9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2021 (1) TMI 777 - AT - Income TaxGranting the exemption u/s. 10(26B) - CIT-A allowed deduction - As per revenue since as per ITR-7 of the e-filed return, the assessee has himself denied the claim of exemption u/s.10 and therefore, Ld. CIT(A) has erroneously allowed exemption to the assessee, which was never claimed by the assessee - HELD THAT - The assessee is claiming that same is by way of typographical error only. We are of the opinion that when in the main schedule, the amount claimed under section 10 has been duly mentioned, the error while typing on front page of the return of income should be ignored. The assessee cannot be penalized merely for unintentional typographical error while filling information in the return of income. Substance should be preferred over the form while exercising the quasi judicial function by the Assessing Officer. CIT(A) has duly forwarded the additional evidences to the Assessing Officer and after taking into consideration his comments and rejoinder of the assessee and the history of past and subsequent years, has allowed the appeal of the assessee. In our opinion, there is no infirmity in the order of the Ld. CIT(A) on the issue in dispute and we, accordingly, we uphold the same. The ground No. 1 of the appeal of the Revenue is accordingly dismissed.
Issues:
1. Granting exemption under section 10(26B) to the assessee without a claim. 2. Disallowance of expenses leading to assessment of total income. 3. Admissibility of additional evidences filed by the assessee. 4. Typographical error in the return of income regarding exemption claim. 5. Justification of the CIT(A) in granting exemption under section 10(26B). Issue 1: Granting exemption under section 10(26B) without a claim The Revenue challenged the grant of exemption under section 10(26B) to the assessee without a formal claim. The Assessing Officer disallowed expenses leading to the assessment of total income. The CIT(A) allowed the exemption, citing past approvals and lack of claim under section 11. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, emphasizing the substance over form, considering the unintentional typographical error in the return of income. The Tribunal noted that the assessee had duly claimed the exemption under section 10 in the prescribed form, justifying the CIT(A)'s decision. Issue 2: Disallowance of expenses and assessment of total income The Assessing Officer disallowed expenses amounting to &8377; 22,95,29,908 due to non-submission of information within the stipulated time. Consequently, the total income was assessed at the disallowed amount. The assessee appealed, submitting additional evidences, which were objected to by the Assessing Officer. The CIT(A) considered the history of past exemptions and directed the Assessing Officer to allow the exemption under section 10(26B). The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, dismissing the Revenue's appeal. Issue 3: Admissibility of additional evidences The assessee submitted additional evidences under Rule 46A of the Income-tax Rules, which were forwarded to the Assessing Officer by the CIT(A). The Assessing Officer objected to the admission of these evidences. Despite the objection, the CIT(A) considered the additional evidences along with the past and subsequent years' assessment records. The Tribunal found no infirmity in the CIT(A)'s decision to admit and consider the additional evidences. Issue 4: Typographical error in the return of income The Revenue highlighted a typographical error in the return of income where the assessee indicated "No" for claiming exemption under section 10. However, the assessee clarified that this was an unintentional error and duly claimed the exemption in the prescribed form. The Tribunal disregarded the typographical error, emphasizing the substance of the claim made in the main schedule over the form, thereby upholding the grant of exemption under section 10(26B). Issue 5: Justification of granting exemption under section 10(26B) The CIT(A) granted exemption under section 10(26B) to the assessee based on past approvals and the absence of a claim under section 11. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, considering the organization's history of exemptions and financial support from the Central Government. The Tribunal emphasized the importance of past history and relevant details in making assessments, supporting the grant of exemption under section 10(26B) for the relevant assessment year. This detailed analysis covers the key issues raised in the legal judgment, providing a comprehensive understanding of the decision-making process and the reasoning behind the Tribunal's final decision.
|
