TMI Blog2022 (9) TMI 413X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ying the exemption claimed by the assessee u/s 10(25)(ii) of the Act cannot be and shall not be subject matter of section 143(1) of the Act. This can only be done u/s 143(3) of the Act. Because u/s 143(1) returned filed by the assessee should be accepted. So, we are of the considered view that when undisputedly assessee has been accorded registration under Rule 3(1) Part A of the Fourth Schedule of the Act there is no scope for the Revenue to deny the exemption claimed u/s 10(25)(ii) of the Act on hyper technical grounds. CIT (A) has erred in dismissing the rectification application filed by the assessee u/s 154 of the Act by denying a relief otherwise available to the assessee u/s 10(25)(ii) of the Act. So, we direct the AO to allow r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ments specified under section 143(1) of the Act. Without Prejudice 2. That the CIT(A) erred in confirming the action of the CPC in determining total income of the appellant at Rs.64,36,340 as against Nil income declared, after denying benefit of exemption under section 10(25) of the Act. 2.1 That the CIT(A) erred on facts and in law in upholding denial of exemption claimed under section 10(25) on the alleged ground that: (a) the appellant had failed to obtain registration under section 12A/12AA of the Act; and (b) the approval granted to the provident fund trust was not in the name of the appellant. 2.2 That the CIT(A) failed to appreciate that return form ITR-7 was not meant exclusively for institutions registered u ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Accordingly, it is held that there is no aberration in the order u/s 143(1). Thus, these grounds of appeal are dismissed. 4. Against the above order, assessee is in appeal before us. 5. We have heard both the parties and perused the record. 6. Ld. counsel of the assessee submitted that the issue is covered in favour of the assessee by the decision of ITAT in assessee s own case for AY 2014-15 in ITA No.2922/Del/2018 order dated 18.11.2021. 7. Per contra ld. DR for the Revenue did not dispute the same. He only pleaded that Tribunal should give the same decision as in the earlier order. 8. Upon careful consideration, we note that similar issue was decided by the ITAT in assessee s own case for AY 2014-15 (supra) by concludin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... considered view that when undisputedly assessee has been accorded registration under Rule 3(1) Part A of the Fourth Schedule of the Act vide order dated 03.03.1979 (supra), there is no scope for the Revenue to deny the exemption claimed u/s 10(25)(ii) of the Act on hyper technical grounds. 7. Hon ble Delhi High Court while deciding the identical issue in case of Easter Industries Ltd. vs. UOI 349 ITR 324 (Del.) held that, where it is evident from the return as filed along with the documents in support thereof that a claim of the assessee is inadmissible, only then an adjustment under the said proviso can be made. If proof in support of the claim is not furnished by the assessee, then, for the lack of proof, no disallowance or an a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
