Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “A” BENCH, KOLKATA
1. This appeal is filed by the Priscilla Vaz Trust (Assessee / 1. Appellant) against the appellate order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [Ld. CIT(A)] dated 8th December, 2012, for Assessment Year 2015-16, wherein the appeal filed by the Assessee against the assessment order dated 30th August, 2022, passed by the Income Tax Officer, Ward 2(1)(Exemption) (Ld. AO) under section 254/250/154/143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) computing the total income of the Assessee as Rs.6,28,592/-, was dismissed.
Besides the grounds raised in the memorandum of appeals , the assessee has also raised additional ground before us which is reproduced hereunder:-
The aforesaid ground arise out of the order of the learned AO,CPC passed u/s 143(1) of the Act dated 27-03-2017 wherein the learned AO, CPC has erred in treating the voluntary corpus donation of Rs.90,88,219/- standing in the books as on 31-03- 2015 as income of the assessee.
It is submitted that this is a question of law and requires no further investigation of fresh facts by the lower authorities. It is well settled in law that a question of law can be raised at any stage of proceedings as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the landmark judgment in the case of National Thermal Power Co. Ltd vs CIT (1998) 229 ITR 0383 wherein it was held that,
"The view that the Tribunal is confined only to issues arising out of appeal before the CIT(A) takes too narrow a view of the powers of the Tribunal. Undoubtedly, the Tribunal will have the discretion to allow or not allow a new ground to be raised. But where the Tribunal is only required to consider a question of law arising from the facts which are on record in the assessment proceedings such a question should be allowed to be raised when it is necessary to
Brief facts of the case are that the assessee has filed his return of income on 9thFebruary 2016, in ITR-7 declaring total income of ₹6,28,592/-. The said return was processed by the Central Processing Centre, Bangalore under Section 143(1) of the Act on 27th March, 2013, in
The learned Departmental Representative on the other hand submitted that the issue may be restored to the file of the learned Assessing Officer to examine and to decide the same as per the facts and law.
After hearing the rival contentions and perusing the materials available on record, we note that the undisputed facts as coming out before us are that an intimation under Section 143(1) of the Act dated 27th March, 2017 passed in which an adjustment of ₹90,88,219/- was made on the ground of corpus donation shown by the assessee in the return of income. Undisputedly, the assessee was not given any notice or intimation either in writing or in electronic mode qua the above addition/adjustment made under Section 143(1)(a) of the Act. Therefore, we find merit in the contention of the assessee that the addition made by the learned Assessing Officer while processing the return of income of other corpus donation shown by the assessee is without jurisdiction and not in consonance with the proviso to Section 143(1)(a) of the Act which provides that no such adjustment shall be made unless the intimation is given to the assessee of such adjustment either in writing or through electronic mode. The case of the assessee is supported by the decision of this Tribunal in case of ITO (Exemptions) vs. Camellia Educare Trust (supra), wherein the co-ordinate Bench held as under:-
“Considering the facts on record and the perusal of the provisions contained in section 143(1)(a) it is
We note that the facts of the case before us are materially similar to the facts of the case as decided by the co- ordinate Bench in case of Camellia Educare Trust (supra), wherein it has been held that in order to make an adjustment in the intimation issued under Section 143(1)(a) of the Act it is mandatory to give intimation to the assessee of such adjustments either in writing or through electronic mode and therefore, the impugned addition made by the learned Assessing Officer on the ground of corpus donation of ₹90,88,219/- is without jurisdiction and is accordingly, the ordered to be deleted.
Since, we have allowed the additional ground in favour of the assessee, the other grounds raised by the assessee in the memorandum of appeals are not being adjudicated at this stage and are being left open to be decided at later stage if the need arises for the same in future.
In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed.
Order pronounced in the open court on 20.08.2024.