AHMEDABAD KANKARIA ADARIAN ,AHMEDABAD vs. CPC, BENGALURU, JURISDICTION AO : THE ITO WARD-1(EXEMPTION), AHMEDABAD

This appeal has been filed by the Assessee against the order passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-13, Ahmedabad, vide order dated 06.03.2024 passed for the Assessment Year 2019-20.

2. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts of the case in holding the audit report (Form No. 10B) filed by the appellant as time barred when the same has been duly filed within the extended time period.

Ahmedabad Kankaria Adarian. vs. CPC Asst.Year –2019-20 - 2– 3. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts of the case in confirming the action of the Ld. AO in disallowing claim of Rs. 1,52,49,324/- u/s. 11(1A) of the Act in a rectification filed by the appellant for another error.

4. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts of the case in confirming prima facie adjustment of Rs. 1,52,49,324/- made by Ld. AO u/s. 143(1) of the Act. The claim u/s. 11(1A) of the Act is an issue requiring long drawn process of reasoning and cannot be disallowed u/s. 143(1) of the Act as a primary adjustment.

7. The appellant craves leave to add, amend, alter, edit, delete, modify or change all or any of the grounds of appeal at the time of or before the hearing of the appeal.

3. The assessee is a public charitable trust created on 17.07.1929 and registered u/s.12A of the Act. The assessee claimed deduction of Rs.1,52,00,000/- u/s.11(1A) of the Act, while filing the revised return of income. The CPC, Bengaluru issued notice dated 12.02.202, whereby the adjustment of Rs.1,52,00,000/- was proposed on account of reason being not shown in Part B is not in consistency with the value of Schedule EC and the cost of the new asset was shown in Schedule EC which is greater than Schedule AI. Owing to the mismatch, the revised return was processed on 19.03.2021 and the CPC denied the claim under section 11(1) of the assessee. The Ld.CIT(A), confirmed the order of the Ld.CPC

 The Part B at serial no.4(ii) shown an amount of Rs. 1.52 crores  Schedule EC had shown Rs.1.52 crores (page 72 of the paper book )  Schedule EC at serial no.3 shown as 1.52 crores  Schedule AI at serial no.8 has also shown Rs.1.52 crores.

The acknowledgement of the return of income, statement of income and ITR-5 filed have been perused. Thus, from the revised return of income, it is clear that the reasons provided by the CPC for making adjustment are factually incorrect and there was no mismatch or inconsistency. In view of the above, we find that CPC was not justified in denying the claim of the assessee, while processing the revised return of income u/s.143(1) of the Act.

6. We also find that the Ld.CIT(A) was not found default with the submission of the assessee but Ld.CIT(A) denied the claim on the ground that form 10B was filed on 25.10.2019, which is not one month prior to the filing of the return of income u/s.139(1) of the Income tax Act. Thus, we find that the reason of disallowance by the CPC and the reason of Ld.CIT(A) are different, we also find that the amendment for filing of Audit report one month prior to the date of filing the return of income u/s.139(1) of the Act came with effect from 25.10.2019. Hence, we hold that such amendment is not applicable to the case of the assessee in the instant year. Since, the rational of Ld.CIT(A) in denying the claim is based on the non enforceable amendment applicable to the year, we hold that the action of the Ld.CIT(A) cannot be upheld.

This Order pronounced in Open Court on 19.12.2024

Sd/- Sd/- (TR SENTHIL KUMAR) (DR. BRR KUMAR) JUDICIAL MEMBER VICE PRESIDENT (True Copy) Ahmedabad; Dated 19.12.2024 Manish, Sr. PS TRUE COPY आदेश क� �ितिलिप अ�ेिषत/Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथ� / The Appellant 2. ��यथ� / The Respondent. 3. संबंिधत आयकर आयु� / Concerned CIT 4. आयकर आयु�(अपील) / The CIT(A)- 5. िवभागीय �ितिनिध, आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, अहमदाबाद / DR, ITAT, Ahmedabad 6. गाड� फाईल / Guard file. आदेशानुसार/ BY ORDER,