BARKATULLAH VISHWAVIDYALAYA,BHOPAL vs. ACIT EXEMPTION, BHOPAL
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, INDORE BENCH, INDORE
Before: SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO & SHRI B.M. BIYANI
आदेश / O R D E R
Per Bench:
The captioned four appeals have been filed by revenue and assessee, the
details are as under:
Page 1 of 13
Barkatullah Vishwavidyalaya ITA Nos. 196/Ind/2024 & 260/Ind/2024 & 241/Ind/2024 & 299/Ind/2024 AYs 2011-12 & 2017-18
(i) ITA No. 196/Ind/2024 by revenue and ITA No. 241/Ind/2024 by
assessee are cross-appeals for Assessment-Year [“AY”] 2011-12
against the order of first-appeal dated 10.01.2024 passed by learned
Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), NFAC, Delhi [“CIT(A)”] which
in turn arises out of assessment-order dated 26.11.2018 passed by
ACIT (Exemption), Bhopal [“AO”] u/s 147/143(3) of the Income-tax
Act, 1961 [“the Act”].
(ii) ITA No. 260/Ind/2024 by revenue and ITA No. 299/Ind/2024 by
assessee are cross-appeals for AY 2017-18 against the order of first-
appeal dated 31.01.2024 passed by same CIT(A) which in turn arises
out of assessment-order dated 30.12.2019 passed by Exemption
Circle, Bhopal [“AO”] u/s 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [“the
Act”].
Since these appeals relate to the same assessee, they were heard
together at the request of parties and are being disposed of by this
consolidated order for the sake of convenience, brevity and clarity.
There are small delays of 12 days and 6 days in filing assessee’s twin
appeals. The assessee is a University. The assessee has filed condonation
application explaining that there was ongoing strike in its Finance
Department and the counsel was authorised to file appeals after
appointment of new Registrar in Finance Department which has only
Page 2 of 13
Barkatullah Vishwavidyalaya ITA Nos. 196/Ind/2024 & 260/Ind/2024 & 241/Ind/2024 & 299/Ind/2024 AYs 2011-12 & 2017-18
resulted in small delays. Ld. AR for assessee submitted that the delay is not
because of any negligence, malafide intention or ulterior motive and the
assessee does not stand to derive any benefit by making delay. He submitted
that the delay is solely because of strike which was a ‘sufficient cause’ and
therefore the delay ought to be condoned. Ld. DR for revenue did not object
to the submission of Ld. AR. Considering the explanation submitted by
assessee and taking into account the small extent of delays, the delays in
both appeals of assessee are condoned and the appeals are proceeded for
hearing.
AY 2011-12 – Revenue’s ITA No. 196/Ind/2024 and Assessee’s ITA No. 241/Ind/2024: 4. Ld. AR explained the precise facts leading to these appeals. He
submitted that the assessee is a University established under M.P.
Vishwavidhalaya Adhiniyam, 1973. The activities of assessee are to provide
education, supervision and maintenance to various colleges and educational
institutions as per regulations of Govt. and to establish, maintain and
manage colleges, teaching departments, schools of studies, centers of
studies and to institute degrees, diplomas, certificates and other academic
distinctions, etc. For AY 2011-12, the assessee did not file any return. The
AO, being of the view that the assessee was having total income exceeding
the maximum amount not chargeable to tax which had escaped assessment,
opened assessee’s case under the provisions of section 147 through notice
dated 28.03.2018 u/s 148. In response to such notice, the assessee filed
Page 3 of 13
Barkatullah Vishwavidyalaya ITA Nos. 196/Ind/2024 & 260/Ind/2024 & 241/Ind/2024 & 299/Ind/2024 AYs 2011-12 & 2017-18
return declaring total income of Rs. Nil. Thereafter, the AO issued notices
u/s 143(2)/142(1) and scrutinized assessee’s case. During assessment-
proceeding, the AO found that the assessee was claiming total income at Rs.
Nil on the strength of exemption u/s 10(23C)(iiiab). Ultimately, the AO
passed assessment-order dated 26.11.2018 denying exemption of section
10(23C)(iiiab) and also make certain consequential adjustments/additions.
Aggrieved, the assessee filed appeal to CIT(A) and succeeded partly. Now, the
revenue and assessee both have come in these cross-appeals challenging the
orders of lower authorities.
Then, Ld. AR made a specific submission that the case of assessee
was subjected to section 147 by AO based on scrutiny-assessment of
succeeding AY 2014-15 for which assessment-order u/s 143(3) was passed
after denying the benefit of exemption u/s 10(23C)(iiiab) to assessee.
However, against scrutiny-assessment so made by AO, the assessee carried
matter in appeal before ITAT, Indore Bench in ITA No. 924/Ind/2018. The
said appeal of assessee has already been decided by ITAT, Indore Bench vide
order dated 30.06.2022 wherein the assessee’s alternative claim of
exemption u/s 11/12 has been accepted based on the fact/legal provision
that the assessee is subsequently registered by Income-tax Department u/s
12A(1)(aa) read with section 12AA from AY 2019-20 onwards vide Order No.
ITBA/EXM/S/12AA/2019-20/1016373495(1) dated 17.06.2019 issued by
CIT (Exemption), Bhopal and therefore entitled to exemption u/s 11/12 of
Page 4 of 13
Barkatullah Vishwavidyalaya ITA Nos. 196/Ind/2024 & 260/Ind/2024 & 241/Ind/2024 & 299/Ind/2024 AYs 2011-12 & 2017-18
the Act for preceeding years also in terms of proviso to section 12A(2)
reading as under:
“12A(2) Where an application has been made on or after the 1st day of June, 2007, the provisions of sections 11 and 12 shall apply in relation to the income of such trust or institution from the assessment-year immediately following the financial year in which such application is made.
Provided that where registration has been granted to the trust or institution under section 12AA, then, the provisions of sections 11 and 12 shall apply in respect of any income derived from property held under trust of any assessment year preceding the aforesaid assessment year, for which assessment proceedings are pending before the Assessing Officer as on the date of such registration and the object and activities of the trust or institution remain the same for such preceding assessment year:”
Ld. AR has filed a copy of ITAT’s order in Paper-Book, the concluding
para of ITAT’s order is re-produced below:
“11. Now we proceed to examine the alternative claim of exemption u/s 11 / 12 demanded by the assessee. On perusal of the Proviso to section 12A(2) and the decision of Hon’ble Co-ordinate Bench of ITAT, Ahmedabad in Shri Bhanushali Mitra Mandal Trust (supra), we agree to the proposition that the assessee is entitled to the benefit of exemption u/s 11 / 12 for the assessment-year 2014-15 under consideration as the requirements prescribed in the Proviso stand satisfied, viz. (i) the revenue had already granted registration u/s 12AA from assessment-year 2019-20, (ii) the assessment-year under consideration is 2014-15 which falls within “any preceding assessment year”, and (iii) the objects and activities of the assessee remain same. We also find that the Ld. DR did not make any objection to this claim argued by Ld. AR. But however we have to ascertain one important aspect i.e. can we
Page 5 of 13
Barkatullah Vishwavidyalaya ITA Nos. 196/Ind/2024 & 260/Ind/2024 & 241/Ind/2024 & 299/Ind/2024 AYs 2011-12 & 2017-18
entertain this new claim made by assessee for the first time before us? In this respect we find that the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held in Goetze India Ltd. Vs. CIT (2006) 284 ITR 323 (SC) that a fresh claim can be made only by filing a revised return. But various courts have already analysed the impact of this decision and vehemently held that a fresh claim before appellate authorities is not barred. It is constantly held in several decisions that a legal claim can be made by the assessee before appellate authorities even if the same was not claimed during assessment-proceedings. We also observe that the provisions of section 11 / 12 grant exemption to the assessee and such exemption, if not allowed, would result in illegal collection of tax from the assessee, which is never an objective of the Income-tax Act, 1961. In view of this position of law, we do not find any difficulty in accepting the alternative claim of assessee to allow exemption u/s 11 / 12. However, the claim of exemption u/s 11 / 12 involves a different type of working based on application and accumulation of income. Therefore, we feel that it would be more appropriate to refer this matter back to Ld. AO who shall give an opportunity to the assessee to provide the necessary information for computation of exemption u/s 11 / 12. Based on such information, the Ld. AO shall allow the exemption as admissible u/s 11 / 12 to the assessee.”
Ld. AR prayed that the AY 2011-12 under consideration in these
appeals was also at par with AY 2014-15, therefore the assessee is very
much entitled to the benefit of very same proviso to section 12A(2). Hence, a
prayer is made to remand these appeals to AO as has been done by ITAT,
Indore in aforesaid order for AY 2014-15.
Ld. DR for revenue fairly agreed to the submission and prayer of Ld.
AR.
Page 6 of 13
Barkatullah Vishwavidyalaya ITA Nos. 196/Ind/2024 & 260/Ind/2024 & 241/Ind/2024 & 299/Ind/2024 AYs 2011-12 & 2017-18
In view of above submissions and consensus by parties, we remand
these matters to the file of AO in the very same terms as done by ITAT,
Indore in Para 11 of order for AY 2014-15 re-produced above. These appeals
are accordingly allowed for statistical purpose.
AY 2017-18 – Revenue’s ITA No. 260/Ind/2024 and Assessee’s ITA No. 299/Ind/2024: 10. Ld. AR submitted that for AY 2017-18, the assessee filed return
declaring total income of Rs. Nil on 31.03.2018 u/s 139(4) which was
subsequently revised on 05.04.2018. The case of assessee was subjected to
scrutiny-assessment through notices u/s 143(2)/142(1). During scrutiny-
proceeding, the AO rejected assessee’s claim of exemption u/s 10(23C)(iiiab).
The assessee made alternative claim of exemption u/s 11/12 based on very
same proviso to section 12A(2) as discussed in foregoing part of this order.
The AO has accepted assessee’s claim vide Para 4.4 of assessment-order.
However, vide Para 4.5 & 4.6 of assessment-order, the AO ultimately denied
exemption u/s 11/12 to assessee for a different reason i.e. the return of
income was filed belatedly u/s 139(4) on 31.03.2018 whereas the section
139(4A) read with section 139(1) required filing of return by due date which
was 07.11.2017. Therefore, the basic and exact controversy in these appeals
is whether or not the assessee was entitled to exemption u/s 11/12 when
the return of relevant AY 2017-18 was filed belatedly u/s 139(4) after due
date u/s 139(1)?
Page 7 of 13
Barkatullah Vishwavidyalaya ITA Nos. 196/Ind/2024 & 260/Ind/2024 & 241/Ind/2024 & 299/Ind/2024 AYs 2011-12 & 2017-18
Ld. AR submitted that this very controversy has already been decided
in assessee’s favour by ITAT, New Delhi in Conference of Religious India
Vs. Ward–Exemption 1(3), New Delhi, ITA No. 2161/Del/2022 order
dated 13.10.2022, on the basis of CBDT Instruction No. F.No.
173/193/2019-ITA-I dated 23.04.2019. The relevant paras of ITAT’s order
are re-produced below for an immediate reference:
“7. Strong reliance was placed on the instruction of CBDT F.No. 173/193/2019–ITA–I dated 23.04.2019 wherein the CBDT has clarified with regard to the time allowed for filing of the return of income subsequent to the insertion of clause (ba) in sub section 1 of section 12A of the IT Act which includes the IT return filed within the time allowed u/s. 139 of the Act. The contention of the assessee were dismissed by the CIT(A) who was of the firm belief that return has been filed beyond due date as mandated in section 139(1) of the Act. The CIT(A) also dismissed the claim of the assessee that it is squarely covered by the CBDT instruction (supra) and the CIT(A) accordingly dismissed the appeal of the assessee.
Before me the Counsel reiterated what has been stated before the lower authorities and once again relied upon the CBDT circular (supra). The DR strongly supported the findings of the CIT(A).
I have given a thoughtful consideration to the orders of the authorities below. The undisputed facts are that the assessee filed its return of income on 23.02.2021. It is also not in dispute that the due date for this assessment year has been extended till 15.02.021. This means that there was a delay of 7 days but considering the pandemic period and the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court by which the Hon’ble Supreme Court has extended the period of limitation across board, I am of the opinion that the delay of 7 days deserves to be condoned. In any case the return was filed before 31.03.2021
Page 8 of 13
Barkatullah Vishwavidyalaya ITA Nos. 196/Ind/2024 & 260/Ind/2024 & 241/Ind/2024 & 299/Ind/2024 AYs 2011-12 & 2017-18
which is the last date for filing a belated return of income. It would be pertinent to refer to the above CBDT Circular which is as under :-
Page 9 of 13
Barkatullah Vishwavidyalaya ITA Nos. 196/Ind/2024 & 260/Ind/2024 & 241/Ind/2024 & 299/Ind/2024 AYs 2011-12 & 2017-18
Page 10 of 13
Barkatullah Vishwavidyalaya ITA Nos. 196/Ind/2024 & 260/Ind/2024 & 241/Ind/2024 & 299/Ind/2024 AYs 2011-12 & 2017-18
In my considered opinion the language of the aforementioned Circular is very clear and unambiguous in so far as the return of income filed u/s. 139 of the Act is concerned. Section 139 has several sub sections (1), (2), (3), (4), (4a), (5). I am of the considered view that if the return is filed within the specified time limit of sub-section of 139 would be eligible for the benefit given by the above mentioned CBDT circular and should avail the benefit of exemption u/s. 11 of the Act. In my considered opinion the CIT(A) erred in misinterpreting the aforementioned circular and, therefore, to that extent the order of the CIT(A) is erroneous and deserves to be set aside the grievance of the assessee is allowed.”
Therefore, Ld. AR prayed to give the benefit of ITAT Delhi’s decision to
assessee and remand this matter back to the file of AO for giving exemption
u/s 11/12.
Ld. DR for revenue fairly agreed to the submission and prayer of Ld.
AR.
We have considered submissions of both sides. The admitted facts are
such that the assessee filed a belated return on 31.03.2018 u/s 139(4)
which was beyond due date of 07.11.2017 u/s 139(1) and non-filing of
Page 11 of 13
Barkatullah Vishwavidyalaya ITA Nos. 196/Ind/2024 & 260/Ind/2024 & 241/Ind/2024 & 299/Ind/2024 AYs 2011-12 & 2017-18
return upto due date u/s 139(1) is the reason due to which the AO denied
exemption u/s 11/12 to assessee. We agree to submission of Ld. AR that the
CBDT’s Instruction dated 23.04.2019 (supra) clearly directs the sub-
ordinate authorities to allow exemption if the return has been filed within
the time-limit of section 139 and to rectify assessment even if a demand has
been raised. We also agree that in Conference of Religious India (supra),
the ITAT, Delhi Bench has, taking into account the CBDT’s Instruction,
allowed benefit of exemption u/s 11/12 to assessee in the situation where
the return was filed belatedly u/s 139(4) on 23.02.2021 after expiry of due
date of 15.02.2021 u/s 139(1). Therefore, respectfully applying the view
taken by ITAT, Delhi, we too hold that the assessee is entitled to exemption
u/s 11/12. However, the claim of exemption u/s 11 / 12 involves a different
type of working based on application and accumulation of income.
Therefore, we feel that it would be more appropriate to remand these
matters back to the file of AO who shall give an opportunity to the assessee
to provide the necessary information for computation of exemption u/s 11 /
Based on such information, the Ld. AO shall allow exemption as
admissible u/s 11 / 12 to assessee. Thus, these appeals are also allowed for
statistical purpose.
Since we have remanded all these matters to AO, there is no necessity
to adjudicate other grounds/issues. In fact, the learned Representatives
have also not made any submission qua other grounds/issues.
Page 12 of 13
Barkatullah Vishwavidyalaya ITA Nos. 196/Ind/2024 & 260/Ind/2024 & 241/Ind/2024 & 299/Ind/2024 AYs 2011-12 & 2017-18
Resultantly, the appeals of both sides are treated as allowed for
statistical purposes.
Order pronounced in open court on 18.10.2024
Sd/- Sd/- (VIJAY PAL RAO) (B.M. BIYANI) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
Indore िदनांक / Dated : 18.10.2024 Dev/Sr. PS Copies to: (1) The appellant (2) The respondent (3) CIT (4) CIT(A) (5) Departmental Representative (6) Guard File By order UE COPYAssistant Registrar Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Indore Bench, Indore
Page 13 of 13
