9911796707🚨 Important Update for Our Users
We are transitioning to our new and improved portal - www.taxtmi.com - for a better experience.
Follow us:
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2025 (6) TMI 1698 - AT - Income TaxAssessment order is passed ex parte - exemption u/s 10(23C)(iiiab) - AO has added the entire cash deposits in the bank account the interest income and also the payment to hotel and restaurant bills - No expenditure whatsoever has been allowed while the assessee claims to be a university which is substantially financed by the Government and the University Grants Commission and has claimed that its income is exempt u/s 10(23C)(iiiab) of the Act. Even if the exemption u/s 10(23C)(iiiab) of the Act was not allowed; however the entire deposits which were claimed to be out of the fee received and grants from the Government could not have been added without considering the income on commercial basis and after allowing the expenditure. HELD THAT - Bench was of the view that in the interest of justice another opportunity may be granted to the assessee. Therefore the order of the Ld. CIT(A) as well as the order of the Ld. AO are hereby set aside as the reasons for the delay are found to be justified and the assessee had a sufficient cause for the delay and the submission made have not been considered and the issue is remitted to the file of the Ld. AO for framing the assessment de novo after considering the submissions which may be filed by the assessee in support of the claim and also in support of the claim that the exemption u/s 10(23C)(iiiab) of the Act is allowable. Hence all the grounds of appeal are allowed for statistical purposes
1. ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDERED
The core legal questions considered by the Tribunal in this appeal include:
2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS Delay in Filing Appeal before CIT(A) Legal Framework and Precedents: The Income Tax Act mandates strict timelines for filing appeals before the CIT(A). However, courts and tribunals have consistently held that delay can be condoned if sufficient cause is shown, which must be supported by credible evidence such as medical certificates or other relevant documents. Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The CIT(A) refused to condone the 15-day delay in filing the appeal on the ground that the only reason provided was the counsel's illness (viral fever), which was not substantiated by any medical certificate. The Tribunal noted that although the assessee claimed an affidavit and written submissions explaining the delay, these were not found in the paper book, and the CIT(A) had therefore rejected the plea. Key Evidence and Findings: The only evidence of delay was the counsel's illness, unsupported by medical documentation. The Tribunal observed that the delay was modest and the reason plausible. Application of Law to Facts: The Tribunal emphasized the interest of justice and held that the delay was justified and constituted sufficient cause. It found the CIT(A)'s refusal to condone the delay overly technical and not in the spirit of justice. Treatment of Competing Arguments: The Revenue relied on the absence of medical proof and the strict statutory timeline, while the assessee argued for leniency due to genuine illness. The Tribunal sided with the assessee. Conclusion: The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order refusing condonation of delay and allowed the appeal to proceed. Validity and Jurisdiction of Reopening Proceedings under Sections 147/148/144/144B Legal Framework and Precedents: Sections 147 and 148 permit reopening of assessments where income has escaped assessment. Section 151A and related notifications impose procedural safeguards and jurisdictional limits on issuance of notices under section 148. The reopening must be based on tangible material and the AO must apply independent mind. Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The Tribunal examined the grounds raised that the reopening was invalid due to lack of jurisdiction under section 151A and absence of proper sanction under section 151. It further considered whether the AO applied independent mind or conducted independent enquiry. Key Evidence and Findings: The reassessment was initiated after the assessee failed to file return despite notice. The AO added cash deposits, interest income, and hotel bills without allowing any expenditure. The Tribunal found that the AO's order was ex parte and there was no representation from the assessee before AO or CIT(A). The Tribunal also noted the assessee's contention that the income was exempt under section 10(23C)(iiiab). Application of Law to Facts: The Tribunal found that the reopening could not be sustained without considering the submissions of the assessee and without applying independent mind. The absence of sanction under section 151 or non-compliance with section 151A notifications was a serious procedural lapse. Treatment of Competing Arguments: The Revenue contended that the reopening was valid and based on information received. The assessee argued lack of jurisdiction and procedural irregularities. The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's arguments. Conclusion: The Tribunal held that the reassessment order was vitiated and remitted the matter for fresh assessment after due consideration of submissions and compliance with procedural requirements. Claim of Exemption under Section 10(23C)(iiiab) Legal Framework and Precedents: Section 10(23C)(iiiab) exempts income of educational institutions substantially financed by the Government or UGC. The exemption is subject to fulfillment of prescribed conditions and proper documentation. Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The assessee claimed that it was a university substantially financed by the Government and UGC, hence entitled to exemption. The AO rejected the claim and added the entire cash deposits and interest income to taxable income without allowing any expenditure. Key Evidence and Findings: The Tribunal noted that the AO did not consider the commercial basis of income or allow any expenditure. The assessee's claim of exemption and supporting documents were not considered as the assessment was ex parte. Application of Law to Facts: The Tribunal emphasized that the exemption claim under section 10(23C)(iiiab) must be examined on merits and after allowing due opportunity. It held that the AO's blanket addition without considering expenditures or exemption was improper. Treatment of Competing Arguments: The Revenue denied exemption and treated cash deposits and interest as taxable income. The assessee asserted entitlement to exemption. The Tribunal found the assessee's claim prima facie plausible. Conclusion: The Tribunal remitted the issue to the AO for fresh adjudication after considering the exemption claim and relevant submissions. Additions on Account of Cash Deposits, Interest Income, and Hotel Bills Legal Framework and Precedents: Additions to income must be based on credible evidence and after allowing legitimate expenditures. The principle of commercial expediency and matching income with expenses is well established. Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The AO made additions of Rs. 2,28,84,814/- (cash deposits), Rs. 1,01,01,377/- (interest income), and Rs. 1,69,110/- (hotel and restaurant bills) without allowing any expenditure or considering exemption claims. Key Evidence and Findings: The Tribunal observed that the AO's assessment was ex parte and did not consider any representation or evidence from the assessee regarding source of funds or nature of expenses. Application of Law to Facts: The Tribunal held that the additions could not be sustained without proper enquiry and allowing the assessee to substantiate the source and nature of the transactions. It underscored the need to consider commercial basis and allow expenditure. Treatment of Competing Arguments: The Revenue treated the amounts as unexplained income. The assessee claimed they were out of fees and grants and exempt. The Tribunal found the assessee's submissions were not considered and directed fresh assessment. Conclusion: The Tribunal set aside the additions and remitted the matter for fresh consideration after due process. 3. SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGS The Tribunal made the following significant determinations and legal pronouncements:
|
