B P MARINE ACADEMY , NAVI MUMBAI V. CIT (EXEMPTION), MUMBAI

ITA 723/MUM/2021

• Counselvise Citation: [2022] 106 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 9907 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 1 month(s) 29 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 05-07-2022
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2015-2016
• Appeal Filed On: 06-05-2021
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Charitable institution; Condonation of delay
• Section: 263; 12A; 139(1)

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “B”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI B.R. BASKARAN (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) & SMT. KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL (JUDICIAL MEMBER) ITA Nos. 723 & 724/MUM/2021 (Assessment years : 2015-16 & 2016-17) B.P. Marine Academy, 7 th Floor, Sai Pooja Chamber, Sector-11, C.B.D Belapur, Navi Mumbai, Mumbai- 400 614 PAN : AACCB7698A vs CIT (Exemptions), Piramal Chambers, Mumbai APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessee represented by Shri Bhupendra Shah Department represented by Dr. Mahesh Akhade, CIT DR Date of hearing 04/07/2022 Date of pronouncement 06/07/2022 ORDER Per Kavitha Rajagopal (JM): These appeals have been filed by the assessee as against order of a CIT (Exemptions) under section 263 dated 18/03/2021 and 19/03/2021, for assessment years 2015-16 and 2016-17, respectively. 2. As the assessee grounds of appeal in both the appeals raised by the assessee are identical, a consolidated order is passed. 3. The brief facts are that the assessee is a public charitable trust registered under section 12A of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The assessee is carrying on educational activity in the field of marine course, which are approved by the D.G. Shipping, Government of India or any institution approved by 2 ITA Nos. 723 & 724/MUM/2021 Government of Indi such as Pre-sea & Post-sea courses to marine fraternity. The assessee filed its return of income for the assessment years 2015-16 & 2016-17 on 29/10/2015 and 17/10/2016 respectively, declaring total income at Nil for both the assessment years. The assessee’s case was selected for scrutiny and the scrutiny assessment order were passed thereafter wherein the Assessing Officer has allowed accumulation Rs.4,90,55,690/- and Rs.9,63,68,771/-, respectively, under section 11(2) of the I.T. Act, 1961. On examination of assessment records, it was found that the assessee has filed Form 10 for both the impugned assessment years after the due date specified under section 139(1) and assessee has not filed any application for condonation of delay in filing Form 10. However, this fact has not been verified by the Assessing Officer during the assessment proceedings. Therefore, the learned CIT (Exemption) invoked his jurisdiction under section 263 on the ground that the assessment order for both the impugned assessment years are erroneous insofar as it is prejudicial to the interest of the revenue as the AO has failed to verify the delay in filing Form 10. Aggrieved by this the assessee is in appeals before us. 4. During the appellate proceedings before us, the Ld.AR for the assessee stated that the application for condonation of delay in form 10 has been filed before the DIT (Exemption) on 26/07/2021 for both the assessment years, copies of which are placed at pages 71 & 54 of the paper book, respectively. The Ld.AR submitted that if the delay in filing Form No.10 is condoned by Ld.CIT(E), then both these impugned orders shall become infructuous. The Ld.AR aaccordingly submitted that both these appeals may be remanded back to the CIT (Exemption) for considering the matter afresh on the basis of 3 ITA Nos. 723 & 724/MUM/2021 decision taken on the application for condonation of delay filed in Form.10 for both the impugned assessment years. 5. The Ld DR, on the other hand, did not object to the same. 6. Having heard both the representatives and perused the materials on records, we are of the considered view that there is merit in the submissions made by Ld.AR. Accordingly, we remand the matters in both the years to the file of the CIT (Exemption), so that he may take a decision on impugned revision proceedings of both the years, after taking a decision on the applications filed for condoning the delay in filing Form No.10 in both the years. 7. In the result, both the appeals are treated as allowed, for statistical purpose. Order pronounced in the open Court on 06 July, 2022. Sd/- sd/- (B.R. BASKARAN ) (KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Mumbai, Dated: 06/07/2022 Pavanan Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. The Appellant , 2. The Respondent. 3. The CIT(A)- 4. CIT 5. DR, ITAT, Mumbai 6. Guard file. BY ORDER, //True Copy// (Dy./Asstt. Registrar) ITAT, Mumbai 4 ITA Nos. 723 & 724/MUM/2021