9911796707
Advanced Search 
TMI Blog2023 (4) TMI 1222X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , the assessee has filed this appeal on various grounds as mentioned in Appeal Memo. 2. Heard the learned Representatives of both sides at length and case records perused. 3. The exact controversy involved in various grounds of appeal is: Whether or not the assessee was entitled for exemption u/s 11/12 as claimed in the return of income, when the audit-report (Form No. 10B) was filed after filing of return but before processing u/s 143(1)? 4. Apropos to this issue, the precise facts are: The assessee is a religious trust, engaged in carrying out religious activities, registered u/s 12A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 and entitled for exemption u/s 11/12; accordingly it claimed exemption u/s 11/12 in the return of income filed on 31.03.2017. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssed the appeal of assessee merely on a technical defect that the audit-report was not filed alongwith the return of income. Ld. AR submitted that except such technical defect, there is no other reason to deny the benefit of section 11/12 to assessee. Ld. AR submitted that the e-filing/uploading of audit-report is done by auditors and not by assessee; therefore the defect is not per se attributable to assessee. Ld. AR submitted that in any case, the defect is due to an inadvertent human error and the assessee should not be denied the legitimate exemption, when the assessee is genuinely doing religious activities for the welfare of public and satisfying all conditions prescribed in income-tax law for being entitled to exemption. Ld. AR submi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... have rightly denied the assessee's claim of exemption u/s 11 and there is no infirmity in the action of lower-authorities. 7. We have heard rival contentions of both sides and examined the present controversy in the light of judicial decisions. At first, we are convinced that the controversy is directly settled in favour of assessee by decision in Savitri Foundation (supra) where the Hon'ble Mumbai ITAT, following the decision of Hon'ble Mumbai High Court in CIT vs. Mumbai Metropolitan Regional Iron & Steel Market Committee 378 ITR 103 has observed and held thus: "4. Submissions made by rival sides heard, orders of authorities below examined and the case law on which the ld. Authorized Representative of the assessee placed reliance consi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... supra) has held that late filing of required documents would not disentitle the assessee from availing benefit of section 11 of the Act. Thus, in the facts of the case and in the light of decision of Hon'ble Bombay High Court, I deem it appropriate to restore the file back to Assessing Officer for de novo assessment after considering the audit report field by the assessee, in accordance with law. 7. In the result, impugned order is set aside and appeal by assessee is allowed for statistical purposes." 8. Other decisions relied upon by Ld. AR cited above have also held the same view. Respectfully following the ratio of all these decisions, we are of the view that in the present case, the assessee can't be denied the benefit of exemp ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
