St. John Ambulance Association, Palanpur V. DCIT, CPC, Banglore

ITA 2231/AHD/2018

• Counselvise Citation: [2022] 105 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 9698 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 2 month(s) 24 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 26-01-2022
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2015-2016
• Appeal Filed On: 01-11-2018
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: ABHIMANYU SINGH YADAV
• Keywords: Earning of tax free income; Competent authority
• Section: 143(1)

Judgement Text

ITA No.2231/Ahd/2018 A.Y. 2015-16 Page 1 of 5 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD “SMC” BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE Ms. ANNAPURNA GUPTA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND Ms. MADHUMITA ROY, JUDICIAL MEMBER (Conducted through Virtual Court) ITA No.2231/Ahd/2018 Assessment Year: 2015-16 St. John Ambulance Association, vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income C/o. Aastha Dental Clinic, of Income Tax, 14, Vikram Commercial Centre, CPC, Bangalore. Kirti Stamdh Road, Palanpur – 385 001. [PAN – AAAJS 4367 C] (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by : Shri Sanjay R. Shah, A.R. Respondent by : Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Sr. D.R. Date of hearing : 16.12.2021 Date of pronouncement : 27.01.2022 O R D E R PER ANNAPURNA GUPTA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER : This appeal has been preferred by the assessee against the order passed by the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-4, Ahmedabad (in short referred to as “CIT(A))” under Section 250(6) of the of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “Act”) for Assessment Year 2015-16, 2. The solitary grievance raised by the assessee in its grounds of appeal is as under :- “The Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-4, Ahmedabad has erred in law and on facts of the case in confirming the disallowance of exemption of Rs.17,47,280/- u/s. 10(23C)(iv) of the I.T. Act 1961 made by DCIT, CPC, Bangalore.” ITA No.2231/Ahd/2018 A.Y. 2015-16 Page 2 of 5 3. As transpires from the orders of the authorities below, the assessee had been denied claim of exemption under Section 10(23C)(iv) of the Act amounting to Rs.17,47,280/- in the intimation made under Section 143(1) of the Act. The Ld. CIT(A) upheld the same holding as under :- “4. I have carefully considered the impugned intimation under section 143(1) of the Act, issued by the CPC Bangalore and the submission made by the appeal. In both the grounds of appeal appellant has challenged the impugned intimation for not allowing exemption u/s. 10(23C)(iv) of the Act. In the submissions made appellant has mentioned that they are entitled for the exemption as per the notification issued by the Competent Authority. It is seen from the intimation u/s. 143(1) that the exemption claimed in the acknowledgement of income has been denied in toto. The appellant was asked in the course of appellate proceedings whether or not they have claimed the exemption in the relevant column of the e-filed Return of Income. In response, the Ld. AR was not sure whether or not such claim is made in the relevant column. The Ld. AR furnished copy of the acknowledgement of the ROI in which the exemption is claimed in column 10 under the head exempt income (others). However, since in the relevant column the appellant was not sure whether the exemption was claimed or not. Hence, for this reason so direction can be given to the AO as appellant’s reason is not sure whether the exemption has been claimed or not. Hence, I do not find any infirmity with the order of appeal in the intimation and both the grounds of appeal are Dismissed.” 4. Ld. Counsel for the assessee pointed out to us that the solitary reason for upholding the denial of deduction was that the assessee had not claimed it in the proper column in the e-return of income filed. Ld. Counsel for the assessee pointed out that at the same time the Ld. CIT(A) acknowledged the fact that in the acknowledgement of the return of income filed, the exemption is stated to be claimed in column no.10 under the head “exempt income”. He, therefore, stated that this itself contradicts the earlier finding of the Ld. CIT(A). He further drew our attention to the intimation made under Section 143(1) of the Act and took us to page no.11 thereon wherein in the intimation itself it was mentioned that the assessee had claimed exemption amounting to Rs.17,47,279/- under Section10(23C)(iv) of the Act. The said extract from intimation is reproduced here under :- ITA No.2231/Ahd/2018 A.Y. 2015-16 Page 3 of 5 PAN AAAJS4367C Name ST. JOHN AMBULANCE ASSOCIATION A.Y. 2015-16 Date of Order 27.03.2017 University/Educational Institution/Hospital/Other Institution eligible for exemption u/s. 10(23C)(iiiad) and 110(23C)(iiiae) Sl. Section Name of the University/Educational Institution/Hospital/Other Institution Aggregate Annual Receipts 1 10(23C)(iiiad) ST. JOHN AMBULANCE ASSOCIATION (u/s. 10(23C)(iv) 1747279 5. Ld. DR, however, supported the order of the Ld. CIT(A). 6. We have gone through the documents and orders of the authorities below and we agree with the Ld. Counsel for the assessee that the denial of deduction in the intimation was without any basis at all. More particularly, when the intimation itself mentions the claim to have been made by the assessee and the Ld. CIT(A) upholding the denial for the reason that the assessee had not claimed the exemption in his return of income filed. The finding of the Ld. CIT(A) stands contradicted by the intimation itself and also by the fact that the acknowledgement of the return of income reflected the claim of exemption of the assessee. There was no reason, therefore, to make any adjustment by way of disallowance of exemption and the same is, therefore, directed to be deleted and the exemption is allowed to the assessee. 7. In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed. Order pronounced in the open Court on this 27 th day of January, 2022. Sd/- Sd/- (MADHUMITA ROY) (ANNAPURNA GUPTA) Judicial Member True Copy Accountant Member Ahmedabad, the 27 th day of January, 2022 PBN/*