Arya Samaj Vs ITO (ITAT Delhi)
Before ITAT, it was pleaded that the assessee has wrongly filled the column A(i) pertaining to “Other details” the ITR7 and since CPC is a automated process, the adjustment has also been wrongly made. It was argued that had there been a notice issued before making an adjustment, the same would have been brought to the notice of the revenue authorities. On the other hand, the ld. DR argued that the order u/s 143(1) is based on the return filed by the assessee.
Having gone through the entire factum of the case, we hold that a right tax has to be collected from the right person and though the CPC has processed the return based on the information given by the assessee, and when the information given by the assessee itself is incorrect in filling of the relevant column, the same needs to be allowed to be rectified in the interest of justice. Hence, the matter is remanded back to the file of the JAO to consider the earlier return and subsequent return filed by the assessee and the mistake in filling the column no. A(i) be rectified.
FULL TEXT OF THE ORDER OF ITAT DELHI
The present appeal has been filed by the assessee against the order of the ld. CIT(A)-40, New Delhi dated 03.01.2019.
2. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:
“1.1 That on the facts and in the circumstances of the assessee trust’s case the learned Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals) was wrong in sustaining disallowances made vide intimation / order passed under section 143(1) of the Act, of various deductions, exemptions, relief claimed in the return of income aggregating to Rs. 77,23,693.
1.2 That on the facts and in the circumstances of the assessee trust’s case the learned Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals) was wrong in assuming the reasons for making of adjustments made vide intimation / order passed under section 143(1) and thus sustaining disallowances / adjustment of Rs. 77,23,693 even while the said intimation was not a speaking order in as much as the reasons for making disallowances / adjustment have not been mentioned in the said intimation / order dated 11.03.2 017.”
3. As taken from the record of the CIT(A).
4. The facts of the case are that the return of income was filed on 21.09.2015 declaring income at nil after claiming exemption under section 11. In the return, income from business or profession was shown at Rs. 64,33,801/-, amount applied for charitable purpose on capital account was shown at Rs. 4,57,822/-, Rs. 53,77,479/- was claimed as amount deemed to have been applied to charitable or religious purposes in India as per clause (2) of the Explanation to section 11(1) and an amount of Rs.13,96,850/- was claimed as amount accumulated or set apart for application to charitable or religious purposes to the extent of 15% of income.
5. In addition, an amount of Rs. 12,89,892/- was claimed as exempt under section 11(1A). The return was processed under section 143(1) by the CPC, Bangalore. As per the intimation under section 143(1)(a), the benefit of exemption under section 11 was not given to the assessee and income chargeable under section 11(4) was computed at Rs. 77,23,693/-. A tax liability of Rs. 28,49,284/- was computed by the CPC as against refund of Rs.30,021/- claimed by the assessee.
6. Heard the arguments of both the parties and perused the material available on record.
7. In the case of the appellant it is seen that in the return of income in Form ITR 7, that in Column A(i) pertaining to “Other Details”, following information has been given:
