Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Don't have an account? Register Here
<h1>Appeal Dismissed: Penalty Cancelled for School Exempt as Educational Institution</h1> <h3>Income-Tax Officer. Versus St. Michaeals Education Foundation.</h3> Income-Tax Officer. Versus St. Michaeals Education Foundation. - ITD 043, 656, Issues involved: Appeal against cancellation of penalty u/s 271(1)(a) imposed on respondent by ITO for late filing of income tax return.Summary:The respondent, a school registered u/s 12A(a) of the Income-tax Act, claimed exemption u/s 10(22) as an educational institution during assessment. The ITO rejected this claim but allowed benefits u/s 11 & 12 as the aims were charitable. Penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(a) were initiated due to late filing of return. The penalty was calculated at 1% of gross income. The DC (Appeals) cancelled the penalty based on the argument that as an educational institution, the respondent was not obligated to file a return.The Departmental Representative supported the penalty, citing the rejection of exemption u/s 10(22) by the ITO. The respondent's counsel argued that subsequent Tribunal orders granted the exemption and as the income was nil, penalty provisions were not applicable. The Tribunal noted a factual error in the DC (Appeals) order regarding the exemption under section 10(22) and confirmed that the respondent was enjoying this benefit. Institutions covered u/s 10(22) are not required to file returns if they have no other taxable income. Charitable institutions benefiting from u/s 11 & 12 must file returns as per section 139(4A), failure of which attracts penalty u/s 271(1)(a) even if income is nil.The ITO levied the penalty based on gross income without allowing benefits u/s 11 & 12. However, as the respondent was fully exempt u/s 10(22) and classified as an educational institution by the Tribunal, penalty provisions were deemed inapplicable. Therefore, the DC (Appeals) order cancelling the penalty was upheld, and the appeal was dismissed.