9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2021 (9) TMI 1035 - AT - Income TaxExemption u/s 11/12 - exemption was claimed through a belatedly filed revised return - registration u/s 12AA stood restored to the assessee - HELD THAT - It is pertinent to note that the Registration u/s 12AA was granted to the assessee vide Tribunals order and same was pointed out by the assessee before the CIT(A) which was not at all considered. Since, the Registration was granted w.e.f. 30/04/2008, the claim of the assessee for Assessment Year 2012-13 2013-14 are valid claim for exemption u/s 11. Therefore, the appeal of the assessee is allowed.
Issues:
1. Denial of exemption u/s 11/12 of the I.T. Act 1961 due to belatedly filed revised return. 2. Interpretation of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Goetz (India) Ltd. 3. Disallowance of exemption u/s 11/12 of the I.T. Act 1961 despite restoration of registration u/s 12AA. 4. Consideration of Article 265 of the Constitution of India and CBDT Circular No. 14(XL-35) dated 11-4-1955. Issue 1: Denial of Exemption u/s 11/12: The appeal challenged the denial of exemption under Section 11/12 of the I.T. Act 1961 due to a belatedly filed revised return. The Registration u/s 12AA was restored to the assessee by the Tribunal, but the Assessing Officer did not consider this claim during the assessment, resulting in a tax demand of &8377; 3,64,500. The CIT(A) partly allowed the appeal, emphasizing the importance of the restored registration in claiming the exemption. The Tribunal noted that since the Registration was granted in 2008, the claim for exemption for the relevant assessment years was valid, ultimately allowing the appeal. Issue 2: Interpretation of Supreme Court Decision: The appellant argued that the CIT(A) should have entertained the claim for exemption u/s 11 at the appellate stage, citing the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Goetz (India) Ltd. The respondent, however, contended that the revised return was filed after the statutory time limit, and the Goetz India judgment was not applicable. The Tribunal considered the Registration restoration and the timing of the revised return, ultimately ruling in favor of the assessee based on the validity of the exemption claim. Issue 3: Disallowance of Exemption despite Registration Restoration: The denial of exemption u/s 11/12 despite the restoration of registration u/s 12AA was a key issue in both appeals. The Tribunal emphasized that the Registration granted to the assessee was crucial for claiming the exemption and should have been duly considered during assessment. The Tribunal found the assessee's claim valid for the relevant assessment years, leading to the allowance of both appeals. Issue 4: Consideration of Legal Provisions: The appellant highlighted Article 265 of the Constitution of India, emphasizing the requirement for tax collection to be authorized by law and limited to what is legitimately due. Additionally, reference was made to CBDT Circular No. 14(XL-35) dated 11-4-1955, which stressed that the tax department should not exploit an assessee's ignorance to collect more tax than is rightfully owed. These legal provisions were crucial in supporting the assessee's position and ultimately contributed to the favorable outcome of the appeals. In conclusion, the Tribunal allowed both appeals, emphasizing the significance of the restored registration u/s 12AA in claiming the exemption u/s 11/12 of the I.T. Act 1961 and considering the legal provisions and relevant case law in support of the assessee's position.
|
