M/s Baba Kartar Singh Dukki Educational Trust, Ludhiana V. ITO, Ludhiana

CO 12/CHANDI/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2013] 122 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 8488 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH)
• Duration Of Justice: 6 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Cross Objection
• Pronouncement Date: 29-04-2013
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2004-2005
• Appeal Filed On: 23-04-2013
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: DR AMA RVEER SINGH
• Section: 12A; 12AA; 12; 11

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CHANDIGARH BENCHES B CHANDIGARH BEFORE SHRI T.R. SOOD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND MS. SUSHMA CHOWLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO. 68/CHD/2013 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2004-05 THE I.T.O . VS. M/S BABA KARTAR SINGH, LUDHIANA DUKKI EDUCATIONAL TRUST LUDHIANA PAN NO. AAATB7340L & C.O. NO. 12/CHD/2013 (IN ITA NO. 68/CHD/2013) ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2004-05 M/S BABA KARTAR SINGH, VS. I.T.O DUKKI EDUCATIONAL TRUST LUDHIANA LUDHIANA PAN NO. AAATB7340L (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : DR. AMARVEER SINGH RESPONDENT BY : SHRI. TEJ MOHAN SINGH DATE OF HEARING : 25/04/2013 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 29.04.2013 ORDER PER T.R. SOOD, A.M. THIS APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE AND CROSS OBJECTIO N BY THE ASSESSEE ARE DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF CIT(A)-II, LUDHIA NA DATED 23.11.2012 RELATING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2004-05. 2 2. IN THIS APPEAL, REVENUE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWI NG GROUNDS:- I) THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW IN DELETING TH E ADDITION OF RS. 12,10,110/- BY RELYING UPON THE ORDER OF CIT - 1(ADMINISTRATION) VIDE WHICH REGISTRATION HAS BEEN GRANTED U/S 12A ON THE DIRECTION OF HONBLE ITAT VIDE ORDER DATED 27.06.2012, WHEREAS THE APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED AGAIN ST THE ORDER OF HONBLE ITAT DATED 27.06.2012 BEFORE THE H ONBLE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, THE DECISION OF WHI CH IS STILL PENDING FOR ADJUDICATION. II) THAT THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) BE SET ASIDE A ND THAT OF A.O. BE RESTORED. III) THAT THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD OR AMEN D ANY GROUND OF APPEAL BEFORE IT IS FINALLY DISPOSED OFF. 3. AFTER HEARING BOTH THE PARTIES, WE FIND THAT ASS ESSING OFFICER DENIED EXEMPTION U/S 11 OF THE ACT TO THE ASSESSEE BECAUSE ASSESSEE WAS NOT GRANTED REGISTRATION U/S 12AA (1)(B)(II) OF THE ACT. 4. ON APPEAL, THE CIT(A) HELD THAT THE ASSESSEE IS ELIGIBLE FOR BENEFITS OF SECTIONS 11 & 12 BECAUSE TRIBUNAL HAS ALREADY GRAN TED REGISTRATION TO THE ASSESSEE AND CIT(A), LUDHIANA HAS ALREADY PASSED A N ORDER IN CONSEQUENCE OF THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL. 5. BEFORE US, THE LD. DR SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. ON THE OTHER HAND, LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUP PORTED THE IMPUGNED ORDER. 3 6. AFTER CONSIDERING THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS, WE FIND THAT LD. CIT(A) HAS MERELY FOLLOWED THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL THROUGH W HICH REGISTRATION WAS GRANTED TO THE ASSESSEE U/S 12AA OF THE ACT. THE R ELEVANT PARAS OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER READ AS UNDER:- 4.2 THE AR OF THE APPELLANT VIDE HIS WRITTEN SUBMIS SIONS INFORMED THAT THE HONBLE ITAT HAD DIRECTED THE CIT TO GRAN T REGISTRATION 12AA TO THE APPELLANT VIDE ITS ORDER DATED 27.06.2 012. THE CONSEQUENTIAL ORDER GIVING EFFECT TO THIS ORDER OF THE HONBLE ITAT WAS PASSED BY THE CIT-I, LUDHIANA VIDE ORDER DATED 26.10.2012, WHEREIN THE APPELLANT TRUST WAS GRANTE D REGISTRATION U/S 12 A OF THE I.T. ACT W.E.F. A.Y. 2004-05. 4.3 I HAVE CAREFULLY PERUSED THE SUBMISSIONS AND TH E ORDER OF CIT-I, LUDHIANA DATED 26.10.2012. IN VIEW OF THE FACT TH AT THE APPELLANT HAS BEEN GRANTED REGISTRATION U/S 12 A OF THE I.T. ACT W.E.F. A.Y. 2004-05, THE APPELLANT IS ELIGIBL E FOR BENEFITS OF SECTION 11&12. THE APPLICATION OF INCOME AMOUNT ING TO RS. 1,81,329/-, INCOME OF RS. 28,778/- AND THE COR PUS DONATIONS AMOUNTING TO RS. 10 LACS ARE THEREFORE EXEMPT U/S 11 / 12 OF THE I.T. ACT. THE ADDITIONS MADE BY THE AO ARE THE REFORE DELETED. THESE GROUNDS OF APPEAL ARE ACCORDINGLY A LLOWED. 7. SINCE THE ABOVE OBSERVATION HAS BEEN MADE ON THE BASIS OF THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL, WE FIND NOTHING WRONG WITH THE SAME A ND ACCORDINGLY UPHOLD THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A). 8. IN THE RESULT, REVENUES APPEAL IS DISMISSED. 4 C.O. NO. 12/CHD/2013 9. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE DURING THE COUR SE OF HEARING SUBMITTED THAT HE WISH TO WITHDRAW THE CROSS OBJECT IONS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR WHICH LD. DR HAD NO OBJECTION. ACCORDINGLY CRO SS OBJECTIONS ARE DISMISSED AS WITHDRAWN. 10. IN THE RESULT, CROSS OBJECTIONS ARE DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THIS 29 TH DAY OF APRIL, 2013. SD/- SD/- (SUSHMA CHOWLA) (T.R. SOOD) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED : 29 TH APRIL, 2013 RKK COPY TO: 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CIT 4. THE CIT(A) 5. THE DR TRUE COPY BY ORDER ASSISTANT REGISTRAR