TMI Blog2022 (7) TMI 633X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... For the Respondent : Ms. Moninder Kaur, Sr. DR ORDER PER KUL BHARAT, JM : Both appeals filed by the assessee, one against the order of Ld. CIT(A)- 40, Delhi u/s 154 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ( the Act ) dated 22.04.2019 and another against the order of Ld. CIT(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre [ NFAC ], u/s 143(1) of the Act, dated 29.03.2021, both for the assessment year 2014-15. Since identical grounds have been raised, both appeals were taken up together for hearing and are being disposed off by way of consolidated order for the sake of brevity. ITA Nos.5088/Del/2019 [Assessment Year : 2014-15] 2. First, we take up assessee s appeal in ITA No.5088/Del/2019 pertaining to Assessment Year 2014-15. The assessee has raised following grounds of appeal:- I. DENIAL OF DEDUCTION UNDER CHAPTER VI-A/SECTION 80-G/ 80GGA READ WITH SECTION 35AC OF THE ACT RS. 24,72,966/-: 1.1 On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] erred in confirming the denial of Deduction claimed by the Appellant for a sum of Rs. 24,72,966/- under Chapter VI-A / Section 80GGA read with Section 35AC of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e this Tribunal. 7. Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that undisputed facts in the present case are that the assessee had not claimed any exemption u/s 11 of the Act and the assessee has been assessed as Association of Persons ( AOP ). Therefore, the deduction declined by the authorities below on the basis that the entity claimed exemption u/s 11 of the Act, such income is not includible in total income is contrary to the records. 8. On the contrary, Ld. Sr. DR opposed these submissions and supported the order of authorities below. 9. In the rejoinder, Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that under the identical facts and against the identical order, the Co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal have decided the issue in favour of the assessee in the case of Sunflower Trust vs ITO(E) in ITA No.5093/Del/2019 for AY 2014-15 vide order dated 07.07.2022 and in the case of Mumbai Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Bhoopati Shikshan Pratishthan in ITA No.4606/Mum/2019 for AY 2014-15 vide order dated 07.02.2022. Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the facts are identical therefore, she prayed that the authorities below to be directed to grant benefit of deduction under ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt or elaboration. In our view amendment of an order does not mean obliteration of the order originally passed and its substitution by a new order... ...What the revenue intends to do in the present case is precisely the substitution of the order which, according to its, is not permissible under the provisions of section 154 and, therefore, the Tribunal was not justified in holding that there was mistake apparent on the face of the record... ...In order to bring in application under section 154, the mistake must be 'apparent' from the record. Section 154 does not enable an order to be reversed by revision or by review, but permits only some error which is apparent on the face of the record to be corrected. Where an error is far from self-evident, it ceases to be an apparent error. It is, no doubt, true that a mistake capable of being rectified under section 154 is not confined to clerical or arithmetical mistakes. On the other hand, it does not cover any mistake which may be discovered by a complicated process of investigation, argument or proof. 4.7 From the return of income, as noted above it is apparent that exemption was claimed under section 11 and no i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dismissing assessee's appeal are unsustainable. Consequently, the impugned order is set-aside and the appeal of assessee is allowed. The AO is directed to grant benefit of deduction claimed by the assessee under Chapter-VIA of the Act. 13. By respectfully following the order made in the case of Bhoopati Shikshan Pratisthan, (supra) we hold that, the assessee is entitled for deduction of Rs. 24,67,036/- claimed under VI-A/80GGA read with Section 35AC of the Act and further we direct the A.O to grant benefit of the deduction claimed by the assessee under Chapter VI-A of the Act in accordance with law. 14. In the result, the Appeal filed by the assessee is allowed. 12. The Revenue has not brought to our notice any other contrary binding precedents on this issue. Therefore, respectfully following the decision of the Co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal, more particularly in view of the fact that the assessee has not claimed any exemption and has been assessed as AOP and finding of Ld.CIT(A) being contrary to the records. The AO is hereby, directed to grant a deduction u/s 80-GGA of the Act read with section 35A/80-G of the Act claimed by the assessee under Chapter VI- ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
