9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (9) TMI 1198X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... recover just tax and not subject an assessee to unjust tax by holding that no return was filed either as a Regular Assessee or as an Association of Person merely because revised return was not filed under Section 139(4) of the Act, within a time specified under Section 134 of the Act. The last date for filing the returns under Section 139(4) of the Act would have expired on 31.03.2015 which was just few days before the return was processed on 12.03.2015 under Section 143(1) of the Act. If assessments are to be completed, deductions and applicable exemptions that are otherwise available to an assessee ought to have been extended by the Assessing Officer to an assessee before finalizing the assessment. Since the appellant/assessee was not entitled to exemption as a Trust under Sections 11, 12 and 12A of the Act in absence of registration under the Act as it stood Section 12AA of the Act, the benefit of other deductions under the Act ought to have been given. The Assessing Officer is not expected to act mechanically to confirm the liability to fasten an unjust tax liability on an assessee. Therefore, we are inclined to set aside the Impugned Common Order and remit the case back to the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... aim is otherwise in order. Therefore, the assessee's claim that for the assessment year 2013-2014, it should be deemed to be an assessment proceedings pending before the Assessing Officer cannot be accepted. Based on the identical facts, similar finding was given by the Coordinate Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Soundaram Chokkanathan Educational and Charitable Trust Vs. ITO in I.T.A.No.1844/Chny/2017 dated 30.08.2019. Respectfully following the above decision, the appeal filed under Section 154 of the Act stands dismissed. 6. So far as the claim of deduction of expenditure is concerned, the assessee has not at all filed revised return. In this circumstances, neither the Assessing Officer nor the appellate authority have any power to admit the claim of the assessee as per the ratio laid down in the case of Goetze India Ltd., Vs. CIT (supra), wherein, the Hon'ble Supreme Court makes it clear that the power of the assessing authority to entertain a claim for deduction otherwise than by a revised return and did not impinge on the power of the Appellate Tribunal under Section 254 of the Act. Therefore, the case law relied on by the ld. Counsel for the assessee in the case ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ction 12A(2) of the Act? 2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the appeal pending before the Commissioner cannot be deemed to be an assessment proceeding pending before the Assessing Officer for the purposes of applying 1st Proviso to Section 12(A)(2) of the Act? 3. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the proceedings under Section 154 should not be taken as assessment proceedings pending before the assessing officer? 4. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Tribunal was right in law in holding that in the absence of filing a revised return, the assessee cannot make a fresh claim relying upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Goetze (India)? 5. The brief facts of the case are that the appellant/assessee had filed Return of Income on 18.01.2014 under Section 139(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') for the Assessment Year 2013-2014. While filing the return, the appellant/assessee had claimed exemption from payment of tax as a Trust under Section 11 of the Act by filing t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... zed Processing Center, Bangalore during the processing of the return of income under Section 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, for the Assessment Year 2013-2014. The primary criteria for exemption under Section 11 and 2 of the Income Tax Act that the assessee trust should be registered under Section 12A(a) of the Income Tax Act. In the instant case, even during the proceedings under Section 154 of the Income Tax Act, the assessee has not filed any evidence for its registration under Section 12A(a) of the Income Tax Act. 4. In view of the above discussion, the petition filed by the assessee is rejected. 10. Aggrieved by the Assessment Order 12.03.2015 passed by the Assessing Officer under Section 143(1) of the Act and order dated 29.10.2015 passed by the respondent under Section 154 of the Act, the appellant/assessee preferred appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) however rejected the respective appeal in I.T.A.Nos.138 136/2016-2017 vide Orders dated 25.03.2019. 11. A further appeal of the appellant/assessee was also rejected by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) vide Impugned Common Order dated 30.12.2019 in I.T.A.Nos.133 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nder the Income Tax Act to make amendment in the return of income by modifying an application at the assessment stage without revising the return. 3. This appellant's appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) was allowed. However, the order of the further appeal of the department before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was allowed. The appellant has approached this court and has submitted that the Tribunal was wrong in upholding the assessing officer's order. He has relied upon the decision of this court in National Thermal Power Company Ltd. Vs. CIT MANU/SC/1287/1997 : [1998] 229 ITR 383 (SC), to contend that it was open to the assessee to raise the points of law even before the Appellate Tribunal. 4. The decision in question is that the power of the Tribunal under Section 254 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, is to entertain for the first time a point of law provided the fact on the basis of which the issue of law can be raised before the Tribunal. The decision does not in any way relate to the power of the assessing officer to entertain a claim for deduction otherwise than by filing a revised return. In the circumstances of the case, we dismiss the civil appeal. However, we m ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mediary product and had not paid the same, but had paid the duty on the end product, they could not ordinarily have complied with the requirements of Rule 56A. Once the Tribunal took the view that they were liable to pay duty on the intermediary product and they would have been entitled to the benefit of the notification had they met with the requirement of Rule 56A, the proper course was to permit them to do so rather than denying to them the benefit on the technical ground that the point of time when they could have done so had elapsed and they could not be permitted to comply with Rule 56A after that stage had passed. We are, therefore, of the opinion that the appellants should be permitted to avail of the benefit of the notification by complying at this stage with Rule 56A to the satisfaction of the Department. 25. In our view also, if assessments are to be completed, deductions and applicable exemptions that are otherwise available to an assessee ought to have been extended by the Assessing Officer to an assessee before finalizing the assessment. Since the appellant/assessee was not entitled to exemption as a Trust under Sections 11, 12 and 12A of the Act in absence of registr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
