SALT MOVEMENT AREA REVIVAL TRUST ,JOTEGHNASHYAM , DASPUR vs. DY. DIRECTOR , CPC, BANGALURU, CPC, BANGALURU

Salt Movement Area Revival Trust ………. Appellant Joteghanashyam Teachers Training College, Joteghanashyam, PO Shyamgunj, PS Daspur, Paschim Medinipur, West Bengal-721153. (PAN: AAPTS3350J) Vs. Dy. Director, CPC, Bengaluru ………… Respondent Appearances by: Shri Indranil Banerjee, FCA appeared for Appellant. Shri Nicholash Murmu, Addl. CIT, DR appeared for Respondent. Date of concluding the hearing : 22.08.2024 Date of pronouncing the order : 30.09.2024 ORDER

Per Dr. Manish Borad, Accountant Member:

raised by the assessee read as under: “1. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. Appellate Authority should not have arbitrarily subjected the Appeal to partial relief to the extent of Rs.11168586.00, while based on the proven facts and the law applicable, in the absence of any lapse or default as regards filing of the Audit Report within the time limit , the Appellant would have been legally entitled to full relief, claimed in the Audit Reports ofRs.14449989.00, u/s 10(23C)(vi).

2. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. Appellate Authority fallaciously taking the view of non-furnishing of the Audit Report in Form 10BB before the Specified Date, could have easily noticed from the Income Tax Portal and also the evidence adduced. during the Appeal Hearing, that an Audit Report containing identical information had been duly furnished in the parallel cum analogous Form 10B ,well ahead of the Specified date, prescribed in this behalf, which had been only and duly substituted by the correct Audit Report in form 10BB , subsequently.

3. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. Appellate Authority, while sustaining the belief and conclusion of delayed filing of Audit Report, ought to have taken due cognizance of the distinction between the filing of the same, albeit in the wrong form, before the specified date and the subsequent rectification thereof subsequently, and the belated filing of the same, and as such not misconstrued the former as an act of default.

4. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the lapse arising from the default committed by the Auditor, in uploading the right Form of Audit Report and instead, furnishing the same Information and particulars through a parallel cum analogous form and thereafter, correcting the same by uploading the right form, merely constitutes a technical and condonable fault of minor nature for which the denial of deduction, otherwise admissible, would be grossly unjust and unreasonable.

5. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. Appellate Authority should have appreciated that in view of timely filing of original Audit Report in the wrong form of 10B well before the specified date and the substitution thereof by Form 10BB, well before the return processing U/S 143(1), U/S 10(23C)(vi), the entire income ofRs.14449989.00 had been eligible for deduction and as such he had erred in restricting the deduction to the extent of expenditure debited in the Income and Expenditure Account Rs.1168586.00 only.

6. That the Appellant humbly pleads for going for additional grounds, effecting modification in regard to any one or more o the foregoing

Page 3 of 5 Salt Movement Area Revival Trust AY : 2022-23 6. On the other hand, Ld. DR vehemently argued supporting the orders of the lower authorities.