KALKUNNEL MAR GEEVARGHESE SAHADA TRUST,KOTHAMANGALAM vs. ITO, KOCHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 483/COCH/2023Status: DisposedITAT Cochin23 October 2024AY 2019-20Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara (Judicial Member), Shri Amarjit Singh (Accountant Member)3 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the compliance of filing Form 10B is directory, not mandatory, and can be filed even in appellate proceedings. The appeals were restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeals were against orders denying exemption under Section 10(23C)(vi) due to belated submission of Form 10B audit report. The CIT(A)/NFAC had affirmed the CPC's action in processing the returns.

What were the issues?

Whether the belated filing of Form 10B audit report bars the assessee from claiming exemption under Section 10(23C)(vi).

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 10(23C)(vi)

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 Thomas Thomas, CA
For Respondent: Dr. S. Pandian, CIT-DR
Hearing: 22.08.2024Pronounced: 23.10.2024

O R D E R Per Bench These assessee’s twin appeals arise against orders of the National Faceless Appeal Centre , Delhi [CIT(A)] in proceedings u/s. 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) as under : - DIN & Order No. Date No. 1 482/Coch/2023 2018-19 ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2022- 28.02.2023 23/1050184490(1) 2 483/Coch/2023 2019-20 ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2022- 28.02.2023 22/1050185513(1)

Cases called twice. None appears at assessee’s behest. We accordingly proceed exparte.

& 483/Coch/2023 Kalkunnel Mar Geevarthese Sasada Trust 2. It emerges at the outset with the able assistance coming from both the parties that the CIT(A)/NFAC has affirmed the CPC’s action in it’s twin “processing(s)” dated 17.10.2019 and 26.05.2020; assessment year-wise; respectively; denying sec.10(23C)(vi) exemption(s); on account of belated submission of Form 10B audit report(s) not filed with the returns herein.

3.

Learned CIT-DR could hardly dispute that case law CIT vs. Xavier Kelavani Mandal (P.) Ltd., [2014] 41 taxmann.com 184 (Guj.) has already settled the issue that such a compliance is directory only than being mandatory in nature. And that an audit report prescribed in Form 10B could even be filed in appellate proceedings as well.

4.

Faced with this situation, we hereby restore the assessee’s instant twin appeals back to the CIT(A)-NFAC for it’s afresh adjudication as per law, preferably within three effective opportunities of hearing, subject to the rider that it shall be the taxpayer’s onus and responsibility only to plead and prove all the relevant facts in consequential proceedings. Ordered accordingly.

5.

These assessee’s twin appeals ITA.Nos.482 & 483/Coch/2023 are allowed for statistical purposes in above terms. A copy of this common order be placed in the respective case files.

More judgments on Section 10(23C)(vi)

All 517 judgments and leading authorities on Section 10(23C)(vi) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →