ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, (EXEMPTIONS), CIRCLE-1, BENGALURU V. RAJIV GANDHI UNIVERSITY OF HEALTH SCIENCES, BENGALURU

ITA 126/BANG/2024

AI Insights

The case involves the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax as the appellant and Rajiv Gandhi University of Health Sciences as the respondent. The dispute centered on the deletion of an income addition of Rs. 4,42,543 by the CIT(A), which was initially added by the AO for not being reported in the original return but was later included in a belated revised return. Additionally, the CIT(A) allowed an exemption under section 11(2) of the Income Tax Act, despite the cancellation of the 12A registration. The revenue challenged these decisions, but the appeal was dismissed based on the monetary threshold for filing appeals as per the CBDT circular.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 712802 (ITAT-BANGALORE)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 31-07-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Assessment Year: 2015-2016
• Other Referred Cases: CIT v. Delhi Race Club Limited, CIT Delhi-III v. M/s. P.S. Jain & Co.
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: MUTHUSHANKAR
• Assessee Lawyers: SUMAN LUNKAR
• Keywords: Revised return; Tax effect
• Section: 12A

Judgement Text

"ITA No.126/Bang/2024 Rajiv Gandhi University of Health Sciences IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B’’ BENCH: BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI LAXMI PRASAD SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI KESHAV DUBEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No.126/Bang/2024 Assessment Year : 2015-16 Asst. commissioner of Income Tax Room No. 606, 6th Floor Unity Building Annexe P. Kalinga Rao Road – 560027 Karnataka Vs. Rajiv Gandhi University of Health Sciences 4th T Block Jayanagar – 560041 Karnataka PAN : AAALF0023C APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessee by : Sri Suman Lunkar, CA Department by : Sri Muthu Shankar, CIT DR Date of Hearing : 31.07.2025 Date of Pronouncement : 31.07.2025 O R D E R PER KESHAV DUBEY: This appeal at the instance of the revenue is directed against the order of the ld. CIT(A)/NFAC dated 22.11.2023 vide DIN & Order No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2023-24/1058121040(1) passed u/s.250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”).for the A.Y.2015-16. 2. The Revenue has raised the following grounds of appeal: - “I. The order of Ld. CIT(A) is opposed to facts and circumstances of the case; II. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition made by the AO on account of income of Rs.4,42,543/- not offered for taxation for A.Y.2015-16 despite the fact that the said income was not offered for taxation in the original Return of Income filed on 28.10.2015 which is a valid Return; III. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition made by the AO on account of income of Rs.4,42,543/- not offered for taxation for A. Y.2015-16 on the ground that the same was offered for taxation by the assessee in the revised Return of Income for A.Y.2015-16 while the Revised Return so filed was belated and not valid; Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.126/Bang/2024 Rajiv Gandhi University of Health Sciences Page 2 of 4 IV. The Ld.CIT(A) erred in allowing assessee's claim of exemption u/s. 11(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 although the 12A registration granted to the assessee had been cancelled by the learned DIT(Exemptions) vide order dated 08.11.2011 u/s.12AA(3) and the assessee was not eligible for exemption u/s.11(2), despite the fact that the AO had rightly denied the exemption; V. The appellant craves leave to add, alter or amend all or any of the Grounds of Appeal before or at the time of the hearing of the appeal; VI. The order of the Ld. CIT(A) may be set-aside and the order of the AO may be confirmed”. 3. On going through the above grounds of appeal, we take a note of the fact that the Revenue has mainly challenged the deletion of income amounting to Rs.4,42,543/- not offered for taxation in the original return of Income but offered for taxation in revised return which is belated & hence not a valid return. Further, the revenue in the Ground No. IV above has also contested that the ld. CIT(A)/NFAC erred in allowing assessee’s claim of exemption u/s 11(2) of the Act although the 12A registration granted to the assessee had been cancelled by the DIT(Exemptions) vide order dated 08.11.2011 under section 12AA(3) of the Act. 4. The ld. AR of the assessee Smt. Suman Lunkar, CA during the course of hearing on 21/01/2025 fervently submitted that the Registration u/s 12A of the assessee was not cancelled by the Department and if cancelled, the due process including the service of the cancellation Order was not followed. This Bench vide Order sheet dated 21/01/2024, had directed the ld. DR to produce the copy of cancellation of 12A registration certificate and accordingly the Ld. Departmental Representative drew our attention to the copy of e-mail from the ld. DCIT(Exemptions), Bangalore stating the fact that as per the records, the CIT(E) has not withdrawn the 12A registration. Although the assessing officer(AO) mentioned this in the assessment order, the computation sheet reflects a 15% benefit. This being so, this ground of the revenue is dismissed. Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.126/Bang/2024 Rajiv Gandhi University of Health Sciences Page 3 of 4 5. Now with regard to the deletion of income not offered for taxation in the original return of Income, the total tax effect as per Form No.36 is Rs.4,42,543/- only which is way below the monetary limit specified under the Board Circular No. 9 of 2024 dated 17.09.2024. We are of the opinion that Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT v. Delhi Race Club Limited In ITA 128 of 2008 order dated 03.03.2011 by following the earlier order dated 02.08.2010 in ITA 179/ 1991 in the case of CIT Delhi-III v. M/s. P.S. Jain & Co. held that such circular would also be applicable to pending cases also. 6. From the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court, it is clear that orders / Instructions / Directions issued by the CBDT by way of circular are applicable for pending cases also. Therefore, keeping in view the ratio laid down in the aforesaid referred two cases, we are of the considered view that Circular No. 9/2024 dated 17.09.2024 issued by the CBDT are also applicable for the pending cases and in the said circular monetary tax limit for not filing the appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal is Rs. 60 Lakhs whereas in the present appeal the total tax effect as stated by Ld. DR is only Rs. 4,42,543/-. Further, it is affirmed in the circular that it shall also apply to the SLP/Appeals pending before Supreme Court / High Court / Tribunal which may accordingly be withdrawn. In view of the above, without going to the merits of this issue, we dismiss the appeal filed by the revenue as not maintainable. 7. In the result, appeal of the revenue stands dismissed. Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.126/Bang/2024 Rajiv Gandhi University of Health Sciences Page 4 of 4 Order pronounced in the open court on 31st July, 2025 Sd/- (Laxmi Prasad Sahu) Accountant Member Sd/- (Keshav Dubey) Judicial Member Bangalore, Dated: 31st July, 2025. Giridhar/Sr.PS Copy to: 1. The Applicant 2. The Respondent 3. The CIT 4. The DR, ITAT, Bangalore. 5 Guard file By order Asst. Registrar, ITAT, Bangalore. Printed from counselvise.com "