आयकर अपील य अ धकरण यायपीठ रायपुर म।

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL,

RAIPUR BENCH, RAIPUR

BEFORE SHRI RAVISH SOOD, JUDICIAL MEMBER

AND
SHRI ARUN KHODPIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No.187/RPR/2016

नधारण वष / Assessment Year : 2007-08

Holy Heart Educational Society

Civil Lines, Katora Talab,
Raipur (C.G.)

PAN : AAAAH2904B
.......अपीलाथ / Appellant

बनाम / V/s.

The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax-1(1),

Raipur (C.G.)

…… यथ / Respondent

Assessee by : Smt. Laxmi Sharma &

Shri Vimal Agrawal, CAs
Revenue by : Shri G.N Singh, Sr. DR

सुनवाई क तार ख / Date of Hearing : 04.08.2022

घोषणा क तार ख / Date of Pronouncement : 17.10.2022
 2
Holy Heart Educational Society Vs. DCIT-1(1)
ITA No. 187/RPR/2016

आदे श / ORDER

PER RAVISH SOOD, JM:

The present appeal filed by the assessee is

directed against the order passed by the CIT(Appeals)-I, Raipur dated

24.03.2016, which in turns arises from the order passed by the A.O

under Sec. 147 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’) dated

28.03.2014 for assessment year 2007-08. Before us the assessee has

assailed the impugned order on the following revised grounds of

appeal:

“1. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the ld
CIT(A) has erred in upholding the action of the ld AO in initiating
reassessment proceeding without having any tangible material in his
possession for making 'reason to believe' for such alleged escapement
of income of Rs.54,17,572/- by misapprehending the applicability of
85% utilization for claiming exemption u/s. 10(23C)(iiiad), which is
based on opinion of 'audit party' based on audit scrutiny of income
tax return.

2. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the ld CIT(A)
has erred in upholding the reassessment made by the ld AO, without
disposing off the objections raised against the reasons recorded by
way of speaking order, the reassessment is vitiated in law and is liable
to be quashed.

3. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Id CIT(A)
has erred in sustaining the addition of Rs.54,17,572/- on mere
presumption that the assessee's objectives are not solely for
educational purposes and denied the exemption u/s.10(23C)(iiiad),
more so, the ld AO himself admitted that the alleged non-educational
objectives, in fact were not pursued in the AY07-08, as held in
Geetanjali Education Society (2014) 267 CTR 369 (Kar).
 3
Holy Heart Educational Society Vs. DCIT-1(1)
ITA No. 187/RPR/2016

4. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the ld CIT(A)
has erred in sustaining the addition of Rs.54,17,572/- on mere
presumption that the assessee's objectives are not solely for
educational purposes and denied the exemption u/s.10(23C)(iiiad),
more so, in absence of any allegation that the assessee-society had
carried on for the purposes of profit, as held in Queen's Educational
Society (2015) (SC)."

2. Succinctly stated, the assessee which is a charitable society had

filed its return of income for the assessment year 2007-08 on

31.03.2008, declaring an income of Rs. Nil. The return of income filed

by the assesee society was processed as such u/s. 143(1) of the Act.

Subsequently, the case of the assessee was reopened by the A.O for

the reasons, viz. (i). that as the assessee society had not applied 85%

of its gross income as was required under the Income-tax Act,

therefore, it was not entitled for claim of exemption u/s.10(23C)(iiiad)

of the Act; and (ii). that as the assessee society had filed an application

for registration u/s.12A of the Act on 28.11.2007, which was granted

on 11.04.2008 i.e. w.e.f. 01.04.2007 from A.Y.2008-09 onwards,

therefore, its income for the year under consideration i.e. A.Y.2007-08

would not be exempted and would be exigible to tax.

2.1 On the basis of his aforesaid observations the A.O holding a

belief that the income of the assessee society chargeable to tax had

escaped assessment, thus, reopened its case u/s.147 of the Act. For
 4
Holy Heart Educational Society Vs. DCIT-1(1)
ITA No. 187/RPR/2016

the sake of clarity the copy of “reasons to believe” (Page 9 of APB) on

the basis of which the case of the assessee society was reopened are

culled out as under:

“HOLY HEARTS EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY

RAIPUR
A.Y. 2007-08

Reasons for reopening u/s.148

17.05.2012

The Assessee is a charitable Society and has filed its return of income for the A.Y.
2007-08 on 31.03.2008 and the same was processed u/s 143(1) at nil income. In
the consolidated income & expenditure account filed along with Return of income,
Rs.54,17,572/- was shown as excess of income over expenditure but no tax was
paid on the above income. Computation of income as mentioned in the return was
also not enclosed therewith. Further the society has not applied 85% of its gross
income as required by the income tax act, therefore exemption u/s.10(23C)(iiiad)
will also not be allowable. Moreover, it had filed application u/s 12A of I.T. Act,
1961 on 28th Nov.2007 in the prescribed format for seeking registration. The
approval u/s 12A was granted on 11.04.2008 w.e.f. 01.04.2007 i.e. from A.Y. 2008-
09 onwards. Hence, the income for the A.Y. 2007-08 will not be exempted and tax
would be leviable on the above income. Failure to do so resulted in
underassessment of income to the tune of Rs. 5417572/- with consequential short
levy of tax of Rs.1767453/- along with interest.

In view of the, I have reason to believe that the assessee had income to the tune of
Rs.54,17,572/- which escaped assessment during the F.Yr.2006-07 relevant to
A.yr.2007-08. Hence, I deem it a fit case for issuing notice u/s.148 of the Income
tax Act, 1961.

Submitted. Sd/-
DCIT-1(1)”

2.2. Thereafter, the A.O vide his order passed u/s.147 dated

28.03.2014 declined the assessee’s claim of exemption

 5
Holy Heart Educational Society Vs. DCIT-1(1)
ITA No. 187/RPR/2016

u/s.10(23C)(iiiad) of the Act and determined its income at

Rs.54,17,572/-.

3. Aggrieved, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the

CIT(Appeals) but without any success.

4. The assessee being aggrieved with the order of the CIT(Appeals)

has carried the matter in appeal before us.

5. At the very outset of the hearing of the appeal the Ld. Authorized

Representative (for short ‘AR’) for the assessee assailed the validity of

the jurisdiction that was assumed by the A.O under Section 147 of the

Act. Elaborating on her aforesaid contention the Ld. AR has taken us

through the copy of the “reasons to believe” on the basis of which

proceedings u/s.147 of the Act were initiated in the case of the

assessee. It was submitted by the Ld. AR that the AO had grossly

misconceived the settled position of law and in the “reasons to believe”

had wrongly observed that as the assessee had failed to apply 85% of

its gross income, therefore, it was not entitled for exemption under

Sec. 10(23C)(iiiad) of the Act. It was submitted by the ld. AR that there

was no obligation cast upon an assessee to apply 85% of its gross

income as a pre-requisite condition for claim of exemption

 6
Holy Heart Educational Society Vs. DCIT-1(1)
ITA No. 187/RPR/2016

u/s.10(23C)(iiiad) of the Act. It was averred by the ld. AR that as the

very basis for reopening of the assessee’s case u/s 147 was blatantly

not as per the mandate of law, therefore, the assumption of

jurisdiction by the AO being devoid and bereft of any force of law was

liable to be struck down. It was further submitted by the ld. AR that

the A.O had further wrongly observed that as the assessee had filed

an application for registration u/s.12A on 28.11.2007, which

thereafter was granted on 11.04.2008 w.e.f. 01.04.2007 i.e. A.Y.2008-

09 onwards, therefore, it was during the year under consideration not

entitled for claim of exemption. It was submitted by the Ld. AR that

the said observation of the A.O was totally uncalled for in context of

the assessee’s claim for exemption during the year under

consideration. It was the claim of the Ld. AR that as the assessee had

in its return of income for the year under consideration i.e. A.Y.2007-

08 claimed exemption u/s.10(23C)(iiiad) of the Act and had not sought

any exemption u/s.11 of the Act, therefore, the aforesaid reason

forming the very basis for taking recourse to proceedings u/s. 147 was

totally incorrect. On the basis of her aforesaid contention it was the

claim of the Ld. AR that as both the reasons forming the basis for

taking recourse to proceedings u/s.147 of the Act were incorrect and

 7
Holy Heart Educational Society Vs. DCIT-1(1)
ITA No. 187/RPR/2016

misconceived, therefore, the initiation of the proceedings which

thereafter had culminated into the impugned order u/s.147, dated

28.03.2014 could not be sustained and was liable to be struck down

on the said count itself.

6. Per contra, the Ld. DR relied on the orders of the lower

authorities.

7. We have heard the ld. authorized representatives of both the

parties, perused the orders of the lower authorities and the material

available on record, as well as considered the judicial pronouncements

that have been pressed into service by them to drive home their

respective contentions.

8. Admittedly, it is a matter of fact borne from record that the case

of the assessee society was reopened by the AO u/s.147 of the Act for

two fold reasons, viz. (i) that as the assessee society had not applied

85% of its gross income as required under the Income-tax Act,

therefore, it was not entitled for claiming exemption u/s.10(23C)(iiiad)

of the Act; and (ii) that as the assessee society had filed an application

for registration u/s.12A of the Act on 28.11.2007, which was granted

on 11.04.2008 i.e. w.e.f. 01.04.2007 from A.Y.2008-09 onwards,

 8
Holy Heart Educational Society Vs. DCIT-1(1)
ITA No. 187/RPR/2016

therefore, its income for the year under consideration i.e. A.Y.2007-08

would not be exempted and would be exigible to tax.

9. Having given a thoughtful consideration to the facts involved in

the present case before us, we are unable to comprehend the very

basis for the AO to take recourse to proceedings u/s.147 of the Act.

As application of 85% of gross income is by no means a requisite

condition for claim of exemption under Sec. 10(23C)(iiiad) of the Act,

therefore, in our considered view the A.O had grossly misconceived; or

in fact misunderstood the settled position of law, and thus, had

wrongly taken recourse to proceedings u/s.147 of the Act. In order to

dispel all doubts we herein cull out the provisions of Sec. 10(23C)(iiad)

of the Act, which reads as under :

“10. In computing the totalincome of a previous year of any person,

any income falling within any of the following clauses shall not
be included :-

(23C). any income received by any person on behalf of –

(iiiad). any university or other educational institution existing

solely for educational purposes and not for the purposes of profit
ifthe aggregate annual receipts of such university or educational
institution do not exceed the amount of annual receipts as may
be prescribed.”
 9
Holy Heart Educational Society Vs. DCIT-1(1)
ITA No. 187/RPR/2016

As such, there is no obligation cast upon an assessee to apply 85% of

its gross income to claim exemption under the aforesaid statutory

provision. Ostensibly, the AO had wrongly read in the statutory

requirement contemplated in the “3rd proviso” to Sec. 10(23C), which

we are afraid is only applicable to institutions/trusts/funds referred

to in sub-clause (iv) or sub-clause (v) or sub-clause (vi) or sub-clause

(via) of Sec. 10(23C) of the Act. Be that as it may, as there is no

obligation cast upon an assessee to apply 85% of its gross income for

claiming exemption u/s 10(23C)(iiiad) of the Act, therefore, the very

basis for reopening of the assessee’s case by the AO is incorrect and

misconceived on the said count.

10. Ostensibly the second reason forming the very basis for

reopening of the case of the assessee also does not stand on a better

footing. As regards the observation of the A.O that as the assessee

society had filed an application for registration u/s.12A of the Act on

28.11.2007, which thereafter was granted on 11.04.2008 i.e from

A.Y.2008-09 onwards, therefore, it was not eligible for claiming

exemption on the said count during the year under consideration i.e.

A.Y.2007-08, the same also in our considered view is based on wrong

 10
Holy Heart Educational Society Vs. DCIT-1(1)
ITA No. 187/RPR/2016

facts. On a perusal of the return of income filed by the assessee, Page

13 to 48 of APB, it transpires that the assessee had claimed the

exemption of his income of Rs. 54,17,572/- u/s.10(23C)(iiiad) of the

Act. Although the assessee in its return of income had in substance

claimed exemption of its income u/s.10(23C)(iiiad) of the Act, but had

also referred to claim for exemption u/s.11(1)(a) of the Act of Rs. Nil.

However, as the assessee had not claimed any part of its income as

exempt under Sec. 11(1)(a) of the Act, therefore, there could have been

no basis for the AO to arrive at a bonafide belief that the income of the

assessee chargeable to tax had escaped assessment on the said count

i.e wrong claim of exemption u/s 11(1)(a) of the Act. On the basis of

our aforesaid observation, we are of the considered view that as the

“reasons to believe” forming the very basis for taking recourse to

proceedings u/s.147 of the Act in the case of the assessee are

absolutely misconceived and incorrect, therefore, the very assumption

of jurisdiction on the part of the A.O cannot be sustained and is liable

to be struck down. Consequent to want of valid assumption of

jurisdiction by the AO the assessment framed by him u/s.147 of the

Act, dated 28.03.2014 cannot be sustained and is hereby quashed in

terms of our aforesaid observations.

 11
Holy Heart Educational Society Vs. DCIT-1(1)
ITA No. 187/RPR/2016

11. As we have quashed the assessment framed by the A.O u/s.147

of the Act, dated 28.03.2014 for want of valid assumption of

jurisdiction, therefore, we refrain from adverting to and therein

adjudicating the other contentions that were advanced by the Ld. AR

on the merits of the case, which, thus, are left open.

12. Resultantly, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed in terms of

our aforesaid observations.

Order pronounced under rule 34(4) of ITAT Rules, 1963 on 17th day of
October, 2022.

Sd/- Sd/-
ARUN KHODPIA RAVISH SOOD
(ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) (JUDICIAL MEMBER)
रायपुर/ RAIPUR ; दनांक / Dated : 17th October, 2022
**SB

आदे श क त ल प अ े षत / Copy of the Order forwarded to :

1. अपीलाथ / The Appellant.
2. यथ / The Respondent.
3. The CIT(Appeals)-1, Raipur (C.G)
4. The Pr. CIT-1, Raipur (C.G)

5. वभागीय त न ध, आयकर अपील य अ धकरण,रायपरु बच,

रायपरु / DR, ITAT, Raipur Bench, Raipur.
6. गाड फ़ाइल / Guard File.

आदे शानुसार / BY ORDER,

// True Copy //
नजी स चव / Private Secretary
आयकर अपील य अ धकरण, रायपुर / ITAT, Raipur.