DCIT CIRCLE -1 (EXEMPTIONS) AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD V. GUJARAT STATE BOARD OF SCHOOL TEXT BOOK, GANDHINAGAR

ITA 51/AHD/2024

• Counselvise Citation: [2024] 101 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6172 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 5 month(s) 20 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 30-06-2024
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: D
• Next Hearing Date: 24-06-2024
• Assessment Year: 2014-2015
• Appeal Filed On: 10-01-2024
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Section: 154; 11; 10B; 143(1); 139(1)

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE Ms. SUCHITRA RAGHUNATH KAMBLE, JUDICAL MEMBER & SHRI NARENDRA PRASAD SINHA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 51/Ahd/2024 ( नधा रण वष / Assess ment Ye ar : 2014-15) DC IT Cir cl e- 1 ( Ex e mpt io ns) , Ah me da bad बनाम/ V s . Gu ja rat Sta te B oar d of Sc ho ol Tex t B oo k Vi dh ya ya n S ec to r 1 0-A , Ga nd hin ag ar , Ah me dab ad , Gu jar at 3 82 01 0 थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./P A N / G IR N o . : A A A T G 4 6 7 1 P (Appellant) . . (Respondent) अपीलाथ ओर से /Appellant by : Dr. Darsi Suman Ratnam, CIT. DR यथ क ओर से/Respondent by : Shri M. K. Patel, Advocate D a t e o f H e a r i n g 25/06/2024 D a t e o f P r o n o u n c e m e n t 01/07/2024 O R D E R PER SHRI NARENDRA PRASAD SINHA, AM: This appeal is filed b y the Revenue against the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) (in short ‘the CIT( A) ’) dated 11.12.2023 for A.Y. 2014-15. 2. The brief f acts of the case are that the assessee filed its return of income f or A.Y. 2014-15 on 28.11.2014 declaring Nil income as the enti re inco me was cla i med exe mpt under Section ITA No. 51/Ahd/2024 [DCIT(E) vs. Gujarat State. Board of School Text Book] A.Y. 2014-15 - 2 – 11 of the Inco me Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter refer red to as ‘the Act ’). The return was processed under Section 143(1) of the Act on 16.03.2016 wherein the assessee’s clai m for deduction of Rs.38,93,39,705/- under Section 11(2) of the Act was d isallowed. Thereafter , the assessee filed an application under Section 154 of the Act before the AO to rectif y the mistake as the deduction under Section 11(2) of the Act was ad missible since the assessee had already filed F or m No.10 before t he due date. The AO passed order under Section 154 of the Act on 17.06.2021 and the rectification request was re jected for the r eason that au dit report in For m No.10B a nd For m No.10 were not filed along with the Inco me Tax Retur n as required under Section 12A(b) of the Act. The assessee had preferr ed an appeal against the rectification order before the First Appellate Authority, which was decided vide the impugned order and the appeal of the assessee was allowed. 4. Now, the Revenue is in appeal befor e us and the following ground has been taken in this appeal: “1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law in deleting additions made by the Assessing Officer under section 11(2) of the I.T. Act, 1961 as the assessee has not filed Audit report in form 10B along with its ITR, which is mandatory as per the provisions of section 12A(1)(b) of the I.T. Act, 1961?” 5. Dr . Darsi Su man Ratna m, the CIT.DR sub mitted tha t the Ld. C IT( A) was not correct in allowi ng the appeal of the assessee as For m No .10 ne cessar y for clai mi ng exe mption under S ection 11 of the Act was not filed along with the return of inco me. ITA No. 51/Ahd/2024 [DCIT(E) vs. Gujarat State. Board of School Text Book] A.Y. 2014-15 - 3 – 6. Shri M. K. Patel, Ld. AR for the assessee, on the other hand, submitted that For m 10 was filed on 30.11.2014 which was within the due date as pre scribed under the provisions of the Act and the Rules and, theref ore, the Ld. CI T( A) had rightly allowed the clai m of the assessee. 7. We have care fully considered the facts of the case. It is found that the ret urn of inco me for this year was filed b y the assessee on 29.11.2014, whereas For m No .10 was filed one da y later on 30.11.2014. The C PC ha d disallowed the clai m for deduction under Section 11(2) of the Act presu mab ly for the reason that the Form No.10 was not f iled along with the return of income . It is found fro m the inti mation under Section 153(1) of the Act that a note was given for disallowing the clai m of exe mption under Section 11(2) of t he Act and the said note is found to be as under: “ N o t e : I n r e t u r n o f i n c o m e f u r n i s h e d b y y o u , t h e r eq u i r e d i n f o r m a t i o n h a s n o t b e e n p r o v i d e d i n s c h e d u l e J & I f o r c l a i m i n g o f e x e m p t i o n s u / s 1 1 ( 2 ) . I n s p i t e o f o p p o r t u n i t i e s g iv e n , y o u h a v e n o t f u r n i s h e d t h e c o r r e c t e d r e t u r n . H e n c e e x e m p t i o n c l ai m e d u / s 1 1 ( 2 ) h a s n o t b e e n a l l o w e d w h i l e c o m p u t i n g y o u r t o t a l i n co m e . ” Thus, the clai m of the assessee was denied for the reason that the infor mation as req uired in schedule J & I for clai ming e xe mption under Section 11(2) of the Act was not provided by th e assessee. The Ld. AR clarif ied that the defici enc y as noticed b y the C PC was corrected and a revised return was filed on 16/07/2016, a copy of which has been brought on record. The assessee has also ITA No. 51/Ahd/2024 [DCIT(E) vs. Gujarat State. Board of School Text Book] A.Y. 2014-15 - 4 – brought on record the evidence for filing of For m No .10 as well as For m No.10B o n 30.11.2014, which was within the due date as prescribed under the Act and Rules. 8. The onl y grievance of the Revenue is that the Ld. C I T(A) was not correct in allowing deduction under Section 11(2) of the Act for the reason that audit report in For m No.10B was not filed along with the return of income . As per the provisions of the Act and the Rules, the audit report in For m 10B is required to be filed before the due date of filing of return. It is not mandatory that it should be filed along with the return of inco me itself. As long as the audit report is filed within the ti me allowed under Section 139(1) of the Act, the clai m of the assessee has to be allowed. There is no dispute to the fact that the audit report was filed in this case on 30.11.2014, which was within the time as ad missible under the provision of Section 139(1) of the Act. Ther efore, we do not find an ything wrong with the direction of the Ld. CI T( A) to allow the clai m for deduction under S ection 11(2) of the Act . The decision of the Ld. CIT(A) is, therefore, upheld and the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed. 9. In the result, appeal preferred b y the Revenue is dismi ssed. This Order pronounced on 01/07/2024 Sd/- Sd/- (SUCHITRA RAGHUNATH KAMBLE) (NARENDRA PRASAD SINHA) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Ahmedabad; Dated 01/07/2024 True Copy ITA No. 51/Ahd/2024 [DCIT(E) vs. Gujarat State. Board of School Text Book] A.Y. 2014-15 - 5 – S. K. SINHA आदेश क त ल प अ े षत/Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथ / The Appellant 2. यथ / The Respondent. 3. संबं धत आयकर आय ु त / Concerned CIT 4. आयकर आय ु त(अपील) / The CIT(A)- 5. "वभागीय &त&न ध, आयकर अपील)य अ धकरण, अहमदाबाद / DR, ITAT, Ahmedabad 6. गाड/ फाईल / Guard file. आदेशान ु सार/ BY ORDER, उप/सहायक पंजीकार (Dy./Asstt. Registrar) आयकर अपील$य अ%धकरण, अहमदाबाद / ITAT, Ahmedabad