2024 (12) TMI 1683

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... & 2020-21 respectively. Since both parties agreed that issues are similar and there is no change in facts or law, the decision in one AY 2019-20 will decide the fate of AY 2020-21. Therefore, AY 2019-20 is taken as the lead case and adjudicated which decision would apply mutatis mutandis for AY 2020-21. 2. Grounds of appeal raised by the assessee for AY 2019-20 are as under: 1. The order of the Learned Additional/Joint Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) is contrary to the law, facts and circumstances of the case. 2. For that the Learned Additional/Joint Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in upholding the disallowance made by the CPC towards the claim of exemption u/s 10(23C)(vi) of the Income Tax Act and t....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....sessee didn't file the Audit Report within the due date to be eligible for claiming exemption u/s.10(23C)(vi) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter in short 'the Act'), the CPC while processing the return, didn't allow the exemption claimed by the assessee u/s. 10(23C)(vi) of the Act and disallowed the entire expenditure and taxed the gross receipts, thereby, resulting in high demand of Rs. 67,76,57,091/-. 4. On appeal, the assessee brought to the Ld. CIT(A)'s notice that it had filed application for condoning the delay in belatedly filing Audit Report in Form 10BB before the CBDT through an application filed via mail on 09.03.2024 u/s.119(2)(b) of the Act read with Circular No. 2/20 (F) No. 19/7/55/2018-ITA-1 dated 03.01.2020 and Cir....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....proposition, he cited the decision of the Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of Sree Venkateswara Educational Trust v. ITO order dated 02.09.2024 in a similar factual scenario, wherein that case, the CPC passed intimation u/s. 143(1) of the Act denying not only the exemption u/s.11 of the Act but also made addition of gross receipts, which impugned action was interfered by the Hon'ble High Court by holding that the AO couldn't have taxed the entire gross receipts but should have only taxed the net income. In other words, assessee can't be denied the legitimate deduction that would be available to it, even if it is treated as an AOP. The Hon'ble High Court in Sree Venkateswara Educational Trust supra held as under: 19. The facts ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ding Corporation Limited Vs. Collector of Central Excise and others, 1995 Supp (3) SCC 552/1995 (77) ELT 511, had held as under:- "When it was found that they were liable to pay duty on the intermediary product and had not paid the same, but had paid the duty on the end product, they could not ordinarily have complied with the requirements of Rule 56A. Once the Tribunal took the view that they were liable to pay duty on the intermediary product and they would have been entitled to the benefit of the notification had they met with the requirement of Rule 56A, the proper course was to permit them to do so rather than denying to them the benefit on the technical ground that the point of time when they could have done so had elapsed an....