PER R.P. TOLANI, JM:- The assessee has filed an appeal against the order of the ld. CIT(A)- II, Jaipur dated 30-07-2013 for the assessment year 2009-10 wherein following grounds have been raised by the assessee . The ld. CIT(A) has erred on facts and in law in not allowing the claim of exemption u/s 11 by holding that in view of the decision of Supreme Court in the case of Goetze India Ltd., assessee is not entitled to claim of such exemption which was not made in the return and ld. CIT(A) cannot consider such claim as the Supreme Court decision only allowed the ITAT to ITA No.741/JP/2013 M/s. Rajasthan State Seeds and Organic Production Certification Agency vs. DCIT ,Circle- 6 Jaipur 2 consider such claim which was not made by way of return of income.

1.1 The ld. CIT(A) has further erred on facts and in law in not allowing the above claim even through the assessee during the course of appellant filed the copy of the audit report u/s 12A as well as the revised computation of income vide letter dated 9-10-2011 and AO after examining the claim of assessee given a finding that assessee is a charitable institution as defined u/s 2(15) of the Act and eligible for exemption u/s 11 of the Act.

2.1 Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a society registered under the Society Registration Act, 1958. It is established to certify the seeds and carry out such other activities as is prescribed u/s 8 to 10 of the Seeds Act, 1966. The assessee society application for registration u/s 12A was rejected by the Department in assessment year 2005-06 which was restored vide ITAT order dated 22-06-207 in ITA No. 892/JP/2006. In the year under consideration, the assessee filed its return of income on 29-09-2009 declaring income of Rs. 1,93,81,696/-.Thereafter, in the course of assessment proceedings, assessee vide letter dated 09-10-2011 filed the audit report u/s 12A(b) in Form No. 10B dated 05-09-2009; revised computation of total income at Rs. 30,71,775/- claiming exemption u/s 11 and requested the AO to complete the assessment by allowing the claim of exemption u/s 11 of the I.T. Act. Ld. AO though by detailed discussions accepted that assessee is a charitable institution as defined in Section 2(15) and eligible for ITA No.741/JP/2013 M/s. Rajasthan State Seeds and Organic Production Certification Agency vs. DCIT ,Circle- 6 Jaipur 3 exemption u/s 11; however, refused to allow the exemption u/s 11 on the grounds: i. Assessee has not complied with the condition of Section 12A as the audit report in Form 10B has not been filed with the return of income. ii. Claim of exemption u/s 11 was not made in the form of revised return, following Honble Supreme Court judgment in the case of Goetze India Ltd. vs. CIT, 284 ITR 323 .

2.2 Aggrieved, the assessee preferred first appeal wherein the ld. CIT(A) also did not consider the assessees claim by applying the case of Honble Apex Court in the case of Goetze India Ltd. vs. CIT (supra).

2.3 Aggrieved, the assessee is now before us.

2.4 The ld. Counsel for the assessee contends that assessees claim was legal in nature and though the AO may have some handicap in entertaining the assessees claim in view of Honble Supreme Court judgement in the case of Goetze India Ltd. vs. CIT (supra); however this judgment itself has held that appellate authority is at liberty to entertain the fresh claim without revised return. Therefore, the ld. CIT(A) being an appellate authority ought to have considered the assessees legal claim. The filing of the audit report is directory in nature besides all the relevant documents were filed before ld. CIT(A). Reliance is placed in the case of in case of CIT vs. G.M. Knitting ITA No.741/JP/2013 M/s. Rajasthan State Seeds and Organic Production Certification Agency vs. DCIT ,Circle- 6 Jaipur 4 Industries (P) Ltd. and Anr. (2015) 125 DTR 38 (SC) where it was held that assessee is entitled to deduction u/s 80IB even though it has not filed the audit report in Form No. 10CCB along with the return but has filed the same before the completion of assessment. The ld. AR of the assessee further placed reliance of following case laws to this effect. (i) CIT vs. Shahzedanand Charity Trust , 228 ITR 292 (P&H) (ii) CIT vs. Rai Bahadur Bissesswarlal Motilal Malwasie Trust, 195 ITR 825 (Cal.) (iii) CIT vs. Ramco International, 332 ITR 306 (P&H) (iv) Smt.Raj Rani Gulati vs. CIT , 69dtr 122 (All.) (v) CIT vs. Pruthi Brokers & Shareholders (P) Ltd. (2012) 349 ITR 336 (Bom.)

2.5 The ld. DR supported the orders of the authorities below.

2.6 We have heard the rival contentions and perused the materials available on record. It is observed that the assessee society is registered u/s 12A of the Act and enjoys its benefits. In our considered view the ld. CIT(A) being an appellate authority ought to have considered the assessees claim which was purely legal in nature and the reservation as contemplated by the Honble Supreme Court in the Goetze India Ltd. vs. CIT (supra) is applicable to AO and not to the appellate authority. We are of the view that ITA No.741/JP/2013 M/s. Rajasthan State Seeds and Organic Production Certification Agency vs. DCIT ,Circle- 6 Jaipur 5 assessees claim should have been considered and appropriate relief in accordance with law may be provided. In view thereof, we set aside the matter to the file of the ld. AO to consider the assessees claim afresh by providing adequate opportunity of being heard. If some compliance is further required, the assessee may be allowed to make the same and decide the grounds of appeal in accordance with law. Thus the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.

3.0 In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 31/03/2016. Sd/- Sd/- foe flag ;kno vkj-ih-rksykuh (Vikram Singh Yadav) (R.P.Tolani) ys[kk lnL;@ Accountant Member U;kf;d lnL;@Judicial Member Tk;iqj@Jaipur fnukad@Dated:- 31 /03/ 2016 *Mishra vknsk dh izfrfyfi vxzsfkr@Copy of the order forwarded to:

1. vihykFkhZ@The Appellant- M/s. Rajasthan State Seeds and Organic Production Certification Agency, Jaipur

2. izR;FkhZ@The Respondent-The DCIT, Circle- 6, Jaipur

3. vk;dj vk;qDrvihy ) @ CIT(A)

4. vk;dj vk;qDr@ CIT

5. foHkkxh; izfrfuf/k] vk;dj vihyh; vf/kdj.k] t;iqj@DR, ITAT, Jaipur

6. xkMZ QkbZy@ Guard File (ITA No.741/JP/2013) vknskkuqlkj@ By order, lgk;d iathdkj@ Assistant. Registrar