DCIT Vs Punjab State Board of Technical Education & Industrial Training (ITAT Chandigarh)
Summary: The Chandigarh Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal allowed the Revenue’s appeal in ITA No. 619/Chd/2022 concerning Assessment Year 2011-12 and, on identical facts, applied the same findings to ITA Nos. 620 & 621/Chd/2022 for AYs 2012-13 and 2013-14. The assessee, The Punjab State Board of Technical Education & Industrial Training, Chandigarh, is a statutory educational body established and controlled by the Government of Punjab. Following information regarding substantial cash and time deposits and the non-filing of returns, reassessment proceedings under section 147 were initiated and notices under section 148 were issued.
In the returns filed pursuant to those notices, the assessee initially claimed exemption under section 10(23C)(iiiab), but subsequently claimed exemption under sections 11 and 12 on the basis of registration under section 12AA granted with effect from AY 2015-16. The Assessing Officer denied the exemption, noting that returns had not been filed under section 139(1) read with section 139(4A) within the prescribed time and that Form No. 10B and Form No. 10 had also not been furnished within the prescribed statutory period.
In the returns filed pursuant to those notices, the assessee initially claimed exemption under section 10(23C)(iiiab), but subsequently claimed exemption under sections 11 and 12 on the basis of registration under section 12AA granted with effect from AY 2015-16. The Assessing Officer denied the exemption, noting that returns had not been filed under section 139(1) read with section 139(4A) within the prescribed time and that Form No. 10B and Form No. 10 had also not been furnished within the prescribed statutory period.
Want to Read the Complete Judgment?
You have read the free case summary. Unlock the full judgment, the detailed judicial reasoning and the downloadable PDF, along with every other premium judgment on TaxGuru.
Already subscribed? Log in
One subscription covers the entire premium judgment library, not just this case.


