TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (6) TMI 867
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....y CPC treating late Form No. 10 filed online, after filing the same manually in time in the office of ITO, Jalore, the then Jurisdictional Officer. 2. That the CIT(A) has erred in law and in facts in deciding the appeal by holding that it was because of delayed filing of Form 10 electronically (i.e. online), the Assessing Officer has disallowed the deduction u/s 11(2) as per proviso to Rule 12(2) read with Rule 17(2) of the Income Tax Rules. It was held so in Para No. 4.3.1 of the impugned order at Pg. No. 23 thereof. The Id. CIT(A) on the contrary ought to have held the Form No. 10 filed, as filed in time, by condoning the delay if in any event it was causedin view of the mandate of CBDT Circle No. 6/2020 dated 19.02.2020. 3. That the CIT(A) has erred in law and in facts in holding in Para No. 4.3.3 that since the Form 10 was not filed online along with the return of income within the time provided u/s 139(1) w.e.f. A.Y. 2016-17, the impugned order was correct. In the facts and in the circumstances of the case ought not to have held so. 4. That the CIT(A) has erred in law and in facts in deciding and dismissing the appeal of the appellant on the sole reason mentioned by him ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....simultaneously filed. 8. That the CIT(A) erred in law and on facts, in holding ground No. 4 as infructuous and also erred in view of the overall spectrum of the case and overall facts of the casein not deciding the ground No. 4 of appeal by mentioning in ground No. 4 that it was of general nature and no such requirement arose during the course of appellate proceedings, hence this ground was infructuous and hence dismissed because this was not a general ground it was a specific ground seeking relief from the ld. CIT(A) in the facts and in the circumstances of this appellant's case. 9. The Id. CIT(A) erred in law in not appreciating the facts of the case to the effect that the set apart or re-transferring the earlier withdrawn fund from Mandirji Jirnodhar A/e to that account was a Corpus A/c Funds of the Corpus Donation as per Sec. 11(1)(d) of the Act, and not the income from the property held under or in the Trust as per Sec. 11(1)(a) and (b) on which no condition of its spending of 85% or above was applicable, being a Capital Receipt. Hence it was even out of the preview of Sec. 11(2) which only applies on donation or income of the nature of Clause (a) & (b) other than Corp....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ve taken on or before the hearing. 14. The appellant prays that her appeal may kindly be allowed by cancelling the impugned disputed additions and allow the appeal of the appellant." 3. None appeared on behalf of the assessee however, the Bench decided to proceed the matter on merit based on the materials available on record, concerning the issue in question. 4. Brief facts of the case that and arguments of the assessee as emerges from the order of the lower authority is that the assessee trust maintaining separate accounts of various donations it receives for past several years. In these separate accounts of different nature of donation the specific donations received with specific direction or otherwise are credited in such accounts respectively. It had also been maintaining corpus donation accounts which it had been receiving for specific purposes as corpus from the donors as their voluntary donation which is covered by Sec. 11(1)(d) of the Act. In these corpus donation accounts there had been existing a corpus donation account for the purpose of Temple Renovation (i.e. called Mandirji Jirnodhar) Account wherein all the donations received with specific direction from the don....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ver during this year made adjustment and added a sum of Rs. 14 lacs shown in the return under the column of Sec. 11(2) of the Act for which assessee earlier forgotten to upload also Form No. 9A accordingly, the CPC created in the demand vide intimation dated 17.05.2017. During this year while processing the return CPC Bangalore added back this Rs. 14 Lacs in the disclosed income of the assessee and taxed the same and levied interest as well. Against which ratification application was filed the u/s 154 on 07.06.2018 along with the Form No. 9A as per Rules 17(1). However the A.O. at CPC Bangalore rejected said application. Thus two appeals one against intimation under Sec. 143(1) and another against the order under Sec. 154 are filed. Even otherwise also the adjustment made by CPC adding of Rs. 14 lacs was out of the purview of section 143(1) of the Act because it was a retransfer to Reserve fund out of the earlier transferred sum the same was disclosed in books and also even otherwise corpus donation received in the year had been fully utilized towards the purposes of the corpus. Thus this was simply a technical error and nothing else. It was therefore, required to be rectified u/s ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....same is reproduced as follows: Government of India Ministry of Finance Department of Revenue [Central Board of Direct Taxes] (Income-Tax) Notification New Delhi, the 14th January, 2016 S.O. 127(E). In exercise of the powers conferred by section 11 read with section 295 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (43 of 1961), the Central Board of Direct Taxes hereby makes the following rules further to amend the Income- tax Rules, 1962, namely:- 1. (1) These rules may be called the Income-tax (1 st Amendment) Rules, 2016. (2) They shall come into force from the 1 st day of April, 2016. 2. In the Income-tax Rules, 1962 (hereinafter referred to as the said rules), for rule 17, the following rule shall be substituted, namely - "17. Exercise (1) The option to be exercised in accordance with the provisions of the Explanation to subsection (1) of section 11 in respect of income of any previous year relevant to the assessment year beginning on or after the 1st day of April, 2016 shall be in Form No. 9A and shall be furnished before the expiry of the time allowed under sub-section (1) of section 139 for furnishing the return of income of the relevant assessment year. (2) The statement to....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nature and no such requirement arose during the course of appellate proceedings. Hence, this ground is infructuous and hence dismissed. 7. In the result, for statistical purposes, the appeal is dismissed." 6. The ld. DR heard who relied on the findings of the lower authorities and submitted that once the assessee failed to file the form no. 10 along with the return of income before the due date of filling the return of income, the assessee is not eligible to claim the benefit of section 11 & 12. The ld. DR also submitted that the assessee should file two appeals as they have preferred the appeal on the order passed u/s. 143(1) and 154 of the Act. 7. We have heard the ld. DR and perused the materials available on record. The Bench noted that the adjustment made u/s 143(1) by A.O at CPC resulting in an addition of Rs. 14 Lacs in the ROI of Rs. 43,911/- only on a technical flaw, particularly in view of the facts that the statutory provisions requiring filing of Form10 etc. online along with the ROI only came into being on and from this A.Y. 2016-17. Thus this new provision was not in knowledge of the assessee, resulting in filing of Form No. 10 manually in time prescribed u/s 139(....