TMI Blog2021 (1) TMI 1004X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... peals) has also upheld the disallowance of exemption by simply stating that it is not a rectifiable mistake under section 154 of the Act. In our view, when the assessee has complied with the statutory provisions in terms of the CBDT Circular, the delay if any, in filing the audit report should have been condoned. In view of the aforesaid, we delete the disallowance made and allow assessee s claim of exemption under section 11 of the Act. Grounds raised by the assessee are allowed. - ITA No. 1786/MUM/2019 - - - Dated:- 27-1-2021 - Shri C.N. Prasad (Judicial Member) And Shri N.K. Pradhan (Accountant Member) For the Assessee : Mr. Subramanian, AR For the Revenue : Ms. Smita Verma, DR ORDER PER N.K. PRADHAN, A.M. T ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed by the assessee by observing that: 5.2 I have carefully considered the facts of the case, oral contentions and written submissions of the assessee, mention of the AO in the impugned order and material available on record. In this case the appellant had filed rectification application u/s 154 of the Act to the AO (CPC), which was rejected by the AO observing that there was no prima facie error in the order which was sought to be rectified. In the said order of the AO it has been noted in the e-filed return of income, the assessee had claimed exemption u/s 11 but has not furnished details of the audit in the schedule of audit information and that in the rectification application, the appellant had made fresh claim of income which could ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... gainst the order/intimation u/s 143 (1) of the Act and there is no mistake apparent from record in such order which could have been rectified by the AO u/s 154 of the Act. Further in the proceedings u/s 154 of the Act, no new facts, claims etc. could be considered for giving effect. Under these facts and circumstances, the contention and submissions of the assessee are not found to be acceptable and are therefore rejected. The ground of appeal raised is therefore dismissed. 5. Before us, the Ld. counsel for the appellant submits that the assessee filed its return of income for the AY 2014-15 on 30.09.2014 declaring total income at Rs. Nil. The said return was processed u/s 143 (1) by the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (CPC) determ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on the order of the ITAT H Bench, Mumbai in the case of Kasturi Foundation vs. DCIT (ITA No. 3663/Mum/2019) for AY 2016-17. 6. On the other hand, the Ld. Departmental Representative (DR) submits that the appellant in their submission in application u/s 154 has no where brought out any mistake apparent from record in the order u/s 143 (1) which was sought to be rectified by application u/s 154 made to the AO (CPC). Thus, it is submitted that the order passed by the Ld. CIT (A) be affirmed. 7. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the relevant material available on record. The reasons for our decision are given below:- In the instant case, the appellant Trust got its accounts audited and auditors have filed the audit report ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of income under section 139(1) of the Act. The claim of the assessee that it has applied 85% of its receipts towards the objects of the trust has not been disputed by the Departmental Authorities at any stage. Denial of exemption under section 11 of the Act is only for the reason that audit report in Form no.10B of the Act was filed belatedly. Pertinently, in Circular no.10./2019, the CBDT has clarified that for the assessment year 2016 17 and 2017 18, in all cases where the audit report for the year under consideration has been obtained before filing of the return of income and has been furnished subsequent to filing of return of income, but before the date specified under section 139 of the Act, such delayed filing should be condoned. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
