MADHAV PRASAD PRIYAMVADA BIRLA APEX CHARITABLE TRUST,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD 1(4), EXEMPTION, KOLKATA

The assessee has taken the following grounds of appeal:- (1)(a) For that on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A] was grossly unjustified in denying the benefit of exemption claimed u/s 11 of the Act on the erroneous premise that the assessee had belatedly filed audit report in Form 10B for the relevant AY 2018-19. (b) For that on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the assessee had filed the audit report in Form 10B on 09.10.2018 which was well within the specified due date i.e. 30.09.2018 u/s 44AB of the Act and therefore there was no purported delay in filing of Form 10B for the relevant AY 2018- 19. (c)For that on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A] had erroneously applied the provisions of Section 44AB as amended by Finance Act, 2020, wherein the due date for filing the audit report i.e., 30.09.2018 (i.e. due date of return filing u/s 139(1] of the Act] was replaced by one month prior to the date specified in Section 139(1) of the Act; in as much as the said amended provisions were not applicable to the relevant AY 2018-19. (d) For that on the facts and circumstances of the case, the JAO / CPC be directed to allow the benefit of exemption as claimed u/s 11 of the Act in the return of income

The ld. Counsel for the assessee while impugning the order passed by the ld. Assessing Officer under section 143(1) as well as of the ld. Addl./JCIT(Appeals)-13, Mumbai submitted that the very foundation of both these orders are based on wrong assumption of 2

Ld. Counsel for the assessee further submitted that the assessee has made a corpus donation of Rs.99,28,000/-, which will not qualify towards application of funds in the objectives of the assessee-Trust under section 11. In other words, the assessee will not be entitled for deduction of this amount. The assessee itself has added back this amount. The assessee has claimed total expenses towards application of income at Rs.4,44,99,850/-. From this total, the assessee has reduced the corpus donation of Rs.99,28,000/-. This exercise will result the claim of assessee towards application of receipts on its objectives as Rs.3,45,71,850/-. The assessee has added back the claim of depreciation amounting to Rs.5,57,820/-. This will make total amount towards application of income as Rs.3,51,29,670/-. The assessee itself disallowed the sum of Rs.99,28,000/- from claiming the deduction towards application of funds. The computation does exhibit this fact, which we have reproduced in the upper part of this order. A perusal of the impugned order of the ld. Assessing Officer would suggest that the CPC, Bengaluru has independently made addition of Rs.99,28,000/- as income of the assessee, which already has been taken care by the assessee while reducing this amount from the claim of application of the income towards objectives of the Trust. Therefore, it cannot be added again by the CPC, Bengaluru. The CPC was of the view that, as if assessee has not reduced this amount from the total application of funds and treated it separately as income.

On due consideration of the above facts and circumstances, we are of the view that the observations made by the ld. Addl./JCIT(Appeals) are not in connection with the dispute raised by the assessee and they are all irrelevant one, therefore, we expunge all the observations of the ld. Addl./JCIT(Appeals) by setting aside the impugned order. We also recorded a finding that the CPC, Bengaluru has erred in comprehending the facts from the computation of income. We direct the ld. Assessing Officer to accept the computation of income submitted by the assessee without making any adjustment.

With the above finding, the appeal of the assessee is allowed. Order pronounced in the open Court on 09/04/2024. Sd/- Sd/- (Rajesh Kumar) (Rajpal Yadav) Accountant Member Vice-President (KZ) Kolkata, the 9th day of April, 2024