Seva Bharti, Ranchi V. ITO (Exemption) Ward, Ranchi

ITA 289/RAN/2018

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 118 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7765 (ITAT-RANCHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 month(s) 29 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 09-01-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 10-09-2018
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: P K MONDAL
• Keywords: Charitable institution
• Section: 234B; 12AA; 143(1); 154; 15

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL RANCHI BENCH SMC, RANCHI BEFORE SH. S.S.GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO. 2 89 & 290 / RAN /201 8 [ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2009 - 10 & 2010 - 11 ] SEVA BHARTI, SEVA NIKETAN, PRAKASH NAGAR, BIRSA CHOWK, HINOO, RANCHI - 834002. PAN - AA FTS7016R VS ITO, (EXEMPTION) WARD, RANCHI . (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY SH. DEVESH PODDAR, ADV. RESPONDENT BY SH. P.K.MONDAL, JCIT DATE OF HEARING 07.01.2019 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 09 .01.2019 ORDER PER SH. S.S.GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER T HE S E TWO ASSESSEES APPEAL S FOR AY 20 09 - 10 & 2010 - 11 ARISE AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 08 . 0 6 .201 8 PASSED BY THE CIT(A), RANCHI IN APPEAL NO.CIT(A) , RANCHI/10 187 /2017 - 18 AND CIT(A), RANCHI/10188/2017 - 18 RESPECTIVELY , IN PROCEEDINGS U/S 154 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (IN SHORT THE ACT) . HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES. CASE FILE S PERUSED. 2. LD. COUNSEL AT THE OUTSET TAKES ME TO CIT(A) S IDENTICAL DISCUSSION UPHOLDING THE A SSESSING O FFICER S ACTION DECLINING ITS SECTION 15 4 PETITION WITH THE FOLLOWING REASONING: - 5. THE APPELLANT STATED THAT THE APPELLANT IS A CHARITABLE INSTITUTION HAVING REGISTRATION U/S 12AA OF THE ACT. INCOME OF THE APPELLANT WAS EXEMPT IN THE PAST AND IN TH E FUTURE ASSESSMENT YEARS. FOR THE CURRENT YEAR TOO THE SURPLUS OF INCOME OVER EXPENDITURE WAS LESS THAN 15% AND THUS THE SURPLUS WAS NOT TAXABLE. THE APPELLANT STATED THAT THE EXEMPTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN ALLOWED AND SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN REJECTED ON TECHNI CAL GROUNDS. THE APPELLANT ALSO STATED THAT IT SHOULD BE HELD LIABLE FOR PAYMENT OF TAXES FOR THE ERROR OF THE AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE. 5.1. FACTS AS NOTED IN THE ORDER OF RECTIFICATION BY THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER HAVE BEEN STATED IN PARA 2 ABOVE. ITA NO. 289 & 290 / RAN /201 8 [ASSESSMENT YEAR: 20 09 - 10 & 2010 - 11 ] PAGE | 2 5.2 . I HAVE CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE APPELLANT AND HAVE ALSO PERUSED THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. THERE ARE TWO ISSUES INVOLVED IN THIS CASE WHICH NEED TO BE CONSIDERED. THE FIRST IS THE ISSUE ON MERIT THAT IS WHETHER THE CLAIM OF THE APPELLANT WAS ALLOWA BLE U/S 154 OF THE ACT? THE SECOND IS THE TECHNICAL ISSUE OF WHETHER THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER COULD HAVE RECTIFIED THE INTIMATION U/S 143(1)OF THE ACT BEYOND THE LIMITATION PLACED BY SECTION 154 OF THE ACT? IF THE ANSWER TO THE SECOND QUESTION IS IN TH E NEGATIVE, THEN THE FIRST QUESTION BECOMES INFRUCTUOUS. 5.3. AS PER SECTION 154(7) OF THE ACT NO AMENDMENT UNDER THIS SECTION SHALL BE MADE AFTER THE EXPIRY OF FOUR YEARS FROM THE END OF THE FINANCIAL YEAR IN WHICH THE ORDER SOUGHT TO BE AMENDED WAS PASS ED. IN THE PRESENT CASE THE RETURN WAS FILED ON 30.09.2009. THOUGH THE DATE OF PROCESSING IS NOT STATED IN THE 154 ORDER OF THE APPEAL MEMO, THE SECOND PROVISO TO SECTION 143(1) STATES THAT NO INTIMATION UNDER THIS SUB - SECTION SHALL BE SENT AFTER THE EXP IRY OF ONE YEAR FROM THE END OF THE FINANCIAL YEAR IN WHICH THE RETURN IS MADE. THIS MEANS THAT THE INTIMATION WAS ISSUED U/S 143(1) ON OR BEFORE 30.09.2010. THUS THE LIMITATION U/S. 154 ENDED ON 31.03.2015. THE APPLICATION FOR RECTIFICATION WAS FIELD O N 12.06.2017 WHICH WAS CLEARLY BEYOND THE LIMITATION DATE. THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER, ACCORDINGLY WAS JUSTIFIED IN NOT ALLOWING THE APPLICATION OF THE APPELLANT. GROUND OF APPEAL ARE DISMISSED. 3. L EARNED COUNSEL VEHEMENTLY CONTENDS DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING THAT THE IMPUGNED ERROR TOOK PLACE BECAUSE OF ASSESSEES ACCOUNTANTS MISTAKE AND THEREFORE, BOTH THE LOWER AUTHORITIES OUGHT NOT TO HAVE DECLINED ITS RECTIFICATION PETITION IN THE TWO ASSESSMENT YEARS. I T HAS CAUSE ON RECORD THAT THIS A SSESSEES IMPUGNED RECTIFICATION PETITION (S) HA D BEEN FIL E D VERY WELL BEYOND STATUTORY TIME LIMIT OF OR AFTER THE EXPIRY OF FOUR YEARS FROM THE END OF FINANCIAL YEAR IN WHICH THE ASSESSMENT IN ISSUE HAD BEEN FRAMED. I THEREFORE AFFIRMED THE C IT(A)S ACTION UNDER CHALLENGE IN BOTH THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT YEAR THAT THESE RECTIFICATION ARE TIME BARRED U/S 154 OF THE ACT . THE ASSESSEES IDENTICAL SOLE SUBSTANTIVE GROUND IS REJECTED ACCORDINGLY. MR. DEVESH PODDAR AT THIS STAGE SUBMITS THAT THE AO HAS NOT COMPUTED SECTION 234B INTEREST AS PER HONBLE J URISDICTIONAL H IGH C OURT IS DECIDING IN AJAY PRAKASH VERMA VS ITO IN T.A.NO.38 OF 2010 DATED 25.07.2012 THAT THE SAME ITA NO. 289 & 290 / RAN /201 8 [ASSESSMENT YEAR: 20 09 - 10 & 2010 - 11 ] PAGE | 3 HAS TO BE CALCULATED ON THE RETURNED THAN ASSESSED INCOME. SUFFICE TO SAY , THAT THE AO IS DIRECTED TO COMPUTE THE IMPUGNED INTEREST STRICTLY IN CONFORMITY WITH H ONBLE J URISDICTIONAL H IGH C OURT S DECISION. 4 . TH E S E TWO ASSESSEE S APPEALS ARE PARTLY ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES IN ABOVE TERMS . ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 09 .01.2019. SD/ - (S.S.GODARA) JUDICIAL MEMBER DATE: - 09 .01.2019 *AMIT KUMAR* COPY FORWARDED TO: 1 . APPELLANT - SEVA BHARTI, SEVA NIKETAN, PRAKASH NAGAR, BIRSA CHOWK, HINOO, RANCHI - 83400 2 . 2 . RESPONDENT - ITO, (EXEMPTION) WARD, RANCHI . 1 . CIT - RANCHI 2 . CIT(APPEALS) - RANCHI 3 . DR: ITAT - RANCHI BENCHES SR.P.S./H.O.O ITAT, RANCHI