GRUHINI SAMAJ,NAGPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BANGALORE

PDF · subscribers
ITA 35/NAG/2022Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur18 November 2022AY 2014-153 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The tribunal upheld the rejection of the Section 11 exemption claim due to the absence of Section 12AA registration. However, the issue regarding the assessment rate was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Gruhini Samaj, appealed against the rejection of its Section 11 exemption claim and the assessment at maximum marginal rate. The assessee lacked the mandatory Section 12AA registration for exemption.

What were the issues?

Whether the assessee is eligible for Section 11 exemption without Section 12AA registration, and whether the assessment should be at the maximum marginal rate.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 11,Section 12AA,Section 164,Section 250

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(1)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, NAGPUR BENCH “SMC”, NAGPUR

Before: SHRI S.S.GODARA

For Appellant: Shri Anshu R. Deshpande
For Respondent: Shri G.J. Ninawe

आदेश / ORDER

PER S.S. GODARA, JM :

1.

This assessee’s appeal for AY 2014-15 arises against the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi NFAC’s order dated 07-01-2022, passed in case No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2021- 22/1038519820(1), involving proceedings under Section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 in short the Act.

Heard both the parties. Case file perused. 2. Coming to the assessee’s first and foremost substantive ground that both the learned lower authorities have erred in law and on facts in rejecting its section 11 exemption claim of Rs.3,41,828/-, learned counsel could hardly dispute that it does not carry section 12AA registration which forms a mandatory condition as per CIT vs. U.P. Forest Corpn. [1998] 230 ITR 945 (SC). That being the case, there is hardly heed for this tribunal to delve deeper in the relevant factual matrix. Rejected accordingly.

3.

Next comes the assessee’s latter substantive ground that both the learned lower authorities have erred in law and on facts in assessing at maximum marginal rate and not at the rate of tax as applicable to individual/HUF u/s 164 of the Act. The Revenue could hardly rebut the clinching fact that the CIT(A) has nowhere decided the assessee’s corresponding second substantive ground raised in the lower appellate proceedings. I, therefore, deem it proper to restore the assessee’s instant latter grievance back to the CIT(A) for his proper adjudication as per law within three effective opportunities of hearing. Ordered accordingly.

4.

No other argument has been raised during the course of hearing.

5.

This assessee’s appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes in above terms.

Order pronounced in the Open Court on 21st November, 2022.

Similar judgments

Other orders that rely on the same authority or decide the same section.

More judgments on Section 11

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

Latest GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →