9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2025 (3) TMI 1418 - AT - Income TaxAdjustment in absence of approval u/s 12A and 10(23C)(i) rws 10(23C)(vi) done in the processing of ITR u/s 143(1) - HELD THAT - In principle we are in agreement of the finding of the Ld. Addl/JCIT(A)-9 Mumbai as the impugned order is well reasoned. But the anomaly has arisen after the approval vide order dated 08.07.2024 under section 10(23C)(i) rws 10(23C)(vi) of the Act for the relevant year as the assessee s entire income having derived from the educational institution is fully exempted even after the said adjustment as the tax cannot be levied on the exempted income. We have no option except to restore the matter back to the AO to give effect to the order passed u/s 10(23C)(i) rws 10(23C)(vi) of the Act for relevant year as the assessee is entitled for claiming exemption under section 10(23C). We therefore direct the AO to allow the benefit of section 10(23C) of the Act and allow consequential relief to the assessee. Appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDERED
The core legal questions considered in this appeal include:
ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS Denial of Exemption and Relevant Legal Framework The legal framework revolves around sections 11, 12, and 10(23C) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, which provide exemptions for income derived by certain entities, subject to registration requirements. The AO, CPC, denied the exemption based on the assessee's lack of registration under section 12A, which is a prerequisite for claiming benefits under sections 11 and 12. The Tribunal considered whether the assessee's claim under section 10(23C)(iiiad), which does not require registration under section 12A, should have been entertained. The Tribunal noted that the AO, CPC, did not consider this claim during the ITR processing, leading to the enhancement of income by Rs. 77,43,697/-. Subsequent Approval and Its Impact The Tribunal examined the impact of the approval obtained under section 10(23C)(i) rws 10(23C)(vi) after the ITR processing. The approval, effective from AY 2022-23 to 2026-27, was argued to render the entire income of the relevant year exempt, as it was derived from an educational institution. The Tribunal acknowledged the anomaly created by the subsequent approval, which justified the exemption claim despite the initial denial. The Tribunal emphasized that tax could not be levied on exempted income, necessitating a reevaluation of the AO's decision in light of the new approval. Authority of AO, CPC, in Entertaining New Claims The Tribunal assessed whether the AO, CPC, had the authority to entertain new claims or change its stand during the ITR processing under section 143(1). The Tribunal agreed with the CIT(A)'s finding that the AO, CPC, lacked such authority, as the disallowance was based on the absence of a registration number in Form 10B. The Tribunal referenced the decision in Joyo Plastics, which supported the view that the AO, CPC, was not required to pass a speaking order for adjustments made based on entries by the appellant and the Tax Auditor. SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGS The Tribunal concluded that the denial of exemption was initially justified due to the lack of registration under section 12A. However, the subsequent approval under section 10(23C)(i) rws 10(23C)(vi) necessitated a reevaluation, as it rendered the income exempt for the relevant year. The Tribunal directed the AO to give effect to the order passed under section 10(23C)(i) rws 10(23C)(vi) and allow the benefit of section 10(23C), providing consequential relief to the assessee. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes, highlighting the principle that tax cannot be levied on exempted income and emphasizing the importance of subsequent approvals in determining exemption eligibility.
|
