MATHA EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTIONS,COCHIN vs. THE ITO,EXEMPTION WARD , KOCHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 448/COCH/2023Status: DisposedITAT Cochin23 October 2024AY 2017-18Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara (Judicial Member), Shri Amarjit Singh (Accountant Member)3 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that filing the tax audit report is a directory provision and can be submitted even in appellate proceedings. The CIT(A) was directed to examine the assessee's case on merits after considering the tax audit report.

What were the facts?

The assessee's Section 11 exemption claim was disallowed for AY 2017-18 because the tax audit report (Form 10B) was not filed with the return. The assessee later filed the report via a rectification application, which was rejected by the lower authorities.

What were the issues?

Whether the non-filing of the tax audit report at the time of filing the return renders the exemption claim invalid, and if such a report can be submitted at a later stage.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 11

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(1)Show list

Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, COCHIN BENCH, COCHIN

Before: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

For Appellant: Shri Jameskutty Antony, CA
For Respondent: Smt. V. Swarnalatha, Sr. D.R
Hearing: 22.08.2024Pronounced: 23.10.2024

Heard together (2 matters)

ITA No. 448/Coch/2023
SA No. 84/Coch/2023

Read from the judgment's own cause title. This page is filed under one of them.

O R D E R Per Bench This assessee’s appeal ITA.No.448/Coch/2023 along with stay application SA.No.84/Coch./2023. for A.Y. 2017-18, arise against the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [CIT(A)]’s DIN & Order No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2022- 23/1050815030(1) dated 15.03.2023 in proceedings u/s. 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act).

Heard both the parties. Case files perused.

2.

It emerges at the outset that the assessee’s sole substantive ground raised in the instant appeal challenges correctness of both the lower authorities’ action disallowing its section 11 exemption claim in section 143(1)(a)(v) processing since not & SA.No.84/Coch/2023 Matha Educational Institutions accompanied by the corresponding tax audit report as prescribed under rule 10B of the Income Tax Rules. There is hardly any dispute between the parties that post facto the CPC’s processing herein dated 26.09.2017, the assessee sought 154 rectification which was filed along with its tax audit report. And that both the lower authorities have not taken into consideration the said tax audit report thereby rejecting the impugned rectification.

3.

We note in this factual backdrop that the question as to whether filing of such a tax audit report is mandatory or directory provision is no more res integra in light of M/s. Social Security Scheme of GICEA vs. CIT(E) [2023] 147 taxmann.com 283 (Guj.) decided the issue in favour of the assessee and against the department thereby concluding that such a compliance could be made even in appellate proceedings as well. We thus accept the assessee’s instant appeal for statistical purposes and direct the learned CIT(A) to examine the assessee’s case on merits after considering its Form 10B tax audit report as per law with three effective opportunities at the risk and responsibility of the taxpayer to plead and prove all the facts in consequential proceedings. Ordered accordingly.

4.

This assessee’s appeal ITA.No.448/Coch./2023 is allowed for statistical purposes and it’s stay application SA.No.84/Coch./2023 is dismissed as rendered infructuous. A copy of this common order be placed in the respective case files.

More judgments on Section 11

All 7,190 judgments and leading authorities on Section 11 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →