By Jagdish T. Punjabi | Devendra Jain | Tejaswini Ghag
Chartered Accountants
9. [2019] 198 TTJ (Chd) 498 Genius Education Society vs. ACIT ITA No.: 238/Chd/2018 A.Y.:
2012-13 Dated: 20th August, 2018
Section 12A read with section 11 and 12 –
Where return of income had been filed in response to notice u/s. 148,
requirement u/s. 12A filing of return of income stood fulfilled
FACTS
The assessee applied for registration u/s. 10(23C)(vi) which was denied
by the Chief Commissioner. The assessee had also applied for registration as a
charitable society u/s. 12AA on the same day which was granted by the Principal
Commissioner, with effect from 01.04.2012 effective from assessment year
2013-14. Subsequently, the Assessing Officer (AO) noticed that for the impugned
assessment year, no return of income had been filed by the assessee and the
assessee’s application for approval u/s. 10(23C)(vi) had been rejected.
Consequently, reopening proceedings were initiated by issuing notice under section
148. In response to the same, the assessee filed Nil return of income. During
assessment proceedings, the assessee contended that having been granted
registration u/s. 12AA effective from assessment year 2013-14, the benefit of
the same was available to it in the impugned year also by virtue of the first
proviso to section 12A(2).
Aggrieved, the
assessee preferred an appeal to the CIT(A). The CIT(A) upheld the order of the
AO, holding that benefit of second proviso was not available to the assessee since
in the present case the assessee was ineligible to claim exemption not on
account of absence of registration u/s. 12A, but because of the fact that
assessee had failed to file its return of income and report of audit, as
required under the provisions of section 12A(b).
HELD
The Tribunal held
that it was not the case of the Revenue that the reopening was valid on the
ground of absence of registration u/s. 12A for the impugned year, therefore
making its income taxable. In fact, the CIT(A) had accepted that reopening
could not have been resorted to on account of absence of registration u/s.12A
for the impugned year on account of the second proviso to section 12A(2).
Therefore, the contention of the assessee on this count was accepted by the
Revenue. But the argument of the Revenue was that because the assessee failed
to comply with the conditions of section 12A(1)(b) which was necessary for
claiming exemption u/s. 11 and 12, its income for the impugned year was
taxable, which had thus escaped assessment and, therefore, the reopening was
valid. The said conditions, as pointed out by the CIT(A), were the filing of
return of income accompanied with the report of an auditor in the prescribed
form.
The requirement of filing of return of income and the report of audit
have been specified for being eligible for claiming exemption u/s. 11 and 12
along with the grant of registration u/s. 12AA. The section nowhere prescribed
the filing of return by any due date, therefore the findings of the CIT(A) that
the assessee having not filed its return within the prescribed time it had
failed to comply with the requirement prescribed, was not tenable. As for the
requirement of filing report of audit in the prescribed form, the said
condition has been held by courts to be merely procedural and, therefore,
directory in nature and not mandatory for the purpose of claiming exemption
u/s. 11 and 12.
Therefore, in view
of the above, no merit was found in the argument of the Revenue that the
assessee was not eligible for exemption u/s. 11 and 12 on account of not having
complied with the requirements of section 12A(1)(b). Since this was the sole
basis for upholding the validity of the reassessment proceedings, it was noted
that the reassessment in the present case was invalid, on account of the second
proviso to section 12A(2) which specially debarred resort to the same in view
of registration having been granted from the immediately succeeding assessment
year. The reassessment framed was therefore set aside and the addition made was
deleted.
