9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (3) TMI 834X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 1983-84, the AO rejected the claim of the assessee for exemption u/s. 11 on the ground that assessee was carrying business activity. However, the ld. CIT(A) allowed the claim of the assessee. The order of the ld. CIT(A) was confirmed by this Tribunal and also by jurisdictional High Court. In view of the above facts and situation, this Tribunal is of the considered opinion that merely because the copy of the registration certificate u/s.12A was not filed before the ld. CIT(A) that cannot be reason for rejecting the claim of the assessee u/s. 11 of the Act. Moreover, if the Department expects further material including the copy of the registration certificate the claim of the assessee cannot be rejected while processing the return u/s. 143(1) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 11 of the Act was rejected by the Assessing Officer on the ground that the assessee was doing business. However, on appeal by the assessee the ld. CIT(A) allowed the claim of the assessee on the ground that the trust is a public charitable trust. The Revenue filed an appeal before this Tribunal in ITA No. 66/Jab/1989. This Tribunal by an order dated 18.02.1993 confirmed the order of the CIT(A) in which the exemption u/s. 11 was granted. At the instance of the Revenue, a reference was made to the High Court in OA No. 1/Jab/1893. The High Court also decided the issue in favour of the assessee granting exemption u/s. 11 of the Act. Therefore, it is an admitted fact according to ld. Representative of the assessee that the exemption u/s. 11 of t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ment wants copy of the registration certificate, then it cannot be done in the prima facie adjustment u/s. 143(1) and opportunities shall be given to the assessee to furnish whatever documents the Department expects from the assessee. The CIT(A) is not justified in confirming the intimation u/s. 143(1) of the Act by the Central Processing Center at Bangalore. 6. On the contrary, Shri I.B. Khandel, ld. Departmental Representative contended that the grounds of appeal taken by the assessee before the ld. CIT(A) was reproduced in the impugned order of CIT(A) at Page 7. The assessee specifically brought to the notice of the ld. CIT(A) that the exemption was erroneously typed as 10(23C)(vi). Therefore, ld. CIT(A) has rightly confirmed the inti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... assessee and ld. Departmental Representative, this Tribunal have meticulously gone through the material on record. Admittedly, the intimation was issued u/s. 143(1) of the Act rejecting the claim of the assessee u/s. 11 of the Act by the Central processing Center at Bangalore. A typographical error was crept in while filing the return of income electronically, the assessee apparently typed as 10(23C)(vi) instead of Section 11 of the Act. When this was brought to the notice of ld. CIT(A), the CIT(A) ought to have corrected the same immediately. It is not in dispute that the assessee has referred the registration number of the Trust in the grounds of appeal before the ld. CIT(A). It is also not in dispute that right from the incorporation, th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
