TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (6) TMI 1056
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in dismissing the appeal on the grounds that the appellant did not participate or submit any documents during the course of the remand proceedings whereas the appellant submitted all relevant documents through the e-proceedings portal on 09.11.2024, well within the prescribed time limit, and therefore the dismissal of the appeal based on non-participation is factually incorrect. 3. That, the Ld. Authorities below have erred both in Law and on facts in circumstance in not allowing the exemption under section 10(23C)(iiiad) of the Act even if the gross receipts of individual institutes are below Rs. 1.00 Crore and for that matter it is prayed before your honour to allow the exemption under section 10(23C)(iiiad) of the Act. 4. That, the appellant craves to alter, amend, modify or add any other ground that may be considered necessary in the course of appeal proceeding." 3. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee had filed the return of income showing total income of Rs. 'NIL' and the case was selected for limited scrutiny under Computer Assisted Scrutiny Selection (in short 'CASS'). The assessee could not submit any document ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....mission along with additional evidence in support of the relief claimed which was forwarded by the Ld. CIT(A) to the Ld. AO to submit the remand report. It was submitted by the Ld. AO in the remand report that the reason for selection was "Form 10B/10BB not filed" and accordingly notices u/s 143(2) and 142(1) of the Act were issued and as the assessee did not submit any documents called for, the assessment was completed u/s 144 of the Act based on the documents available on record. The order was passed u/s 144 of the IT. Act, 1961 on 18.12.2018 assessing the total income at Rs. 2,52,02,720/-. As regards the error of law in treating the entire receipts of Rs. 2,52,02,720/- as the income of the assessee, in view of the fact that the expenses incurred for earning of income of Rs. 2,52,02,720/- are allowable u/s 57 of the Act, since the assessee did not file the audit report in form 10B/10BB and also did not comply with any of the notices during the assessment proceedings hence, the Ld. JAO has rightly disallowed the expenses claimed by the assessee. The Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee by holding as under: "7. I have perused facts of the case, assessment order of the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ng of expenditures Incurred for earning of the income. Therefore, the action of the Ld. Assessing Officer is wrong. On being aggrieved with the assessment order, the assessee preferred the appeal before the Ld. CIT (Appeals) on the following grounds; ➢ Since the assessee is neither registered u/s 12A/12AA nor u/s 10(23C), it is an AOP and its income is to be computed by allowing of expenditure incurred for earning of income, but the Ld. AO taxed the gross receipts without allowing of any expenditure. This action of the Ld. AO is wrong and the expenditure incurred for earning of income is to be allowed as deduction. In the similar facts, the Ld. AO passed the rectification order u/s 154 for the Asst. Year 2017-18, 2018-19 & 2019-20 by allowing the expenditure, hence in the impugned assessment year also the expenditures are to be allowed while computing the taxable income. ➢ The assessee runs three educational institutions, i.e. (1) Sukanti International School, (2) Sukanti Academy & (3) Sukanti +3 Degree college which are separately approved by the appropriate authorities. As per the norms of the approving authorities, the assessee has to maintain separate set of....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....bviously, the issue whether that benefit is available or not would arise only in the course of assessment proceedings of a person/assessee, who may have engaged in such activity, at the same time, it is not the intent of the Act to look at the aggregate income or receipt of such person for the purpose of granting the benefit under section 10(23C)(iiiad). [Para 13] ■ It is the receipt of each individual University or other educational institution that would be looked at to determine whether the receipt would qualify for the benefit conferred under section 10(23C)(iiiad), read with rule 2BC. [Para 14] ■ The reasoning adopted by the Assessing Authority as affirmed by the Appellate Authority and the Tribunal, wholly erroneous in law. As noted above, the benefit of section 10(23C)(iiiad) being activity centric, the limit of Rs. 1 crore prescribed thereunder had to be seen only with reference to the fee and other receipts of the eligible activity/institution. Admittedly, those were below Rs. 1 crore. In the facts of the instant case, the eligibility condition prescribed by law was wholly met by the assessee. [Para 21] ■ The Assessing Authority to disallow the bene....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... information management and technology and it had not claimed any benefit with respect to the donations received by the society. [Para 27] ■ The question of law is answered in the negative, i.e., in favour of the assessee and against the revenue. There would be no clubbing of the receipts of the institution with the other income of the society, for the purpose of considering the benefit of section 10(23C)(iiiad). [Para 28]" 8. The assessee itself had shown the surplus as income as it was neither registered u/s 12AA nor u/s 10(23C) of the Act. Further, the receipt from each of the three institutions is claimed to be below the limit specified u/s 10(23C)(iiiad) of the Act and as per the decision of the Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in the case of Manas Sewa Samiti (supra) each individual University or other educational institution receipt has to be looked at to determine whether the receipt would qualify for the benefit conferred u/s 10(23C)(iiiad) of the Act read with Rule 2BC of the Income Tax Rules, 1962. Since the Ld. CIT(A) did not consider the evidence filed and treated the accounts furnished for the first time before the appellate authority as very sketchy, not sub....