Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, INDORE BENCH, INDORE
Before: MS.SUCHITRA KAMBLE & SHRIB.M. BIYANI
आदेश/O R D E R
Per B.M. Biyani, A.M.:
Feeling aggrieved by appeal-order dated 29.07.2021 passed by learned Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [“Ld. CIT(A)”], which in turn arises out of intimation of assessment dated 09.03.2019 passed by learned DCIT(CPC), Bangalore [“Ld. AO”] u/s 143(1) of Income-tax Act, 1961 [“the Act”] for Assessment- Year[“AY”] 2017-18, the assessee has filed this appeal on following grounds:
“1.That learned Commissioner of Income Tax appeals has earned in confirming the action of Ld. AO while processing the return only considering the receipts derived from the property of the trust and has not considered the application of such income both by applying the The Indore Pentecostal Church of God Assessment year 2017-18 provisions of section 11 and without applying the provision of that section. 2.That learned Commissioner of Income Tax appeals without considering the documents as submitted before him reached the conclusion that in absence of any document regarding approval under section 12A benefits of section 11 cannot be allowed.
That learned Commissioner of Income Tax appeals without according or raising his query regarding submission of approval for section 12A denied the benefits of section 11 of the Act.
That learned Commissioner of Income Tax appeals without referring the personal profile of the assessee available with the department and considering the audit report submitted before him in form 10B denied the benefit of section 11 of the Act.”
Heard the learned Representatives of both sides at length and case- records perused.
3. The sole grievance of assessee raised in the grounds cited above is such that the lower authorities have wrongly denied exemption u/s 11 on the footing that the assessee does not have registration u/s 12A. Initially the disallowance was made by CPC in the intimation u/s 143(1) and thereafter, during first-appeal, the disallowance was upheld by Ld. CIT(A).
4. Ld. AR drew our attention to following observation made by Ld. CIT(A) in his order:
“5.4 In the Intimation u/s 143(1), the status of the appellant was shown as AOP/BOI. In the written submission appellant did not claim that the appellant Trust is registered u/s 12AA and did not furnish any evidence for the same. In [2007] 165 TAXMAN 533 (SC) U.P. Forest Corporation vs Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax, Lucknow, Hon'ble Supreme Court of India held Registration of a trust/institution under section 12A is a condition precedent for availing benefit under sections 11 and 12. In the present appeal, the appellant did not bring any material on record to establish that the appellant Trust is registered u/s 12AA. Hence respectfully following the above stated decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the disallowance of claim of deduction u/s 11 is upheld.”
The Indore Pentecostal Church of God Assessment year 2017-18 5. Then, the Ld. AR carried us to the intimation u/s 143(1) of the Act, relevant part of which is scanned below:
Referring to the same, the Ld. AR submitted that there is a clear mention as “Trust/Institution Registered u/s 12A” against the space marked as “Sub-status” in the intimation passed u/s 143(1) itself and therefore alleging that the assessee is not registered u/s 12A is not correct. As a matter of fact, the Ld. AR also pointed out that the assessee had also submitted auditor’s report in Form No. 10B as applicable to the institutions registered u/s 12A. Ld. AR strongly contended that the lower authorities have wrongly alleged that the assessee is not registered.
Per contra, Ld. DR argued that the assessee has not filed any evidence even during first appellate proceedings to evidence the existence of The Indore Pentecostal Church of God Assessment year 2017-18 registration u/s 12A and that is why the Ld. CIT(A) had no option except to uphold the disallowance of exemption u/s 11 to assessee. Ld. DR urged to sustain the action of Ld. CIT(A).
We have considered the submission of both sides and perused intimation u/s 143(1) as well as appeal order passed by ld. CIT(A). We note that the lower authorities have denied exemption to assessee for want of evidence of registration u/s 12A of the Act. We further observe that not only the Ld. AR is strongly claiming that the trust is actually registered u/s 12A but also the intimation u/s 143(1) is also taking cognizance of this fact against “sub-status” as scanned above. At that same time, we also find weightage in the submission of Ld. DR that in absence of evidence from assessee with regard to registration u/s 12A, the exemption cannot be allowed. Thus, to settle the rival claims, we are inclined to remand this case back to Ld. CIT(A) to re-verify the status of assessee i.e. whether it is really registered u/s 12A or not from the departmental record and also consider any evidence as may be submitted by assessee to prove the existence of registration and thereafter pass a needful order in accordance with the provision of law.
Resultantly, this appeal of assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced as per Rule 34 of I.T.A.T. Rules, 1963 on 27/02/2023. Order pronounced in the open court on ….../……/2023.