The ITO, Ward-3(1), JAMNAGAR V. Shri Anandbava Netra Chikitsalaya, JAMNAGAR

ITA 360/RJT/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 133 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 2401 (ITAT-RAJKOT)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 2 month(s) 28 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 01-01-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 03-10-2013
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: C S ANJARIA
• Assessee Lawyers: HARISH RANPURA CA
• Keywords: Reassessment proceedings

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL RAJKOT BENCH, RAJKOT [ CONDUCTED THROUGH E-COURT AT AHMEDABAD ] , , ! BEFORE SHRI PRAMOD KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI KUL BHARAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER ./ I.T.A. NO.360/AHD/2013 ( / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2010-11) THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-3(1) JAMNAGAR / VS. SHRI ANANDBAVA NETRA CHIKITSALAYA GOPAL BHUVAN, LIMDA LANE JAMNAGAR & ./ ./ PAN/GIR NO. AACTA 2816 J ( &( / APPELLANT ) .. ( )&( / RESPONDENT ) &( * / APPELLANT BY : SHRI C.S. ANJARIA, SR.DR )&( + * / RESPONDENT BY : SHRI HARISH RANPURA,C.A.(AR) ,-. + / DATE OF HEARING 10/12/2015 /0 + / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 01/01/2016 / O R D E R PER BENCH: THIS APPEAL BY THE REVENUE IS DIRECTED AGAINST TH E ORDER OF THE LD.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(APPEALS)-JAMNAGAR [CIT(A) IN SHORT] DATED 25/07/2013 PERTAINING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR (AY) 2010-11. THE REVENUE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL: - 1. THE CIT(A) ERRED IN LAW AND IN FACTS IN ALLOWING T HE CLAIM OF EXEMPTION OF RS.52,00,000/- U/S.11(2) OF THE IT ACT . 2. THAT ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE C ASE, THE LD.CIT(A) OUGHT TO HAVE UPHELD THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFF ICER. ITA NO.360 /RJT/2013 ITO VS. SHRI ANANDBAVA NETRA CHIKITSALAYA ASST.YEAR 2010-11 - 2 - 3. IT IS THEREFORE PRAYED THAT THE ORDER OF THE LD.CIT (A) BE SET ASIDE AND THAT OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER BE RESTORED. 4. THAT THE REVENUE CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD, AMEND, ALTER OR WITHDRAW ANY GROUNDS OF APPEAL. 2. THE ONLY EFFECTIVE GROUND IN THIS APPEAL IS AGAI NST ALLOWING THE CLAIM OF EXEMPTION OF RS.52,00,000/- U/S.11(2) OF T HE INCOME TAX ACT,1961 (HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS THE ACT). 3. BRIEFLY STATED FACTS OF THE CASE AS RECORDED BY THE LD.CIT(A) IN PARA-4.1 OF HIS ORDER, ARE AS UNDER:- 4.1. OUT OF THE ABOVE FOUR GROUNDS, THE FIRST TWO GROUNDS ARE RELATED TO EACH OTHER AND HENCE, THE SAME ARE BEING TAKEN U P SIMULTANEOUSLY. THE FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT, THE APPELLANT, A RE GISTERED TRUST U/S.12A OF THE IT ACT, AND ENGAGED IN CARRYING OUT CHARITABLE ACTIVITIES, HAD FILED ITS RETURN OF INCOME SHOWING THEREIN LOSS OF RS.11, 257/-. THIS LOSS WAS ARRIVE AT AFTER CLAIMING EXEMPTION OF RS.52,00,000/ - U/S.11(2) OF THE I T ACT. HOWEVER, WHILE FINALIZING THE ASSESSMENT, THI S CLAIM OF EXEMPTION U/S.11(2) WAS DECLINED BY THE AO ON THE GROUND THAT , THE APPELLANT TRUST HAD NOT FILED ITS RETURN AND FORM NOD.10 IN TIME. BECAUSE OF THIS, THE INCOME OF THE APPELLANT TRUST WAS FINALLY ASSESSED AT RS.51,88,740/-. AGGRIEVED AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE AO, THE APPELLAN T IS IN APPEAL. 3.1. ON FURTHER APPEAL, THE LD.CIT(A) PARTLY ALLOWE D THE ASSESSEES APPEAL, THEREBY DIRECTED THE ASSESSING OFFICE (AO I N SHORT) TO ALLOW THE ASSESSEES CLAIM FOR EXEMPTION U/S.11(2) OF THE ACT . AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF THE LD.CIT(A), THE REVENUE IS IN APPEAL BE FORE US. 4. THE LD.SR.DR SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF THE AO. ITA NO.360 /RJT/2013 ITO VS. SHRI ANANDBAVA NETRA CHIKITSALAYA ASST.YEAR 2010-11 - 3 - 4.1. ON THE CONTRARY, LD.COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE S UPPORTED THE ORDER OF THE LD.CIT(A) AND ALSO REITERATED THE SUBMISSIONS A S WERE MADE IN THE SYNOPSIS. 5. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS, PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD AND GONE THROUGH THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. THE LD.CIT(A) HAS ALLOWED EXEMPTION WHILE FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF THE COORDINATE BENCH (ITAT DELHI E BENCH) IN THE CASE OF SHRI SANATAN DHARAM SABHA VS. DCIT (EXEMPTION) REPORTED AT 1 SOT 498 (DEL.) AND ALSO THE DECISION OF HONBLE HIGH COURT OF DELHI IN THE CASE OF ASSOCIATION OF CORPORATION AND APEX SOCIETIES OF H ANDLOOMS V. ADIT REPORTED AT 213 TAXMAN 15 (DELHI). THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE IN THE FORM OF SYNOPSIS IS AS UNDER:- 1. FACTS : THE APPELLANT IS A REGISTERED TRUST U/S.12A OF THE INCOME TAX AT, 1961 (HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS ACT) AND ENGAGED I N CARRYING OUT CHARITABLE ACTIVITIES, HAD FILED ITS RETURN OF INCO ME SHOWING THEREIN LOSS OF 11,257/-. THE AO WHILE FINALIZING THE ASSESSMENT, DECLINE THE CLAIM OF EXEMPTION U/S.11(2) ON THE GROUND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT FILED ITS RETURN AND FORM NO.10 IN TIME. 2. SUBMISSION OF THE RESPONDENT IN SUPPORT OF CIT( A)S ORDER UNDER APPEAL THE LD.CIT(A) DIRECTED AO TO ALLOW THE EXEMPTION C LAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE AS THE NECESSARY AUDIT REPORT HAS BEEN FIL ED BEFORE THE AO DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS ITSELF RELIANCE I S PLACED ON THE FOLLOWING DECISIONS. ITA NO.360 /RJT/2013 ITO VS. SHRI ANANDBAVA NETRA CHIKITSALAYA ASST.YEAR 2010-11 - 4 - (I) HONBLE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH HAS IN THE CA SE OF CIT VS. DEVRADHAN MADHAVLAL GENDA TRUST 230 ITR 071 4 (MP) HAS HELD THAT REQUIREMENT OF FILLING OF AUDIT REPORT IS DIRECTOR Y AND NOT MANDATORY AND THE SAME COULD BE FIXED AT ANY TIME U PTO COMPLETION OF ASSESSMENT. (II) HONBLE HIGH COURT OF DELHI IN THE CASE OF ASSOCIAT ION OF CORPORATION & APEX SOCIETIES OF HANDLOOMS VS. ADIT 213 TAXMAN 15 (DELHI) HAS HELD THAT: FORM NO.10 COULD BE FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE TRUS T FOR THE PURPOSE OF SECTION 11(2) I.E. FOR ACCUMULATION OF I NCOME, DURING THE REASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. (III) HONBLE ITAT, RAJKOT BENCH, RAJKOT IN THE CASE OF K ANDLA DOCK LABOUR BOARD VS. ITO IN ITA NO.54/RJT/2009 WHE REIN IN HAS BEEN HELD THAT: WE ARE THEREFORE OF THE VIEW THAT THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE CANNOT BE REJECTED MERELY ON THE GROUND THAT FORM N O.10 WAS FILED AT THE TIME OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS OR FORM NO.10 HAS NOT BEEN FILED ALONG WITH THE RETURN OF I NCOME. 5.1. THERE IS NO DISPUTE WITH REGARD TO THE FACT TH AT THE AO HAS DENIED EXEMPTION ONLY ON THE BASIS OF THAT FORM NO.10 WAS NOT SUBMITTED AS PRESCRIBED UNDER THE INCOME TAX RULES, 1962. THE I SSUE IS DECIDED BY THE VARIOUS HIGH COURTS, MORE PARTICULARLY THE JUDG EMENT OF THE HONBLE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. DEVRADHAN MADHAVLAL GENDA TRUST 230 ITR 0714 (MP) AND ALSO T HE JUDGEMENT OF HONBLE HIGH COURT OF DELHI IN THE CASE OF ASSOCIAT ION OF CORPORATION AND APEX SOCIETIES OF HANDLOOMS VS. ADIT REPORTED A T 213 TAXMAN 15 ITA NO.360 /RJT/2013 ITO VS. SHRI ANANDBAVA NETRA CHIKITSALAYA ASST.YEAR 2010-11 - 5 - (DELHI), WHEREIN IT HAS BEEN HELD THAT FORM NO.10 C OULD BE FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE TRUST FOR THE PURPOSE OF SECTION 11(2) I.E. FOR ACCUMULATION OF INCOME, DURING THE REASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. THE C OORDINATE BENCH (ITAT, RAJKOT BENCH, RAJKOT) IN THE CASE OF KANDL A DOCK LABOUR BOARD VS. ITO IN ITA NO.54/RJT/2009 HAS HELD THAT THE CLA IM OF THE ASSESSEE CANNOT BE REJECTED MERELY ON THE GROUND THAT FORM N O.10 WAS FILED AT THE TIME OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS OR FORM NO.10 HAS NO T BEEN FILED ALONG WITH THE RETURN OF INCOME. THEREFORE, RESPECTFULL Y FOLLOWING THE BINDING PRECEDENTS, WE DO NOT SEE ANY REASON TO INTERFERE WITH THE ORDER OF THE LD.CIT(A), SAME IS HEREBY UPHELD. THUS, GROUNDS RA ISED IN THE REVENUES APPEAL IS DISMISSED. 6. IN THE RESULT, REVENUES APPEAL IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE COURT ON FRIDAY, THE 1 ST DAY OF JANUARY, 2016 AT AHMEDABAD. SD/- SD/- ( ) ( ) ( PRAMOD KUMAR ) ( KUL BHARAT ) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER AHMEDABAD; DATED 01/ 01 /2016 ..,, -. ,../ T.C. NAIR, SR. PS ITA NO.360 /RJT/2013 ITO VS. SHRI ANANDBAVA NETRA CHIKITSALAYA ASST.YEAR 2010-11 - 6 - / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. &( / THE APPELLANT 2. )&( / THE RESPONDENT. 3. 4 5 / CONCERNED CIT 4. 5 ( ) / THE CIT(A)-JAMANAGAR 5. 7-8 , , , /DR,ITAT, RAJKOT 6. 8CD E. / GUARD FILE. / BY ORDER, )7 //TRUE COPY// / ( DY./ASSTT.REGISTRAR) & ' , / ITAT, RAJKOT 1. DATE OF DICTATION .. 21.12.15 (DICTATION-PAD 6-- PAGES ATTACHED AT THE END OF THIS FILE) 2. DATE ON WHICH THE TYPED DRAFT IS PLACED BEFORE THE DICTATING MEMBER ..22.12.2015 3. OTHER MEMBER... 4. DATE ON WHICH THE APPROVED DRAFT COMES TO THE SR.P. S./P.S.. 5. DATE ON WHICH THE FAIR ORDER IS PLACED BEFORE THE D ICTATING MEMBER FOR PRONOUNCEMENT 6. DATE ON WHICH THE FAIR ORDER COMES BACK TO THE SR.P .S./P.S. 7. DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE BENCH CLERK 8. DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE HEAD CLERK ... 9. THE DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE ASSISTANT RE GISTRAR FOR SIGNATURE ON THE ORDER.. 10. DATE OF DESPATCH OF THE ORDER