the CIT(A) is deemed acceptance of the case laws.

Page 2 of 3 4. The appellant craves for leave to amend, add to or omit any ground up to the time of hearing of the appeal.” 2. At the time of hearing before us, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee informed us that the assessee has opted to settle the aforementioned appeal under Vivad se Vishwas Scheme, 2024 and request for withdrawal of this appeal.

3.

The Learned Departmental Representative has no objection for withdrawal of this appeal.

4.

After due consideration and in view of the foregoing, we are of the opinion that this appeal has become infructuous on account of aforesaid VSVS, and this appeal may be treated as withdrawn on account of the aforesaid VSVS. Accordingly, this appeal having become infructuous is treated as withdrawn and is hereby dismissed.

5.

Before we part, we hereby clarify, by way of abundant caution, that if for some reasons the dispute under this appeal before us are not settled under the aforesaid VSVS, then the assessee will be at liberty to approach Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) for restoration of this appeal in accordance with law.

6.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed.

Order pronounced in the open Court on 07/01/2025.

More judgments on Section 54EC

All 476 judgments and leading authorities on Section 54EC →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →