U K P M CHARITABLE TRUST,COIMBATORE V. ITO, WARD 2(4), TIRUPPUR, TIRUPPUR

ITA 2720/CHNY/2024

AI Insights

The case involves UK P M Charitable Trust, which appealed against the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) rejecting their claim for exemption under section 10(23C)(iv) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 due to the belated filing of Form 10BB. The Trust had initially filed their return of income for AY 2019-20 claiming exemption under a different sub-clause, which was an inadvertent error. The CPC processed the return and denied the exemption, taxing the gross receipts instead. The Tribunal found that the CPC erred in disallowing the entire expenditure claimed by the assessee and directed a fresh assessment considering only the net income.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 107982 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 31-01-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Assessment Year: 2019-2020
• Other Referred Cases: Sree Venkateswara Educational Trust v. ITO
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: ANITHA
• Assessee Lawyers: N. ARJUN RAJ
• Keywords: Condonation of delay; Set aside; Revised return; Rectification of order; Charitable institution
• Section: 143(1); 11; 12AA; 12A; 139; 139(4); 10(23C)

Judgement Text

"आयकरअपीलीयअिधकरण, ‘सी’\rा यपीठ,चे\u0012ई। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘C’ BENCH: CHENNAI \u0001ी एबी टी. वक , \u000bाियक सद\u0011 एवं एवं एवं एवं \u0015ी जगदीश, लेखा सद\u001b क े सम\u0015 BEFORE SHRI ABY T. VARKEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI JAGADISH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकरअपीलसं./ITA No.2720/Chny/2024 िनधा \u001eरणवष\u001e/Assessment Year: 2019-20 UK P M Charitable Trust, 281 Palani Road, Udumalpet, Pollachi, Coimbatore – 642 154. v. The ITO, Ward-2(4), Tiruppur – 641 602. [PAN:AAAAU1408P] (अपीला थ\"/Appellant) (#$थ\"/Respondent) अपीला थ\"कीओरसे/ Appellant by : Mr. N. Arjun Raj, Advocate #$थ\"कीओरसे /Respondent by : Ms. Anitha, Addl. CIT सुनवा ईकीता रीख/Date of Hearing : 07.01.2025 घोषणा कीता रीख /Date of Pronouncement : 31.01.2025 आदेश / O R D E R PER ABY T. VARKEY, JM: This is an appeal preferred by the assessee against the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Addl/JCIT(A)-4, (hereinafter in short \"the Ld.CIT(A)”), Hyderabad, dated 28.08.2024 for the Assessment Year (hereinafter in short \"AY”) 2019-20. 2. The assessee has raised 12 grounds of appeal mainly contesting the action of the first appellate authority rejecting the claim made by the assessee u/s. 10(23C)(iv) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter in short “the Act”) for belated filing of Form 10BB. 3. The brief facts are that the assessee trust has filed its return of income (hereinafter in short “RoI\") declaring income of Rs. the Act [mistakenly clicked online i.e. sub-clause (vi) instead of (iv) 10B on the same day of filing of the RoI the assessee’s return was pr which led to the issuance of intimation dated 18.05.2020 exemption claimed u/s. 10(23C) of the Act and the entire expenditure claimed by the assessee to the tune of Rs.94,59,624/- and taxed the gross receipt to the tune of Rs.76,79,925/ and raised the demand of Rs.31,08,224/ was only on the ground that assesse report) within due date to be eligible for claimi 10(23C)(iv) of the Act. 4. On appeal, before the Ld.CIT(A) that it had filed the Form 10BB on 25.02.2022, but the Ld.CIT(A) dismissed the appeal only on the ground that assessee neither filed audit report in Form 10BB within due date nor obtained condonation of delay in ITA No.2720/Chny/20 UK P M Charitable Trust :: 2 :: 10(23C)(iv) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter in for belated filing of Form 10BB. facts are that the assessee trust has filed its return of income (hereinafter in short “RoI\") for AY 2019-20 on 14.10.2019, declaring income of Rs.Nil after claiming exemption u/s. 10(23C)(iv) of ly clicked online u/s. 10(23C)(vi) of the Act in the ITR clause (vi) instead of (iv)]; And had filed the audit report in Form 10B on the same day of filing of the RoI i.e. on 14.10.2019; Thereafter, the assessee’s return was processed by the CPC u/s. 143(1) of the Act which led to the issuance of intimation dated 18.05.2020 exemption claimed u/s. 10(23C) of the Act and the CPC also the entire expenditure claimed by the assessee to the tune of and taxed the gross receipt to the tune of Rs.76,79,925/ demand of Rs.31,08,224/-; The aforesaid action of the CPC only on the ground that assessee didn’t file the Form no.10BB report) within due date to be eligible for claiming exemption u/s. before the Ld.CIT(A) the assessee brought to that it had filed the Form 10BB on 25.02.2022, but the Ld.CIT(A) only on the ground that assessee neither filed audit t in Form 10BB within due date nor obtained condonation of delay in /Chny/2024 (AY 2019-20) UK P M Charitable Trust 10(23C)(iv) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter in facts are that the assessee trust has filed its return of 20 on 14.10.2019, on u/s. 10(23C)(iv) of u/s. 10(23C)(vi) of the Act in the ITR ; And had filed the audit report in Form i.e. on 14.10.2019; Thereafter, ocessed by the CPC u/s. 143(1) of the Act which led to the issuance of intimation dated 18.05.2020, denying the the CPC also disallowed the entire expenditure claimed by the assessee to the tune of and taxed the gross receipt to the tune of Rs.76,79,925/- ; The aforesaid action of the CPC e didn’t file the Form no.10BB (audit ng exemption u/s. the assessee brought to his notice that it had filed the Form 10BB on 25.02.2022, but the Ld.CIT(A) only on the ground that assessee neither filed audit t in Form 10BB within due date nor obtained condonation of delay in filing of the audit report claiming exemption u/s. 10(23C) of the Act. that if the assessee obtains condonatio then the AO may consider the claim of exemption u/s. 10(23C) of the Act. 5. Before us, the Ld. the CPC/CIT(A) taxing the gross receipts without allowing the corresponding expenses which according to him is according to him, even if the assessee is treated as an AOP, still only the net income ought to have been brought to tax rather than the gross receipts which action of the CPC/CIT(A) is arbitrary, whimsical and unjust. According to him, even if assessee is treated as an AoP, or not granted benefit under Chapter RoI or for non-filing of the of Audit Report, etc, still the assessee trust brought to tax and the corresponding expenses for earning income to have been allowed. And for such a proposition, he cited t the Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of SreeVenkateswara Educational Trust v. ITO order dated 02.09.2024 similar factual scenario, wherein that case, the CPC passed intimation u/s.143(1) of the Act denying not only but also made addition of gross receipts, which impugned action was interfered by the Hon’ble High Court by holding that ITA No.2720/Chny/20 UK P M Charitable Trust :: 3 :: filing of the audit report by holding that the assessee was not eligible for claiming exemption u/s. 10(23C) of the Act. But the Ld.CIT(A) observed that if the assessee obtains condonation of delay in filing of Form 10BB, then the AO may consider the claim of exemption u/s. 10(23C) of the Act. Ld.AR has first of all assailed the impugned action of taxing the gross receipts without allowing the corresponding expenses which according to him is per-se erroneous according to him, even if the assessee is treated as an AOP, still only the net income ought to have been brought to tax rather than the gross receipts which action of the CPC/CIT(A) is arbitrary, whimsical and unjust. According to him, even if assessee is treated as an AoP, or not granted benefit under Chapter-III of the Act, viz due to belated filing of filing of the condonation of delay in respect of belated of Audit Report, etc, still the assessee trust’s gross receipts can’t be brought to tax and the corresponding expenses for earning income to have been allowed. And for such a proposition, he cited t the Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of SreeVenkateswara Educational Trust v. ITO order dated 02.09.2024 which was passed similar factual scenario, wherein that case, the CPC passed intimation u/s.143(1) of the Act denying not only the exemption u/s.11 of the Act but also made addition of gross receipts, which impugned action was interfered by the Hon’ble High Court by holding that the assessee can /Chny/2024 (AY 2019-20) UK P M Charitable Trust s not eligible for he Ld.CIT(A) observed n of delay in filing of Form 10BB, then the AO may consider the claim of exemption u/s. 10(23C) of the Act. AR has first of all assailed the impugned action of taxing the gross receipts without allowing the erroneous; and according to him, even if the assessee is treated as an AOP, still only the net income ought to have been brought to tax rather than the whole gross receipts which action of the CPC/CIT(A) is arbitrary, whimsical and unjust. According to him, even if assessee is treated as an AoP, or not III of the Act, viz due to belated filing of of belated filing gross receipts can’t be brought to tax and the corresponding expenses for earning income ought to have been allowed. And for such a proposition, he cited the decision of the Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of SreeVenkateswara which was passed in a similar factual scenario, wherein that case, the CPC passed intimation the exemption u/s.11 of the Act but also made addition of gross receipts, which impugned action was the assessee can’t be denied all the legitimate deductions that would have been available, if the returns were filed either as a “Regular Assessee” or as an “Association of Person”. And that the purpose of assessment is to recover just tax and not subject an assessee to unjust tax or as an “Association of Person” denied the legitimate deduction that would be available to it, even if it is treated as an AOP. The Hon’ble High Court in Sree Educational Trust supra held as under: 19. The facts of this case are not in dispute. T had claimed exemption filing application under Section 12A(a) of the Act as it stood then during the period in dispute. 20. The appellant/assessee obtained registration under Section 12AA of the Act only on 02.03.2016. The case pertains to the Assessment Year 2013- 2014. Therefore, in terms of the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in M/s.SoundaramChokkanathan Educational and Charitable Trust case (cited supra), the benefit of regist not ensure in favour of the appellant/assessee before registration. 21. At the same time, the appellant/assessee cannot be denied all the legitimate deductions that would have been available, if the returns were filed either as a “Regular Asse Person”. 22. The purpose of assessment is to recover just tax and not subject an assessee to unjust tax by holding that no return was filed either as a “Regular Assessee” or as an “Association of Person” merely because revised return was not filed under Section 139(4) of the Act, within a time specified under Section 139 of the Act. 23. The last date for filing the returns under Section 139(4) of the Act would have expired on 31.03.2015 which was just few days before the return was processed on 12.03.2015 under Section 143(1) of the Act. 24. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Formica India Division, Bombay, Burma Trading Corporation Limited Vs. Collector of Central Excise and others, 1995 Supp (3) SCC 552/1995 (77) ELT 511, had held under:- ITA No.2720/Chny/20 UK P M Charitable Trust :: 4 :: denied all the legitimate deductions that would have been available, if the rns were filed either as a “Regular Assessee” or as an “Association of he purpose of assessment is to recover just tax and not subject an assessee to unjust tax whether it is a “Regular Assessee” or as an “Association of Person”. In other words, assessee can’t be denied the legitimate deduction that would be available to it, even if it is treated as an AOP. The Hon’ble High Court in Sree Educational Trust supra held as under: 19. The facts of this case are not in dispute. The appellant/assessee had claimed exemption-cum-payment under the Act without actually filing application under Section 12A(a) of the Act as it stood then during the period in dispute. 20. The appellant/assessee obtained registration under Section 12AA the Act only on 02.03.2016. The case pertains to the Assessment 2014. Therefore, in terms of the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in M/s.SoundaramChokkanathan Educational and Charitable Trust case (cited supra), the benefit of registration would ure in favour of the appellant/assessee before registration. 21. At the same time, the appellant/assessee cannot be denied all the legitimate deductions that would have been available, if the returns were filed either as a “Regular Assessee” or as an “Association of 22. The purpose of assessment is to recover just tax and not subject an assessee to unjust tax by holding that no return was filed either as a “Regular Assessee” or as an “Association of Person” merely because d return was not filed under Section 139(4) of the Act, within a time specified under Section 139 of the Act. 23. The last date for filing the returns under Section 139(4) of the Act would have expired on 31.03.2015 which was just few days before the n was processed on 12.03.2015 under Section 143(1) of the Act. 24. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Formica India Division, Bombay, Burma Trading Corporation Limited Vs. Collector of Central Excise and others, 1995 Supp (3) SCC 552/1995 (77) ELT 511, had held /Chny/2024 (AY 2019-20) UK P M Charitable Trust denied all the legitimate deductions that would have been available, if the rns were filed either as a “Regular Assessee” or as an “Association of he purpose of assessment is to recover just tax and “Regular Assessee” er words, assessee can’t be denied the legitimate deduction that would be available to it, even if it is Venkateswara he appellant/assessee payment under the Act without actually filing application under Section 12A(a) of the Act as it stood then 20. The appellant/assessee obtained registration under Section 12AA the Act only on 02.03.2016. The case pertains to the Assessment 2014. Therefore, in terms of the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in M/s.SoundaramChokkanathan Educational and ration would ure in favour of the appellant/assessee before registration. 21. At the same time, the appellant/assessee cannot be denied all the legitimate deductions that would have been available, if the returns ssee” or as an “Association of 22. The purpose of assessment is to recover just tax and not subject an assessee to unjust tax by holding that no return was filed either as a “Regular Assessee” or as an “Association of Person” merely because d return was not filed under Section 139(4) of the Act, within a 23. The last date for filing the returns under Section 139(4) of the Act would have expired on 31.03.2015 which was just few days before the n was processed on 12.03.2015 under Section 143(1) of the Act. 24. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Formica India Division, Bombay, Burma Trading Corporation Limited Vs. Collector of Central Excise and others, 1995 Supp (3) SCC 552/1995 (77) ELT 511, had held as “When it was found that they were liable to pay duty on the intermediary product and had not paid the same, but had paid the duty on the end product, they could not ordinarily have complied with the requirements of Rule 56A. Once the Tribunal took the view that they were liable to pay duty on the intermediary product and they would have been entitled to the benefit of the notification had they met with the requirement of Rule 56A, the proper course was to permit them to do so rather than denying the point of time when they could have done so had elapsed and they could not be permitted to comply with Rule 56A after that stage had passed. We are, therefore, of the opinion that the appellants should be notification by complying at this stage with Rule 56A to the satisfaction of the Department.” 25. In our view also, if assessments are to be completed, deductions and applicable exemptions that are otherwise avail ought to have been extended by the Assessing Officer to an assessee before finalizing the assessment. Since the appellant/assessee was not entitled to exemption as a Trust under Sections 11, 12 and 12A of the Act in absence of registrat the Act, benefit of other deductions under the Act ought to have been given. The Assessing Officer is not expected to act mechanically to confirm the liability to fasten an unjust tax liability on an assessee. 26. Therefore, we are inclined to set aside the Impugned Common Order dated 30.12.2019 and remit the case back to the Assessing Officer to pass a fresh order deleted under Section 143(1) of the Act. 27. These appeals stand disposed of with the above observ substantial questions of law are partly answered in favour of the appellant/assessee. No costs. Connected Civil Miscellaneous Petitions are closed. 6. Further, according to the Ld.AR, the assessee trust is enjoying 12A registration from the year 2016 onwards and is running attaining its object of advancement of the Ld.AR, the assessee it fulfills the condition for claiming it and had filed 10B along with RoI. Therefore, according to the Ld.AR as per Article 265 of the Constitution of India, no tax should be levied of law; and therefore according to the Ld.AR ITA No.2720/Chny/20 UK P M Charitable Trust :: 5 :: “When it was found that they were liable to pay duty on the intermediary product and had not paid the same, but had paid the duty on the end product, they could not ordinarily have complied with the requirements of Rule 56A. Once the Tribunal ok the view that they were liable to pay duty on the intermediary product and they would have been entitled to the benefit of the notification had they met with the requirement of Rule 56A, the proper course was to permit them to do so rather than denying to them the benefit on the technical ground that the point of time when they could have done so had elapsed and they could not be permitted to comply with Rule 56A after that stage had passed. We are, therefore, of the opinion that the appellants should be permitted to avail of the benefit of the notification by complying at this stage with Rule 56A to the satisfaction of the Department.” 25. In our view also, if assessments are to be completed, deductions and applicable exemptions that are otherwise available to an assessee ought to have been extended by the Assessing Officer to an assessee before finalizing the assessment. Since the appellant/assessee was not entitled to exemption as a Trust under Sections 11, 12 and 12A of the Act in absence of registration under the Act as it stood Section 12AA of the Act, benefit of other deductions under the Act ought to have been given. The Assessing Officer is not expected to act mechanically to confirm the liability to fasten an unjust tax liability on an assessee. 26. Therefore, we are inclined to set aside the Impugned Common Order dated 30.12.2019 and remit the case back to the Assessing Officer to pass a fresh order deleted under Section 143(1) of the Act. 27. These appeals stand disposed of with the above observations. The substantial questions of law are partly answered in favour of the appellant/assessee. No costs. Connected Civil Miscellaneous Petitions according to the Ld.AR, the assessee trust is enjoying 12A registration from the year 2016 onwards and is running attaining its object of advancement of education activity. According to the assessee was eligible for exemption u/s. 11 of the Act, condition for claiming it and had filed the audit report in Form . Therefore, according to the Ld.AR as per Article 265 of the Constitution of India, no tax should be levied without herefore according to the Ld.AR, the inadvertent mistake in /Chny/2024 (AY 2019-20) UK P M Charitable Trust “When it was found that they were liable to pay duty on the intermediary product and had not paid the same, but had paid the duty on the end product, they could not ordinarily have complied with the requirements of Rule 56A. Once the Tribunal ok the view that they were liable to pay duty on the intermediary product and they would have been entitled to the benefit of the notification had they met with the requirement of Rule 56A, the proper course was to permit them to do so rather to them the benefit on the technical ground that the point of time when they could have done so had elapsed and they could not be permitted to comply with Rule 56A after that stage had passed. We are, therefore, of the opinion that permitted to avail of the benefit of the notification by complying at this stage with Rule 56A to the 25. In our view also, if assessments are to be completed, deductions able to an assessee ought to have been extended by the Assessing Officer to an assessee before finalizing the assessment. Since the appellant/assessee was not entitled to exemption as a Trust under Sections 11, 12 and 12A of the ion under the Act as it stood Section 12AA of the Act, benefit of other deductions under the Act ought to have been given. The Assessing Officer is not expected to act mechanically to confirm the liability to fasten an unjust tax liability on an assessee. 26. Therefore, we are inclined to set aside the Impugned Common Order dated 30.12.2019 and remit the case back to the Assessing Officer to pass a fresh order deleted under Section 143(1) of the Act. ations. The substantial questions of law are partly answered in favour of the appellant/assessee. No costs. Connected Civil Miscellaneous Petitions according to the Ld.AR, the assessee trust is enjoying 12A registration from the year 2016 onwards and is running Schools for education activity. According to 11 of the Act, and the audit report in Form . Therefore, according to the Ld.AR as per Article 265 out the authority inadvertent mistake in filing of the ITR, ought not to have come in the way of the assessee making a claim either u/s. 10(23C)(iv) of the Act or u/s. 11 of the Act. According to the Ld.AR, the assessee while the form inadvertently clicked on the sub was a mistake that may be corrected. In this regard, we are of the view that inadvertent mistake of the assessee (vi) of section 10(23C) of the Act needs to be set right and accordingly the claim of assessee to be treated as if it has filed under sub of section 10(23C) of the Act 7. Be that as it may, we hold that the CPC erred in disallowing the entire expenditure claimed by the assessee and the same need to be rectified by the Income Tax Authorities. For such a decision, we rely on the aforesaid decision of the Hon’ble Madras High Sree Venkateswara Educational Trust impugned order of the First Appellate Authority and restore the assessment back to the file of the AO/CPC with a direction to tax only the net income of the assessee for A expenditure account filed by the assessee. In this regard, the Ld.AR brought to our notice that for AY 2019 income is to the tune of Rs. wherein copy of the income and expenditure account for the year ended ITA No.2720/Chny/20 UK P M Charitable Trust :: 6 :: ought not to have come in the way of the assessee making a claim either u/s. 10(23C)(iv) of the Act or u/s. 11 of the Act. According to the Ld.AR, the assessee while filing the ITR online column in the form inadvertently clicked on the sub-clause (vi) instead of (iv), which that may be corrected. In this regard, we are of the view that inadvertent mistake of the assessee clicking the wrong sub ) of section 10(23C) of the Act needs to be set right and accordingly the claim of assessee to be treated as if it has filed under sub of section 10(23C) of the Act and we order accordingly. Be that as it may, we hold that the CPC erred in disallowing the entire expenditure claimed by the assessee and the same need to be rectified by the Income Tax Authorities. For such a decision, we rely on the aforesaid decision of the Hon’ble Madras High Court Sree Venkateswara Educational Trust (supra); and set aside the of the First Appellate Authority and restore the assessment back to the file of the AO/CPC with a direction to tax only the net income of the assessee for AY 2019-20 as per the income & expenditure account filed by the assessee. In this regard, the Ld.AR brought to our notice that for AY 2019-20, the excess expenditure over income is to the tune of Rs.4,62,081/- (refer page 12 of paper book he income and expenditure account for the year ended /Chny/2024 (AY 2019-20) UK P M Charitable Trust ought not to have come in the way of the assessee making a claim either u/s. 10(23C)(iv) of the Act or u/s. 11 of the Act. ing the ITR online column in clause (vi) instead of (iv), which that may be corrected. In this regard, we are of the view licking the wrong sub-clause of ) of section 10(23C) of the Act needs to be set right and accordingly the claim of assessee to be treated as if it has filed under sub-clause (iv) Be that as it may, we hold that the CPC erred in disallowing the entire expenditure claimed by the assessee and the same need to be rectified by the Income Tax Authorities. For such a decision, we rely on Court in the case of set aside the of the First Appellate Authority and restore the assessment back to the file of the AO/CPC with a direction to tax only the 20 as per the income & expenditure account filed by the assessee. In this regard, the Ld.AR 20, the excess expenditure over (refer page 12 of paper book he income and expenditure account for the year ended 31.03.2019 is found placed therein) and pass fresh order u/s143(1) of the Act in accordance to law. 8. And further, since the application for condonation of delay in belatedly the Audit Report in Form 10BB is pending before the as noted (supra), the assessee’s claim regarding exemption u/s.10(23C)(iv) of the Act be granted subject to the condonation being granted by the Ld.CIT(E) law. 9. In the result, appeal filed by the assessee purposes. Order pronounced on the Sd/- (जगदीश) (JAGADISH) लेखासद\u001b/ACCOUNTANT MEMBER चे\u0012ई/Chennai, िदनांक/Dated: 31st January JPV, Sr.PS आदेशकी#ितिलिपअ*ेिषत/Copy to 1. अपीलाथ\"/Appellant 2. #$थ\"/Respondent 3. आयकरआयु+/CIT, Chennai / Madurai / Salem / 4. िवभागीय#ितिनिध/DR 5. गाड\u001eफाईल/GF ITA No.2720/Chny/20 UK P M Charitable Trust :: 7 :: 31.03.2019 is found placed therein) which may be verified by the AO/CPC order u/s143(1) of the Act in accordance to law. And further, since the application for condonation of delay in belatedly the Audit Report in Form 10BB is pending before the as noted (supra), the assessee’s claim regarding exemption ) of the Act be granted subject to the condonation being Ld.CIT(E) by passing necessary rectification order as per In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical Order pronounced on the 31st day of January, 2025, in Chennai. Sd/ /ACCOUNTANT MEMBER (एबीटी. (ABY T. VARKEY \rाियकसद\u001b/JUDICIAL MEMBER , 2025. Copy to: , Chennai / Madurai / Salem / Coimbatore. /Chny/2024 (AY 2019-20) UK P M Charitable Trust which may be verified by the AO/CPC order u/s143(1) of the Act in accordance to law. And further, since the application for condonation of delay in filing belatedly the Audit Report in Form 10BB is pending before the Ld.CIT(E) as noted (supra), the assessee’s claim regarding exemption ) of the Act be granted subject to the condonation being ectification order as per allowed for statistical , in Chennai. Sd/- . वक ) ABY T. VARKEY) /JUDICIAL MEMBER Coimbatore. "