ITO Non Corporate Ward 3(4), CHENNAI V. Sri Kanyaka Parameswari Devasthanam & Charities, CHENNAI

ITA 2890/CHNY/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 117 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 4562 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 5 month(s) 26 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 24-05-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Appeal Filed On: 28-11-2017
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: B S PU RSHOTHAM
• Keywords: Charitable institution; Period of limitation
• Section: 12AA; 11; 139

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL A BENCH, CHENNAI . . . , . !, # !$ BEFORE SHRI N.R.S. GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI S. JAYARAMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ./ ITA NOS.2890 & 2891/CHNY/2017 & '& / ASSESSMENT YEARS : 2011-12 & 2012-13 THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, NON CORPORATE WARD 3(4), CHENNAI - 600 034. V. M/S SRI KANYAKA PARAMESWARI DEVASTHANAM & CHARITIES, 1, AUDIAPPA NAICKEN STREET, GEORGE TOWN, CHENNAI - 600 001. PAN : AABTS 0126 Q ()*/ APPELLANT) (+,)*/ RESPONDENT) )* - . / APPELLANT BY : SHRI AR.V. SREENIVASAN, JCIT +,)* - . / RESPONDENT BY : SHRI B.S. PURSHOTHAM, CA / - 0# / DATE OF HEARING : 27.03.2019 12' - 0# / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 24.05.2019 / O R D E R PER N.R.S. GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER : BOTH THE APPEALS OF THE REVENUE ARE DIRECTED AGA INST THE COMMON ORDER PASSED BY THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME T AX (APPEALS) -17, CHENNAI, DATED 14.09.2017 AND PERTAI N TO ASSESSMENT YEARS 2011-12 AND 2012-13. THEREFORE, W E HEARD BOTH THE APPEALS TOGETHER AND DISPOSING THE SAME BY THIS COMMON ORDER. 2 I.T.A. NOS.2890 & 2891/CHNY/17 2. SHRI AR.V. SREENIVASAN, THE LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE, SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE, CHARIT ABLE INSTITUTION IS REGISTERED UNDER SECTION 12AA OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT , 1961 (IN SHORT 'THE ACT'). DURING THE YEARS UNDER CONSIDERATION, ACCORDING TO THE LD. D.R., THE ASSESSEE HAD ACCUMULATED INCOME OF 1,71,91,052/- FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2011-12. THE ASSESSEE EXPL AINED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT THE UNUTILIZED AMOUNT WA S CARRIED FORWARD TO THE NEXT ASSESSMENT YEAR. REFERRING TO SECTION 11(1)(A) OF THE ACT, THE LD. D.R. SUBMITTED THAT IN CASE THE INCOME DERIVED FROM PROPERTY HELD UNDER TRUST WAS ACCUMULATED OR IT CAN NOT BE UTILISED FOR CHARITABLE ACTIVITY, THE SAME SHALL NOT BE INCL UDED IN THE TOTAL INCOME SUBJECT TO CERTAIN CONDITIONS. ACCORDING TO THE LD. D.R., ONE OF THE CONDITIONS IS THAT THE ASSESSEE BY NOTICE IN WRITING SHALL INTIMATE THE PURPOSE FOR WHICH THE ACCUMULATED INCO ME WAS SET APART. THE ANOTHER CONDITION IS THAT THE MONEY SO ACCUMULATED OR SET APART IS INVESTED OR DEPOSITED IN THE FORM NOTI FIED UNDER SUB- SECTION (5) OF SECTION 11 OF THE ACT. THE ASSESSEE , ACCORDING TO THE LD. D.R., HAS NOT EXPLAINED ANY REASON FOR WHICH TH E ACCUMULATED INCOME WAS SET APART. THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT FURNISH ED ANY INFORMATION RELATING TO THE PURPOSE FOR WHICH THE I NCOME WAS 3 I.T.A. NOS.2890 & 2891/CHNY/17 ACCUMULATED, THEREFORE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER REJEC TED THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE TO THE EXTENT OF THE INCOME WHICH WAS NOT UTILISED FOR CHARITABLE ACTIVITY. 3. THE LD. D.R. FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT ON APPEAL BE FORE THE CIT(APPEALS), THE CIT(APPEALS) FOUND THAT THE ASSES SEE WAS ELIGIBLE TO CARRY FORWARD THE SHORTFALL FOR APPLICA TION TO THE SUCCEEDING YEAR WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE PROVISIONS OF CLAUSE (2) OF EXPLANATION TO SECTION 11(1) OF THE ACT. REFERRING TO SECTION 11(1) OF THE ACT, THE LD. D.R. SUBMITTED THAT INCOME DERI VED FROM PROPERTY HELD UNDER TRUST WOULD NOT FORM PART OF TOTAL INCOM E PROVIDED SUCH INCOME IS ACCUMULATED OR SET APART FOR APPLICATION TO SUCH PURPOSES IN INDIA TO THE EXTENT TO WHICH THE INCOME SO SET A PART IS NOT IN EXCESS OF 15% OF THE INCOME FROM SUCH PROPERTY AND FURNISHING THE RETURN OF INCOME BEFORE EXPIRY DATE AS ALLOWED UNDE R SUB-SECTION (1) OF SECTION 139 OF THE ACT. IN THIS CASE, ACCOR DING TO THE LD. D.R., THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT FILED THE RETURN OF INCOME WIT HIN THE TIME PRESCRIBED UNDER SECTION 139(1) OF THE ACT AND THE REASON WAS ALSO NOT INTIMATED BEFORE THE TIME FOR FILING OF RETURN OF INCOME, THEREFORE, THE CIT(APPEALS) IS NOT JUSTIFIED IN ALLOWING THE C LAIM OF THE ASSESSEE. 4 I.T.A. NOS.2890 & 2891/CHNY/17 4. ON THE CONTRARY, SHRI B.S. PURSHOTHAM, THE LD. REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE ASSESSEE, SUBMITTED THAT ADM ITTEDLY, THE ASSESSEE WAS REGISTERED UNDER SECTION 12AA OF THE A CT. THE ASSESSING OFFICER DISALLOWED THE CLAIM OF THE ASSES SEE BY PLACING RELIANCE ON CLAUSE (2) OF EXPLANATION TO SECTION 11 (1) OF THE ACT. ACCORDING TO THE LD. REPRESENTATIVE, THE ASSESSEE F ALLS UNDER SECTION 11(2) OF THE ACT. REFERRING TO SECTION 11( 2) OF THE ACT, THE LD. REPRESENTATIVE SUBMITTED THAT IN CASE 85% OF TH E INCOME FROM THE PROPERTY HELD UNDER THE TRUST WAS NOT APPLIED F OR CHARITABLE OR RELIGIOUS PURPOSE DURING THE PREVIOUS YEAR, BUT THE RE IS SUCH INCOME SO ACCUMULATED SHALL NOT BE INCLUDED IN THE TOTAL I NCOME OF THE PREVIOUS YEAR OF THE ASSESSEE PROVIDED THE ASSESSEE FURNISHED A STATEMENT BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER BEFORE COMPL ETING THE ASSESSMENT. IN THIS CASE, ACCORDING TO THE LD. REP RESENTATIVE, THE ASSESSEE ADMITTEDLY FILED RETURN OF INCOME FOR BOTH THE ASSESSMENT YEARS WHICH IS OBVIOUS FROM THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. THE RETURNS OF INCOME WERE SELECTED FOR SCRUTINY. THE ASSESSEE EX PLAINED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT PROVISIONS OF SECTION 11 (2)(A) OF THE ACT READ WITH RULE 17 OF INCOME-TAX RULES, 1962 CAST AN OBLIGATION ON THE ASSESSEE TO GIVE A NOTICE OF ACCUMULATION OF IN COME IN WRITING TO 5 I.T.A. NOS.2890 & 2891/CHNY/17 THE ASSESSING OFFICER THE PURPOSE FOR WHICH THE INC OME IS BEING ACCUMULATED OR SET APART. 5. THE LD. REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE ASSESSEE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE-TRUST PASSED RESOLUTIONS ON 13.09 .2011 AND 26.09.2012 TO CARRY FORWARD THE UNUTILIZED AMOUNT T O THE SUBSEQUENT YEAR FOR UTILIZATION. ACCORDING TO THE LD. REPRESENTATIVE, THE ACCUMULATION AND SETTING APART OF INCOME UNDER SECTION 11(1) OF THE ACT IS TOTALLY DIFFERENT FROM ACCUMULATION AND SETTING APART UNDER SECTION 11(2) OF THE ACT. ACCORDING TO THE LD. REP RESENTATIVE, THE ACCUMULATED INCOME FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2011-12 WAS CARRIED FORWARD AND APPLIED FOR THE CHARITABLE PURPOSE AS P ER THE RESOLUTION DATED 26.09.2012. THE INCOME CAN BE ACCUMULATED UP TO FIVE YEARS. PLACING RELIANCE ON THE JUDGMENT OF APEX COURT IN C IT V. NAGPUR HOTEL OWNERS ASSOCIATION (2001) 247 ITR 201, THE L D. REPRESENTATIVE SUBMITTED THAT IF THE ASSESSING OFFI CER HAS NECESSARY INFORMATION ABOUT THE PARTICULARS OF ACCUMULATION U NDER RULE 17 OF THE INCOME-TAX RULES, 1962 BEFORE COMPLETION OF ASS ESSMENT, THE ASSESSEE HAS COMPLIED WITH REQUIREMENTS OF STATUTOR Y PROVISION AND THEREFORE, ELIGIBLE FOR EXEMPTION. ACCORDING TO TH E LD. REPRESENTATIVE, THE TIME LIMIT FOR FURNISHING REQUI RED PARTICULARS 6 I.T.A. NOS.2890 & 2891/CHNY/17 UNDER RULE 17 WITH REGARD TO FURNISHING OF REQUIRED PARTICULARS OF ACCUMULATION OF INCOME, CANNOT BE INSISTED UPON BY THE ASSESSING AUTHORITY BECAUSE RULE 17 HAS NOT FIXED ANY TIME LI MIT. MOREOVER, FORM 10 PRESCRIBED UNDER RULE 17 WAS AMEN DED WITH EFFECT FROM 2016. THE INFORMATION WHICH IS OTHERWI SE REQUIRED WAS AVAILABLE BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER BEFORE THE C OMPLETION OF ASSESSMENT. THEREFORE, ACCORDING TO THE LD. REPRES ENTATIVE, THE JUDGMENT OF APEX COURT IN NAGPUR HOTEL OWNERS ASSO CIATION (SUPRA) IS SQUARELY APPLICABLE. MOREOVER, THE CIT( APPEALS) HAS PLACED RELIANCE ON THE JUDGMENT OF KERALA HIGH COUR T IN CIT V. SREE SEETHARAMA ANJANEYA VEDA KENDRA (336 ITR 65). THE LD. REPRESENTATIVE HAS ALSO PLACED RELIANCE ON THE JUDG MENT OF BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN TRUSTEES OF TULSIDAS GOPALJI CHARITAB LE AND CHALESHWAR TEMPLE TRUST V. CIT (1994) 207 ITR 368. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, ACCORDING TO THE LD. REPRESENTATIVE, WHEN TH E PARTICULARS REQUIRED WITH REGARD TO ACCUMULATED INCOME AND THE BANK ACCOUNT IN WHICH THE ACCUMULATION WAS MADE WERE AVAILABLE B EFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER BEFORE THE DATE OF ASSESSMENT, IT CANNOT BE DISALLOWED. 7 I.T.A. NOS.2890 & 2891/CHNY/17 6. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS ON EITH ER SIDE AND PERUSED THE RELEVANT MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. THE ASSESSEE IS A RELIGIOUS TRUST. DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERA TION, THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED THAT THE INCOME WHICH CANNOT BE UTILISED FO R BOTH THE YEARS UNDER CONSIDERATION, WAS SET APART FOR UTILIZING TH E SAME IN THE NEXT ASSESSMENT YEAR BY WAY OF RESOLUTION. THE ASSESSEE FILED RETURN OF INCOME FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2011-12 ON 15.03.2012 AN D FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2012-13 ON 23.01.2013. THE ASSESSI NG OFFICER FOUND THAT THE RETURN OF INCOME WAS NOT FILED WITHI N THE DUE DATE PROVIDED UNDER SECTION 139(1) OF THE ACT, THEREFORE , THE ASSESSEE IS NOT ELIGIBLE FOR EXEMPTION UNDER SECTION 11(1) OF T HE ACT. THE ASSESSEE CONTENDED BEFORE THE CIT(APPEALS) THAT IT NEVER CLAIMED EXEMPTION UNDER SECTION 11(1) OF THE ACT. IT CLAIM ED EXEMPTION ONLY UNDER SECTION 11(2) OF THE ACT. ONCE THE ASSE SSEE FILED THE STATEMENT BEFORE COMPLETION OF ASSESSMENT, WHICH IS REQUIRED UNDER RULE 17 OF INCOME-TAX RULES, 1962, THE CIT(AP PEALS) FOUND THAT THE ASSESSEE IS ELIGIBLE FOR EXEMPTION UNDER S ECTION 11(2) OF THE ACT. 7. THE ASSESSEE HAS THE OPTION TO CLAIM EXEMPTION E ITHER UNDER SECTION 11(1) OR UNDER SECTION 11(2) OF THE ACT. T HEREFORE, THE 8 I.T.A. NOS.2890 & 2891/CHNY/17 REVENUE CANNOT HAVE ANY GRIEVANCE WHEN THE ASSESSEE CLAIMS THAT THE UNUTILIZED AMOUNT, WHICH WAS ACCUMULATED OR SET APART, WOULD NOT FORM PART OF TOTAL INCOME FOR THE YEARS UNDER C ONSIDERATION. IN THIS CASE, THE ASSESSEE BY A RESOLUTION PASSED, ACC UMULATED OR SET APART THE AMOUNT FOR BEING UTILISED IN THE SUBSEQUE NT YEAR. IT IS NOT THE CASE OF THE REVENUE, EVEN NOW BEFORE THIS TRIBU NAL, THAT IN THE SUBSEQUENT YEAR THE AMOUNT WAS NOT UTILISED. THE O NLY CONTENTION OF THE REVENUE BEFORE THIS TRIBUNAL IS THAT THE RET URN OF INCOME WAS NOT FILED UNDER SECTION 139(1) OF THE ACT AND THE P ARTICULARS OF ACCUMULATION WERE NOT FURNISHED ALONG WITH THE RETU RN OF INCOME. 8. THE APEX COURT EXAMINED AN IDENTICAL SITUATION I N NAGPUR HOTEL OWNERS ASSOCIATION (SUPRA). AFTER REFERRING TO SECTION 11(2) OF THE ACT AND RULE 17, THE APEX COURT FOUND THAT I T IS MANDATORY FOR THE PERSON CLAIMING BENEFIT OF SECTION 11 OF THE AC T TO INTIMATE TO THE ASSESSING AUTHORITY THE PARTICULARS REQUIRED UN DER RULE 17 IN FORM NO.10 OF THE RULES. HOWEVER, THERE IS NO TIME LIMIT PRESCRIBED UNDER RULE 17. IF THE ASSESSEE FURNISHED INFORMATI ON BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER BEFORE COMPLETION OF ASSESSMENT, IT WOULD AMOUNT TO SUFFICIENT COMPLIANCE OF PROVISIONS OF TH E ACT. THEREFORE, THE ASSESSEE IS ELIGIBLE FOR BENEFIT OF SECTION 11 OF THE ACT. FOR THE 9 I.T.A. NOS.2890 & 2891/CHNY/17 PURPOSE OF CONVENIENCE, WE ARE REPRODUCING THE OBSE RVATION MADE BY THE APEX COURT, AS FOLLOWS:- (1) WHETHER, ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE INCOME- TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL IS CORRECT IN HOLDING THAT THE APPLICATION IN FORM NO. 10 UNDER RULE 17 OF THE INCOM E-TAX RULES, 1962, COULD BE FILED EVEN AFTER THE ASSESSMENT IS COMP LETED ? (2) WHETHER ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CA SE, THE INCOME- TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL IS CORRECT IN HOLDING THAT THE INCOME-TAX RULES COULD NOT FIX ANY TIME LIMIT FOR SUB MITTING AN APPLICATION IN FORM NO. 10 UNDER RULE 17 OF THE INCOM E-TAX RULES, 1962 ? THAT THE HIGH COURT AS PER ITS ORDER DATED OCTOBER 15, 1992, HELD THAT THOUGH SECTION 11(2)(A) OF THE ACT CONTEMP LATED A NOTICE IN WRITING TO THE INCOME-TAX OFFICER IN THE P RESCRIBED MANNER THE RULE CONCERNED, NAMELY, RULE 17 OF THE RU LES, DID NOT PRESCRIBE ANY TIME LIMIT AND IT IS ONLY FORM NO. 10 WHICH PRESCRIBED SUCH A LIMITATION OF SIX MONTHS COMMENCIN G FROM THE END OF EACH PREVIOUS YEAR FOR ISSUING THE NOTICE AS REQUIRED UNDER SECTION 11(2) OF THE ACT. IT ALSO HELD THAT TH E ACT HAD NOT PROVIDED FOR SUCH RULE-MAKING AUTHORITY TO FIX SUCH A PERIOD OF LIMITATION WHICH MEANT THAT THE LEGISLATURE DID NOT IMPOSE A LIMITATION FOR GIVING A WRITTEN NOTICE TO THE ASSES SING AUTHORITY, THEREFORE, IT HELD THAT THE TIME FIXED IN PARA. 2 OF FORM NO. 10 REQUIRING THE SAID INTIMATION TO BE GIVEN WITHIN SI X MONTHS IS BEYOND THE DELEGATED AUTHORITY, HENCE THE SAID PRES CRIPTION OF LIMITATION WAS ILLEGAL. IN THESE APPEALS, THE REVEN UE HAS RAISED THE SAME TWO QUESTIONS REFERRED TO THE HIGH COURT B EFORE US ALSO. MR. M. L. VERMA, LEARNED SENIOR COUNSEL APPEARING F OR THE REVENUE CONTENDS THAT IF THE FIRST QUESTION IS ANSW ERED IN FAVOUR OF THE REVENUE, THERE IS NO NEED TO GO TO THE NEXT Q UESTION REFERRED. ACCORDING TO MR. VERMA, ASSUMING FOR ARGU MENTS SAKE THAT THE FIXATION OF LIMITATION IN FORM NO. 10 IS BEY OND THE DELEGATED POWER, EVEN THEN IN VIEW OF THE FACT THAT THE 10 I.T.A. NOS.2890 & 2891/CHNY/17 SUBSTANTIVE SECTION 11(2) HAS MADE IT MANDATORY FOR A PARTY CLAIMING THE BENEFIT OF SECTION 11 OF THE ACT TO IN TIMATE IN WRITING TO THE ASSESSING AUTHORITY IN THE PRESCRIBE D FORM SPECIFYING THE PURPOSES FOR WHICH THE INCOME IS BEI NG ACCUMULATED OR SET APART IT MUST BE DEEMED THAT SUC H INTIMATION SHOULD BE WITHIN A REASONABLE PERIOD. HE POINTED OU T THAT IN THE INSTANT CASE TILL THE DATE OF COMPLETION OF ASSESSM ENT FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 1974-75 AND 1975-76, THE RESPONDENT- ASSOCIATION DID NOT FURNISH THE REQUIRED INFORMATIO N, HENCE THE SAID REQUIREMENT NOT HAVING BEEN FULFILLED FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS CONCERNED, THE ASSOCIATION WAS NOT ENTITLED T O CLAIM THE BENEFIT UNDER SECTION 11(2) OF THE ACT FOR THOSE YEA RS. WE FIND SUBSTANTIAL FORCE IN THIS ARGUMENT. CHAPTER III OF THE ACT WHICH CONSISTS OF SECTIONS 10 TO 13A ENUMERATES V ARIOUS TYPES OF INCOME WHICH DO NOT FORM PART OF TOTAL INC OME FOR THE PURPOSE OF LEVY OF TAX. THE RELEVANT PART OF SECTION 11 IN THE SAID CHAPTER READS THUS : 11. (1) SUBJECT TO THE PROVISIONS OF SECTIONS 60 TO 63, THE FOLLOWING INCOME SHALL NOT BE INCLUDED IN THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE PREVIOUS YEAR OF THE PERSON IN RECEIPT OF THE INCOM E- (A) INCOME DERIVED FROM PROPERTY HELD UNDER TRUST W HOLLY FOR CHARITABLE OR RELIGIOUS PURPOSES, TO THE EXTENT TO W HICH SUCH INCOME IS APPLIED TO SUCH PURPOSES IN INDIA ; AND, WHERE ANY SUCH INCOME IS ACCUMULATED OR SET APART FOR APPLICATION TO SUCH PURPOSES IN INDIA, TO THE EXTENT TO WHICH THE INCOME SO ACCUMULATED OR SET APART IS NOT IN EXCESS OF TWENTY- FIVE PER CENT OF THE INCOME FROM SUCH PROPERTY ; . . . (2) (A) SUCH PERSON SPECIFIES, BY NOTICE IN WRITING GIVEN TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN THE PRESCRIBED MANNER, THE PUR POSE FOR WHICH THE INCOME IS BEING ACCUMULATED OR SET APART AND THE PERIOD FOR WHICH THE INCOME IS TO BE ACCUMULATED OR SET APART, WHICH SHALL IN NO CASE EXCEED TEN YEARS. IT IS ABUNDANTLY CLEAR FROM THE WORDING OF SUB-SECT ION (2) OF SECTION 11 THAT IT IS MANDATORY FOR THE PERSON CLAI MING THE BENEFIT OF SECTION 11 TO INTIMATE TO THE ASSESSING AUTHORITY THE 11 I.T.A. NOS.2890 & 2891/CHNY/17 PARTICULARS REQUIRED, UNDER RULE 17 IN FORM NO. 10 OF THE RULES. IF DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE ASSESSING OF FICER DOES NOT HAVE THE NECESSARY INFORMATION, QUESTION OF EXCL UDING SUCH INCOME FROM ASSESSMENT DOES NOT ARISE AT ALL. AS A MATTER OF FACT, THIS BENEFIT OF EXCLUDING THIS PARTICULAR PART OF THE INCOME FROM THE NET OF TAXATION ARISES FROM SECTION 11 AND IS SUBJECTED TO THE CONDITIONS SPECIFIED THEREIN. THEREFORE, IT IS NECESSARY THAT THE ASSESSING AUTHORITY MUST HAVE THIS INFORMA TION AT THE TIME HE COMPLETES THE ASSESSMENT. IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY SUCH INFORMATION, IT WILL NOT BE POSSIBLE FOR THE ASSESS ING AUTHORITY TO GIVE THE ASSESSEE THE BENEFIT OF SUCH EXCLUSION AND ONCE THE ASSESSMENT IS SO COMPLETED, IN OUR OPINION, IT WOUL D BE FUTILE TO FIND FAULT WITH THE ASSESSING AUTHORITY FOR HAVING INCLUDED SUCH INCOME IN THE ASSESSABLE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. TH EREFORE, EVEN ASSUMING THAT THERE IS NO VALID LIMITATION PRESCRIB ED UNDER THE ACT AND THE RULES EVEN THEN, IN OUR OPINION, IT IS REASONABLE TO PRESUME THAT THE INTIMATION REQUIRED UNDER SECTION 11 HAS TO BE FURNISHED BEFORE THE ASSESSING AUTHORITY COMPLETES THE CONCERNED ASSESSMENT BECAUSE SUCH REQUIREMENT IS MA NDATORY AND WITHOUT THE PARTICULARS OF THIS INCOME, THE ASS ESSING AUTHORITY CANNOT ENTERTAIN THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSE E UNDER SECTION 11 OF THE ACT, THEREFORE, COMPLIANCE WITH T HE REQUIREMENT OF THE ACT WILL HAVE TO BE ANY TIME BEF ORE THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. FURTHER, ANY CLAIM FOR GIVI NG THE BENEFIT OF SECTION 11 ON THE BASIS OF INFORMATION SUPPLIED SUBSEQUENT TO THE COMPLETION OF ASSESSMENT WOULD MEAN THAT THE AS SESSMENT ORDER WILL HAVE TO BE REOPENED. IN OUR OPINION, THE ACT DOES NOT CONTEMPLATE SUCH RE-OPENING OF THE ASSESSMENT. IN T HE CASE IN HAND IT IS EVIDENT FROM THE RECORDS OF THE CASE THA T THE RESPONDENT DID NOT FURNISH THE REQUIRED INFORMATION TILL AFTER THE ASSESSMENTS FOR THE RELEVANT YEARS WERE COMPLETED. IN THE LIGHT OF THE ABOVE, WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT THE STAND OF THE REVENUE THAT THE HIGH COURT ERRED IN ANSWERING THE FIRST QU ESTION IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE IS CORRECT, AND WE REVERSE T HAT FINDING AND ANSWER THE SAID QUESTION IN THE NEGATIVE AND AG AINST THE ASSESSEE. IN VIEW OF OUR ANSWER TO THE FIRST QUESTI ON, WE AGREE WITH MR. VERMA THAT IT IS NOT NECESSARY TO ANSWER T HE SECOND QUESTION ON THE FACTS OF THIS CASE. 12 I.T.A. NOS.2890 & 2891/CHNY/17 9. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, THIS TRIBUNAL IS OF THE CO NSIDERED OPINION THAT WHEN THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED RETURN OF INCOME EVEN THOUGH BELATEDLY, THE SAID RETURN OF INCOME WAS TAK EN UP FOR SCRUTINY AND REQUIRED PARTICULARS WERE AVAILABLE BE FORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER BEFORE COMPLETION OF ASSESSMENT P ROCEEDING. HENCE, THE ASSESSEE IS ELIGIBLE FOR EXEMPTION UNDER SECTION 11 OF THE ACT AS HELD BY THE APEX COURT IN NAGPUR HOTEL O WNERS ASSOCIATION (SUPRA). 10. WE HAVE GONE THROUGH THE JUDGMENT OF KERALA HIG H COURT IN SREE SEETHARAMA ANJANEYA VEDA KENDRA (SUPRA). IN T HE CASE BEFORE KERALA HIGH COURT, THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED EXEM PTION UNDER SECTION 11(2) OF THE ACT. THE KERALA HIGH COURT FO UND THAT THE ASSESSEE ADOPTED ROUTINE BASIS FOR ACCUMULATION OF INCOME. IN THIS CASE, THAT IS NOT THE CASE OF THE REVENUE. IT IS N OBODYS CASE THAT THE ASSESSEE ON ROUTINE BASIS ACCUMULATED INCOME. OTHERWISE, THE ASSESSEE IS ELIGIBLE FOR EXEMPTION UNDER SECTION 11 (2) OF THE ACT. 11. WE HAVE GONE THROUGH THE JUDGMENT OF BOMBAY HIG H COURT IN TRUSTEES OF TULSIDAS GOPALJI (SUPRA). THE BOMBA Y HIGH COURT FOUND THAT WHEN THE ASSESSEE FILED THE RETURN OF IN COME WITHIN THE 13 I.T.A. NOS.2890 & 2891/CHNY/17 TIME PRESCRIBED UNDER SECTION 139(4) OF THE ACT, IT IS INEVITABLE CONCLUSION THAT THE RETURN MADE WAS WITHIN THE TIME LIMIT AND THE ASSESSEE IS ELIGIBLE FOR EXEMPTION. IN VIEW OF THI S JUDGMENT OF BOMBAY HIGH COURT, THIS TRIBUNAL DO NOT FIND ANY ME RIT IN THE CONTENTION OF THE LD. D.R. ACCORDINGLY, THE ORDER OF THE CIT(APPEALS) IS CONFIRMED. 12. IN THE RESULT, BOTH THE APPEALS FILED BY THE RE VENUE STAND DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE COURT ON 24 TH MAY, 2019 AT CHENNAI. SD/- SD/- (. !) ( . . . ) (S. JAYARAMAN) (N.R.S. GANESAN) # / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER /JUDICIAL MEMBER /CHENNAI, 4 /DATED, THE 24 TH MAY, 2019. KRI. - +056 76'0 /COPY TO: 1. )*/ APPELLANT 2. +,)*/ RESPONDENT 3. / 80 () /CIT(A)-17, CHENNAI 4. CIT (EXEMPTIONS), CHENNAI 5. 69 +0 /DR 6. :& ; /GF.