Vidya Vihar Shiksha Samiti, New Delhi v. ACIT CPC , Bangalore

ITA 7641/DEL/2019 | 2014-2015
Pronouncement Date: 18-05-2021 | Result: Allowed

Appeal Details

RSA Number 764120114 RSA 2019
Assessee PAN AAATC1225A
Bench Delhi
Appeal Number ITA 7641/DEL/2019
Duration Of Justice 1 year(s) 8 month(s)
Appellant Vidya Vihar Shiksha Samiti, New Delhi
Respondent ACIT CPC , Bangalore
Appeal Type Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date 18-05-2021
Appeal Filed By Assessee
Order Result Allowed
Bench Allotted SMC
Tribunal Order Date 18-05-2021
Assessment Year 2014-2015
Appeal Filed On 18-09-2019
Judgment Text
1 | P A GE IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI SMC-2 BENCH: NEW DELHI (THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCING ) BEFORE SHRI KUL BHARAT JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NOS.7641/DEL/2019 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2014-15 VIDYA VIHAR SHIKSHA SAMITI 1/11864 PANCHSHEEL GARDEN NAVEEN SHAHDARA NEW DELHI-110032. PAN-AAATC1225A VS ACIT CPC BANGLORE. APPELLANT RESPONDENT ITA NOS.7643/DEL/2019 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2017-18 VIDYA VIHAR SHIKSHA SAMITI 1/11864 PANCHSHEEL GARDEN NAVEEN SHAHDARA NEW DELHI-110032. PAN-AAATC1225A VS DCIT CPC BANGLORE. APPELLANT RESPONDENT APPELLANT BY SH. RAJIV JAIN CA RESPONDENT BY SH. FARHAT KHAN SR.DR DATE OF HEARING 30.03.2021 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 1 8 .0 5 .2021 ORDER PER KUL BHARAT JM : THESE TWO APPEALS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR THE ASS ESSMENT YEARS 2014- 15 & 2017-18 ARE DIRECTED AGAINST TWO DIFFERENT ORD ERS OF LEARNED CIT(A)-40 NEW DELHI BOTH DATED 26.07.2019. ITA NOS.7641 & 7643/DEL/2019 2 | P A GE 2. FIRST I TAKE UP ITA NO.7641/DEL/2019 PERTAINING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2014-15 FILED BY THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE HAS RAI SED FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL:- 1. THAT WHERE THE APPELLANT IS A REGISTERED SOCIET Y WITH CHARITABLE OBJECTS AND IS RUNNING TWO RECOGNIZED EDUCATIONAL S CHOOLS AND IN RESPECT OF INCOME DERIVED THEREFROM (AGGREGATE RECEIPTS RS. 1 46 73 932/-) FILED ITS RETURN OF INCOME IN FORM ITR-7 U/S 139(4A) OF THE A CT DECLARING TOTAL INCOME OF RS. 2 40 752/- WITHOUT CLAIMING ANY EXEMP TION U/S LL/12/10(23C)(IIIAD)/10(23C)(VI) OF THE ACT AS THE SOCIETY IS NEITHER REGISTERED U/S 12A NOR APPROVED U/S 10 (23C) (VI) O F THE ACT. IN THE INTIMATION U/S 143(1) DATED 10.03.2016 CPC CHARGED MAXIMUM MARGINAL RATE WITHOUT ALLOWING THE BASIC EXEMPTION LIMIT WHI CH WAS CHALLENGED BEFORE THE ID CIT(A)-40 NEW DELHI WHO IN HER ORDE R DATED 26-07-2019 WAS WRONG: (I) IN HOLDING THAT THERE APPEARS TO BE NO INFIRMIT Y IN THE ACTION OF THE CPC IN CALCULATING THE TAX AT MAXIMUM MARGINAL RATES INSTEAD OF THE SLAB RATES. (II) IN NOT FOLLOWING HER OWN VIEW RENDERED IN THE APPEAL OF RAM NARAIN KRISHNA DEVI JAIN FOUNDATION APPEAL NO 181 /2016-17 AY 2014-2015 DULY FOLLOWED IN FOR AY 2015- 2016 AND O THER APPEALS HOLDING THAT WHERE A CHARITABLE SOCIETY IS NOT REGI STERED U/S 12A OF THE ACT IT IS ENTITLED TO BASIC EXEMPTION LIMIT AS PER PARAGRAPH A AND PART I OF THE FIRST SCHEDULE TO THE FINANCE ACT AN D IN VIEW OF THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 164(2) IT IS ONLY THE INCOME WHICH BECOME TAXABLE BY VIRTUE OF SECTION 13(1 )(C) OR 13(L)(D) WHICH BECOME TAXABLE AT THE MAXIMUM MARGINAL RATE. (III) IN NOT APPRECIATING THAT APPELLANT SOCIETY BE ING NOT REGISTERED/APPROVED U/S 12A OR U/S 10 (23C) (VI) OF THE ACT FACED ITA NOS.7641 & 7643/DEL/2019 3 | P A GE GREAT DIFFICULTY IN UPLOADING THE RETURN IN FORM IT R-7 WHICH THE RETURN FILING UTILITY/SCHEMA WAS NOT PERMITTING AND ITR COULD NOT HAVE BEEN FILED WITHOUT INFIRMITIES. (IV) IN NOT APPRECIATING THAT IN CASE OF ANY INFIRM ITY/DEFECT IN FILING OF ITR BEFORE PROCESSING THE RETURN U/S 143(1) OF THE ACT AND CHARGING OF MAXIMUM MARGINAL RATES CPC WAS REQUIRE D TO GIVE AN OPPORTUNITY U/S 139(9) OF THE ACT. 3. FACTS GIVING RISE TO THE PRESENT APPEAL ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD FILED RETURN OF INCOME ON 30.09.2014 DECLARING INCOME OF RS.2 40 752/-. THE RETURN WAS PROCESSED BY CPC WHEREBY THE TAX LIABILITY WAS ADJUSTED AGAINST TDS WHILE COMPUTING THE INCOME AT THE TIME OF PROCESSING THE INCOME OF RS.71 372/- WAS CONSIDERED TWICE THEREBY THE INCOME WAS COMPUTED BY CPC AT RS.3 12 124/- INSTEAD OF 2 40 752/-. FURTHER THE TAX WAS COMPU TED AT THE MAXIMUM MARGINAL RATE AT 30% AT TOTAL INCOME OF RS.3 12 124 /- INSTEAD OF APPLYING THE NORMAL SLAB RATE. 4. AGGRIEVED AGAINST THIS THE ASSESSEE PREFERRED A PPEAL BEFORE LD.CIT(A) WHO AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSIONS PARTLY ALLOW ED THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE. THEREBY THE LD.CIT(A) DIRECTED THE CPC TO CONSIDER THE INCOME UNDER HEAD PROFITS AND GAINS BUSINESS AND PROFE SSION OF RS.1 69 380/-. THEREFORE THE AMOUNT WHO WAS CONSIDERED TWICE TO BE DELETED. HOWEVER IN RESPECT OF APPLYING THE MAXIMUM MARGINAL RATE THE EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT ACCEPTED AND THE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THIS REGARD WERE DISMISSED. ITA NOS.7641 & 7643/DEL/2019 4 | P A GE 5. AGAINST THIS THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE T HIS TRIBUNAL. 6. LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE IS A REGISTERED SOCIETY HAVING CHARITABLE OBJECTIVES AND RUNNING E DUCATIONAL SCHOOLS. THE SOCIETY DERIVED INCOME THEREFROM AT RS.1 46 73 932/ - AND FILED ITS RETURN OF INCOME IN FORM ITR-7 U/S 139(4A) OF THE ACT DECLARING TOTAL INCOME OF RS.2 40 752/- WITHOUT CLAIMING ANY EXEMPTION U/SECT IONS 11 12 10(23C)(IIIAD) AND 10(23C)(VI) OF THE ACT AS THE S OCIETY NEITHER REGISTERED U/S 12A OF THE ACT NOR APPROVED U/S 10(23C)(VI) OF THE ACT. HE CONTENDED THAT THE CPC CHARGED MAXIMUM MARGINAL RATE WITHOUT ALLOWING THE BASIC EXEMPTION LIMIT WHICH WAS CHALLENGED BEFORE LD.CIT(A). LD. C OUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE CONTENDED THAT THE DECISION OF LD.CIT(A) IS CONTRAR Y TO HER OWN DECISION RENDERED IN THE APPEAL RAM NARAIN KRISHNA DEVI JAIN FOUNDATION APPEAL NO.181/2016-17 ASSESSMENT YEAR 2014-15 AND DULY FOLLOWED IN THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2015-16. LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSES SEE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE IS ENTITLED FOR BASIC EXEMPTION AS PER PARAGRAPH A AND PART I OF THE FIRST SCHEDULE TO THE FINANCE ACT AND IN VIEW OF THE PROVISION OF SECTION 164(2) IT IS ONLY THE INCOME BECOMES TAXABLE BY VI RTUE OF SECTION 13(1)(C) OR 13(1)(D) IS LIABLE TO BE TAXED AT MAXIMUM MARGINAL RATE. LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT LD.CIT(A) FAILED TO APPRECI ATE THAT THE ASSESSEE SOCIETY BEING NOT REGISTERED/APPROVED U/S 12A OR 10(23C)(VI I) OF THE ACT FOUND DIFFICULT TO UPLOAD THE INCOME IN ITR-7. HE FURTHER CONTENDE D THAT LD.CIT(A) FAILED TO APPRECIATE THAT IN THE EVENT OF ANY INFIRMITY/DEFE CT IN FILING OF ITR BEFORE PROCESSING THE RETURN U/S 143(1) OF THE ACT AND CHA RGING OF MAXIMUM MARGINAL ITA NOS.7641 & 7643/DEL/2019 5 | P A GE RATE CPC WAS REQUIRED TO GIVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO TH E ASSESSEE U/S 139(9) OF THE ACT. 7. LD. SR. DR OPPOSED THESE SUBMISSIONS AND SUPPORT ED THE ORDER OF LD.CIT(A). 8. I HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED T HE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. IT IS THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE THAT T HE ASSESSEES SOCIETY IS NOT REGISTERED U/S 12A OF THE ACT IS NOT APPROVED U/S 10(23C)(IIIAD) AND 10(23C)(VI) OF THE ACT. IT IS ALSO CONTENDED THAT CPC FAILED TO GIVE AN OPPORTUNITY IN TERMS OF SECTION 139(9) OF THE ACT FURTHERMORE THE SAME LD.CIT(A) HAS HELD IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE IN THE CASE OF RAM NARAIN KRISHNA DEVI JAIN FOUNDATION APPEAL NO 181/2016-17 ASSESSM ENT YEAR 2016-17. I FOUND MERIT IN THIS CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE AS T HE LD. CIT(A) IN THE CASE OF RAM NARAIN KRISHNA DEVI JAIN FOUNDATION (SUPRA) HAS HELD AS UNDER:- 5.2.1. I HAVE CONSIDERED THE IMPUGNED INTIMATION A ND THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE APPELLANT. I HAVE ALSO PERUSED THE RETURN OF I NCOME FROM WHICH IT HAS BEEN THAT EXEMPTION HAS BEEN CLAIMED UNDER SECTION 10(23C)(IIIAD) AND THE AGGREGATE ANNUAL RECEIPTS HAVE BEEN RECEIVED AT RS. 1 46 73 932/-. THE CLAIM OF EXEMPTION UNDER SECTION 10(23C)(IIIAD) IS NOT ALLOWABLE SINCE THE AGGREGATE RECEIPTS EXCEED RS.1 CRORE (RULE2BC OF TH E INCOME TAX RULES 1962). FURTHER IN THE RETURN OF INCOME IT HAS BEE N MENTIONED THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT REGISTERED UNDER SECTION 12A AND NO OTHER DETAILS REGARDING REGISTRATION UNDER ANY OTHER ACT HAS BEEN GIVEN. SINCE EXEMPTION HAS NOT BEEN CLAIMED UNDER SECTIONS 11 AN D 12 AND NO DETAILS REGARDING REGISTRATION UNDER THE SOCIETIES REGISTRA TION ACT HAVE BEEN GIVEN ITA NOS.7641 & 7643/DEL/2019 6 | P A GE IN THE RETURN OF INCOME THERE APPEARS TO BE NO INF IRMITY IN THE ACTION OF THE CPC IN CALCULATING TAX AT THE MAXIMUM MARGINAL RAT E INSTEAD OF THE SLAB RATE. GROUND OF APPEAL NO.2 IS DISMISSED. 9. THE REVENUE COULD NOT REBUT THE FACT THAT THE LD . CIT(A) HAS TAKEN CONTRADICTORY VIEW. I THEREFORE CONSIDERING THE TO TALITY OF FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE HOLD THAT LD.CIT(A) WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN TAKI NG CONTRARY STAND IN THIS CASE OF THE ASSESSEE. HENCE THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS H EREBY DIRECTED TO CHARGE TAX AT NORMAL RATES. 10. NOW COMING TO ITA NO.7643/DEL/2019 FOR THE ASS ESSMENT YEAR 2017-18. THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL :- 1. THAT WHERE THE APPELLANT IS A REGISTERED SOCIET Y WITH CHARITABLE OBJECTS AND IS RUNNING TWO RECOGNIZED EDUCATIONAL S CHOOLS AND IN RESPECT OF INCOME DERIVED THEREFROM (AGGREGATE RECEIPTS RS. 2 21 32 550/-) FILED ITS RETURN OF INCOME IN FORM ITR-7 U/S 139(4A) OF THE A CT DECLARING TOTAL INCOME OF RS. 2 96 610/- WITHOUT CLAIMING ANY EXEMP TION U/S 11/12/10(23C)(IIIAD)/10(23C)(VI) OF THE ACT AS THE SOCIETY IS NEITHER REGISTERED U/S 12A NOR APPROVED U/S 10(23C) (VI) OF THE ACT. IN THE INTIMATION U/S 143(1) DATED 10.03.2016 CPC CHARGED MAXIMUM MARGINAL RATE WITHOUT ALLOWING THE BASIC EXEMPTION LIMIT WHI CH WAS CHALLENGED BEFORE THE LD CIT(A)-40 NEW DELHI WHO IN HER ORDE R DATED 26-07-2019 WAS WRONG: (I) IN HOLDING THAT THERE APPEARS TO BE NO INFIRMIT Y IN THE ACTION OF THE CPC IN CALCULATING THE TAX AT MAXIMUM MARGINAL RATE S INSTEAD OF THE SLAB RATES. ITA NOS.7641 & 7643/DEL/2019 7 | P A GE (II) IN NOT FOLLOWING HER OWN VIEW RENDERED IN THE APPEAL OF RAM NARAIN KRISHNA DEVI JAIN FOUNDATION APPEAL NO 181 /2016-17 AY 2014-2015 DULY FOLLOWED IN APPEAL FOR AY 2015-2016 AND OTHER APPEALS HOLDING THAT WHERE A CHARITABLE SOCIETY IS NOT REGISTERED U/S 12A OF THE ACT IT IS ENTITLED TO BASIC EXEMPTION L IMIT AS PER PARAGRAPH A AND PART I OF THE FIRST SCHEDULE TO THE FINANCE ACT AND IN VIEW OF THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 164(2) IT IS O NLY THE INCOME WHICH BECOME TAXABLE BY VIRTUE OF SECTION 13(L)(C) OR 13( L)(D) WHICH BECOME TAXABLE AT THE MAXIMUM MARGINAL RATE. (III) IN NOT APPRECIATING THAT APPELLANT SOCIETY BE ING NOT REGISTERED/APPROVED U/S 12A OR U/S 10 (23C) (VI) OF THE ACT FACED GREAT DIFFICULTY IN UPLOADING THE RETURN IN FORM IT R-7 WHICH THE RETURN FILING UTILITY/SCHEMA WAS NOT PERMITTING AND ITR COULD NOT HAVE BEEN FILED WITHOUT INFIRMITIES. (IV) IN NOT APPRECIATING THAT IN CASE OF ANY INFIRM ITY/DEFECT IN FILING OF ITR BEFORE PROCESSING THE RETURN U/S 143(1) OF THE ACT AND CHARGING OF MAXIMUM MARGINAL RATES CPC WAS REQUIRE D TO GIVE AN OPPORTUNITY U/S 139(9) OF THE ACT. 11. THE FACTS AND GROUNDS ARE IDENTICAL IN THIS YEA R AS WELL. LD. REPRESENTATIVES OF THE PARTIES HAVE ADOPTED THE SAM E ARGUMENTS. 12. HAVING CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS I HOLD THAT MY DECISION IN ITA NO.7641/DEL/2019 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2014-15 SHALL APPLY MUTATIS MUTANDI ON THIS YEAR AS WELL. THE GROUNDS RAISED ARE ALLOW ED. THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS HEREBY DIRECTED TO CHARGE NORMAL RATE AS CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE. ITA NOS.7641 & 7643/DEL/2019 8 | P A GE 13. IN THE RESULT BOTH APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE I.E . ITA NOS. 7641/DEL/2019 [ASSESSMENT YEAR 2014-15] & 7643/DEL/2019 [ASSESSME NT YEAR 2017-18] ARE ALLOWED. ABOVE DECISION WAS PRONOUNCED ON CONCLUSION OF VIR TUAL HEARING IN THE PRESENCE OF BOTH THE PARTIES ON 18 TH MAY 2021. SD/- (KUL BHARAT) JUDICIAL MEMBER * AMIT KUMAR * COPY FORWARDED TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(APPEALS) 5. DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT NEW DELHI