M/s. Public Child Education Institute, Sultanpur V. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Sultanpur

ITA 279/LKW/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2013] 120 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 3241 (ITAT-LUCKNOW)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 month(s) 5 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 24-07-2013
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2004-2005
• Appeal Filed On: 18-04-2013
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Charitable institution; Period of limitation
• Section: 12A; 12AA; 11

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL LUCKNOW SMC BENCH, LUCKNOW BEFORE SHRI SUNIL KUMAR YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO.279/LKW/2013 ASSESSMENT YEAR:2004-05 M/S PUBLIC CHILD EDUCATION INSTITUTE SULTAN P UR V. DCIT RANGE, SULTANPUR PAN:AAAAP2965N ( A PP ELLANT ) ( RES P ONDENT ) APPELLANT BY: SHRI. K. K. DIXIT, ADVOCATE RES P ONDENT B Y :SHRI. ALOK MITRA, D.R. DATE OF HEARIN G : 12.06.2013 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 24.07.2013 O R D E R THIS APPEAL IS PREFERRED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) ON VARIOUS GROUNDS , WHICH ARE AS UNDER:- 1. THAT THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-LLL, LUCKNOW, ERRED ON FACTS AND IN LA W IN DISALLOWING RS .2,88,280/- AS EXPENSES NOT INCURRED FOR CHARITABLE PURPOSES. 2. THE LEARNED C.I.T.(A) DISALLOWED EXPENSES ACTUALLY SPENT IN THE MAINTENANCE REPAIRS, PAYMENT OF SALA RIES TO THE EMPLOYEES ETC. FOR THE PURPOSES OF CARRYING OUT OBJECTS AN D PURPOSE OF THE SOCIETY WHICH ARE EXCLUSIVELY CHARITABLE AND NOT ONLY TO EARN THE INCOME FROM FEES. 3. THE LEARNED C.I.T.(A) MISSED TO A PPRECIATE THAT ALL THE EXPENSES ARE FULLY VOUCHED AND VERIFIED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. AN D FAILED TO CONSIDER THE GENUINE AND BONAFIDE CHARITABLE ACTIVITIES SUPPORTED BY DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCES :-2-: FILED BEFORE THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX RANGE SULTANPUR. 4. THE LEARNED C.I.T.(A) FAILED TO AP PRECIATE THAT ADMINISTRATIVE AND INCIDENTAL EXPENSES RELATING TO AND CONNECTED WITH THE MAIN OBJECT OF THE SOCIETY WHICH ARE EXCLUSIVELY CHARITABLE, ARE FULLY ALLOWABLE DEDUCTION. 5. THAT THE DISALLOWANCE OF RS.2 ,88,280/- MADE IN RESPECT OF EXPENSES NOT INCURRED ON CHAR ITABLE PURPOSES BE DELETED. 6. THAT THE LEARNED C.I.T.(A) DID NOT PROVIDE REASONABLE AND SUFFICIENT OPPORTUNITY TO THE APPELLANT TO HAVE ITS SAY ON THE REASONS RELIED UPON BY HIM IN MAKING AFORESAID DISALLOWANCES. 2. DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING OF TH E APPEAL, MY ATTENTION WAS INVITED TO THE FACT THAT VIDE OR DER DATED 17.11.2006, THE HON'BLE TRIBUNAL HAS SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCO ME-TAX, FAIZABAD IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE REJECTING REGISTRATION UNDER SE CTION 12AA OF THE IN COME-TAX ACT, 1961 (HEREINAFTER CALLED IN SHORT THE ACT') AFTER HOLDING THAT THE ORDER GRANTING REGISTRATION IS TO BE PASSED BEFORE EX PIRY OF SIX MONTHS FROM THE END OF THE YEAR IN WHICH APPLICATION WAS RECEIVED UNDER CLAUSE (2) OF SECTION 12AA OF THE ACT AND SINCE THE ORDER WAS NOT PASSED WITHIN THE PERIOD OF LIMITATION AS PRESCRIBED UNDER SUB-SECTION (2) OF SECTION 12AA OF THE ACT, REGISTRATION COULD NOT BE DENIED TO THE ASSESSEE. BUT TH EREAFTER THE LD. COMMI SSIONER OF INCOME- TAX HAS NOT PASSED ORDER GRANTING REGISTRA TION UNDER SECTION 12A OF THE ACT AND THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS FRAMED THE ASSESSMENT VIDE ORDER DATED 1.12.2006 AND HE DENIED BENEFIT OF EXEMPTIO N UNDER SECTION 11 OF THE ACT. 3. THE ASSESSEE PREFERRED AN APPEAL BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) AND BROUGHT COMPLETE FACTS TO THE NOTICE OF THE LD. CIT(A). THOUGH THE LD. CIT(A) HAS EXAMINED THE CLAIM OF THE A SSESSEE IN THE LIGHT OF THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL, BUT THE EXPENSES CLAIMED BY THE ASSESS EE WERE NOT ALLOWED FOR WANT OF :-3-: DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE. SIM ILAR IS THE POSITION WITH REGARD TO THE CLAIM OF EXEMPTION OF INCOME OF ` 2,88,280 AS NO EVIDENCE FOR APPLICATION OF INCOME WAS FILED. ACCORDINGLY THE ENTIRE INCOME WAS CHARGEABLE TO TAX. 4. NOW THE ASSESSEE HAS PREFERRED AN APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL WITH THE SUBMISSION THAT IT HAS FILED COMP LETE RECORD INCLUDING THE DETAILS OF EXPENDITURES AND THE NATURE OF APPLICATIO N OF INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. BUT THE LD. CIT(A), INSTEAD OF EXAMINING THE SA ME EITHER BY HIMSELF OR THROUGH REMAND REPORT, HAS DENIED CLAIM OF EXPENSES. THE ASSESSEE HAS AL SO FURNISHED THE EVIDENCE WITH REGARD TO APPLICATION OF INCOME WITH COMPLETE DETAILS, BUT THE LD. CIT(A) DID NOT LOOK INTO IT AND DID NO T GRANT EXEMPTION OF INCOME UNDER SECTION 11 OF THE ACT IGNORING THE EVIDENCE FILED IN SUPPORT OF THE APPLICATION OF INCOME. 5. HAVING GIVEN A THOUGHTF UL CONSIDERATION TO TH E RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND FROM A CAREFUL PERUSAL OF RECORD, I FIND THAT THE DETAILS OF EXPENSES AND THE NATURE OF APPLICATION OF IN COME WERE FILED BE FORE THE LD. CIT(A), BUT IT WAS NOT PROPERLY EXAMINED BY HIM. THEREFORE, I AM OF THE VIEW THAT THIS ISSUE REQUIRES A FRESH EXAMINATION BY THE LD . CIT(A) IN THE LIGHT OF TH E FACT THAT REGISTRATION UNDER SECTION 12A IS DEEMED TO HAVE BEEN GRANTED IN THE LIGHT OF THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL DATED 17.11.2006 REFERRED TO ABOVE. ACCORDINGLY, THE APPEAL IS DISPOSED OF. 6. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSE SSEE IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 24.7.2013. SD/- [SUNIL KUMAR YADAV] JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED:24.7.2013 JJ:2606 :-4-: COPY FORWARDED TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT(A) 4. CIT 5. DR ASSISTANT REGISTRAR