2025 (1) TMI 324 - AT - Income Tax

Charitable institution loses tax exemption under section 11 for failing to file returns despite 12A registration

The ITAT Delhi held that a charitable institution with 12A registration lost its tax exemption benefits under section 11 for failing to file income tax ... Addition u/s 69A r.w.s.115BBE - Assessee qualifies for exemption u/s 10(23AA) - as submitted that in the case of the assessee, assessee has already incurred more than 85% of the income towards the charitable purposes, therefore, no addition is called for - HELD THAT:- Assessee is a charitable institution and had granted for 12A registration by CIT, Delhi-II, New Delhi on 26.07.1975. No doubt, assessee was granted registration u/s 12A of the Act and it is also a fact on record that assessee has not filed its return of income even though notice u/s 148 was issued by the AO based on the financial informations available with him with regard to various deposits and renewal on time deposits. Assessee has prayed that the case of the assessee falls u/s 10(23AA) of the Act. As per the provisions of section 139(4)(a) of the Act, it is obligation on the part of the assessee who were claiming the benefit u/s 11 of the Act has to file its return of income u/s 139 to claim the benefits. Even though the assessee who has got registration u/s 12A of the Act, in order to get the benefit it has to file its return of income. Therefore, in the given case, it is fact on record that assessee has not filed its return of income, therefore, assessee loses the benefit of claiming exemption u/s 11 of the Act. Therefore, the case of the assessee has to be assessed on the basis of commercial terms as in AOP. We observed that the AO has assessed the income after considering gross receipts and relevant expenditure. In our considered view, CIT (A) has given the relief without considering this aspect on record. We observed that since there was no representation on the part of the assessee before the AO and CIT (A) has granted the relief based on various documents submitted before him without giving opportunity to the AO. Therefore, considering the nature of charitable institution which serves the widows and dependants of army soldiers, we deem it fit and proper to remit this issue back to the file of AO to consider various documents and redo the assessment as per law and consider various submissions made by the assessee before the CIT (A) with regard to term deposits and renewal of the same and also cash deposits which has generated by the assessee out of schools and other activities. We also direct the AO to redo the assessment as per above direction after giving proper opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Appeal filed by the Revenue is allowed for statistical purposes. 1. ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDEREDThe core legal questions considered in this judgment include:Whether the assessee qualifies for exemption under section 10(23AA) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, as a regimental or non-public fund established by the armed forces of the Union.Whether the assessee is entitled to exemption under sections 11, 12, and 13 of the Income-tax Act as a charitable institution, despite not filing a return of income.Whether the disallowance of 10% of the expenditure by the Assessing Officer (AO) was justified.Whether the additions made for unexplained cash deposits, unexplained investments, and interest income were correctly deleted by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) (CIT(A)).Whether the CIT(A) erred in allowing relief by entertaining additional evidence in violation of Rule 46A of the Income-tax Rules, 1962.2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSISExemption under Section 10(23AA)Legal Framework and Precedents: Section 10(23AA) provides exemption for income received on behalf of any regimental or non-public fund established by the armed forces for welfare purposes.Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The court referenced a similar case decided by the Allahabad High Court, which rejected the claim for exemption under section 10(23AA) due to the failure to prove the income was on behalf of a regimental fund.Key Evidence and Findings: The assessee failed to demonstrate that the income was received on behalf of a regimental or non-public fund.Application of Law to Facts: The court found that the assessee did not meet the criteria for exemption under section 10(23AA).Treatment of Competing Arguments: The court considered the assessee's reliance on a prior decision but ultimately found it inapplicable.Conclusions: The exemption under section 10(23AA) was not applicable.Exemption under Sections 11, 12, and 13Legal Framework and Precedents: Sections 11, 12, and 13 provide exemptions for income applied for charitable purposes, subject to conditions including filing a return of income.Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The court emphasized the requirement to file a return of income to claim these exemptions.Key Evidence and Findings: The assessee did not file a return of income, which is a prerequisite for claiming exemptions under these sections.Application of Law to Facts: The court determined that the failure to file a return disqualified the assessee from claiming exemptions.Treatment of Competing Arguments: The court acknowledged the charitable nature of the assessee's activities but stressed the legal requirement for filing returns.Conclusions: The exemptions under sections 11, 12, and 13 were not applicable due to non-filing of returns.Disallowance of 10% ExpenditureLegal Framework and Precedents: The AO disallowed 10% of the expenditure on an estimated basis.Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The CIT(A) relied on precedents to delete the disallowance, finding it unjustified.Key Evidence and Findings: The CIT(A) found that the expenditure was legitimate and aligned with the assessee's charitable purpose.Application of Law to Facts: The court accepted the CIT(A)'s deletion of the disallowance.Treatment of Competing Arguments: The court considered the AO's rationale but sided with the CIT(A)'s findings.Conclusions: The disallowance of 10% of the expenditure was not justified.Unexplained Cash Deposits, Investments, and Interest IncomeLegal Framework and Precedents: The AO made additions for unexplained cash deposits and investments, and interest income.Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The CIT(A) deleted these additions based on the evidence provided by the assessee.Key Evidence and Findings: The CIT(A) found that the cash deposits and investments were accounted for in the books, and the interest income was within permissible limits.Application of Law to Facts: The court upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the additions.Treatment of Competing Arguments: The court considered the AO's lack of access to evidence initially but found the CIT(A)'s acceptance of new evidence justified.Conclusions: The additions for unexplained cash deposits, investments, and interest income were not justified.Violation of Rule 46ALegal Framework and Precedents: Rule 46A restricts the admission of additional evidence at the appellate stage.Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The court noted that the CIT(A) considered additional evidence without giving the AO an opportunity to review it.Key Evidence and Findings: The CIT(A) granted relief based on new evidence.Application of Law to Facts: The court found that the CIT(A) violated Rule 46A by not allowing the AO to examine the new evidence.Treatment of Competing Arguments: The court recognized the procedural lapse but focused on the substantive justice of the case.Conclusions: The case was remitted back to the AO for reassessment, considering the new evidence.3. SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGSCore Principles Established: The necessity of filing a return of income to claim exemptions under sections 11, 12, and 13 was reaffirmed.Final Determinations on Each Issue: The court remitted the case back to the AO for reassessment, emphasizing the need for procedural fairness and proper consideration of evidence.Verbatim Quotes: 'The case of the assessee has to be assessed on the basis of commercial terms as in AOP.' This highlights the court's stance on assessing the income without exemptions due to procedural lapses.The judgment underscores the importance of procedural compliance in tax exemption claims and the need for thorough reassessment when procedural violations occur.