Maratha Vidya Prasarak Samaj v. Deputy Director Of Income Tax, Cpc, Bengaluru & Ors

1/4 453-aswp-1743-2024.doc IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 1743 OF 2024 Maratha Vidya Prasarak SamajVersusDeputy Director of Income Tax, CPC, Bengaluru & Ors. …Petitioner …Respondents Mr. Devendra Jain, i/b. Ms. Radha Halbe, for Petitioner.Mr. Suresh Kumar, for Respondents-Revenue. PC:- CORAM:K. R. SHRIRAM &DR. NEELA GOKHALE, JJ.DATED:22[nd] February 2024 1. Mr. Jain, at the outset, states the resolution as directed in thisCourt’s order dated 12[th] February 2024 has been filed online and alsotenders physical copy for Court’s address. 2Petitioner is a trust registered under the Bombay Public TrustAct, 1950 and under the Societies Registration Act, 1860. Petitionerruns several educational institutions and gets grants from theGovernment. 3.Petitioner is challenging the intimation dated 18[th] December2023 issued under Section 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“theAct”). According to Petitioner, the intimation is bad in law becausethe entire exemption claimed by Petitioner under Section 11 of the 2/4 453-aswp-1743-2024.doc Act has been denied and total income is computed atRs.676,70,25,818/-. According to Petitioner, even the credit for taxdeducted at source amounting to Rs.1,92,49,542/- has been denied.Mr. Jain submitted that the intimation does not even state the reasonfor denying the claim under Section 11 of the Act. 4.Petitioner, prior to receiving the intimation under Section143(1) of the Act, had received a notice under Section 143(2) of theAct for a proposed detailed scrutiny under Section 143(3) of the Act.Mr. Jain submits that the Petitioner’s apprehension is the scrutinyassessment will proceed without giving Petitioner an opportunity toexplain that the computation of total income at Rs.676,70,25,818/-as reflected in the intimation under Section 143(1) of the Act waswrong or for that matter the credit for TDS at Rs.1,92,49,542/- has tobe given. 5.Mr. Suresh Kumar states, during scrutiny assessment underSection 143(3) of the Act, in view of the notice issued under Section143(2) to Petitioner, Petitioner will be called upon to file necessarydocuments and make submissions. Mr. Suresh Kumar further statesthat before passing a final order assessment order under Section143(3) of the Act, Petitioner will be heard and Petitioner can explainto the Assessing Officer (“AO”) that it is entitled to exemption underSection 11 of the Act and also credit for TDS as alleged in the petition. Mr. Suresh Kumar states that the AO after hearing Petitionerwill pass order in accordance with law. Therefore, this Court shouldnot grant the prayers as prayed for in the petition. 6.In view of the statements made by Mr. Suresh Kumar, we donot wish to grant the relief as prayed for, in the petition. 7.We would, however, direct the Assessing Officer to give apersonal hearing to Petitioner and also permit Petitioner to filenecessary documents and then pass order in accordance with law. Weclarify we have not made any observation on the merits of the matter. 8.In Paragraph 4.6 of the petition, Petitioner has disclosed havingfiled an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)(“CIT(A)”) under Section 246A of the Act against the impugnedintimation issued by Respondent No.1 under Section 143(1) of theAct. Petitioner may apply to the CIT (A) for expeditious hearing ofthe stay application as well as appeal and the CIT(A) may considerthe application. Until the disposal of the stay application or 31[st]March 2024, whichever is earlier, no coercive steps shall be taken torecover the amount mentioned in the intimation under Section143(1) of the Act.We would once again clarify that we have notconsidered the matter on merits or given any opinion on Petitioner’scontention that it is entitled to exemption under Section 11 of the Act. 8.In Paragraph 4.6 of the petition, Petitioner has disclosed havingfiled an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)(“CIT(A)”) under Section 246A of the Act against the impugnedintimation issued by Respondent No.1 under Section 143(1) of theAct. Petitioner may apply to the CIT (A) for expeditious hearing ofthe stay application as well as appeal and the CIT(A) may considerthe application. Until the disposal of the stay application or 31[st]March 2024, whichever is earlier, no coercive steps shall be taken torecover the amount mentioned in the intimation under Section143(1) of the Act.We would once again clarify that we have notconsidered the matter on merits or given any opinion on Petitioner’scontention that it is entitled to exemption under Section 11 of the Act. 4/4 453-aswp-1743-2024.doc 9.Petition disposed. (DR. NEELA GOKHALE, J.) (K. R. SHRIRAM, J.)