9911796707
TMI Blog2025 (2) TMI 161X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s, viz. (i) that as the aforesaid claim of the assessee society would require to look into the facts beyond those available on record, i.e. as to whether or not the assessee society is existing solely for the educational purpose and not for the purpose of profit, therefore, as stated by the Ld. DR, and rightly so, the admission of the said additional ground is liable to be declined on the said count itself; (ii) alternatively, that for claiming exemption u/s. 10(23C)(iiiad) of the Act, the assessee society as per Section 139(4C)(c) of the Act was required to have filed its return of income for the subject year under sub-section (1) of Section 139 of the Act i.e. within the "due date" therein contemplated, which in the present case had not been done as the original return of income was belatedly filed on 10.02.2019 i.e. much beyond the stipulated time period contemplated under 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. As decided in Goetze (India) Ltd. [2006 (3) TMI 75 - SUPREME COURT] had ob ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cts 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(23C), the addition be deleted." 2. Shri G.S. Agrawal, Ld. Authorized Representative (for short 'AR') for the assessee society, at the threshold of hearing of the appeal, submitted that the present appeal involves a delay of 23 days. Elaborating on the reasons leading to the delay of 23 days involved in filing of the present appeal, the Ld. AR has filed an application seeking condonation of delay a/w. an "affidavit" dated 15.10.2024. It was submitted by the Ld. AR that as the delay involved in filing of the present appeal had occasioned due to bonafide reasons, therefore, the same in all fairness be con ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... om 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, worked out its income as was originally disclosed in the original return of income at Rs. 14,32,822/- Accordingly, the A.O vide his order passed u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 143(3A) & 143(3B) of the Act, dated 13.04.2021 determined the income of the assessee society at Rs. 14,32,820/-. 8. Aggrieved, the assessee society carried the matter in appeal before the CIT(Appeals), but without success. For the sake of clarity, the observations of the CIT(Appeals) are culled out as under: "5.1. The appellant has challenged the addition made of Rs. 14,32,822/- the claim of deduction u/s. 10A/10AA, without submitting su ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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) 148 taxmann.com 100 (Calcutta High Court) (iv) Bhuneshwar Prasad Sahu Vs. DCIT, CPC, JAO-ITO, Bhatapara, TAXC No.201 of 2023 (C.G High Court) 12. Also, the Ld. AR submitted that though the assessee society had admittedly wrongly disclosed its income in "Form ITR-V", but the department cannot be permitted to take advantage of the ignorance of the assessee society. The Ld. AR in order to buttress his aforesaid claim had relied on the CBDT Circular No.14(XL-35)/1955, dated 11.04.1955 and judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Allahabad in the case of CIT-II, Lucknow Vs. Lucknow Public Educational Societ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2/- 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. 14,32,822/- under the head "profits and gain of business or profession", which, thereafter, based on its claim for exemption u/ss.10A/10AA of the Act was scaled down to a net taxable income of Rs. Nil, it transpires that nothing was placed on record by the assessee society in support of its aforesaid claim of exemption u/s. 10A/10AA of the Act. Accordingly, the CIT(Appeals) had rightly approved the view taken by the A.O, wherein, the latter had after declining the assessee's claim for exemption u/ss.10A/10AA of the Act, determined its income at Rs. 14,32,820/-. 19. Considering the fact that the revi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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 entitled to raise a claim for exemption u/ss. 10A/10AA of the Act.
23. Be that as it may, I am of a firm conviction that as no infirmity arises from the well-reasoned orders of the lower authorities who had rightly assessed the assessee society at the income returned by it, therefore, I uphold the same. Thus, the Grounds of appeal No(s). 1 to 3 raised by the assessee society are dismissed in terms of the aforesaid observations.
24. In the result, appeal filed by the assessee society is dismissed in terms of the aforesaid observations.
Order pronounced in open court on 31st day of January, 2025. X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
