9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (1) TMI 863X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n), Bhopal vide his order dated 30.09.2020, therefore, for the said reason the assessee was precluded from reapplying for the aforesaid approval for the immediately succeeding year i.e. A.Y. 2019-20 and onwards - It is a matter of fact borne from record that as the assessee s application for approval under Sec. 10(23C)(vi) for A.Y. 2018-19 was pending disposal on 30.09.2019, and the order came to be passed only on 30.09.2020, therefore, the assessee could not have made an application for the subsequent assessment year i.e A.Y. 2019-20. Considering similar facts which had came up before the Hon ble high Court of Madras in the case of All Angels Educational Society [ 2016 (8) TMI 156 - MADRAS HIGH COURT] had though rejected the assessee s request for condonation of delay involved in filing of its application for approval under Sec. 10(23C)(vi) for A.Y. 2012-13, but accepting its alternative contention that as its application for the said year i.e. A.Y. 2012-13 was pending consideration and the impugned order came to passed only on 13.11.2013, therefore, it could not have filed an application for the subsequent assessment year i.e. A.Y. 2013-14, had remanded the matter to the file of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ect of the Assessment Year 2019-20 hence, though the application was valid in all respects, the Ld. CIT ought to have granted the approval from the Assessment Year 2019-20 onwards. Hence, it is prayed that the Order passed by the Ld. CIT under the provisions of section 10(23C)(vi) of the Act denying approval to the appellant society may please be annulled and set aside and it is earnestly requested that the approval under section 10(23C)(vi) of the Act may please be granted. GROUND NO. II 2. That the Appellant craves leave to add, amend, alter or delete all or any of the grounds of Appeal at the time of hearing of the appeal." 2. Succinctly stated, the assessee society which is stated to have been established with the primary object of imparting education had filed an application in Form No. 56D on 25.04.2019 with the Commissioner of Income-Tax (Exemption), Bhopal for grant of approval under Sec. 10(23C)(vi) of the Act for A.Y. 2018-19. 3. Observing, that though the assessee society as per the sixteenth proviso to Sec. 10(23C) as amended by the Finance (No.2) Act, 2009 w.e.f. 01.04.2009 was obligated to have filed the aforesaid application for approval for claiming exemptio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mitted on or before 30th September of the relevant Assessment Year i.e. by 30.09.2018, whereas the assessee has applied for A.Y. 2018-19 after 30th September 2018 hence the said application is belated. In View of the above discussion, it is obvious that the application for approval u/s 10(23C) is belated and, therefore, the applicant is not eligible for approval u/s 10(23C)(vi). Therefore, the application in Form No.56D dated 25.04.2019 seeking approval under U/s. 10(23C)(vi) is hereby, refused." 6. Controversy involved in the present appeal hinges around the sustainability of the order of the Commissioner of Income-Tax (Exemption), Bhopal, rejecting the application filed by the assessee, as not maintainable, for the reason that the same was filed beyond the prescribed time period. Also, it is the claim of the assessee that as the Commissioner of Income-Tax (Exemption), Bhopal had rejected its application on 30.09.2020, therefore, it was divested of its statutory right of filing an application for the next assessment year i.e. A.Y. 2019-20 and onwards, within the stipulated time period, i.e., latest by 30.09.2019. In sum and substance, the assessee by raising the second limb of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... via), may call for such documents (including audited annual accounts) or information from the fund or trust or institution or any university or other educational institution or any hospital or other medical institution, as the case may be, as it thinks necessary in order to satisfy itself about the genuineness of the activities of such fund or trust or institution or any university or other educational institution or any hospital or other medical institution, as the case may be, and the compliance of such requirements under any other law for the time being in force by such fund or trust or institution or any university or other educational institution or any hospital or other medical institution, as the case may be, as are material for the purpose of achieving its objects and the prescribed authority, may also make such inquiries as it deems necessary in this behalf." 8. Ostensibly, it is the primary contention of the assessee before us that there is an error on the part of the Commissioner of Income-Tax (Exemption), Bhopal in rejecting its application seeking approval under Sec. 10(23C)(vi) on the technical ground of delay involved in filing of the same within the stipulated time ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... essment year 2012-2013 was still pending consideration and the impugned order came to be passed only on 13.11.2013. The respondent is at liberty to consider the amended objectives of the petitioner Trust. 16. Accordingly, the writ petition is partly allowed and the finding rendered by the respondent that the petitioner's application cannot be considered as the same is time barred is affirmed and the finding with regard to objectives of the Society by respondent holding that the Society cannot be said to be solely for education purpose is set aside. Consequently, the matter is remanded back to the respondent for fresh consideration and the petitioner's application is directed to be considered for the assessment year 2013-2014 in accordance with law and while doing so, may consider the amendments made to the objectives of the petitioner Trust. No Costs. M.P. No. 1 of 2014 is closed". Also, a similar view had been taken by the Hon'ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh in the case of Aurora Educational Society Vs. Chief CIT, 20 taxmann.com 46. The Hon'ble High Court of Orissa had also similarly held in the case of Roland Educational & Charitable Trust Vs. Chief CIT, 309 ITR 50 (O ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as the assessee's application for the succeeding year i.e. A.Y. 2013-14. Also, a similar view had been taken by the Hon'ble High Court of Bombay in the case of Sanjay Ghodawat University Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions) and others (2021) 431 ITR 559 (Bom.). It was observed by the Hon'ble High Court that though the CIT(Exemption) was correct in rejecting the application filed by the assessee u/s.10(23C)(vi) for the A.Y. 2019-20 as being time barred, but he certainly fell in error in not considering the said application for subsequent assessment year, i.e., for the A.Y.2020-21 and onwards, because though the said application filed on October 31, 2019 was belated for A.Y.2019-20, it was before the prescribed date for the subsequent assessment year 2020-21 and had been filed much before the cut off date for the said year, i.e., September 30, 2021. Also, a similar view had been taken by the Co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Durg Education & Charitable Society Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption), ITA No.35/RPR/2016 dated 09.09.2022. 11. As the facts and the issue involved in the case of the present assessee before us are in parity with those as were ther ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
