Chitrakut Foundation, Ahmedabad V. The CIT(Exemption), Ahmedabad

ITA 503/AHD/2023

• Counselvise Citation: [2024] 101 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 8634 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 8 month(s) 5 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 20-02-2024
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: PartlyAllowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 31-01-2024
• Assessment Year: misc
• Appeal Filed On: 14-06-2023
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SHRIAKHILENDRAPRATAPYADAW
• Assessee Lawyers: SHRIM.KPATEL

Judgement Text

आयकरअपीलीयअधिकरण , अहमदाबादनयायपीी INTHEINCOMETAXAPPELLATETRIBUNAL, ‘’A’’BENCH,AHMEDABAD BEFOREMsSUCHITRAKAMBLE,JUDICIALMEMBER And SHRIWASEEMAHMED,ACCOUNTANTMEMBER आयकरअपीलसं./ITANo.503/AHD/2023 धििाधरणवरध / Asstt.Year:NA ChitrakutFoundation, 133,Sector4, BahuchrajiMandir, NearVivekanandNagar, Hathijan, Ahmedabad-384245. PAN:AAEAC7533P Vs. TheCommissionerof IncomeTax(Exemption), Ahmedabad. (Applicant)(Respondent) Assesseeby:ShriM.KPatel,AR Revenueby:ShriAkhilendraPratapYadaw,CITDR सुिवाईकीतारीख/DateofHearing:01/02/2024 घोरणाकीतारीख/DateofPronouncement:21/02/2024 आदेश/ORDER PERWASEEMAHMED,ACCOUNTANTMEMBER: ThecaptionedappealhasbeenfiledattheinstanceoftheAssesseeagainst theorderoftheLearnedCommissionerofIncomeTax(Exemption),Ahmedabad, arisinginthematterofassessmentorderpassedunders.80G(5)oftheIncome TaxAct,1961(here-in-afterreferredtoas"theAct")relevanttotheAssessment YearN.A. ITAno.503/AHD/2023 A.Y.N.A 2 2.TheonlygrievanceraisedbytheasseseeisthattheLd.CIT(E)erredin rejectingtheapplicationforregistrationappliedu/s80GoftheAct. 3.Attheoutset,itwasnoticedthattherewasadelayof30daysinfilingthe appealbytheassesee.Theasseseetothiseffecthasfiledthecondonation petitionsupportedbytheaffidavitandcontendedthatthemaintrusteewhowas lookingaftertheaccounts/taxationmatterwasoutstationforlongduration. Accordingly,noauthorizerepresentativetofiletheappealbeforetheITATcould beappointed.Assuch,onreturning,themaintrusteeimmediatelyappointedthe taxconsultanttofiletheappeal.Itwasalsopointedoutthatthetrustiscarrying outcharitableactivitiesforthebenefitofthepublicatlargeandthereforethe registrationapplicationfiledu/s80G(5)oftheAct,shouldnotberejecteddueto technicallapses.AspertheLd.ARtheassesseehasmeritoriouscaseandfair chancetosucceed.Thus,theappealfiledbytheassesseeshouldbeadmittedand tobeadjudicatedonmerit. 4.Ontheotherhand,theLd.DRopposedincondoningthedelayinfilingthe appealbytheassessee. 5.Wehaveheardtherivalcontentionsofboththepartiesandperusedthe materialsavailableonrecord.Consideringthelengthofdelayandargumentofthe Ld.ARthatthemeritoriouscaseshouldnotbedismissedontechnicalcount,we areinclinedtocondonethedelayinfilingtheappealbytheassessee.Assuch,the delayiscondoned,andweproceedtoadjudicatetheissueonmerit. 5.1Inthepresentcase,theLd.CIT(E),hasrejectedtheregistrationapplication filedbytheasseseeforapprovalu/s80G(5)oftheAct,onthereasoningthat someoftheactivitiesofthetrustwerereligiousinnature.Likewise,theassessee hasincurredcertainexpenditureonreligiousactivitiesamountingtoRs.39,000/- constituting20.73%ofthetotalreceipt(20.73percentof1,88,108).AspertheLd. ITAno.503/AHD/2023 A.Y.N.A 3 CIT(E),theexpenditureonreligiousactivitiesexceeds5%ofthetotalreceiptand thereforethebenefitofsubsection(5B)ofthesection80GoftheAct,cannotbe grantedtotheassessee.Thus,theLd.CIT(E),rejectedtheapplicationofthe assesseefiledforapprovalu/s80G(5)oftheAct. 6.BeingaggrievedbytheorderoftheLd.CIT(E),theassesseeisinappeal beforeus. 7.TheLd.ARbeforeusfiledapaperbookrunningfrompages1to55and contendedthattheassesseehasnotincurredanyexpenseonreligiousactivityas allegedbytheLd.CIT(E).ItwassubmittedbytheLd.ARthatthesumofRs. 39,000/-hasbeenincurredoneducationalactivitiesbyreimbursingthefeestothe students.Tojustifyhisstand,theLd.ARhasdrawnourattentiononthe FinancialsStatementsplacedonpages6to8ofthepaperbooks. 8.Ontheotherhand,theLd.DRsubmittedthattheassesseehasnot furnishedthesupportingdocumentdemonstratingthatthesumofRs.39,000/- wasincurredontheeducationalactivities.TheLd.DRvehementlysupportedthe orderoftheLd.CIT(E). 9.Wehaveheardtherivalcontentionsofboththepartiesandperusedthe materialsavailableonrecord.Fromtheprecedingdiscussion,wenotethatthe applicationforapprovalu/s80G(5)oftheAct,hasbeenrejectedbyLd.CIT(E)on thereasoningthatthattherewerecertainactivitiesofthetrustwereofreligious natureandtheasseseehasincurredtheexpenseofRs.39,000/-onthereligious activitieswhichismorethanthethresholdlimitspecifiedu/s80G(5B)oftheAct. However,onperusaloftheFinancialStatementoftheassessee,wenotethatthe assesseehasshownanexpenditureofRs.39,000/-undertheheadeducational activities.Likewise,theassesseehasalsofurnishedthedetailsdemonstratingthe applicationoffundswhichisplacedonpages19and20ofthepaperbookto ITAno.503/AHD/2023 A.Y.N.A 4 justifythatsuchexpenditurerepresentstheexpensestowardsthereimbursement ofthefeesofstudents.Thus,toourunderstandingthefindingsoftheLd.CIT(E), thattheasseseehasincurredexpensesonreligiousactivitiesappearstobe contrarytothefactsavailableonrecord.Therefore,intheinterestofjusticeand fairplay,weareinclinedtorestoretheissuetothefileoftheLd.CIT(E)forfresh adjudicationaspertheprovisionoflaw.Theassesseeisalsodirectedtoco- operateduringtheproceedingsbeforetheLd.CIT(E). 10.Beforeparting,itispertinenttonotethattheLd.ARatthetimeofhearing hasnotpointedoutanyerrorinthefindingoftheLd.CIT(E)withrespectto certainactivitiesofthetrustasofreligiousnaturewhichhavealsobeen reproducedinhisorder.Accordingly,werefrainourselvesfromadjudicatingthe same.Assuch,theLd.CIT(E)shalldecidetheissueafreshinthelightofthe provisionsspecifiedu/s80G(5B)oftheAct.Hence,thegroundofappealofthe assesseeisherebypartlyallowedforstatisticalpurposes. 11.Intheresult,theappealoftheassesseeispartlyallowedforthestatistical purposes. OrderpronouncedintheCourton21/02/2024atAhmedabad. Sd/-Sd/- (SUCHITRAKAMBLE)(WASEEMAHMED) JUDICIALMEMBERACCOUNTANTMEMBER (TrueCopy) Ahmedabad;Dated21/02/2024 Manish