Arya Samaj G.K.-II (Regd), New Delhi V. ITO, Exemption Ward-1(1), Bangalore

ITA 1013/DEL/2019

• Counselvise Citation: [2020] 111 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 2917 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 27 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 05-03-2020
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2014-2015
• Appeal Filed On: 08-02-2019
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SARAS KUMAR
• Assessee Lawyers: P P GAMBHIR
• Keywords: Rectification of order; Charitable institution; Principle of natural justice; Procedural lapse; Capital Gains
• Section: 143(3); 12A; 10B; 143(1); 13; 54; 154; 11

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH SMC NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. NO.1013/DEL/2019 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2014-15 ARYA SAMAJ G.K.-II (REGD.) M-BLOCK, ROAD NO.1, GREATER KAILASH-II, NEW DELHI. VS. ITO (EXEMPTION), WARD-1(1), BANGALORE. TAN/PAN: AABTA6009L (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY: SHRI P.P. GAMBHIR, CA RESPONDENT BY: SHRI SARAS KUMAR, SR.D.R. DATE OF HEARING: 10 12 2019 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 05 03 2020 O R D E R PER AMIT SHUKLA, JM THE AFORESAID APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 20.12.2018, PASSED BY LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-XL, DELHI IN R ELATION TO ORDER PASSED U/S.154 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2014-1 5. IN THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL, THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED FOLL OWING GROUNDS:- 1. THAT THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LEARNED COMMISSION ER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-40 IS BAD AT LAW, WRONG IN FAC TS AND AGAINST THE PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE. 2. THAT THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX HAS ERRED IN NOT CONSIDERING THE OBJECTIONS RAISED BY THE APPELL ANT THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD NO POWERS TO MAKE I.T.A. NO.1013/DEL/2019 2 ADDITIONS/DISALLOWANCES U/S 143(1) IN RESPECT OF TH E DEDUCTIONS CLAIMED U/S 11(1), 11(2) AND 12A OF INCOME TAX ACT, 1961. 3. THAT THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (AP PEALS) HAS ERRED IN NOT CONDONING THE TYPOGRAPHICAL MISTAKES D UE TO HUMAN ERRORS UNDER PARA C(I), 6, 7, 8 AND 9(I) TO 9(V), I NSPITE OF THE FACT THAT THE APPELLANT ARYA SAMAJ G.K.-II IS A REGISTER ED SOCIETY U/S 12A/12A(A) OF INCOME TAX ACT, 1961. SIMILARLY THERE IS A TYPING MISTAKE IN THE AUDIT REPORT OF WRITING THE FIGURE O F RS. 804,772/- AGAINST PARA NO. (4) RELATING TO EXEMPTION U/S. 11( 1)(C) INSTEAD OF PARA NO. (3) RELATING TO AMOUNT OF ACCUMULATED OR S ET APART FOR APPLICATION TO CHARITABLE OR RELIGIOUS PURPOSES, TO THE EXTENT IT DOES NOT EXCEED 15 PERCENT OF THE INCOME DERIVED FR OM PROPERTY HELD UNDER TRUST IN PART ONLY FOR SUCH PURPOSES. 4. THAT THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (AP PEALS) HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE DISALLOWANCE OF DEDUCTION O F RS. 700,000/- CLAIMED U/S. 11(2) EVEN THOUGH THE SAME W AS RIGHTLY MENTIONED UNDER PARA 9(VI). HOWEVER, THE COMMISSION ER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) CONFIRMED THE DISALLOWANCE ON THE GROUND THAT THERE IS A TYPOGRAPHICAL MISTAKE/ERROR OF TYPI NG WORD NO AGAINST PARA C(I) INSTEAD OF YES, INSPITE OF HAVI NG EXPLAINED THE FACT THAT THE SOCIETY ARYA SAMAJ G.K.-II IS DULY RE GISTERED U/S 12A OF INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 VIDE CERTIFICATE NO. DI(E)220/91/886 DATED 28.06.1991. 5. THAT THE ASSESSEE DECLARED AN INCOME OF RS. 318 ,428/-, WHICH WAS CLAIMED EXEMPT U/S 12A OF THE ACT BUT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD WRONGLY INCLUDED THE SAID AMOUNT IN THE TOTAL INCOME AND COMPUTED THE TAX ACCORDINGLY. I.T.A. NO.1013/DEL/2019 3 BESIDES THIS, THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO RAISED THE FOLL OWING ADDITIONAL GROUND:- 6. THAT THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER AS WELL AS T HE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) HAVE E RRED IN INCLUDING THE INCOME EARNED BY THE APPELLANT FROM D ONATIONS AND OTHER SOURCES USED FOR CHARITABLE AND RELIGIOUS PURPOSES BY THE APPELLANT, WHICH IS AS PER PROVISION OF SECTION 10(23C)(V) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 IS NOT TO BE INCLUDED IN T HE TOTAL INCOME OF APPELLANT, AS THE APPELLANT IS REGISTERED U/S 12 A/12AA OF INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 VIDE REGISTRATION NO. DI (E)22 0/91/886 DATED 28.06.1991.' 2. THE FACTS IN BRIEF ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE IS A CH ARITABLE TRUST AND IS ALSO REGISTERED U/S.12A VIDE REGISTRAT ION DATED 28.06.1991. THE TRUST HAS BEEN REGULARLY FILING ITS RETURN OF INCOME AND FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2014-15 IT HAS F ILED ITS RETURN OF INCOME ONLINE ON 21.09.2014 DECLARING NI L INCOME AFTER CLAIMING DEDUCTION U/S.12A, 11(1) AND 11(2). THE SAID RETURN WAS PROCESS U/S. 143(1) WHEREIN DEDUCTION WE RE DISALLOWED, VIZ.; (I) RS.8,04,742/- CLAIMED U/S.11(1); (II) RS. 7 LAC CLAIMED U/S.11(2) AND (III) RS.3,18,428/- U/S.12A. 3. THE ASSESSEE FILED AN APPLICATION U/S.154 DATED 25.02.2016 FOR RECTIFICATION OF MISTAKE AND ALSO FI LED FORM NO.12A ON 07.01.009 ELECTRONICALLY CLAIMING EXEMPTI ON OF TOTAL INCOME AS NOT TAXABLE SEEKING CERTAIN CORRECT ION OF THE MISTAKES. THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE WAS THAT WHILE F ILING THE I.T.A. NO.1013/DEL/2019 4 VARIOUS COLUMNS IN THE INCOME TAX RETURN, CERTAIN E RRORS AND MISTAKES WERE COMMITTED WHILE FILING AND UPLOADING THE ROI. LIKE, THE INFORMATION AGAINST COLUMNS OF THE RETURN IN PARA C(I), 6, 7, 8 AND 9(I) TO 9(V) OF THE INCOME TAX RE TURN RELATING TO REGISTRATION OF TRUST U/S.12A, CLAIM OF DEDUCTIO N UNDER SECTIONS 11(1) AND 11(2) OF INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 WE RE INCORRECTLY NARRATED. THERE WAS ALSO A MISTAKE OF T YPING IN COLUMN RELATING TO FORM NO.10B, AS WORD NO WAS TY PED AGAINST PARA NO. C(I) RELATING TO REGISTRATION OF T RUST U/S.12A/12AA, INSTEAD OF WORD YES AS THE TRUST WA S ACTUALLY REGISTERED U/S.12A OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961. THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER VIDE ORDER DATED 22.04.2017 U/S.1 54 REJECTED THE REQUEST FOR RECTIFICATION STATING THAT THERE IS NO PRIMA FACIE ERROR IN THE ORDER ON THE GROUND THAT:- I) TAX PAYER HAS NOT PROVIDED THE REGISTRATION DETAILS U/S 12A/12AA OF INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 AND THESE DETAILS ARE TO BE MENTIONED IN COLUMN C(I) OF SCHEDULE PART A- GENE RAL (2) OF ITR7, HENCE DEDUCTION OF EXEMPTION U/S 11 IS NOT AL LOWED. II) AUDIT REPORT IN FORM NO. 10B IS NOT E-FILED BEFORE FILING THE RETURN. III) ONLY TRUST REGISTERED U/S 12A/12AA ARE REQUIRED TO FILE ITR7. 4. BEFORE THE LD. CIT (A), THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED T HAT THERE WERE CERTAIN MISTAKES AND ERROR IN CERTAIN COLUMNS WHICH WERE GIVEN IN THE FOLLOWING MANNER: I.T.A. NO.1013/DEL/2019 5 S .NO. PARA NO. OF IT RETURN PARTICULARS WHAT WAS TYPED ERRONEOUSLY WHAT WAS TO BE TYPED CORRECTLY PART-A GENERAL OF RETURN 1) C - (I) WHETHER REGISTERED U/S 12A/12AA? NO YES PART-B TI STATEMENT OF INCOME 2) 1. INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY [3C OF SCHEDULE HP] (ENTER NIL IF LOSS). NIL NIL 3) 2. PROFITS AND GAINS OF BUSINESS OR PROFESSION OF BUSINESS OF PROFESSION [AS PER ITEM NO.E 35 OF SCHEDULE BP]. 159,214 NIL 4) 3. INCOME UNDER THE HEAD CAPITAL GAINS NIL NIL 5) 4. INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES [AS PER ITEM NO.4 OF SCHEDULE OS] 1,663,658 NIL 6) 5. VOLUNTARY CONTRIBUTIONS (C O F SCHEDULE VC). NIL 4,944,279 7) 6. GROSS INCOME 1,823,170 7,089,149 8) 7. AGGREGATE OF INCOME REFERRED TO IN SECTION U/S11 AND 12 DERIVED DURING THE PREVIOUS YEAR TO THE EXTENT THAT IS INCLUDED IN 6 ABOVE NIL 7,089,149 9) 8. VOLUNTARY CONTRIBUTIO N FORMING PART OF CORPUS AS PER SECTION 11(1)(D) [(AI + BI) OF SCHEDULE VC]. NIL 1,724,200 10) 9. AMOUNT APPLIED TO CHARITABLE OR RELIGIOUS PURPOSES IN INDIA DURING THE PREVIOUS YEAR REVENUE ACCOUNT. NIL 3,499,789 11) 9. AMOUNT APPLIED TO CHARITABLE OR RELIGIOUS PURPOSES IN INDIA DURING THE PREVIOUS YEAR- CAPITAL ACCOUNT [EXCLUDING APPLICATION FROM BORROWED FUNDS AND AMOUNT EXEMPT U/S 11(1A)]. NIL 41,990 12) 9. AMOUNT APPLIED TO CHARITABLE OR RELIGIOUS PURPOSES IN INDIA DURING NIL NIL I.T.A. NO.1013/DEL/2019 6 THE PREVIOUS YEAR CA PITAL ACCOUNT (REPAYMENT OF LOAN). 13) 9. AMOUNT DEEMED TO HAVE BEEN APPLIED TO CHARITABLE OR RELIGIOUS PURPOSES IN INDIA DURING THE PREVIOUS YEAR AS PER CLAUSE (2) OF EXPLANATION TO SECTION11(1). 804,742 NIL A) IF (IV) ABOVE APPLICABLE WHETHER OPTION TO BE EXERCISED IN WRITING BEFORE DUE DATE TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER. NO YES 14) 9(V) AMOUNT ACCUMULATED OR SET APART FOR APPLIVATION TO CHARITABLE OR RELIGIOUS PURPOSES TO THE EXTENT IT DOES NOT EXCEED 15 PER CENT OF INCOME DERIVED FROM PROPERTY HELD IN TRUST/INSTITUTION UNDER SECTION 11(1)(A)/11(1)(B) [RESTRICTED TO THE MAXIMUM OF 15% OF (7-8) ABOVE] NIL 804,742 15 ) 9( VI ) AMOUNT IN ADDITION TO AMOUNT REFERRED TO IN (IV) ABOVE, ACCUMULATED OR SET APART FOR SPECIFIED PURPOSES IF ALL THE CONDITIONS IN SECTION 11(2) AND 11(5) ARE FULFILLED (FILL OUT SCHEDULE I) 700,000 700,000 16) 9(VII) AMOUNT IN ADDITION TO AMOUNT REFERRED TO IN (IV) ABOVE, ACCUMULATED OR SET APART FOR SPECIFIED PURPOSES IF ALL THE CONDITIONS IN SECTION 11(2) AND 11(5) ARE FULFILLED (FILL OUT SCHEDULE I) NIL NIL 9(VIII) TOTAL [9I+9I I+9III+ 9IV + 9V + 9VI + 9VII] 15,04,742 5,046,521 17) 10. ADDITIONS: I. INCOME CHARGEABLE UNDER SECTION 11(1B) NIL NIL II. INCOME CHARGEABLE UNDER SECTION 11(3) NIL NIL III. INCOME IN RESPECT OF WHICH EXEMPTION UNDER SECTION 11 IS NOT NIL NIL I.T.A. NO.1013/DEL/2019 7 AVAILABLE BY VIRTUE OF PROVISIONS OF SECTION 13. IV. INCOME CHARGEABLE UNDER SECTION 12(2). NIL NIL V. TOTAL [10I +10II+ 10II IA+ NIL NIL 18) 11. INCOME CHARGEABLE U/S 11(4) [AS PER ITEM NO. E36 OF SCHEDULE BP] NIL NIL 19) 12. TOTAL (6 - 8 - 9VIII + 10V + 11) 318,428 318,428 5. HOWEVER, THE LD. CIT (A) REJECTED THE ASSESSEES CONTENTION ON THE GROUND THAT THERE IS NO INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER OF THE CPC IN REJECTING THE APPLICATION U/S.1 54, BECAUSE THE MISTAKE WAS ON THE PART OF THE ASSESSEE IN FILL ING CERTAIN DETAILS IN THE RETURN OF INCOME. THE RELEVANT OBSER VATION AND THE FINDINGS OF THE LD. CIT (A) ARE AS UNDER: 5.2.1 I HAVE CONSIDERED THE INTIMATION UNDER SECTI ON 143(1), THE IMPUGNED ORDER UNDER SECTION 154 AND THE SUBMIS SIONS OF THE APPELLANT. 1 HAVE ALSO PERUSED THE INCOME TAX R ETURN, A COPY OF WHICH WAS FURNISHED AS ANNEXURE-2 VIDE SUBM ISSIONS DATED 07.12.2018. FROM THE PERUSAL OF THE RETURN IT IS SEEN THAT IN COLUMN - CI, WHICH PERTAINS TO WHETHER REGISTERE D UNDER SECTION 12A/12AA, THE APPELLANT HAS SELECTED THE OP TION AS 'NO'. THIS MEANS THAT THE APPELLANT HAS STATED IN ITS RET URN THAT IT IS NOT REGISTERED UNDER SECTION 12A/12AA. AS PER SECTI ON 12A(1), EXEMPTION UNDER SECTION 11 IS ALLOWABLE ONLY IF TRU ST OR INSTITUTION IS REGISTERED UNDER SECTION 12A/12AA. S INCE THE APPELLANT ITSELF MENTIONED THAT THE TRUST/INSTITUTI ON WAS NOT REGISTERED UNDER SECTION 12A/12AA, EXEMPTION UNDER SECTION 11 WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ALLOWABLE TO IT AT THE TIME OF PROCESSING THE RETURN UNDER SECTION 143(1) SINCE CLAIM OF EXEMPTIO N UNDER SECTION 11 WOULD HAVE BEEN AN INCORRECT CLAIM IN AB SENCE OF I.T.A. NO.1013/DEL/2019 8 REGISTRATION UNDER SECTION 12A. HENCE, TO THAT EXTE NT THERE WAS NO INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER OF THE CPC IN REJECTING T HE APPLICATION UNDER SECTION 154 BY STATING THAT EXEMPTION UNDER S ECTION 11 IS NOT ALLOWED. EVEN, OTHERWISE, WHEN SEEN FROM THE RE TURN OF INCOME, THE DEDUCTION OF RS. 8,04,742/- HAS BEEN CL AIMED IN COLUMN-9IV WHICH PERTAINS TO AMOUNT DEEMED TO HAVE BEEN APPLIED TO CHARITABLE OR RELIGIOUS PURPOSES IN INDI A DURING THE PREVIOUS YEAR AS PER CLAUSE (2) OF EXPLANATION TO S ECTION 11(1). FURTHER, IT HAS ALSO BEEN MENTIONED THAT NO OPTION FOR THE SAME HAS BEEN EXERCISED IN WRITING BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER. HENCE, THERE IS NOT INFIRMITY IN THE CPC DENYING TH E SAID DEDUCTION, THIS BEING ALSO AN INCORRECT CLAIM WHICH IS APPARENT FROM ANY INFORMATION IN THE RETURN. IT IS ALSO NOTE D THAT IN THE AUDIT REPORT IN FORM 10-B WHICH WAS UPLOADED ONLINE , THE SAID AMOUNT HAS BEEN SHOWN IN THE COLUMN PERTAINING TO A MOUNT ELIGIBLE FROM EXEMPTION UNDER SECTION 11(1)(C). HEN CE, THERE IS NOT INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER OF THE CPC IN NOT ALLOWING E XEMPTION UNDER SECTION 11 ON THE BASIS OF INFORMATION AVAILABLE IN THE RETURN. GROUNDS OF APPEAL NOS. 2 AND 3 ARE DISMISSED. 5.3 GROUND OF APPEAL NO.4 CHALLENGES THE NOT ALLOWI NG DEDUCTION OF RS. 7,00,000/- ON ACCOUNT OF ACCUMULATION IN TER MS OF SECTION 11(2). 5.3.1 AS DISCUSSED ABOVE, THE APPELLANT HAS MENTIO NED IN THE RETURN OF INCOME THAT IT IS NOT REGISTERED UNDER SE CTION 12A/12AA IN THE RETURN OF INCOME, CONSEQUENT TO WHICH THE CP C DID NOT ALLOW EXEMPTION UNDER SECTION 11. FROM THE COPY OF THE RETURN OF INCOME FILED AS ANNEXURE-2 VIDE SUBMISSION DATED 07 .12.2018, IT IS SEEN THAT THE APPELLANT HAS CLAIMED THE DEDUCTIO N OF RS. 7,00,000/- IN COLUMN 9VI ON ACCOUNT OF ACCUMULATION UNDER I.T.A. NO.1013/DEL/2019 9 SECTION 11(2). HOWEVER, IN SCHEDULE-1 THE SAID AMOU NT HAS NOT FILLED IN AND IT HAS ALSO NOT BEEN MENTIONED THAT T HE AMOUNT SO ACCUMULATED HAS BEEN INVESTED OR DEPOSITED IN THE M ODES SPECIFIED IN SECTION 11(5). FROM THE AUDIT REPORT I N FORM 10B ALSO IT IS SEEN THAT EVEN THOUGH THE AMOUNT OF RS. 7,00, 000/- HAS BEEN SHOWN AS ACCUMULATED UNDER SECTION 11(2), IT H AS EVEN MENTIONED IN COLUMN 6 OF FORM 10B THAT THE AMOUNT O F INCOME ACCUMULATED HAS NOT BEEN INVESTED IN THE MANNER AS LAID DOWN IN SECTION 11(2)(B). HENCE, THE CLAIM UNDER SECTION 11(2), WAS ALSO AN INCORRECT CLAIM SINCE IT WAS MENTIONED THAT THE TRUST WAS NOT REGISTERED UNDER SECTION 12A/12AA AND WAS HENCE NOT ELIGIBLE FOR EXEMPTION UNDER SECTION 11. THIS WAS A PPARENT FROM THE INFORMATION GIVEN IN THE RETURN AND IN TERM OF SECTION 143(1)(A)(II) WAS AN INCORRECT CLAIM. HENCE, THERE IS NO INFIRMITY7 IN THE ORDER OF THE CPC IN REJECTING THE CLAIM MADE UNDER SECTION 11(2). GROUND OF APPEAL NO. 4 IS DISMISSED. 6. BEFORE US, THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBM ITTED THAT ASSESSEE IS STILL ENJOYING REGISTRATION U/S.12 A AND ALL ITS INCOME WAS LIABLE TO BE COMPUTED U/S.11 TO 13 OF TH E INCOME TAX AND SAID CERTIFICATE U/S 12A AND REGISTRATION S TILL HOLDS. APART FROM THAT, IN THE EARLIER YEARS ASSESSMENT H AVE BEEN COMPUTED U/S. 143(3) WHEREIN BENEFIT OF SECTION 11 HAS BEEN GIVEN. THE DISALLOWANCE OF DEDUCTION CLAIMED HAVE B EEN MADE BY THE CPC IN PROCESSING THE RETURN WAS WHOLLY ON A CCOUNT OF CERTAIN TYPOGRAPHICAL MISTAKES IN FILLING UP THE FO RM WHICH WAS PURELY CLERICAL MISTAKE AND THIS WAS THE FIRST TIME ASSESSEE TRUST WAS FILING ON-LINE RETURN ELECTRONIC ALLY. THUS, BENEFIT OF SECTION 11 CANNOT BE DENIED. I.T.A. NO.1013/DEL/2019 10 7. ON THE OTHER HAND, LD. DR STRONGLY RELIED UPON T HE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT (A) AND SUBMITTED THAT WHATEVER RETU RN OF INCOME HAS BEEN FILED, THE SAME HAS BEEN PROCESSED AND THERE IS NO ERROR EITHER IN THE DISALLOWANCE OF DED UCTION OR IN THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A). 8. AFTER CONSIDERING THE AFORESAID SUBMISSIONS AND ON PERUSAL OF THE MATERIAL PLACED ON RECORD, IT IS AN UNDISPUTED FACT THAT ASSESSEE IS A CHARITABLE TRUST AND LOOKIN G TO ITS CHARITABLE ACTIVITIES IT WAS GRANTED REGISTRATION U /S.12A. THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN COMPLYING WITH CONDITIONS LAID DO WN IN SECTION 11 TO 13 AND IN ALL THE YEARS BENEFIT OF SE CTION 11 HAS BEEN GRANTED. WHILE FILING THE RETURN OF INCOME ONL INE ELECTRONICALLY, CERTAIN MISTAKES WERE MADE IN TICKI NG OF CERTAIN CIRCLE AS HIGHLIGHTED IN THE FOREGOING PARA GRAPHS. FOR EXAMPLE, INSTEAD OF CLICKING YES WHETHER ASSESSEE IS REGISTERED U/S.12A/12AA, BY MISTAKE ASSESSEE HAS CL ICKED NO AND SIMILARLY FROM OTHER TYPOGRAPHICAL MISTAKE S WHEREIN ASSESSEE HAS EITHER CLICKED THE WORD NIL OR NO AGAINST CERTAIN COLUMN. DUE TO THIS MISTAKE, DEDUCTION CLAI MED HAS BEEN DISALLOWED WHILE PROCESSING THE RETURN OF INCO ME BY THE CPC. ONCE, THE ASSESSEE HAS BROUGHT ON RECORD THAT NOT ONLY IT IS REGISTERED U/S.12A BUT HAS ALSO FILED FORM 10 B, THEN IT IS INCUMBENT UPON THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO ALLOW THE B ENEFIT OF SECTION 11 AND COMPUTE THE INCOME IN ACCORDANCE WIT H LAW, WHEN IT BROUGHT TO HIS NOTICE. CERTAIN CLERICAL/TYP OGRAPHICAL MISTAKE IN FILING OF RETURN OF INCOME CANNOT DENY T HE BENEFIT WHICH IS OTHERWISE AVAILABLE UNDER THE PROVISIONS O F THE ACT, I.T.A. NO.1013/DEL/2019 11 ESPECIALLY WHEN SUCH DEFECT OR MISTAKE IS BROUGHT T O THE NOTICE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THE REASONING GIVE N BY THE LD. CIT(A) TO DENY THE DEDUCTION SIMPLY ON THE GROUND T HAT ASSESSEE ITSELF HAS MENTIONED THAT IT WAS NOT REGIS TERED U/S.12A HAS FILLED UP THE COLUMNS WRONGLY CANNOT BE UPHELD. A TYPOGRAPHICAL MISTAKE OR MINOR PROCEDURAL LAPSE C ANNOT ACT AS AN ESTOPPEL TO DENY STATUTORY BENEFIT TO THE ASS ESSEE UNLESS STATUTE LAYS DOWN THE CONDITION FOR CLAIMING BENEFIT OR DEDUCTION OR THERE IS STATUTORY VIOLATION. LOOKING TO THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, WE DIRECT THE ASSESS ING OFFICER TO VERIFY THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE AND COMPUTE THE INCOME IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW AS CONTAINED IN SECTIONS 11 TO 13 AND GRANT EXEMPTION/BENEFIT ALLOWABLE TO THE ASSESSEE. ACCORDINGLY, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS TREATED AS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 9. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALL OWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 5 TH MARCH, 2020. SD/- [AMIT SHUKLA] JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED: 5 TH MARCH, 2020 PKK: