9911796707
TMI Blog2025 (2) TMI 161X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eals) further erred in not appreciating the facts that the original Return wherein the income was offered at Rs. 14,32,822/- was an error on the part of the person filing the Return, the actual income as per Profit and Loss Account at Rs. 2,32,822/- for which revised Return was filed which neither the Ld. AO nor the Ld. CIT (Appeals) accepted. Prayed that original Return declaring income at Rs. 14,83,000/- was erroneously filed which is not the income of the Appellant and the actual income of the Appellant is only Rs. 2,32,822/-. Prayed that income be assessed at Rs. 2,32,822/-. 3. That under the facts and the law, the Appellant erroneously filed the Return of Income originally which was revised subsequently and audited accounts were filed. Prayed that income as per revised return at Rs. 2,32,822/- be accepted." Also, the assessee society has raised an additional ground of appeal which reads as under: "That under the facts & the law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal though appellant was not liable to tax, as it is existing solely for the educational purposes & its receipts does not exceed Rs. 1 crore, therefore, in this case society is not liable to tax u/s. 10(23 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... down to an amount of Rs. 1,61,036/-. Also, the assessee had along with its revised return of income filed a copy of the audit report dated 18.11.2020 a/w. financial statements. Accordingly, the A.O observed that the assessee society by allegedly revising its return of income had scaled down its gross total income/receipts from 14,32,822/- to Rs. 2,32,822/-. It was observed by the A.O that the assessee society had not only failed to explain the reasons for reduction of its gross total income, but had also not furnished details of the exemption that was claimed in the original return of income. Apart from that, the A.O on a perusal of the e-filing portal of the assessee society noticed that though the revised return of income was filed by it u/s. 119(2)(b) of the Act but the same was not processed for the condonation of delay therein involved. 7. The A.O taking cognizance of the fact that the assessee had not furnished any documentary evidence in support of its claim of reducing the gross total income from Rs. 14,32,822/- to Rs. 2,32,822/- and also, not furnished the details of its claim for exemption u/ss.10A/10AA of the Act, thus, after declining its aforesaid claim of exemption, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... udicial pronouncements that have been pressed into service by the Ld. AR to drive home his contentions. 11. Shri G.S. Agrawal, Ld. AR for the assessee society, at the threshold of hearing of the appeal, submitted that as the assessee society is an educational institution whose gross receipts during the subject year were below the amount prescribed u/s. 10(23C)(iiiad) of the Act, therefore, on the said count itself its income not liable to be assessed to tax. Elaborating further on his contention, the Ld. AR submitted that as the income of the assessee society as per the mandate of law was not liable to be brought to tax, therefore, there was no justification for the A.O to have made the impugned addition as the same did tantamount to collection of tax de-hors the law, which, thus, was violative of Article 265 of the Constitution of India. The Ld. AR in support of his aforesaid contention had relied on the following judicial pronouncements: (i) Madanlal Mohanlal Sakhala Vs. Addl. CIT, (2023) 154 taxmann.com 178 ( ITAT, Mumbai) (ii) Pr. CIT Vs. H.P Housing & Urban Development Authority(HIMUDA), (2023) 157 taxmann.com 598 (P.H. High Court) (iii) Ena Chaudhari Vs. ACIT, (2023) 1 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e through Section 10(23C)(iiiad) of the Act which pre-supposes that the educational institution should be existing solely for the educational purposes and not for the purposes of profits. 16. As is discernible from the record, the assessee society had filed its return of income declaring an income under the head profits and gains of business or profession of Rs. 14,32,822/-, which based on a claim of exemption u/ss.10A/10AA of the Act was reduced to Rs. Nil. Thereafter, the assessee society had allegedly filed a revised return of income on 03.04.2020, wherein it had disclosed an income of Rs. 2,32,822/- under the head "profits and gains of business or profession", which thereafter, based on its claim for exemption u/ss.10A/10AA of the Act of Rs. 71,786/- was scaled down to Rs. 1,61,036/-. 17. Before proceeding any further, I may herein observe that as the revised return of income was not filed by the assessee society within the stipulated time period as contemplated under sub-section (5) of Section 139 of the Act, therefore, the same is non-est in the eyes of law. 18. Apropos the original return of income that was filed by the assessee society by disclosing gross receipts of Rs. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er the said provision, therefore, for the said reason also its claim for exemption is even otherwise not admissible. Accordingly, the additional ground of appeal raised by the assessee society does not merit admission and, thus, rejected. 22. Before parting, I may herein observe that the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Goetze (India) Ltd. Vs. CIT (2006) 284 ITR 323 (SC), had observed, that the A.O cannot allow a deduction other than that claimed by the assessee, except for, where the same had been raised based on a revised return of income filed by the latter. As in the present case before me, the assessee society had voluntarily disclosed gross income of Rs. 14,32,822/- (supra) in its original return of income, therefore, no infirmity emerges from the orders of the lower authorities who had rightly assessed the assessee society on the said amount of income. Although I am not oblivion of the fact that the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Goetze (India) Ltd. Vs. CIT (supra) had carved out an exception that the assessee can raise a claim before the Tribunal, but I am afraid that nothing has been brought on record by the Ld. AR which would substantiate that the assessee society is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
