SHREE AGARSAIN JAN SEWA SABHA,NEW DELHI V. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD

ITA 1010/DEL/2025

AI Insights

The case involves Shree Agarsain Jan Sewa Sabha, a registered trust, which appealed against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) that upheld a rectification order by the CPC, Bangalore. The rectification order raised a demand of Rs.24,34,590, asserting that the trust was not registered under the necessary provisions to claim exemptions under section 11 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Tribunal found that the trust had indeed registered under the new provisions and filed the necessary documentation within the stipulated time, thus reversing the decision of the lower authorities.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 787335 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 8 month(s) 29 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 19-11-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: E
• Assessment Year: 2021-2022
• Appeal Filed On: 21-02-2025
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: ANKUSH KALRA
• Assessee Lawyers: R.S. SINGHVI
• Keywords: Rectification of order; Competent authority
• Section: 154; 11; 12AA; 12A

Judgement Text

" 1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “E”, DELHI BEFORE SH. SUDHIR KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SH. MANISH AGARWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.1010/DEL/2025 Assessment Year: 2021-22 Shree Agarsain Jan Sewa Sabha, CU-164, Vishakha Enclave, Pritampura 110034 PAN No.AACTS3549J Vs. Income Tax Officer (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) Appellant by Sh. R. S. Singhvi, CA Sh. Satyjeet Goel, Advocate Respondent by Ms. Ankush Kalra, Sr. DR Date of hearing: 03/11/2025 Date of Pronouncement: 19/11/2025 ORDER PER SUDHIR KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER: This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal), Addl/ JCIT(A), Aurangabad [hereinafter referred to as “CIT(A)”] vide order dated 30.06.2024 for A.Y. 2021-22. Printed from counselvise.com 2 2. The appeal is time barred by 144 days. An application to condone the delay is filed by the assessee, in which it is stated that assessee was filed the appeal inadvertently before the Hon’ble ITAT Pune Bench, instead of the appropriate jurisdictional bench in Delhi. The appeal filed by the assessee before the Hon’ble ITAT bench was withdrawn and later on filed before this Bench. The assessee has shown the sufficient the cause not to file the appeal with in time. Therefore, we condoned the delay in filing the appeal and admit for adjudication. 3. The assessee has raised the following ground in appeal:- 1.1 That on the facts and circumstances of the case, the CIT(A) was not justified in upholding the Rectification Order passed by the CPC, Bangalore u/s 154 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 in total disregard to the submissions filed by the Appellant. 1.2 That the CPC Bangalore has erred in passing the Intimation u/s 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 in disregard to the fact that the details of registration of trust u/s 12A were duly stated in the ITR filed for the year and as such the whole basis of computing income at Rs. 64,75,527/-constitutes a mistake apparent from record. 2.1 That on the facts and circumstances of the case, the CIT(A) has erred in applying the provisions of section 12AA of the Income Tax Act, 1961 without even appreciating that the said provisions are not relevant to the year under consideration. Printed from counselvise.com 3 2.2 That the disallowance of Rs. 1,29,51,054/-in relation to the application of funds is unlawful and unsustainable under the law, given that there is no dispute regarding the charitable nature of the organization's objectives and that the use of funds is in compliant with the provisions of section 12A(1) of the Act. 3 That the orders passed by the lower authorities are not sustainable on facts and same are bad in law.. 4 That the appellant craves leaves to add, alter, amend, forgot any of the grounds of appeal at the time of hearing. 4. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a registered trust, filed its return of income on 05.3.2022, for the A.Y.2021-22 declaring total income NIL. The return was subsequently processed under section 143 (1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, (in short “the Act”) accepting the declared income. Thereafter Suo-moto a rectification order under section 154 of the Act was issued, raising a demand of Rs.24,34,590/-. Aggrieved the rectification order the assessee filed an appeal, before the Ld.CIT(A), which was dismissed vide order dated 30-06-2024 upholding the action of the CPC. Being aggrieved the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before the tribunal. Ld. CIT(A) has observed in his order,: “7. In its reply the appellant has submitted that it had filed form no. 10 B within the due date. On verification it is seen Printed from counselvise.com 4 that the extended due date for filing of return was 15.03.2022 and the appellant has filed its ITR on 05.03.2022 and the audit report in form no. 10 B has been filed on 09.02.2022. It is correct that the appellant has filed form no. 10 B one month prior to the due date for furnishing the return of income under sub-section (1) of section 139. However, the appellant has not submitted anything whether the trust is registered or not, which was asked in above mentioned notice. 8. As mentioned in notice above, as per the provisions of section 12AA of the Act, it was mandatory to get the trust registered within three months from the first day of April 2021, to get the exemption u/s 11 of the Act. However, in the return of income filed by the appellant, it has mentioned that application for registration under new provisions has not been made, registration no. has not been mentioned and the appellant has also failed to submit a registration certificate. Even in its reply the appellant has remained silent on the issue of certificate of registration. From the above it is evident that the appellant has failed to get the trust registered within three months from the first day of April 2021. In view of the above the appellant is not eligible to get exemption u/s 11 of the Act. Accordingly, the order passed by the CPC disallowing the exemption claimed u/s 11 of the Act is hereby confirmed and the grounds raised by the appellant are hereby dismissed. 9. As a result, the appeal of the appellant is disposed of as dismissed.” 5. Ld. Authorized, Representative of the assessee submitted that provision of section 12AA of the Act was wrongly applied Printed from counselvise.com 5 because the said provisions are not relevant to the year under consideration. It was also submitted that the provision of the section 12AB was inserted by the amendment with effect from the 01-04-2021. The assessee was filed the return for the A.Y. 2021-22 and has a valid registration. The assessee filed the paper book containing paper no 1 to 25, in which paper no.1is a filed the registration certificate, to prove that trust having a registration certificate for the A,Y,2021-22. 6. Ld. DR has relied the order of the lower authority. We have heard the parties and gone through the material available on record. The appeal of the assessee was dismissed on the ground that the application for registration under new provision has not been filed and registration number has not been mentioned by the assessee. The application for registration was also not filed by the assessee. The appeal of the assessee was dismissed on the wrong assumption, because the assessee trust having a valid registration at the time of the filing the return of income. The assessee also filed the application for registration under the amended law on 28-03-2022 and registration was granted by the competent authority to the assessee. The return of income was filed for the A. Y. 2012-22 and the provision of the Act was inserted w.e.f. 01-04-2021. The Ld. CIT(A), wrongly applying the provisions dismissed the appeal of the assessee. The assessee had a registration certificate at the filing the return of income and he also got the registration (Paper book page Printed from counselvise.com 6 no.23&24 ) under the amended Act, therefore the appeal of the assessee is liable to be allowed. The grounds raised by the assessee is allowed and the AO is directed to delete the demand raised by the CPC. 7. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on 19.11.2025. Sd/- Sd/- (MANISH AGARWAL) (SUDHIR KUMAR) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER (JUDICIAL MEMBER) Neha, Sr. PS Date:19.11.2025 Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(Appeals) ` 5. DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT DELHI Printed from counselvise.com "