9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (6) TMI 1418X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tre erred in not accepting the contention of assessee and disallowing the claim of the assessee u/s 11(2) of the Income Tax; therefore order passed is unjustified, unwarranted and excessive. 4. On the facts and circumstances the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre erred in not considering the circular of CBDT which clearly states delay should be condoned; therefore without considering the circular order passed is unjustified, unwarranted and excessive. 5. The appellant denies liability of interest U/s. 234A, 234B and 234C of the income Tax Act, 1961, without prejudice the levy of interest is unjustified, unwarranted and excessive." 3. Facts in Brief:- In the present case, the assessee Trust is registered under the Societies Act, 1985. The assessee Trust is also registered under the Bombay Public Trust Act, 1950. The trust is mainly formed for carrying out activities in the field of nature education, Forests & Wildlife Conservation, employment generation and research programs. The assessee filed its return of income on 19/03/2018, declaring net taxable income at Rs. 1,04,800. In the return of income, the assessee claimed exemption un ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d u/s 11(2) should not be denied in its case. To this, the assessee trust submitted a reply pleading that return of income filed before 31.03.2018 were within the time specified in sub-section 4 of sec. 139 alongwith form 10 & 10B then that should be considered to have been filed within time. The assessee also cited case laws of Bombay HC & Delhi HC. I have gone through the submissions of the assessee carefully. The case laws cited by the assessees are not applicable in this case. Further, the assessee's plea that return of income filed u/s 139(4) of the I.T. Act, 1961 is also rejected. By virtue of sub-sec. 9 of sec. 13 of the I.T. Act, 1961, inserted and applicable w.e.f. A.Y. 2016-17, assessee is not entitled to claim exemption u/s 11(2) if the statement referred to in clause (a) of the sec. 11(2) is not furnished on or before the due date specified under sub-sec.(1) of sec. 139 for furnish the return of income for the previous year. Sec. 139(4A) stipulates that where a return of income is not furnished by due date u/s 139(1), then it must be furnished before the end of the assessment year. In other words, there is no any stipulation regarding furnishing of statement in F ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... such report in the prescribed form along with the return of income results in disentitlement of the trust from claiming exemption under sections 11 and 12 of the Act. 3. Representations have been received by the Board/field authorities stating that Form no. 1013 could not be filed along with the return of income for AY 2016-17 and AY 2017-18. It has been requested that the delay in filing of Form no. 108 may be condoned. Previously, vide instruction in F. No. 267/482/77-IT(part) dated 09.02.1978, the CBDT had authorized the ITO to accept a belated audit report after recording reasons in cases where some delay has occurred for reasons beyond the control of the assessee. 4. Accordingly, in supersession of earlier Circular/ Instruction issued in this regard, and with a view to expedite the disposal of applications filed by such trusts or institutions for condoning the delay in filing Form no. 1013 and in exercise of the powers conferred under section 119(2) of the Act, the Central Board of Direct Taxes hereby directs that: (i) The delay in filing of Form no. 10B for AY 2016 17 and AY 2017-18, in all such cases where the Audit Report for the previous year has been obtained be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... DT has decided that where the application for condonation of delay in filing Form 9A and Form 10 has been filed, and the Return of Income has been filed on or before 31st March of the respective assessment years i.e. Assessment Years 2016 - 17 2017-18 and - 19 the Commissioners of Income-tax (Exemptions) are authorised u/s 119(2)(b) of the Act, to admit such belated applications for condonation of delay in filing Return of Income and decide on merit. 3. For all other application for condonation of delay not mentioned above, the power of condonation of delay u/s 119(2)(b) of the Act will continue with the respective authorities as per the extant Rules and Practice." A perusal of the above CBDT circular, it is clear that the case of the Appellant does not falls in para 4(i) because in the case of the Appellant, the relevant forms have been furnished after the date specified under Section 139 of the Act. Thus, the only recourse left with the Appellant is to make out a case before the worthy Pr. CIT in accordance with the stipulations as provided in para 4(ii) supra. Since, in this case, the appellant has neither brought out any case before the undersigned that it was preve ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... only in filing of Form no.10, due to some technical reason. The learned Counsel further submitted that in accordance with Clause-2 of Circular no.6/2020 dated 19/02/2020, which is reproduced by the learned CIT(A) in his order at Page-8, the appeal of the assessee is covered by the said Circular no.6/2020 (supra), the relevant portion is reproduced below for reference:- "2. ....... With the view to prevent hardship to the assessee and in exercise of powers conferred under section 119(2)(b) of the Act, the CBDT has decided that where the application for condonation of delay in filing from 9A and Form 10 has been filed, and the return of income has been filed on or before 31st March of the respective assessment year i.e. Assessment Years 2016-17, 2017-2018 and 2018-19, the Commissioners of Income-tax (Exemptions) are authorised u/s. 119(2)(b) of the Act, to admit such belated application for condonation of delay in filing Return of Income and decide on merit." 8. In view of the above, we find that the Board has already clarified this issue vide Circular no.6/2020 dated 19/02/2020, as stated above. We also find that under similar circumstances, the Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench, in Th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... iled, and the Return of Income has been filed on or before 31 S1 March of the respective assessment years i.e. Assessment Years 20 16-17,20 17-18 and 2018-19, the Commissioners of Income-tax (Exemptions) arc authorised u/s 119(2)(b) of the Act, to admit such belated applications for condonation of delay in filing Return of Income and decide on merit. 3. For all other application for condonation of delay not mentioned above, the power of condonation of delay u/s 119(2)(b) of the Act will continue with the respective authorities as per the extant Rules and Practice. 17.2 Earlier also a Circular No. 7/2018 dt. 20/12/2018 was issued by the CBDT which read as under: SECTION 119 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961- CONDONATION OF DELAY UNDER SECTION 119(2)(b) OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961 IN FILING OF FORM NO. 10 AND FORM NO. 9A FOR AY 2016-17 CIRCULAR NO. 7/2018 [F.NO.197/55/2018-ITA-1], DATED 20-12-2018 Under the provisions of section 11 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereafter 'Act') the primary condition for grant of exemption to trust or institution in respect of income derived from property held under such trust is that the income derived from property held under trust sh ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ertaining such belated applications in Form No. 94 and Form No. 10, satisfy themselves that the assessee was prevented by reasonable cause from filling of applications in Form No. 9A and Form No. 10 within the stipulated time. Further, in respect of Form No. 10 the Commissioners shall also satisfy themselves that the amount accumulated or set apart has been invested or deposited in any one or mace of the forms or modes specified in sub-section (5) of section 11 of the Act. 17.3 From the aforesaid Circular it would be clear that in the genuine case of belated application in Form No. 10, the delay may be condone. In the present case the assessee furnished the Form No. 10 before completion of the assessment. 17:4 On a similar issue the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of CIT Vs. Nagpur Hotel Owners' Association (supra) held as under: "It is abundantly clear from the wordings of sub-section (2) of section 11 that it is mandatory for the person claiming the benefit of section 11 to intimate to the assessing authority the particulars required, under rule 17 in Form No. 10. If during the assessment proceedings the Assessing Officer does not have the necessaly information, t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... looms (supra) has also relled upon and so understood the decisions of the Apex Court in Nagpur Hotel Owners' Association (supra). Therefore, we do not find any merit in the reservations expressed by Mr. Singh, learned Counsel for the Revenue on the applicability of the Supreme Court order in case of Nagpur Hotel Owners' Association (supra) to the present facts." 18. We therefore by considering the totality of the fact as discussed hereinabove and by keeping in view the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court and the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the aforesaid referred to cases, are of the view that the Form No. 10 furnished by the assessee during the course of assessment proceedings before completion of the assessment should have been considered by the A.O. while considering the claim for benefit under section 11(2) of the Act. We order accordingly." 9. In view of the elaborate and erudite observations of the Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench, we deem it fit and appropriate to hereby condone the delay in filing Form no.10. Since the assessee has otherwise fulfilled all the conditions of section 11(2) of the Act, the addition of Rs. 15 lakh, has no legs to stand. In e ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
