AL AMEEN EDUCATION SOCIETY,PUNE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, EXEMPTION, KOLHAPUR, KOLHAPUR

PDF · subscribers
ITA 168/PUN/2024Status: DisposedITAT Pune07 June 2024AY 2017-18Bench: SHRI RAMA KANTA PANDA (Vice President), SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA (Judicial Member)5 pages

In favour of the assessee: the assessee's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that filing of the audit report (Form 10B) is not a mandatory condition and is curable. The matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for factual verification.

What were the facts?

The assessee society claimed exemption under Section 11 of the Income Tax Act. The exemption was denied by the lower authorities due to non-compliance with filing Form 10B before the processing of the return under Section 143(1).

What were the issues?

Whether the denial of Section 11 exemption for belated filing of Form 10B is sustainable, and if such a defect is curable.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 11,Section 143(1),Section 154

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(4)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, PUNE “A” BENCH : PUNE

Before: SHRI RAMA KANTA PANDA & SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA

Hearing: 05.06.2024Pronounced: 07.06.2024

Order Nos.ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2023-24/1058321521(1) and 1057520843(1), dated 29.11.2023 and dated 16.12.2021, involving proceedings u/s. 154 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”); respectively.

Heard both the parties. Case file perused.

2.

The assessee in it’s former “lead” appeal ITA.No.167/PUN./2024 pleads the following substantive grounds :

2 ITA.Nos.167 & 168/PUN./2024

1.

“The Id CIT(A) erred in law and on facts in confirming

assessed income at Rs.74,41,863/-/- without granting deduction u/s.11 of the Income Tax Act. 2. The Ld. CIT(A) erred on facts and in law in confirming

Order u/s.154 and accepting the income as per intimation u/s.143(1)(a) of the Act without granting deduction of expenses of Rs.73,62,059/-.

3.

The Ld. CIT(A) failed to appreciate that Form 10B was filed, though belatedly and the condonation application of the appellant was pending before CIT-(Exemption).

4. The exemption u/s.11 of the Act ought to have been granted to the appellant. 5. The appellant craves leave to add, alter, modify or substitute any ground of appeal.”

3. Both the parties next invited our attention to the NFAC’s detailed discussion affirming the CPC’s action disallowing the assessee’s sec.11 exemption claim reading as under :

3 ITA.Nos.167 & 168/PUN./2024

4.

Both the parties next clarify that as against assessee having filed it’s Form-10B audit report post-facto sec.154 order herein; the very Form regarding the latter assessment year 2017-2018 had been placed on record during 154 proceedings itself. Keeping in mind this fine distinction, it transpires that the learned lower authorities have declined the assessee’s impugned relevant claim on account of the fact that it failed to comply with the mandatory condition of Form-10B filing before CPC in sec.143(1) “processing”. There is hardly any dispute that the assessee had duly filed it’s statutory audit report well with the corresponding returns in these

4 ITA.Nos.167 & 168/PUN./2024 impugned assessment years. Faced with this situation, we quote case law CIT vs. Xavier Kelavani Mandal (P. ) Ltd., [2014] 41 taxmann.com 184 (Guj.); Social Security Scheme of GICEA vs. CIT (E) 147 taxmann.com 283 (Guj.); SMKR Vashi High School vs. ITO (Exemption) 157 taxmann.com 702 (Surat); Gyandeep Charitable Trust vs. ADIT, Ahmedabad ITA.No.55/AHD./2023; Kokan Kala Shikshan Vikaas Sanstha vs. DCIT ITA.No.645/PUN./2021; Sant Bhagwanbaba Shikshan Mandal vs. ITO (Exemption) ITA.No.554/PUN./2021; Shri Jain Shwetamber Murtipujak Sangh vs. ITO (Exemption), Raipur ITA.Nos.15 & 16/RPR./ 2022; Dr. Sukar Jurisdictional Magdum Foundation vs. ITO (Exemption)

ITA.No.320/PUN./2023; Mahatma Phule Shikshan Prasarak Mandal vs. DCIT ITA.No.525/PUN./2023; Shri Namiyun Parswanath Jain Swetamber Manidhari Trust vs. ITO (Exemption) 155 taxmann.com 407 (Jabalpur) and Shree Bhairav Seva Samiti vs. ITO (Exemption) 101 ITR (T) 708 (Mum.), to hold that filing of such an audit report is not a mandatory condition which is very much curable by way of seeking sec.154 rectification. We accordingly accept the assessee’s instant identical sole substantive grievance in principle and restore the matter to the jurisdictional Assessing Officer/CPC for necessary factual verification as per law within three effective opportunities of hearing in above terms.

Ordered accordingly.

5 ITA.Nos.167 & 168/PUN./2024

5.

These assessee’s twin appeals I.T.A.Nos.167 & 168/ PUN./2024 are allowed for statistical purposes in above terms.

Order pronounced in the open Court on 07.06.2024.

More judgments on Section 11

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →