TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (6) TMI 1055
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....iled under section 154 on 19/12/2016 for rectifying the intimation under section 143(1)(a) for disallowing deduction claimed under section 11(2), in the light of the fact that a disallowance pertaining to delay in filing of Form 10 cannot be treated as a prima facie adjustment for the purposes of intimation under section 143(1)(a). Ground No. 2: When Rs. 10,45,000/- has been actually set apart under section 11(2) and reported in Form 10B, delay in uploading Form 10 cannot lead to disallowances. Ground No. 3: Rejection of the claim under section 11(2), without notice to appellant, is incorrect and the same is against judicial decisions. Nagpur Hotel Owners' Association 247 ITR 201 (SC). Ground No. 4: The AO erred in levying interest under section 234B and C of the Act. Ground No. 5: Even otherwise since the delay in filing Form 10 is condonable one, (vide Board's Circular No. 273 dt. 3/6/1980) Assessing Officer ought not to have rejected the claim for deduction under section 11(2) without educating the assessee about the remedial measures available with him. Ground No. 6: That the assessee has been taxed for a procedural delay and has been deprived of substantive justice t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ted u/s 11(1)(a) of the Act was Rs. 7,34,731/- while the amount set apart u/s 11(2) of the Act was Rs. 10,45,000/-. The return of income was filed on 26.09.2014 along with Form No. 10B, but Form No. 10 was not uploaded on the same day. This omission was noticed later but, in the meantime the CPC sent the intimation u/s 143(1) of the Act dated 14.01.2016 disallowing the claim u/s 11(2) of the Act and raising a demand of Rs. 1,70,630/-. The assessee thereafter, uploaded Form No. 10 and filed a petition u/s 154 of the Act for rectification of the intimation u/s 143(1)(a) of the Act to allow the claim u/s 11(2) of the Act but the same was rejected by the CPC on 19.12.2016 for the reason that there was no prima facie error which the assessee had sought to get rectified. It was submitted in respect of not being able to upload Form No. 10 that the assessee was using the computer with Windows XP and could upload the return of income and Form No. 10B with Windows XP but Form No. 10 could not be seen on the Windows XP system. Later on the assessee came to know that Windows 7 was required to file Form No. 10 and subsequently upgraded the Computer to Windows 7 and uploaded Form No. 10 on 30.0....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the same within the time allowed for furnishing the return of income under section 139(4). Therefore, the revenue has not been able to point out any reasons why the aforesaid two decisions should not be applied in the facts of the present case to reject the appeal. [Para 12]" 3.1. Further, reliance was placed on the decisions of ITAT, Pune Bench in the case of The Sonhira Foundation for Rural Development vs. DCIT, Central Circle-2(2), Pune in 2016 (1) TMI 600 - ITAT-Pune and of ITAT, Jodhpur Bench in the case of Jodhpur Income Tax Officer vs. M/s. Rajasthan Medical Relief Society 2015 (3) TMI 227 - ITAT-Jodhpur in support of the relief claimed. 3.2. The Ld. CIT(A) went through the submission and has dismissed the appeal by holding as under: "i) I have carefully considered the provisions of the Act, submissions of the appellant and the facts of the case. In the instant case there was delay in filing of Form 10 by the appellant resultantly the CPC, Bangalore processed the return of income u/s 143(1) dt.14-1-2016 of the Income-tax Act and disallowed the claim of the appellant u/s 11(2), raising a demand of Rs. 1,70,630. Thereafter, realizing its mistake the appellant filed the For....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... v Mayur Foundation [2005] 194 CTR (Guj.) 194/274 ITR 562 (Guj.), it has been held that Form No. 10 can be filed at any time during the assessment proceeding. It was also submitted that this is not covered under the prima facie adjustment. The Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal by holding that the delay in filing of Form No. 10 after the due date of filing of return of income can be condoned but not rectified. 5. The Ld. DR relied upon the recent amendment and stated that the decision of Hon'ble Gujarat High Court is no longer a good law and the assessee had made a wrong claim. The Ld. AR submitted that the disallowance u/s 143(1) of the Act for AY 2015-16 for the exemption claimed also was on account of a procedural lapse and the amended law is with effect from AY 2015-16. The assessee's submission can be summarised as under: "a. Making disallowances under section 11(1) and (2) is not allowed in the Intimation stage of proceedings. b. It is undisputed that the claim of the assessee was legally correct and there was no arithmetical mistake. c. Any expenses which are subject to procedural compliance or which require application of mind cannot be disallowed at the Intimation ....