Dy.CIT(Exemption), Bhubaneswar V. National Institute of Technology,NIT, Rourkela

ITA 186/CTK/2022

AI Insights

The case involves an appeal by the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions), Bhubaneswar against the National Institute of Technology, Rourkela concerning the assessment year 2015-16. The primary issue was the disallowance of prior period expenses amounting to Rs.3,91,30,948 by the Assessing Officer under section 69C of the Income Tax Act, due to lack of substantiation by the assessee. The ld CIT(A) had deleted this addition, recognizing the expenses as prior period expenses and acknowledging the assessee's exemption under section 10(23C)(iiiab). The revenue challenged this decision, but the tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, emphasizing the exemption status of the assessee and the substantiation of the expenses during the appellate proceedings.

• Counselvise Citation: [2023] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 300259 (ITAT-CUTTACK)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 month(s) 2 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 07-02-2023
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Next Hearing Date: 07-02-2023
• Assessment Year: 2015-2016
• Appeal Filed On: 05-12-2022
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Section: 69C

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, BEFORE AND ARUN KHODPIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DCIT (Exemptions), Bhubaneswar. PAN/GIR No. (Appellant Per Bench This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the ld CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi 23/10461769320(1) 2. Shri M.K.Gautam, ld CIT DR appe Shri Dharmashoka Panda, intern from Birla School of Law (BGU), Bhubaneswar, and Shri P.R.Mohanty, ld AR appeared for the assessee IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CUTTACK BENCH, CUTTACK BEFORE S/SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL AND ARUN KHODPIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.186/CTK/2022 Assessment Year : 2015-16 DCIT (Exemptions), Bhubaneswar. Vs. National Institute of Technology, NIT Campus, Rourkela. PAN/GIR No. AAAJN 0665 L (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Assessee by : Shri P.R.Mohanty, Revenue by : Shri M.K.Gautam, Date of Hearing : 8/02 Date of Pronouncement : 8/02 O R D E R This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the ld , NFAC, Delhi dated 6.10.2022 in Appeal No.ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2022 23/10461769320(1) for the assessment year 2015-16. Shri M.K.Gautam, ld CIT DR appeared for the revenue assisted b Shri Dharmashoka Panda, intern from Birla School of Law (BGU), Bhubaneswar, and Shri P.R.Mohanty, ld AR appeared for the assessee Page1 | 4 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND ARUN KHODPIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER National Institute of Technology, NIT Campus, Respondent) P.R.Mohanty, M.K.Gautam, CIT DR 2/2023 2/2023 This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the ld ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2022- 16. ared for the revenue assisted by Shri Dharmashoka Panda, intern from Birla School of Law (BGU), Bhubaneswar, and Shri P.R.Mohanty, ld AR appeared for the assessee ITA No.186/CTK/2022 Assessment Year : 2015-16 Page2 | 4 assisted by Ms.Sugyanee Kuanr, intern from Birla School of Law (BGU), Bhubaneswar. 3. It was submitted by ld CIT DR that the assessee, admittedly, is an educational institution substantially financed by the Government of India. It was the submission that in the course of assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer had noticed that prior period expenses of Rs.3,91,30,948/- , which the assessee was asked to substantiate. The assessee had failed to substantiate the same and consequently, the Assessing Officer had invoked the provisions of section 69C of the Act and disallowed the same. It was the submission that on appeal, the ld CIT(A) had deleted the addition by holding that the expenses were prior period expenses and that the assessee had the benefit of exemption u/s.10(23C)(iiiab). It was the further submission that the assessee had produced the ledger account in respect of prior period expenses for the first time before the ld CIT(A). It was the submission that the order of the ld CIT(A) was erroneous and the same is liable to be reversed. 4. In reply, ld AR vehemently supported the order of the ld CIT(A). It was the submission that the assessee had the benefit of exemption u/s.10(23)(iiiab) as also the registration u/s.12AA of the Act. It was the submission that in any case any addition made to the total income would remain exempted. It was the submission that the expenses which have been disallowed by the Assessing Officer were prior period expenses, which ITA No.186/CTK/2022 Assessment Year : 2015-16 Page3 | 4 were fully vouched. It was the submission that the assessee’s accounts are audited by the Government Audit. It was the submission that the order of the ld CIT(A) is liable to be confirmed. 5. We have considered the rival submissions. A perusal of the order of the ld CIT(A) clearly shows that admittedly, the assessee is entitled to exemption u/s.10(23C)(iiiab). A perusal of the assessment order also shows that the assessee is also registered u/s.12AA of the Act by the Commissioner of Income Tax, Sambalpur. Once the assessee has the exemption u/s.10(23C)(iiiab) of the Act, any addition would still result to Nil taxable income. Further, the revenue has not been able to dislodge the findings of fact arrived at by the ld CIT(A) in respect of prior period expenses. This being so, we find no infirmity in the order of the ld CIT(A) and same stands confirmed. 6. In the result, appeal of the revenue stands dismissed. Order dictated and pronounced in the open court on 08/02/2023. Sd/- sd/- (Arun Khodpia) (George Mathan) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Cuttack; Dated 08/02/2023 B.K.Parida, SPS (OS) ITA No.186/CTK/2022 Assessment Year : 2015-16 Page4 | 4 Copy of the Order forwarded to : By order Sr.Pvt.secretary ITAT, Cuttack 1. The Appellant : DCIT (Exemptions), Bhubaneswar. 2. The Respondent: National Institute of Technology, NIT Campus, Rourkela. 3. The CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi 4. Pr.CIT-, Sambalpur 5. DR, ITAT, Cuttack 6. Guard file. //True Copy//