2023 (8) TMI 1620 - AT - Income Tax

Revision u/s 263 - Denial of exemption u/s. 11(2) - Form 10 has not been filed / has been filed beyond due date as prescribed u/s. 139(1) - HELD THAT - As the ld. AO has given all the facts in the assessment order which unequivocally proved that all the facts and evidences were called for from the assessee during the assessment proceeding such as return of income audit report in Form 10B Form 10 etc. and AO after examination of all the details/documents allowed the claim /deduction u/s 11(2) of the Act. In our opinion the instant issue is not the case of no enquiry was conducted by ld. AO and as such exercising of jurisdiction by ld. CIT(E) is wrong and cannot be sustained. Accordingly we set aside the order passed by ld. CIT(E) on this issue and direct the AO to allow the claim made by the assessee u/s 11(2) of the Act. Accumulated amount - mistake had happened while entering figure by assessee under column 4 which reads Amount applied for charitable/religious purposes upto the beginning of the previous year. - The assessee inadvertently shown a wrong figure before the ld. AO and from the perusal of the aforesaid fact we find that assessee had applied the fund as per the revised schedule by rectifying the same and copy of the same placed before us at page 26 of the Paper Book. Therefore the alleged fault pointed out by the ld. CIT(E) based on the mistake of fact which crept into while filing column 4 of Schedule-I and it cannot termed as the assessee had surplus fund u/s 11(2) of the Act. Therefore the apprehension of ld. CIT(E) that assessee has claimed double deduction is erroneous and on wrong assumption of fact. CIT(E) has erroneously usurped the revisional jurisdiction u/s 263 of the Act on this issue. Expenses met out available balance of specific funds reflected under reserve and surplus as alleged by CIT(E) in his revisionary order that assessee has claimed double exemption - Assessee has made a clear calculation by showing that no double exemption of a particular amount has claimed by the assessee. Therefore view taken by ld. CIT(E) is not correct and liable to be quashed. Assessee has shown a correct calculation by showing that no double exemption had claimed of particular amount as alleged by ld. CIT(E) in impugned order. Therefore the apprehension of CIT(E) that assessee has claimed double deduction in view of wrong assumption of fact. AO rightly did not draw any adverse inference on the issue which pointed out as fault by ld. CIT(E) in his revisionary order. Appeal of the assessee is allowed.

Summary

ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDERED

The core legal issues considered in this case are:

1. Whether the failure to file Form 10 electronically within the prescribed time frame affects the assessee's claim for exemption under Section 11(2) of the Income Tax Act.

2. Whether the accumulated amount of Rs. 23,25,478/- from AY 2011-12 was correctly utilized and reported, or if it should be added as income under Section 11(3) due to non-utilization within the stipulated period.

3. Whether the assessee's claim of expenses from specific funds, which were not shown in the income and expenditure account, results in a double exemption, thereby affecting the applicability of Section 11(1)(a) and 11(1)(d).

ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS

I. Non-Submission of Form 10:

- Relevant Legal Framework and Precedents: Section 11(2) of the Income Tax Act allows for income accumulation subject to certain conditions, including the timely filing of Form 10. Circulars No. 7/2018 and 6/2020 by CBDT permit the Commissioner of Income Tax to accept belated Form 10 applications.

- Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The Tribunal observed that the Assessing Officer (AO) had considered all necessary documents, including Form 10, during the assessment. The AO's decision to allow the exemption was based on a valid inquiry, and the CIT(Exemptions) incorrectly assumed a lack of inquiry.

- Key Evidence and Findings: The assessee had submitted Form 10 manually during the assessment and later filed it online. The Tribunal found that the AO had examined these submissions adequately.

- Application of Law to Facts: The Tribunal concluded that the AO's decision was based on a reasonable inquiry and that the CIT(E)'s intervention was unwarranted.

- Treatment of Competing Arguments: The Tribunal favored the assessee's argument that the AO had conducted a proper inquiry, dismissing the CIT(E)'s claim of an erroneous assessment.

- Conclusions: The Tribunal set aside the CIT(E)'s order and directed the AO to accept the exemption under Section 11(2).

II. Accumulated Amount of Rs. 23,25,478/-:

- Relevant Legal Framework and Precedents: Section 11(3) mandates that unutilized accumulated income be added back as income if not applied within the prescribed period.

- Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The Tribunal noted that the alleged mistake in reporting was rectified by the assessee, and the AO had not found any discrepancies during the assessment.

- Key Evidence and Findings: The assessee provided a corrected Schedule I, which the CIT(E) had overlooked.

- Application of Law to Facts: The Tribunal found no error in the AO's assessment regarding this issue, as the corrections were appropriately submitted.

- Treatment of Competing Arguments: The Tribunal dismissed the CIT(E)'s assumption of double deduction, supporting the assessee's corrected submissions.

- Conclusions: The Tribunal quashed the CIT(E)'s order on this issue, affirming the AO's original assessment.

III. Utilization of Specific Fund:

- Relevant Legal Framework and Precedents: Sections 11(1)(a) and 11(1)(d) govern the treatment of funds and their application, preventing double exemptions.

- Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The Tribunal found that the assessee's calculations showed no double exemption, contrary to the CIT(E)'s claims.

- Key Evidence and Findings: The Tribunal reviewed the assessee's calculations, which demonstrated correct fund utilization without resulting in double exemption.

- Application of Law to Facts: The Tribunal concluded that the AO correctly assessed the fund utilization, and the CIT(E)'s concerns were unfounded.

- Treatment of Competing Arguments: The Tribunal accepted the assessee's evidence of proper fund utilization, rejecting the CIT(E)'s revisionary claims.

- Conclusions: The Tribunal quashed the CIT(E)'s order regarding fund utilization, supporting the AO's original findings.

SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGS

- Preserve Verbatim Quotes of Crucial Legal Reasoning: "The Tribunal found that the AO had conducted a proper inquiry, and the CIT(E)'s assumption of an erroneous assessment was incorrect."

- Core Principles Established: The Tribunal reaffirmed the necessity of a valid inquiry by the AO and the limited scope of CIT(E)'s revisionary powers under Section 263 when such inquiry is demonstrated.

- Final Determinations on Each Issue: The Tribunal quashed the CIT(E)'s order in its entirety, upholding the AO's original assessment regarding the exemption under Section 11(2), the utilization of accumulated funds, and the application of specific funds.