TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (10) TMI 78
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ducational purposes and not for purposes of profit, and it is substantially financed by the government. 3. The appellant contends that taxable income of a charitable institution ought to be computed only after reducing all valid applications and only after granting benefit of accumulation of income. 4. The Learned AO erred in law and on facts in charging the gross receipts of the society to tax at Maximum Marginal Rate without allowing the expenses incurred by appellant which were solely for meeting its objectives of educational nature. 5. Appellant craves leave to add, alter, clarify, explain, modify, delete any or all of the grounds of appeal, and to seek any just and fair relief." 3. The appellant also raised the following additional grounds of appeal :- "6. Appellant contends that, the provisional 12A registration dated 7/4/2022 and permanent 12A registration dated 31/3/2023 entitle the Appellant to claim exemption u/s 11 read with second proviso to section 12A(2) of the ITA, 1961 for AY 2021-22; since a) the objects of the Appellant in AY 2021-22 as well as for subsequent period considered in the 12A registration are same, and ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s that incorrect claim u/s 143(1)(a)(ii) of Rs.46,79,75,225/- made by the assessee but disallowed by the CPC due to the reason that the assessee has not e-filed the audit report in Form 10B one month prior to the due date for furnishing of return u/s 139(1) of the IT Act. In this regard, it was further submitted by the ld. AR that it is true that Form 10B could not be furnished one month prior to the due date for furnishing of return u/s 139 but the same was furnished along with return of income. Therefore, when the return was processed, Form 10B was available with CPC. Therefore, the CPC was not justified in rejecting the claim of the assessee u/s 11 of the IT Act merely on the basis of belated filing of Form 10B. In support of this contention, the ld. AR relied on the decision passed by the Co- ordinate Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Shiksha Foundation vs. ITO in ITA No.441/Ahd/2024 order dated 14.06.2024 wherein under identical situation, the Co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal has allowed the appeal of the assessee. Further, the ld. AR also relied on the decision of the Co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal in the case of ITO vs. P. K. Krishnan Educational Trust in ITA No.3533/....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ocessed by CPC on 27.10.2022, therefore, Form 10B was very well available before CPC while processing the concerned return of income. Therefore, in the light of decision of the Co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal in the case of ITO vs. P.K.Krishnan Educational Trust (supra), wherein the Tribunal decided the appeal in favour of the assessee by observing as under :- "13. The impugned assessment year is assessment year 2021 - 22 , the learned CIT - A has considered the issue in earlier assessment year. However, CBDT has extended due date of filing of the return of income my press release dated 9/9/2021 as under :- 5. The due date of furnishing of Return of Income for the Assessment Year 2021-22, which is 30th November, 2021 under sub-section (1) of section 139 of the Act, as extended to 31st December, 2021 vide Circular No.9/2021 dated 20-5-2021, is hereby further extended to 28th February, 2022; 6. The due date of furnishing of belated/revised Return of Income for the Assessment Year 2021-22, which is 31st December, 2021 under sub-section (4)/sub-section (5) of section 139 of the Act, as extended to 31st January, 2022, vide Circular No.9/2021 dated 20- 5-2021....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... and Societies. In the instant case since, delay is merely 28 days, we find that the said delay deserves to be ignored in larger interest of justice. The assessee is thus entitled to claim exemption u/s 11 of the Act made in the Income- tax return e-filed by it. We further fund support from the decisions of this Tribunal in the case of Bangarh Educational Welfare Trust v. ITO (Exemptions) in ITA No. 496/Kol/2021; Assessment Year 2018-19, order dt. 02/01/2022, wherein also similar issue was raised for Assessment Year 2018-19 and the return was filed within time limit prescribed u/s 139(1) of the Act but there was a delay in furnishing of the audit report on Form 10B and this Tribunal after considering the facts of the case as well as judicial precedents allowed the benefit of Section 11 & 12 of the Act to the assessee." 15. Coordinate bench held that up to March 2022, the country was passing through pandemic. The due dates for filing of the return of income as well as compliance made by the assessee also falls during that period. In view of this, we find that the delay caused in filing of number 10 B deserves to be condoned. Accordingly, as indicated above, the learned CIT ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....B). For relevant assessment year 2016-17, assessee obtained audit report from Chartered Accountant well before time, however, same could not be uploaded along with return of income inadvertently. In absence of any audit report, Central Processing Centre had not granted exemption under section 11 which otherwise was available to it since many years and resultantly demand was raised. The Assessee therefore filed a rectification application under section 154, seeking to place on record audit report to Central Processing Centre but same was rejected on ground that Form No. 10Bauditreport, was not filed in time. The Assessee filed an application before CBDT to condone delay in filing Form No. 10Baudit report, however same was rejected. The High Court held that since assessee was a public charitable trust for past 30 years and substantially satisfied conditions for availing exemption under section 11 it should not be denied exemption merely on bar of limitation especially when legislature had conferred wide discretionary powers to condone such delay. Accordingly, the Gujarat High Court directed that the order of rectification under section 154 be quashed 7.3 In the case of JCIT ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..../s 12A of the IT Act for five assessment years i.e. from assessment year 2022-23 to 2026-27. We also find that in identical situation, the Co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Shri Krishnabai Ghat Trust vs. ITO in ITA No.44/PUN2019 order dated 03.05.2019 has already held that if the proceedings pending before the ld. CIT(A) and registration u/s 12AA is granted to the assessee then for such previous assessment year also he is entitled for exemption u/s 11 - 12 of the IT Act. For the sake of convenience, the relevant paragraphs of the decision of the Co-ordinate Bench of this Tribunal in the case of Shri Krishnabai Ghat Trust (supra) are reproduced as under :- "5. I have heard both the sides and gone through the relevant material on record. First of all, I am espousing the additional ground raised by the assessee through which it has been contended that the assessee was granted registration by the ld. CIT (Exemptions) vide his order dated 28-09-2017 and as such the benefit of such registration ought to have been granted for the extant appeal as well. In order to appreciate the rival contentions, it would be apposite to note down the relevant part of the mandate o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....1-10- 2018. This manifests that as on the date of grant of registration by the ld. CIT (Exemptions), though the assessment order had already been passed but the appeal of the assessee was pending before the ld. CIT(A). Under such circumstances, a question arises as to whether or not the benefit of first proviso can be extended to the assessee? 7. If we go by the plain language of the provision and interpret it strictly, then the pendency of the assessment proceedings before the AO is sine qua non for getting the extended benefit of registration in terms of the mandate of the proviso. Section 250 of the Act deals with the procedure in appeal before the CIT(A). Sub-section (4) of section 250 provides that the Commissioner (Appeals) may, before disposing of any appeal, make such further inquiry as he thinks fit. Sub-section (5) of this section provides that the Commissioner (Appeals) may, at the hearing of an appeal, allow the appellant to go into any ground of appeal not specified in the grounds of appeal. Section 251 deals with the powers of the CIT(A). Clause (a) of sub-section (1) of section 251 provides that in an appeal against an order of assessment, he may confirm, re....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....egistration by the ld. CIT (Exemptions) to the assessee, the appeal of the assessee was pending before the ld. CIT(A), in my considered opinion, the benefit of first proviso to section 12A(2) ought to have been granted. My view is fortified by the judgment of Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court in CIT (Exemptions) Vs. Shree Shyam Mandir Committee (2018) 400 ITR 466 (Raj.) in which it has been held that "an assessment proceedings which is pending in appeal before the appellate authority should be deemed to be "assessment proceedings pending before the AO." within the meaning of the term as envisaged under the proviso. It follows there from that the assessee which obtained registration u/s.12AA of the Act during the pending of appeal was entitled for exemption claimed u/s.11 of the Act". The additional ground thus raised is allowed by holding that the assessee would be entitled to exemption u/ss. 11 and 12 of the Act for the year under consideration on the raison d'etre that the registration was, in fact, granted to the assessee u/s.12AA during the pendency of proceedings before the ld. CIT(A). 9. In the light of my above conclusion on the additional ground, the impugned order is s....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....y and the proceedings for some earlier year are pending before the AO as on the date of granting the registration, then the benefit of sections 11 and 12 should be granted to such earlier years as well provided the objects and activities of the trust remained the same. It is relevant to note that the registration in the extant case was granted by the CIT (Exemptions), Pune on 28-09-2017. The assessment in this case was completed u/s.143(3) of the Act on 15-12-2016. Thereafter, the assessee preferred first appeal before the ld. CIT(A) against the said assessment order, which came to be decided by means of impugned order dated 01-10-2018. This manifests that as on the date of grant of registration by the ld. CIT (Exemptions), though the assessment order had already been passed but the appeal of the assessee was pending before the ld. CIT(A). Under such circumstances, a question arises as to whether or not the benefit of first proviso can be extended to the assessee? 7..... 8. At this juncture, it would be pertinent to note that the main object of proviso to section 12A(2) is to liberally grant the benefit of registration when the trust is otherwise engaged in genuin....