The Delhi Building & Other Construction Workers Welfare Board vs. ITO

Parties Involved

Facts Summary

The assessee, The Delhi Building & Other Construction Workers Welfare Board, did not file an income return for the Assessment Year 2006-07. The Board was not registered under sections 12A/12AA of the Income Tax Act for the year under consideration. A notice under section 148 of the Income Tax Act was issued and served on the assessee on 10.07.2012. The assessee filed a return of income on 12.09.2012 declaring total income at NIL after claiming application of income as per provisions of Section 11 & 12 of the Income Tax Act. The Board is constituted to regulate employment and condition of service of Building & Other Construction Workers and to provide for their safety, health and welfare measures etc. The Board collects cess under the Building & Other Construction Workers Cess Act, 1966. The assessee submitted that it is not required to file any return, though under protest it has filed the return at 'NIL' income for the aforesaid A.Y. 2006-07. The Board is granted registration u/s. 12A from AY 2009-10 onwards. The Assessing Officer noted that the assessee is submitting that it is not required to file any return and at the other end it had applied and got registration u/s 12A/12AA of the IT Act from AY 2009-10. The Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of CIT vs Haryana Building & Other Construction Works Welfare Board, 52 DTR 253 (2011) observed that the activity of the assessee are in the nature that registration w/s. 12AA should be granted. The assessee was on the same da…

Legal Issues

• 1. Whether the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in confirming the assessment order framed by the Assessing Officer u/s 147 r/w section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act.
• 2. Whether the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in holding that the proceeding initiated by the Assessing Officer u/s 147 / 148 was legal and was in accordance with due procedure.
• 3. Whether the Ld. Assessing Officer has ignored the material fact that the Assessing Officer had not conducted the proceeding in accordance with the judgment of Supreme Court in the case of GKN Drive Shafts Ltd. 259 ITR 19 (SC) and therefore, such proceeding was bad in law.
• 4. Whether the Ld. CIT(A) has ignored the material fact that the reasons were supplied by the Assessing Officer to the assessee on 27.03.2014 on which date the assessment proceeding was concluded and the assessment order was framed on 29.03.2014. Thus the principles of natural justice have been violated in this case and therefore the assessment proceeding as well as the assessment order are liable to be set aside.
• 5. Whether the Ld. CIT(A) has ignored the material fact that no notice u/s 143(2) had been issued by the Assessing Officer within the prescribed time which is sine qua non for framing the assessment u/s 143(3) of the Act and therefore, the assessment framed by the Assessing Officer was bad-in-law.
• 6. Whether the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in holding that the ITO and DC have concurrent jurisdiction and therefore, there was no requirement to pass an order u/s 127(1) for transferring the case from Trust Circle-4 to Trust Ward-1. Since, ITO Trust Ward-1 had no jurisdiction to frame the assessment and therefore, such an assessment was void ab-initio.

Judgment Outcome

Decided in favour of Assessee.

Similar Judgements

• Kalpathru Lions Charitable Trust R. vs. CIT(Exemptions)

  C'' Bench: Bangalore benchAY 2025-26Allowed

• Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Benches, New Delhi

  Delhi bench

• Institute of Rehabilitation v. Exemption, Ward 1(2)

  A Bench, Delhi benchAY 2017-18 to 2021-22Allowed

• St. Thomas Syro Malabar Catholic Church Vs. CIT (Exemption)

  D Bench, Kolkata benchAY 2025-26Allowed

• M D Education Society MDS Public School, Garoli Khurd Gurgaon- 122001 Haryana Vs DCIT Circle 2(1)

• Duckbanglow Para Spark Welfare Society vs ITO Ward-3(1), Suri, Birbhum

  Kolkata benchAY 2018-2019Partly Allowed