Guru nanak Mission Trust, Hyderabad V. Income Tax Officer(Exemption), Ward-1(1), Hyderabad

ITA 700/Hyd/2019

• Counselvise Citation: [2020] 111 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 2050 (ITAT-HYDERABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 11 month(s) 23 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 30-04-2020
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB-A
• Assessment Year: 2016-2017
• Appeal Filed On: 07-05-2019
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: NILANJAN DEY
• Assessee Lawyers: M.A. FAKRUDDIN
• Keywords: Charitable institution
• Section: 11; 139; 143(1); 20

Judgement Text

IN THE I NCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCH SMC - A , HYDERABAD BEFORE S MT P. MADHAVI DEVI , JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO. 700/HYD/2019 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 20 16 - 17 GURU NANAK MISSION TRUST, HYDERABAD. PAN AA BTG0502G VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER (EXEMPTION), WARD 1(1), HYDERABAD. ( A PPELLANT ) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : SHRI M.A. FAKRUDDIN REVENUE BY : S HRI NILANJAN DEY DATE OF HEARING 12 - 0 3 - 20 20 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 30 - 04 - 2020 O R D E R T H IS IS AN APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME - TAX - 9 , HYDERABAD , DATED 20 / 02/2019 FOR AY 2016 - 17. 2. BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE , A CHARITABLE TRUST, HAD FILED ITS RETURN OF INCOME AND THE SAME WAS PROCESSED U/S 143(1) OF THE IT ACT. THE AO NOTED THAT WHILE FILING THE RETURN FOR AY 2016 - 17, THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED THAT THERE WAS A MISTAKE IN FI L LING THE PARTICULARS IN SPECIFIC COLUMN OF THE RETURN AND, TH EREFORE, THE EXEMPTION ON ACCOUNT OF FUNDS IN EXCESS OF 15% WAS NOT ALLOWED. 3. AGGRIEVED, THE ASSESSEE PREFERRED AN APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT(A). THE CIT(A) OBSERVED THAT THERE WAS NO EVIDENCE SUBMITTED BY THE 2 ITA NO. 700 /HYD/201 9 GURU NANAK MISSION TRUST, HYD. ASSESSEE THAT RETURN U/S 139 WAS FILED ON 16/09 /2016 DESPITE THE OPPORTUNITY GIVEN. HE FURTHER OBSERVED THAT THE APPEAL WAS FILED AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 24/08/2017 ON 03/05/2018, THEREFORE, THERE WAS A DELAY OF ROUGHLY 8 MONTHS. SINCE THERE WAS NO CONDONATION APPLICATION FOR DELAY IN FILING THE APPEAL , THE CIT(A) DISMISSED THE APPEAL ON THE GROUND THAT IT CANNOT BE ADMITTED BELATEDLY. AGGRIEVED, THE ASSESSEE IS IN SECOND APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL BY RAISING THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL: 1. THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME - TAX(APPEALS) IS CONTRARY TO LAW AND FACTS IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. 2. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME - TAX FAILED TO APPRECIATE THE FACT THAT THE APPELLANT FILED THE RETURN ON 14 - 09 - 2016 IS EV IDENT FROM THE INTIMATION UNDER SECTION 143(1) OF THE INCOME - TAX ACT DATED 24 - 08 - 2017 ITSELF, ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. 3. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME - TAX ERRED IN NOT APPRECIATING THE FACT THAT THE APPEAL WAS FILED AGAINS T THE INTIMATION UNDER SECTION 143(1) OF THE INCOME - TAX ACT WHICH ITSELF SHOWS THAT THE ORIGINAL RETURN WAS FILED ON 14 - 09 - 2016 AND IT WAS ON THE FILE OF THE DEPARTMENT AND AS SUCH HE ERRED IN DISMISSING THE APPEAL THAT THE MERE FACT THAT COPY WAS NOT FILE D, ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. 4. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME - TAX ERRED IN NOT APPRECIATING THAT NO OPPORTUNITY FOR FILING THE EVIDENCE , IN SUPPORT OF THE RETURN FILED ON 14 - 09 - 2016 WAS AFFORDED TO THE APPELLANT, ON THE FAC TS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. 5. WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE ABOVE CONTENTIONS, THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME - TAX ERRED IN CALCULATING THE ALLEGED DELAY IN FILING THE APPEAL FROM THE DATE OF ORDER, ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF T HE CASE. 6. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME - TAX ERRED IN NOT APPRECIATING THE FACT THAT IF THE DATE OF SERVICE OF THE ORDER IS TAKEN IN TO ACCOUNT, THE APPEAL WAS WELL WITHIN THE TIME ALLOWED 3 ITA NO. 700 /HYD/201 9 GURU NANAK MISSION TRUST, HYD. UNDER THE INCOME - TAX ACT, ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTA NCES OF THE CASE. 7. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME - TAX ERRED IN NOT DECIDING THE APPEAL ON MERITS, ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. 8. WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE ABOVE GROUNDS, THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME - TAX ERRED IN NOT DI RECTING THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME - TAX, CPC, BANGALORE TO ALLOW DEDUCTION IN RESPECT OF INCOME ACCUMULATED UNDER SECTION 11 (2) OF THE INCOME - TAX ACT, ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. 9. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME - TAX FUR THER ERRED IN NOT APPRECIATING THE FACT THAT THE STATEMENT UNDER SECTION 11 (2) IN FORM. 10 WAS DULY FILED ON 16 - 09 - 2016, ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. 10. THE APPEL1ANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD TO, ALTER OR AMEND ANY OF THE AFORESAID GRO UNDS AS ADVISED, ON OR BEFORE THE DATE OF HEARING. 4. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THERE WAS A MISTAKE IN FILLING THE PARTICULARS IN SPECIFIC COLUMN OF THE RETURN AND SUBSEQUENTLY, WHEN IT WAS NOTICED, THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT ALLOWED EXE MPTION OF ACCUMULATION OF INCOME AND WHEN IT WAS BROUGHT TO THE NOTICE OF THE AO, WHO DISMISSED THE APPEAL. THE LD. DR WAS ALSO HEARD. 5. HAVING REGARD TO THE FACT THAT THERE IS A MISTAKE IN FILLING THE PARTICULARS IN SPECIFIC COLUMN OF THE RETURN OF INCOME AND SINCE IT IS A CHARITABLE INSTITUTION, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE, I DEEM IT FIT AND PROPER TO REMAND THE FILE OF THE AO WITH A DIREC TION TO CONSIDER AND DECIDE THE ASSESSEES APPEAL IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW AND ON MERITS AFTER GIVING A FAIR OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING TO THE ASSESSEE. 4 ITA NO. 700 /HYD/201 9 GURU NANAK MISSION TRUST, HYD. 6. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS TREATED AS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 30TH APRIL, 2020. SD/ - ( P. MADHAVI DEVI ) JUDICIAL MEMBER HYDERABAD, DATED: 30 TH APRIL, 2020 KV COPY TO: - 1) GURU NANAK MISSION TRUST, 5 - 9 - 22/2, HILL FORT ROAD, ADARSH NAGAR, HYDERABAD - 500022 2) IT O (EXEMPTIONS) , WARD 1(1), HYDERABAD. 3) CIT (A) 9 , HYDERABAD 4 ) CIT (EXEMPTIONS) , HYDERABAD 5 ) THE DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE, I.T.A.T., HYDERABAD. 6) GUARD FILE S.NO. DESCRIPTION DATE INTLS 1. DRAFT DICTATED ON SR.P.S./P.S 2. DRAFT PLACED BEFORE AUTHOR SR.P.S/PS 3 DRAFT PROPOSED & PLACED BEFORE THE SECOND MEMBER JM/AM 4 DRAFT DISCUSSED/APPROVED BY SECOND MEMBER JM/AM 5 APPROVED DRAFT COMES TO THE SR.P.S./PS SR.P.S./P.S 6. KEPT FOR PRONOUNCEMENT ON SR. P.S./P.S. 7. FILE SENT TO THE BENCH CLERK SR.P.S./P.S 8 DATE ON WHICH FILE GOES TO THE HEAD CLERK 9 DATE OF DISPATCH OF ORDER