] \ ' \ ' , ' , IN THEINCOMETAXAPPELLATE TRIBUNAL GUWAHATI BENCH, GUWAHATI BEFORE SHRIS.S.GODARA,JUDICIALMEMBER AND DR. A.L. SAINI, ACCOUNTANTMEMBER ITA NO. 223 / GAU / 2018 ASSESSMENT YEAR :2015-16 DIOCESE OF NONGSTOIN, BISHIP HOUSE, NEW NONGSTOIN, WEST KHASI HILLS DISTRICT. NONGSTOIN- 793119, MEGHALAYA [ PAN NO.AABTD 0440 J ] V/S . DCIT, (CENTRALIZED PROCESSING CENTRE), POST BAG NO.2, ELECTRONIC CITY POSTS OFFICE, BANGALORE- 560500 PAN NO. \ ' /APPELLANT .. / RESPONDENT \ ' J /BYAPPELLANT SHRI D.K.BISWAS, ADVOCATE & SHRI KISHOR KR.JAIN, FCA J /BYRESPONDENT SHRI DOLY LOYI, JCIT-DR ' _ /DATEOFHEARING 01-07-2019 /DATEOFPRONOUNCEMENT 03-07-2019 / ORDE R PERBENCH:- THIS ASSESSEES APPEAL FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2015-16 ARISES AGAINST THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-SHILLONGS ORDER DATED 29.06.2018 PASSED IN CASE NO. CIT(A)/SHG/10075/2017-18, INVOLVING U/S 154 OF THE INCOMETAXACT,1961;INSHORTTHEACT. HEARD BOTH THE LEARNED REPRESENTATIVES REITERATING THEIR RESPECTIVE STANDS AGAINSTANDINSUPPORTOFTHECASE.CASEFILEPERUSED. 2. IT TRANSPIRES DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING THAT THE CIT(A) HAS DECLINED THE ASSESSEES RECTIFICATION PREFERRED U/S 154 OF THE ACT AS PER THE CPC PROCESSING VIDETHE FOLLOWING DISCUSSION:- ITA NO.223/GAU/2018 A.Y.2015-16 DIOCESE OF NONGSTOIN VS.DCIT (CPC)BNG. PAGE2 3.1 PER INCOME AND EXPENDITURE A/C (I&E), GROSS RECEIPT WAS RS.5,19,98,882/-. AFTER DEDUCTION OF REVENUE AND CAPITAL EXPENDITURE OF RS.4,07,14,493/- THERE WAS BALANCE OF RS.1,12,84,329/-. OUT OF THAT A SUM OF RS.35,29,811/-/ WAS SET APART U/S.11(2) PURSUANTTOMINUTES OFMEETING OFTRUSTEESHELD ON 20.05.2015. FROM NO.10 (PERRULE 17)WASFURNISHED TOTHEAO ON30.09.2015. 3.2 WHEN THE CASE WAS PROCESSED BY CPC, BANGALORE, BENEFIT OF SECTION 11(2) WAS NOT ALLOWED TO ASSESSEE. THEREAFTER ASSESSEE FILED RECTIFICATION APPLICATION. BUT THE CLAIM OFASSESSEEWAS NOT ALLOWEDBY CPC INORDER U/S 154OFTHEACT. 3.3 I HAVE CONSIDERED THE MATTER. PER PROVISO TO RULE 12(2) OF IT RULES W.E.F. 01.04.2014, NOTICE U/S. 11(2)(A) OF THE ACT HAS TO BE FILED ELECTRONICALLY BEFORE DUE DATE OF FILING OF RETURN. IN CASE OF ASSESSEE, THE NOTICE IN FORM NO.10 WAS FILED MANUALLY BEFORE ITO (EXEMPTION), SHILLONG. THEREFORE, THERE WAS NO OCCASION FOR CPC, BANGALORE TO GIVE BENEFIT U/S.11(2) TO ASSESSEE WHILE PROCESSING THE RETURN. AS SUCH, THERE IS NO APPARENT MISTAKE IN THE ORDER U/S. 154. THE DENIAL OF BENEFIT U/S.11(2) WAS DUE TO LAPSE ON PART OF ASSESSEE ONLY IN SO FAR AS NOTICE U/S 11(2)(A) WASFILED MANUALLY. 3. IT THEREFORE EMERGES FROM A PERUSAL OF THE CIT(A)S ABOVE EXTRACTED FINDINGS THAT NEITHER THE CPC HAS HEARD THE ASSESSEE REGARDING ITS GRIEVANCE CANVASSING THE IMPUGNED RECTIFICATION NOR THE CIT(A) HAS ENTERTAINED HIS LOWER APPEAL CLAIMING THE IMPUGNED APPARENT MISTAKE NOT CONSIDERING SEC.11(2)(C) EXEMPTION BENEFIT. WE THEREFORE CONCLUDE THAT LARGER INTEREST OF SUBSTANTIVE JUSTICE WOULD BE MET IN CASE ASSESSEES ASSESSING OFFICER HAVING JURISDICTION UNDER THE ACT ADJUDICATES THE IMPUGNED RECTIFICATION AS PER LAW AFTER AFFORDING THREEEFFECTIVEOPPORTUNITIES OFHEARING. ORDEREDACCORDINGLY. 4. THIS ASSESSEES APPEAL IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES IN ABOVE TERMS. ORDERPRONOUNCEDINTHEOPENCOURT 03/07/2019 SD/- SD/- ( ' ) ( ' ) ( A.L.SAINI) (S.S.GODARA) (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) (JUDICIAL MEMBER) GUWAHATI, *DKP ' ' - 03/07 /201 9 ITA NO.223/GAU/2018 A.Y.2015-16 DIOCESE OF NONGSTOIN VS.DCIT (CPC)BNG. PAGE3 ' \ / COPY OF ORDER FORWARDED TO:- 1. \ ' /APPELLANT-DIOCESE OF NONGSTOIN, BISHIP HOUSE, NEWNONGSTOIN,WESTKHASI HILLS DIST. NONGSTOIN-793119, MEGHALAYA 2. /RESPONDENT-DCIT,(CPC),POSTBAG NO.2,ELECTRONICCITYP.O. BANGALORE-560500 3. - ' ] ] ' /CONCERNEDCIT GUWAHATI 4. ] ] - / CIT (A) GUWAHATI 5. ' ' ' , ] \ ' \ ' , ' ' / DR,ITAT,GUWAHATI 6. ' [ /GUARDFILE. BYORDER/ , /TRUECOPY/ SR. PRIVATE SECRETARY(ONTOUR) ] \ ' \ ' ,