TMI Blog2019 (8) TMI 363X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sing officer should be directed to take note of Form No.10 accompanied by the Board Resolution and take a decision on merits. As we have taken a decision on the assessee's entitlement to file Form No.10, the substantial questions of law, which have been framed by the assessee are not required to be answered and are left open. For the above reasons, the appeal is allowed and the order passed by the Tribunal as well as the CIT (A) are set aside and the order passed by the Deputy Director of Income Tax (Exemptions)-II dated 28.03.2011 is also set aside. The authority is directed to take note of the Form No.10 and the Board Resolution and take a decision on merits and in accordance with law. - Mr. Justice T.S. Sivagnanam And M ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rtain Form No.10 as per Section 11(2) of the Act to grant deemed application of income in the tax exemption computation u/s 11 of the Act?. 2. The assessee is a Trust, which has established and administering a temple, where persons from a particular community offer worship. In the assessment year 2008-09, the assessee filed return of income on 02.04.2009, which was processed by issuance of an intimation dated 21.01.2011 under Section 143(1) of the Act. After about two months, the assessee filed a petition under Section 154 of the Act, stating that on verification of the intimation under Section 143(1), it was noticed that a mistake has crept in viz., the assessee Trust had not filed Form No.10 along with the extract of th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... re is no mistake apparent from the record and the assessee cannot be allowed for accumulation of income under Section 11(2). 4. The assessee filed an appeal before Commissioner of Income Tax Appeals-XII, Chennai (hereinafter referrected to as 'CIT(A)'). The appeal was dismissed by an order dated 19.12.2012, holding that the non-furnishing of statutory Form No.10 before due date for filing the return, which is a compulsory requirement to claim accumulation of income for future use, is an incorrect claim falling within the ambit of Explanation -(a)(iii) to Section 143(1) and the same becomes a required adjustment to be made under Section 143(1) of the Act, within the meaning of Section 143(1)(a)(ii). The Assessing O ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ee Trust on technicalities and accordingly the appeal was numbered. 6. We have heard Mr.A.S.Sriraman, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr.J.Narayaswamy, learned Senior Standing Counsel, for the respondent. 7. Admittedly, the statute does not prescribe any time limit for filing statutory Form No.10. This aspect of the matter was considered by the Honourable Supreme Court in CIT -Vs- Nagpur Hotel Owners Association (247 ITR 201) . In the said decision, it was pointed out that it is necessary that the Assessing Officer must have information as required under Rule 17 by furnishing Form No.10 and this information should be available with the Assessing Officer at the time when he completes the assessment ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ng with the Board Resolution along with the covering letter dated 01.04.2019. However, the mistake done by the assessee was to file hard copies before the Assessing Officer, and not filing the same along with the return of income, which they filed on 02.04.2019. Thus, on the date when the return was taken up for assessment, there was record to show that the assessee had intimated the department about the resolution passed by the Board of the assessee Trust and the statutory Form No.10. Admittedly, the assessment was not completed under Section 143(3) of the Act and therefore, there would have been no error had the assessing officer taken up the copy of the Board Resolution and Form No.10. Thus, on the date when the return was filed, the ass ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2009) 317 ITR 2017 (Kar.) ● CIT -Vs- Contimeters Electricals (P) Ltd., (2009) 317 ITR 249 (Del.) ● CIT -Vs- A.N.Arunachalam (1994) 208 ITR 481 (Mad.) ● CIT -Vs- Jayant Patel (2001) 248 ITR 199 (Mad.) ● CIT -Vs- Shivanand Electronics (1994) 209 ITR 63 (Bom.) ● Zenith Processing Mills -Vs- CIT (1996) 219 ITR 721 (Guj.) ● CIT -Vs- Mahalaxmi Rice Factory (2007) 294 ITR 631 (Punj. Har.) ● CIT -Vs- Berger Paints (India) Ltd., (2002) 254 ITR 503 (Cal.) 11. The decision in CIT -Vs- AKS Alloys Pvt Ltd ( ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
