AMRITA SOCIETY,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-I EXEMPTION, JAIPUR

To this effect, the ld.Counsel of the assessee Shri Saurav Harsh filed an affidavit deposing therein the above facts.

3 ITA NO. 124/JP/2024 AMRITA SOCIETY VS ITO, (EXEMPTION), WARD-1, JAIPUR 2.2 On the other hand, the ld. DR objected to such delay in filing the appeal by the assessee but submitted that the Court may decide the issue as deem fit and proper in the case. 2.3 After hearing both the parties and perusing the materials available on record, the Bench noted that there is a merit in the submission of the counsel of the assessee and thus delay of 18 days in filing the appeal by the assessee is condoned in view of the decision of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Collector, land Acquisition vs. MSt. Katiji and Others, 167 ITR 471 (SC). 3.1 The only issue raised by the assessee in the present appeal relates to disallowing the set apart fund under section 11 (2) and section 11(5) of the Act on account of delay in filing of income tax return. 3.2 Apropos grounds of appeal of the assessee, it is noted that the ld. CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal of the assessee by observing as under:- Decision: ‘’5.1 The statement of facts, grounds of appeal, the order appealed against and the submissions made by the appellant have been thoroughly examined. The central issue for adjudication among all the grounds of appeal raised pertains to the sole issue of denying the benefit of Section 11 of the Act while processing the return of Income under section 143(1) of the Act. 5.2. It is noted that while processing the return of Income, the AO denied the exemption claimed u/s 11, The said adjustment u/s 143(1)(a) was done after providing the opportunity to the

4 ITA NO. 124/JP/2024 AMRITA SOCIETY VS ITO, (EXEMPTION), WARD-1, JAIPUR appellant. The reason for adjustment u/s 143(1)(a) are as follows:

As per the details furnished in Schedule Personal information under "Details of registration or approval under the Income-tax Act", the trust or institution is registered u/s 12A/12AA and is claiming exemption u/s 11(2), but the trust or institution has not filed the return of income within the due date, hence the exemption claimed in Sr.no. 4vi of Schedule Part B-TI- "Amount in addition to amount referred to in (v) above, accumulated or set apart for specified purposes if all the conditions in section 11(2) and 11(5)are fulfilled", is not allowed in accordance with the provisions of section 13(9) of the Income Tax Act PS: As per the provisions of Section 13(9), for claim of exemption u/s 11(2), Form 10 to be filled w due date and Return to be filed within due date u/s 139(1).

5.3 In this context, it's important to note that according to Section 13 (9) of the Act, for claiming any exemption, the Trusts are obligated to file the Income Tax Return and Form 10 before the dun date for submitting the Income Tax Return under Section 139(1) of the Act. As per the Section 13(9) of the Act Nothing contained in sub-section (2) of section 11 shall operate so as to exclude any income from the total income of the previous year of a person in receipt thereof, if- (i) the statement referred to in clause (a) of the said sub-section in respect of such income is not furnished on or before the due date specified under sub-section (1) of section 139 for furnishing the return of income for the previous year; or (ii) the return of income for the previous year is not furnished by such person on or before the due date specified under sub- section (1) of section 139 for furnishing the return of income for the said previous year.

5 ITA NO. 124/JP/2024 AMRITA SOCIETY VS ITO, (EXEMPTION), WARD-1, JAIPUR 5.5 In the present case, the assessment year in question is AY 2019-20, and the appellant filed the income tax return on June 05, 2020, which is beyond the due date of filing the retum, i.e., September 30, 2019, as per Section 139(1) of the Act. In accordance with the provisions of Section 13(9) of the Act, the appellant is clearly ineligible to claim the exemption under section 1 of the Act. 5.6 The appellant's assertion that the original return and Form 10 were filed within the specified time cannot be accepted. This is because the return filed on 31.10.2019 by the appellant was not verified, rendering it invalid/non-est. The appellant referred to Circular No. 03/2020 dated 13.07.2020, in which the CBDT provided relief to assesses unable to verify their ITR for the Assessment Year 2015-2016 to 2019-2020. It is noted that to avail of this relief, the appellant was required to verify the return by either sending a duly signed physical copy of ITR-V to CPC, Bengaluru via speed post or through EVC/OTP modes by 30.09.2020. However, the appellant did not comply with this requirement, instead, it chose to file a revised return. Consequently, the unverified return was deemed invalid/non- est, and the revised return, which was properly verified, was processed. 6. In view of the above, I find no error in the AO's decision to disallow the appellant's claim for exemption under Section 11 of the Act when processing the return under Section 143(1) of the Act. Consequently, the appeal is dismissed.

3.3 During the course of hearing, the ld. AR of the assessee relied upon the written filed before this Bench and also reiterated the same arguments as were raised by him before the Ld Addl. CIT (A). During the course of hearing, the ld. AR of the assessee has relied on following decisions.

6 ITA NO. 124/JP/2024 AMRITA SOCIETY VS ITO, (EXEMPTION), WARD-1, JAIPUR 1. Shree Bipin Biharidas Charitable Foundation vsCIT(E) (ITA No. 1091/Ahd. 2023 decided on 21-02-2023 – ITAT ‘D’ Bench of Ahemdabad. 2. M/s. Electronics & Controls Power Systen Pvt. Ltd. vs DCIT (ITA No. 914/Bang/2016 decided on03-11-2017 – ITAT‘A” Bench Bangalore) .

3.4 On the contrary, the ld. DR relied upon the orders passed by the revenue authorities and also relied upon the decision of Hon’ble Kerala High Court in the case of Nileshwar Rangekallu Chethu Vyavassaya Thozhilali Sahakarana Sangham vs CIT [2023] 152 taxman.com 347 (Kerala). 3.5 After having heard the counsel for both the parties and after going through the orders passed by revenue authorities and the judgements cited by the respective parties and the material placed on record, I found that the assessee filed its audit report in Form No10B, Form No. 10 (For set apart of Rs.15.00 lacs) and original income tax return within due date i.e. 31-10-2019 wherein it claimed exemption u/s 11(2) and 11(5) of the Act. The ld. AR of the assesse submitted the copy of screen shot of Uploading Form No. 10 on 31-10-2019 and copy of screen shot of

7 ITA NO. 124/JP/2024 AMRITA SOCIETY VS ITO, (EXEMPTION), WARD-1, JAIPUR Uploading Form No. 10B on 29-10-2019 (PB 2 &3). The ld. AR of the assessee for ready reference also filed copy of Original ITR, Form No. 10 B and 10 bearing Paper book Pages 3 to 9. The ld. AR mentioned in his written submission at page 10 , para 1.3 & 14 that ‘’however, the income tax return was filed without digital signature and due to oversight and unavoidable circumstances the manual copy of ITR verification could not be sent at CPC, Bangalore within 120 days of submission of ITR. 14’’Hence, subsequently assessee again filed revised return immediately after COVID restrictions were lifted, declaring the same income as shown in original return and verified the same through digital signature. The copy of revised return filed on 05-06-2020 is available at page 11 of the written submission. Further the Bench noted that the CPC without going into the facts that Original Income Tax Return, Form 10 and Form 10B were submitted before filing of due date and merely filing of the revised ITR after the due date disallowed the set apart fund u/s 11(2) and 11(5) of the Act and thus raised demand of Rs.2,91,070/- From the above facts of the case, the Bench is of the view that CPC grossly erred in not considering the genuine hardship with the assessee and without considering the submissions dated 02-07- 2020 made by the assessee in response to notice issued under section 143(1) and without going into the fact has denied the benefit to the assessee under section 11(2) of the Act. The Bench has also gone through the CBDT Circular No. 3/2020 dated 13.7.2020 and after going through

8 ITA NO. 124/JP/2024 AMRITA SOCIETY VS ITO, (EXEMPTION), WARD-1, JAIPUR the said circular issued by CBDT, it is found that in the said circular relaxations has been given to those assesses whose ITR could not be verified for the assessment years 2015-16 to 2019-2020. Since the Assessment year of the assessee is covered under the said circular, therefore benefit of the said circular ought to have been given to the assessee. Hence, in view of the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case and also the case laws relied upon the assessee (supra), we do not concur with the findings of the ld CIT(A). Thus the appeal of the assessee is allowed.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed with no order as to costs. 4.0

Order pronounced in the open court on 08 /08/2024.

Sd/- ¼lanhi xkslkbZ½ (Sandeep Gosain) U;kf;d lnL;@Judicial Member Tk;iqj@Jaipur fnukad@Dated:- 08/08/2024 *Mishra आदेश की प्रतिलिपि अग्रेf’ात@ब्वचल वf जीम वतकमत वितूंतकमक जवरू 1. The Appellant- Amrita Society, Jaipur 2. izR;FkhZ@ The Respondent- The ITO (Exemption), Ward 1, Jaipur 3. vk;dj vk;qDr@ The ld CIT 4. विभागीय प्रतिनिधि] आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर@क्त्ए प्ज्Aज्ए Jंपचनत 5. xkMZ QkbZy@ Guard File (ITA No. 124/JP/2024) vkns'kkuqlkj@ By order,

सहायक पंजीकार@Aेेजज. त्महपेजतंत