RAJASTHAN STATE SEEDS AND ORGANIC PRODUCTION CERTIFICATION AGENCY, Jaipur V. DCIT, Jaipur

ITA 741/JPR/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 133 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 5329 (ITAT-JAIPUR)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 6 month(s) 12 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 31-03-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 18-09-2013
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: PURSHOTTAM KASHYAP CIT DR DHK
• Keywords: Charitable institution; Opportunity of being heard; Revised return
• Section: 80IB; 12A; 10B; 10; 11

Judgement Text

ITA NO.741/JP/2013 M/S. RAJASTHAN STATE SEEDS AND ORGANIC PR ODUCTION CERTIFICATION AGENCY VS. DCIT ,CIRCLE- 6 J AIPUR 1 VK;DJ VIHYH; VF/KDJ.K] T;IQJ U;K;IHB] T;IQJ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES, JAIPUR JH VKJ-IH-RKSYKUH] U;KF;D LNL; ,OA JH FOE FLAG ;KN O] YS[KK LNL; DS LE{K BEFORE:SHRI R.P.TOLANI, JM & SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADA V, AM VK;DJ VIHY LA-@ ITA NO. 741/JP/2013 FU/KZKJ.K O'K Z@ ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2009-10 M/S. RAJASTHAN STATE SEEDS AND ORGANIC PRODUCTION CERTIFICATION AGENCY, ROOM NO. 339, PANT KRISHI BHAWAN, BHAGWAN DASS ROAD, JAIPUR CUKE VS. THE ACIT CIRCLE- 5 JAIPUR LFKK;H YS[KK LA-@THVKBZVKJ LA-@ PAN/GIR NO .: AAAAR4064L VIHYKFKHZ@ APPELLANT IZR;FKHZ@ RESPONDENT FU/KZKFJRH DH VKSJ LS@ ASSESSEE BY : SHRI P.C. PARWAL CA JKTLO DH VKSJ LS@ REVENUE BY : SHRI PURSHOTTAM KASHYAP, ADDL.CIT D R LQUOKBZ DH RKJH[K@ DATE OF HEARING : 09/02/2016 ?KKS'K .KK DH RKJH[K@ DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 31 /03/2016 VKNS'K@ ORDER PER R.P. TOLANI, JM:- THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED AN APPEAL AGAINST THE ORDE R OF THE LD. CIT(A)- II, JAIPUR DATED 30-07-2013 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10 WHEREIN FOLLOWING GROUNDS HAVE BEEN RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE . THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED ON FACTS AND IN LAW IN N OT ALLOWING THE CLAIM OF EXEMPTION U/S 11 BY HOLDING T HAT IN VIEW OF THE DECISION OF SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF GOE TZE INDIA LTD., ASSESSEE IS NOT ENTITLED TO CLAIM OF SUCH EXE MPTION WHICH WAS NOT MADE IN THE RETURN AND LD. CIT(A) CANNOT CO NSIDER SUCH CLAIM AS THE SUPREME COURT DECISION ONLY ALLOWED TH E ITAT TO ITA NO.741/JP/2013 M/S. RAJASTHAN STATE SEEDS AND ORGANIC PR ODUCTION CERTIFICATION AGENCY VS. DCIT ,CIRCLE- 6 J AIPUR 2 CONSIDER SUCH CLAIM WHICH WAS NOT MADE BY WAY OF RE TURN OF INCOME. 1.1 THE LD. CIT(A) HAS FURTHER ERRED ON FACTS AND I N LAW IN NOT ALLOWING THE ABOVE CLAIM EVEN THROUGH THE ASSES SEE DURING THE COURSE OF APPELLANT FILED THE COPY OF THE AUDIT REPORT U/S 12A AS WELL AS THE REVISED COMPUTATION OF INCOME VIDE L ETTER DATED 9-10-2011 AND AO AFTER EXAMINING THE CLAIM OF ASSE SSEE GIVEN A FINDING THAT ASSESSEE IS A CHARITABLE INSTITUTION AS DEFINED U/S 2(15) OF THE ACT AND ELIGIBLE FOR EXEMPTION U/S 11 OF THE ACT. 2.1 BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE I S A SOCIETY REGISTERED UNDER THE SOCIETY REGISTRATION ACT, 1958. IT IS EST ABLISHED TO CERTIFY THE SEEDS AND CARRY OUT SUCH OTHER ACTIVITIES AS IS PRESCRIBE D U/S 8 TO 10 OF THE SEEDS ACT, 1966. THE ASSESSEE SOCIETY APPLICATION FOR REG ISTRATION U/S 12A WAS REJECTED BY THE DEPARTMENT IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005- 06 WHICH WAS RESTORED VIDE ITAT ORDER DATED 22-06-207 IN ITA NO. 892/JP/2 006. IN THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION, THE ASSESSEE FILED ITS RETURN OF INCOME ON 29-09-2009 DECLARING INCOME OF RS. 1,93,81,696/-.THEREAFTER, I N THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, ASSESSEE VIDE LETTER DATED 09-10-2011 FILED THE AUDIT REPORT U/S 12A(B) IN FORM NO. 10B DATED 05-09-2009; REVISED COMPUTATION OF TOTAL INCOME AT RS. 30,71,775/- CLAIMING EXEMPTI ON U/S 11 AND REQUESTED THE AO TO COMPLETE THE ASSESSMENT BY ALLOWING THE C LAIM OF EXEMPTION U/S 11 OF THE I.T. ACT. LD. AO THOUGH BY DETAILED DISCU SSIONS ACCEPTED THAT ASSESSEE IS A CHARITABLE INSTITUTION AS DEFINED IN SECTION 2(15) AND ELIGIBLE FOR ITA NO.741/JP/2013 M/S. RAJASTHAN STATE SEEDS AND ORGANIC PR ODUCTION CERTIFICATION AGENCY VS. DCIT ,CIRCLE- 6 J AIPUR 3 EXEMPTION U/S 11; HOWEVER, REFUSED TO ALLOW THE EXE MPTION U/S 11 ON THE GROUNDS: I. ASSESSEE HAS NOT COMPLIED WITH THE CONDITION OF SECTION 12A AS THE AUDIT REPORT IN FORM 10B HAS NOT BEEN FILED WITH THE RETURN OF INCOME. II. CLAIM OF EXEMPTION U/S 11 WAS NOT MADE IN THE F ORM OF REVISED RETURN, FOLLOWING HON'BLE SUPREME COURT JU DGMENT IN THE CASE OF GOETZE INDIA LTD. VS. CIT, 284 ITR 323. 2.2 AGGRIEVED, THE ASSESSEE PREFERRED FIRST APPEAL WHEREIN THE LD. CIT(A) ALSO DID NOT CONSIDER THE ASSESSEE'S CLAIM BY APPLY ING THE CASE OF HON'BLE APEX COURT IN THE CASE OF GOETZE INDIA LTD. VS. CIT (SUPRA). 2.3 AGGRIEVED, THE ASSESSEE IS NOW BEFORE US. 2.4 THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE CONTENDS THAT ASSESSEE'S CLAIM WAS LEGAL IN NATURE AND THOUGH THE AO MAY HAVE SOME HAN DICAP IN ENTERTAINING THE ASSESSEE'S CLAIM IN VIEW OF HON'BLE SUPREME CO URT JUDGEMENT IN THE CASE OF GOETZE INDIA LTD. VS. CIT (SUPRA); HOWEVER THIS JUDGMENT ITSELF HAS HELD THAT APPELLATE AUTHORITY IS AT LIBERTY TO ENTE RTAIN THE FRESH CLAIM WITHOUT REVISED RETURN. THEREFORE, THE LD. CIT(A) BEING AN APPELLATE AUTHORITY OUGHT TO HAVE CONSIDERED THE ASSESSEE'S LEGAL CLAIM. THE FILING OF THE AUDIT REPORT IS DIRECTORY IN NATURE BESIDES ALL THE RELEVANT DOCUME NTS WERE FILED BEFORE LD. CIT(A). RELIANCE IS PLACED IN THE CASE OF IN CASE OF CIT VS. G.M. KNITTING ITA NO.741/JP/2013 M/S. RAJASTHAN STATE SEEDS AND ORGANIC PR ODUCTION CERTIFICATION AGENCY VS. DCIT ,CIRCLE- 6 J AIPUR 4 INDUSTRIES (P) LTD. AND ANR. (2015) 125 DTR 38 (SC) WHERE IT WAS HELD THAT ASSESSEE IS ENTITLED TO DEDUCTION U/S 80IB EVEN THO UGH IT HAS NOT FILED THE AUDIT REPORT IN FORM NO. 10CCB ALONG WITH THE RETUR N BUT HAS FILED THE SAME BEFORE THE COMPLETION OF ASSESSMENT. THE LD. AR OF THE ASSESSEE FURTHER PLACED RELIANCE OF FOLLOWING CASE LAWS TO THIS EFFE CT. (I) CIT VS. SHAHZEDANAND CHARITY TRUST , 228 ITR 29 2 (P&H) (II) CIT VS. RAI BAHADUR BISSESSWARLAL MOTILAL MALWASIE TRUST, 195 ITR 825(CAL.) (III) CIT VS. RAMCO INTERNATIONAL, 332 ITR 306 (P&H ) (IV) SMT.RAJ RANI GULATI VS. CIT , 69DTR 122 (ALL.) (V) CIT VS. PRUTHI BROKERS & SHAREHOLDERS (P) LTD. (2012) 349 ITR 336 (BOM.) 2.5 THE LD. DR SUPPORTED THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORIT IES BELOW. 2.6 WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIALS AVAILABLE ON RECORD. IT IS OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESS EE SOCIETY IS REGISTERED U/S 12A OF THE ACT AND ENJOYS ITS BENEFITS. IN OUR CONS IDERED VIEW THE LD. CIT(A) BEING AN APPELLATE AUTHORITY OUGHT TO HAVE CONSIDER ED THE ASSESSEE'S CLAIM WHICH WAS PURELY LEGAL IN NATURE AND THE RESERVATIO N AS CONTEMPLATED BY THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE GOETZE INDIA LTD. VS. CIT (SUPRA) IS APPLICABLE TO AO AND NOT TO THE APPELLATE AUTHORITY . WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT ITA NO.741/JP/2013 M/S. RAJASTHAN STATE SEEDS AND ORGANIC PR ODUCTION CERTIFICATION AGENCY VS. DCIT ,CIRCLE- 6 J AIPUR 5 ASSESSEE'S CLAIM SHOULD HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED AND AP PROPRIATE RELIEF IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW MAY BE PROVIDED. IN VIEW THEREO F, WE SET ASIDE THE MATTER TO THE FILE OF THE LD. AO TO CONSIDER THE AS SESSEE'S CLAIM AFRESH BY PROVIDING ADEQUATE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD. IF S OME COMPLIANCE IS FURTHER REQUIRED, THE ASSESSEE MAY BE ALLOWED TO MA KE THE SAME AND DECIDE THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW. THUS THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 3.0 IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWE D FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 31/03 /2016. SD/- SD/- FOE FLAG ;KNO VKJ-IH-RKSYKUH (VIKRAM SINGH YADAV) (R.P.TOLANI) YS[KK LNL;@ ACCOUNTANT MEMBER U;KF;D LNL;@ JUDICIAL MEMBER TK;IQJ@ JAIPUR FNUKAD@ DATED:- 31 /03/ 2016 *MISHRA VKNS'K DH IZFRFYFI VXZSFKR@ COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. VIHYKFKHZ@ THE APPELLANT- M/S. RAJASTHAN STATE SEEDS AND ORG ANIC PRODUCTION CERTIFICATION AGENCY, JAIPUR 2. IZR;FKHZ@ THE RESPONDENT-THE DCIT, CIRCLE- 6, JAIPUR 3. VK;DJ VK;QDRVIHY ) @ CIT(A) 4. VK;DJ VK;QDR@ CIT 5. FOHKKXH; IZFRFUF/K] VK;DJ VIHYH; VF/KDJ.K] T;IQJ@ DR, ITAT, JAIPUR 6. XKMZ QKBZY@ GUARD FILE (ITA NO.741/JP/2013) VKNS'KKUQLKJ@ BY ORDER, LGK;D IATHDKJ@ ASSISTANT. REGISTRAR