M/S. MANDYA KRISHIK SARVODAYA TRUST,MANDYA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, & TPS, MANDYA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1121/BANG/2023Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore18 January 2024AY 2022-23Bench: SHRI GEORGE GEORGE K (Vice President), SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI (Accountant Member)1 pages

In favour of the assessee: the assessee's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal noted that the assessee had filed a petition for condonation of delay in filing Form 10B. Citing previous judgments, the Tribunal restored the matter to the AO.

What were the facts?

The assessee, a Trust, claimed exemption under section 11 for AY 2022-23. This claim was denied by the CPC for not filing Form 10B within the due date under section 139(1). The CIT(A) confirmed this intimation.

What were the issues?

Whether the assessee's claim for exemption under section 11 should be considered despite the delayed filing of Form 10B, and whether the matter should be remanded to the AO for adjudication after considering the condonation petition.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 11,Section 139(1),Section 143(1),Section 250,Section 10AC

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “B” : BANGALORE

Before: SHRI GEORGE GEORGE K & SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI

For Appellant: Smt. Sunaina Bhatia, Advocate
For Respondent: Shri. Ganesh R Ghale, Standing Counsel for Revenue
Hearing: 18.01.2024Pronounced: 18.01.2024

Per George George K, Vice President:

1.

This appeal at the instance of the assessee is directed against CIT(A)’s order dated 28.11.2023, passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter called ‘the Act’). The relevant Assessment Year is 2022-23.

2.

Brief facts of the case are as follows:

Assessee is a Trust constituted by the deed dated 26.06.2003. For the Assessment year 2022-23, assessee’s claim of exemption under section 11 of the Act was denied by the CPC under section 143(1) of the Act for the reason that Form 10B was not submitted within the due date under section 139(1) of the Act.

The CIT(A) confirmed the intimation issued by the CPC under section 143(1) of the Act.

3.

Aggrieved by the Order of the CIT(A), assessee has filed the present appeal before the Tribunal. Assessee has filed a Paper Book enclosing therein the petition filed before the PCIT for condoning delay in filing Form 10B, the Provisional Registration Certificate under section 10AC of the Act, copy of Form 10B, medical certificate of the Chartered Accountant dated 23.09.2022, the case laws relied on, etc. The learned AR submitted that assessee has filed a petition before the PCIT for condoning the delay in filing Form 10B. It was submitted that the matter may be remanded to the AO to await the outcome of application filed for condonation of delay in filing Form 10B. In this context, the learned AR relied on the order of the Bangalore Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Lord Venkateshwara Ladies Educational and Welfare Trust Vs. ITO (E) in (order dated 01.12.2023). The relevant finding of the Bangalore Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Lord Venkateshwara Ladies Educational and Welfare Trust Vs. ITO (E) (supra) reads as follows:

“8. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material on record. From 10 and Form 10B have been filed belatedly by the assessee. However, the delay in filing Form 10 and Form 10B has been condoned by the CIT(E). There is a delay in filing the return of income and assessee has filed application for condonation, which is pending consideration. The limited prayer of the learned AR is to remand this matter to the AO and direct him to take a decision in matter after PCCIT(E), Delhi, had disposed off the assessee’s application for condonation of delay in filing the return of income. On identical situation, the Chennai Bench of the Tribunal in the case of ITO (E), Trichy Vs. Ms/. Papathiyammal Pitchai Education Trust (supra), had restored the matter to AO and directed the AO to take a decision after the outcome of the condonation petition filed by the assessee. The relevant finding of the Chennai Bench of the Tribunal reads as follows: “5. We are of the considered opinion that though the assessee has valid registration u/s 12AA, still, it has to comply with the mandatory requirements of law to lay claim on impugned deduction. The law mandates the assessee to file return of income within due date as prescribed u/s 139(1) along with Form No.10B so as to lay claim on this deduction. Certainly, the assessee has defaulted in the same. Now, Ld. AR has submitted evidences of seeking relevant condonation from appropriate authorities. Therefore, considering the same, we set aside the order of Ld. CIT(A) and restore the appeal back to the file of Ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication in the light of condonation petitions filed by the assessee. All the issues are kept open.”

9.

Taking into consideration the prayer of the learned AR and the order of the Chennai Bench of the Tribunal, the matter is restored to the files of the AO. The AO is directed to take a decision in accordance with law after the assessee’s application for condonation of delay in filing the return of income has been disposed off by the relevant authority. It is ordered accordingly.”

4.

Taking into consideration the prayer of the learned AR and the order of the Bangalore Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Lord Venkateshwara Ladies Educational and Welfare Trust (supra), the matter is restored to the files of the AO. The AO is directed to take a decision in accordance with law after the assessee’s application for condonation of delay in filing Form 10B has been disposed off by the relevant authority. It is ordered accordingly.

5.

In the result, appeal filed by 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 →