9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (7) TMI 172X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... peal erred in law as well on facts, not appreciating the correct factual and legal position in relation to Form 10 read with Rule 17(2) and section 11(2), 13(9) of the Act. 2. Because, the Ld. CIT Appeal erred in not appreciating the provision of section 139(9) of the Act, as applicable in the instant case, with reference to Form 10 of the Income Tax Rules. 3. Because, the Ld. CIT Appeal erred in facts in not considering the written submissions and evidence placed on record during Appeal proceeding vis a vis Form 10 and prevailing online technical issues. 4. Because, the Ld. CIT-Appeal erred in holding that the purpose of accumulation as stated i.e., Education, is not a specified purpose for accumulation of Income. 5. The Assessee c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he Assessee was unaware about the exact procedure of e-filing of Form No. 10 and therefore, could not file during the filing of original income tax return. However, the same was filed during the filing of revised Income-tax Return for the year under consideration on dated 24.03.2018. 3.2 It was also claimed by the Assessee that the defect in filing the return - non-submission of Form No. 10 within the stipulated time frame u/s. 139(1) of the Act, being curative in nature, stands cured while filing the same with the revised return u/s. 139(4) of the Act. The Assessee, in support of its contentions, also relied upon various case laws. 3.3 The Assessing Officer, though considered the claim of the Assessee and the submissions made, but did no ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 1,68,77,213/- being set apart for specified purpose in terms of provision of section 11(2) and 11(5) of the Act, as the appellant failed to comply the conditions prescribed in the Act i.e. failed to submit Form 10 within stipulated time and no specific purpose has been mentioned. This ground of appeal is dismissed. In effect, the appeal is dismissed." 5. The Assessee being aggrieved with the impugned order is in appeal before us. At the outset, it was submitted by the Assessee that vide Finance Act, 2015, the amendment has been made in section 11 & 13 of the Act w.e.f. 01.04.2016 applicable from A.Y. 2016-17 onwards. As per the amended provisions of the Act read with Rule 17 of the Rules, 15% of the income can be accumulated indefinitely ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... subsequently filed the same along with revised return u/s. 139(4) of the Act, i.e., before due date of filing of revised return and even before the date of assessment order dated 27.11.2018. 5.3 The Assessee further claimed as per verdict of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of CIT vs. Nagpur Hotel Owners Association (2001) 247 ITR 201 (SC), Form No. 10 can be furnished by the Assessee upto the stage of completion of assessment u/s. 143(3) of the Act. Further, in the case of CIT vs. G.M. Knitting Industries Pvt. Ltd. (2015) 376 ITR 456 (SC), it has been held that the report can be filed at any stage upto the assessment even though certificate in Form 10CCB along with return of income has not been filed but the same was filed before the order ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of income, therefore, the Assesseedeserves lenient treatment as the filing of Form No. 10 within the time is directory but not mandatory. 6. On the contrary, the ld. DR vehemently supported the orders passed by the authorities below and submitted that filing of Form No.10 from 01.04.2016 onwards is mandatory in nature and in the absence of Form No. 10 filed electronically, the Assessee is not entitled for any benefit u/s. 11 of the Act. 7. Heard the parties and perused the material available on record. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the rival claims. It is not in controversy that an amendment in section 11 and 13 of the Act was made vide Finance Act, 2015 applicable from 01.04.2016 (A.Y. 2016-17 onwards), whereby filing of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the same high Court in the case of CIT vs. Gujarat Oil and Allied Industries Ltd., (1993) 201 ITR 325 (Guj)wherein it was held "that the provision regarding furnishing of audit report with the return has to be treated as procedural proviso. It is directory in nature and its substantial compliance would suffice. The benefit of exemption should not be denied merely on account of delay in furnishing the same and it is permissible for the Assessee to produce the audit report during the assessment proceedings by assigning sufficient cause.' condoned the delay and quashed the impugned orders wherein exemption u/s. 12 was denied on non-filing of Form No. 10 within time prescribed or filing of Form No. 10 belatedly. 7.4 No doubt, lack of knowledge ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
