TMI Blog2022 (6) TMI 1153X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssessing authority before completion of regular assessment, the assessee is eligible for the deduction. We find that in this case only an intimation under section 143(1) has been made rejecting the claim of deduction to the assessee. There is no regular assessment made for the A.Y. 2015-16. The assessee s rectification petition filed under section 154 of the Act is also rejected without considering insertion of sub-clause (c) in section 11(2) of the Act as well as CBDT Circular No. 7 of 2018. Thus, the ld.CIT(A) has not applied his mind while disposing of the appeal filed by the assessee. The need for disposal of objections by way of a speaking order by the Assessing Officer, who is performing a quasi-judicial function. The soul of a quasi-judicial decision making is in the reasoning for coming to the decision taken by the quasi-judicial officer. While on this aspect of the matter, we may usefully refer to the observations made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the case of Union Public Service Commission v. Bibhu Prasad Sarangi and Ors., [ 2021 (3) TMI 1349 - SUPREME COURT ] - While these observations are in the context of the judicial officers, these observations will be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 20,00,000/- under section 11(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ( the Act for short) for late filing of Form-10 for the Asstt.Year 2015- 16. 3. Brief facts of the case is that the assessee is a public charitable trust. For the Asst.Year 2015-16, it has filed its return of income on 1.10.2015 declaring NIL total income. The return was processed under section 143(1) by intimation order dated 15.9.2016 denying the claim of deduction of Rs.20 lakhs under section 11(2) of the Act and demanded a tax of Rs.2,86,525/-. As against the intimation order, the assessee filed rectification petition under section 154 of the Act, claiming that the assessee failed to file Form No.10 along with return of 1.10.2015. However, Form No.10 was uploaded by online on 2.1.2017 thereby the assessee requested the ld.AO to grant deduction of Rs.20.00 lakhs under section 11(2) of the Act. The assessee further claimed that there was no regular assessment under section 143(3) for the Asst.Year 2015-16, hence, the Form No.10 filed online on 2.1.2017 was to be taken into consideration by the AO, while passing the order under section 154 of the Act. The assessee has also further submitted that the filing of the Form ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... applied for such purposes in India when the aforementioned applications are filed beyond the time stipulated. The Commissioners will, while entertaining such applications, satisfy themselves that the following conditions are fulfilled: (a) that the genuineness of the trust is not in doubt; (b) that the failure to give notice to the Income-tax Officer under section 11(2) of the Act and investment of the money in the prescribed securities was due only to oversight; (c) that the trustees or the settlor have not been benefited by such failure directly or indirectly; (d) that the trust agrees to deposit its funds in the prescribed securities prior to the issue of the Government sanction extending the time under section 11(2); and (e) that the accumulation or setting apart of income was necessary for carrying out the objects of the trust. 4.1 The assessee has also drawn attention to Circular No.14 (XI- 35) of 1955 dated 11.4.1955 issued by the CBDT, which is reproduced as under: Officers of the Department must not take advantage of ignorance of an assessee as to his rights. It is one of their duties to assist a taxpayer in every reasonable way, particu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ent because such requirement is mandatory and without the particulars of this income, the assessing authority cannot entertain the claim of the assessee under section 11, therefore, compliance of the requirement of the Act will have to be any time before the assessment proceedings. Further, any claim for giving the benefit of section 11 on the basis of information supplied subsequent to the completion of assessment would mean that the assessment order will have to be reopened. In our opinion, the Act does not contemplate such reopening of the assessment. In the case at hand it is evident from the records of the case that the respondent did not furnish the required information till after the assessments for the relevant years were completed. In the light of the above, we are of the opinion that the stand of the revenue that the High Court erred in answering the first question in favour of the assessee is correct, and we reverse that finding and answer the said question in the negative and against the assessee. In view of our answer to the first question, we agree with Mr. Verma that it is not necessary to answer the second question on the facts of the case. 7. In view of the ab ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... le on record. My observations in respect of the grounds raised by the appellant are as follows: 6. Appellant did not file Form No. 10 along-with return of income. Hence CPC processed the return u/s 143(1) without giving deduction/exemption of Rs.20,00,000/-claimed u/s.11 (2). Appellant filed Form No.10 electronically on 2/1/2017 and requested the CPC to pass the rectification order u/s. 154. CPC rejected the rectification application stating - There is no prima facie error in the order which was sought to be rectified Form No. 10 was not there when the Intimation u/s 143(1) was passed. Hence not considering Form No. 10 does not constitute a mistake which is apparent from record. Hence the same cannot be rectified u/s 154. For the above stated reasons rejecting the rectification request of the appellant is upheld. 7. In result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed. 6. The ld.counsel for the assessee submitted that by way of intimation under section 143(1), CPC denied the claim of deduction under section 11(2) and raised a tax demand. When rectification petition u/s.154 was filed to rectify the mistake, after filing Form No.10 on 2.1.2017 and a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... other High Courts were there. Aggrieved against the same, when the assessee filed further appeal before the ld.CIT(A), NFAC, there also ld.CIT(A) reproduced the entire submission of the assessee into 12 pages, but passed cryptic order by simply dismissing the appeal of the assessee on the ground that no mistake apparent from record. Thus, ld.CIT(A), NFAC miserably failed in adjudicating the appeal filed before it, without application of mind as well as not considering the written submissions placed before it, and passed the impugned order. 9. As rightly pointed out by the ld.AR, there are circulars issued by the CBDT as early as 1955 wherein the officers have been directed not to take advantage of ignorance of an assessee as to their right, and one of the duties of the officers is to assist a taxpayer in every reasonable way particularly in the matter of claiming of refund or relief. Thus, the Officers should take the initiative in guiding a taxpayer. This attitude would in the long run benefit the department because it would inspire confidence in assessee that he may be sure of getting a square deal from the department. 10. It is appropriate to consider sub-section 9 of sec ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... equired under the Rule 17 in Form No.10 of the Act. Even assuming that there is no valid limitation prescribed under the Act and the Rules, it is reasonable to presume that the intimation required under section 11 in form No.10 has to be furnished before the assessing authority completes the concerned assessment. 13. We observe that the ld.CIT(A) failed to consider insertion of sub-clause (c) to section 11(2) by the Finance Act, 2015 which reads as under: Section 11(2) as applicable for AY 2016-17: (2) Where eighty-five percent of the income referred to in clause (a) or clause (b) o f sub-section (1) read with the Explanation to that subsection is not applied, or is not deemed to have been applied, to charitable or religious purposes in India during the previous year but is accumulated or set apart, either in whole or in part, for application to such purposes in India, such income so accumulated or set apart shall not be included in the total income of the previous year of the person in receipt of the income, provided the following conditions are complied with namely:- (a) such person furnishes a statement in the prescribed form and in the prescribed manner to th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ng of the appeal filed by the assessee. 16. In our considered view, the need for disposal of objections by way of a speaking order by the Assessing Officer, who is performing a quasi-judicial function. The soul of a quasi-judicial decision making is in the reasoning for coming to the decision taken by the quasi-judicial officer. While on this aspect of the matter, we may usefully refer to the observations made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the case of Union Public Service Commission v. Bibhu Prasad Sarangi and Ors., [2021] 4 SCC 516. While these observations are in the context of the judicial officers, these observations will be equally applicable to the decisions by the quasi-judicial officers like us, as indeed the Assessing Officer CPC. In the inimitable words of Hon'ble Justice Chandrachud, Hon'ble Supreme Court has made the following observations: ..... Reasons constitute the soul of a judicial decision. Without them, one is left with a shell. The shell provides neither solace nor satisfaction to the litigant. We are constrained to make these observations since what we have encountered in this case is no longer an isolated aberration. This has become a re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
