Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Chennai
Trinity Senior Citizen Care, Chennai vs Dcit Corporate Circle 3(1), Chennai on 29 March, 2019
आयकर अपील य अ धकरण, 'बी' यायपीठ, चे नई।
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
'B' BENCH: CHENNAI
ी जॉज माथन, या यक सद य एवं ी इंटूर रामा राव, लेखा सद य के सम'
BEFORE SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND
SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
आयकर अपील सं./ITA No. 3324 /Chny/2018
नधा रण वष /Assessment Year: 2015-16
Trinity Senior Citizen Care, Vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income
27/8-1, Dr. Govindan Road, Tax,
Annamalai Hospital, West Mambalam, Corporate Circle-3(1),
Chennai - 600 040. Chennai.
[PAN: AAECT 9874C]
(अपीलाथ)/Appellant) (*+यथ)/Respondent)
अपीलाथ) क, ओर से/ Appellant by : Shri M. Karunakaran, Advocate
*+यथ) क, ओर से /Respondent by : Shri B. Sagadevan, JCIT
सन
ु वाई क, तार ख/Date of Hearing : 28.03.2019
घोषणा क, तार ख /Date of Pronouncement : 29.03.2019
आदे श / O R D E R
PER INTURI RAMA RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:
This is an appeal filed by the assessee directed against the order of the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-11, Chennai (hereinafter called as 'CIT(A)') dated 13.11.2018 for the assessment year (AY) 2015-16.
2. The appellant raised the following grounds of appeal:
"1. The learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) erred in sustaining the order of the CPC determining the income of the appellant at Rs. 9,78,608/-.ITA No.3324/Chny/2018 (AY: 2015-16)
:- 2 -:
2. The CPC is not correct in taxing the gross income of the appellant even though the appellant is not registered as a charitable trust uIsl2AA of the Act.
3. The appellants submit that the CPC having assessed the appellant as a company ought to have allowed the expenses incurred by the appellant for earning the gross receipts.
4. The assessing officer ought to have accepted the ITR-6 filed when the return filed in ITR-7 was not applicable to the appellant company.
5. The appellant company being a company registered u/s 8 of the Companies Act, 2013 has filed the return in ITR-7 as a charitable trust but since it was not registered u/s 12AA, the expenses claimed as application of income was denied. The appellant submits that even otherwise only the net income of the appellant could be taxed and not the gross receipts as done by CPC.
6. The learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) erred in holding that the mistake could not be rectified u/s 154 especially when there is a clear mistake in assessing gross receipts as income of the appellant though the appellant has filed the return in a wrong form.
7. The appellants therefore pray that the expenses claimed may be allowed against the gross receipts assessed and only net loss may be considered for assessment and render justice."
3. The brief facts of the case are as under:
The appellant is a company incorporated under the provisions of s. 8 of the Companies Act, 2013. The objects for which the company was set up is to take care of senior citizens by providing accommodation, meals and medical care by collecting the nominal fee and run institution as a non-profit organization. The return of income for the AY 2015-16 was filed using form ITR-7 under the belief that the appellant is also a charitable trust. While processing the said return of income CPC had not allowed application of income as claimed in the return of income but levied tax on the gross receipts. After receipt of the intimation u/s. 143(1) ITA No.3324/Chny/2018 (AY: 2015-16) :- 3 -:
of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short 'the Act'), the appellant filed revised return in Form ITR-6 on 12.09.2017. However, the AO had not taken cognizance of return as it was filed beyond the prescribed time.
4. Being aggrieved, an appeal was preferred before ld. CIT(A), who vide impugned order dismissed the appeal. Being aggrieved, the appellant is in appeal before us in the present appeal.
5. We heard the rival submissions and perused the material on record. The provisions of s. 139(1) of the Act requires an assessee to file return of income in the prescribed form and verified in the prescribed manner. When the return of income was filed in the wrong form assessment cannot be made, it would be invalid in law as held by Hon'ble High Court of Allahabad in the case of CIT v. Gupta 113 ITR 473 (All.). However, in the present case, the AO had not held the return of income invalid but proceeded to process the return of income as if it is a return in Form ITR No.6. Therefore, the AO is duty bound to compute the profits in the commercial manner and examine the eligibility of the expenditure against the income earned, the AO had failed to do so. Therefore, we remand this issue for fresh assessment in accordance with law as if it is a return of income filed in Form ITR No.6. ITA No.3324/Chny/2018 (AY: 2015-16)
:- 4 -:
6. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced in the open Court on 29th March, 2019 in Chennai.
Sd/- Sd/-
(जॉज माथन) (इंटूर रामा राव)
(GEORGE MATHAN) (INTURI RAMA RAO)
या यक सद य/JUDICIAL MEMBER लेखा सद य/ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
चे नई/Chennai, 3दनांक/Dated: 29th March, 2019. EDN, Sr. P.S आदे श क, * त4ल5प अ6े5षत/Copy to:
1. अपीलाथ)/Appellant 2. *+यथ)/Respondent 3. आयकर आयु7त (अपील)/CIT(A) 4. आयकर आय7 ु त/CIT 5. 5वभागीय * त न ध/DR 6. गाड फाईल/GF