THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS) V. VIDYANANDA EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY

ITTA/332/2018

AI Insights

The case involves the Commissioner of Income-tax (Exemptions), Hyderabad as the appellant and Vidyananda Educational Society as the respondent. The dispute centered on the disallowance of a claim under Section 11 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for the Assessment Year 2010-2011. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal had earlier confirmed the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), which disallowed the claim on the grounds that the assessee did not meet the requirements under Section 10(23-C) and was covered under Section 13(3) of the Act. The appellant contested the Tribunal's decision, arguing that the Tribunal exceeded its jurisdiction by recalling its earlier order, which the court rejected based on the provisions of Section 254(2) of the Act.

• Counselvise Citation: [2023] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 731870 (HC-TELANGANA)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 09-10-2023
• Assessment Year: misc
• Other Referred Cases: TMA Pai Foundation Vs. State of Karnataka, Jubilee Hills Education Society in I.T.A.1626/Hyderabad/2014
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Respondent
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: K VASANT KUMAR
• Assessee Lawyers: A RADHA KRISHNA
• Keywords: Disallowance of claim; Exemption under section 11; Income Tax Tribunal Appeal; Recall of order; Approval from prescribed authority
• Section: 254(2); 11; 13(3); 10(23)(c); 12(A); 260-A

Judgement Text

"[ 3386 ] IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYOERABAD MONDAY, THE NINTH DAYOF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHY AND THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY INCOM TAX TRIBUNAL APPEAL No: 332 o12018 lncome Tax Tribunal Appeal Under Section 260-A of the lncome Tax Act, 1961 arising out of the order of the lncome-tax Appellate Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench ' B ' Hyderabad, in l.T.A.No.13'll{12014, dated 23-02-2011 Assessment Year 2O1O-11 preferred against the Order of the Commissioner of lncome Tax (Appeals)-lv' Hyderabad, Appeal No.93/DlT (EyClT(A)-lV/2O13-14 datedtl4-11-2013, prefened against the Order of the Deputy Director of lncome-Tax (Exemptions)\"1, Hyderabad PAN/GIR No.AAATV3962G dated 2243-2013. Between: The Commissioner of lncome-tax (Exemptions), Hyderabad ...Appellant AND Vidyananda Educational Society, Khaiaguda Village, Golconda (Post), Hyderabad. ...Respondent Counsel for the Appellant: SRI A. RADHA KRISHNA Counsel for the Respondent: SRI K. VASANT KUMAR The Court made the following: ORDER THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTTCE P.SAM KOSHY AND THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY I.T.T.A.No.332 of 2Ol8 ORDER: firer tro n ble Sn Justice P.sA.Ii KosHY This appeal under Section 260'A of the Income Tax Act, 196 1, has been filed assailing the order, dated 2a.O2.2O17 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench ts' Hyderabad, 1n I.T.A.No.l31 lHvdl2Ol4 for the Assessment Year 2010- 2011 2. Vide the impugned order, the Tribunal has confirmed the ordcr passed b_v the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), clatcd 14.1 I.2013. The issue involved in the present appeal rvas disallowance of claim un.der Section 1 I of the Inco me Ta-x Act, 196 I (for short \"the Act\") on the ground that the Assessee is falling under Section 13(3) of the Act and the appellant was not granted approval from the prescribed authority under Section lO(23-C) of the Act. 3. On perusal of the record, we lind that the Tribunal in the case has deciclcd the matter in the light of the decision rendered bv the Tribunal itsetf In-similar issue i.e., in the PSI<,J & LNA,J I.T.T.A.No.332 of 20ta case of Jubilee Hills Education Socieby in 1.T.A.1626/Hyderabad/2O14 and the said decision was based on the. decision of the Honble Supreme Court in the case of TIvIA Pai Found.ation Vs. State of Kantatakal. 4 . The ground placed by the appellant in the instant case was that, it is a case where the Tribunal at the hrst instance uide order, dated 25.05.2014 h,ad allowed the appeal by the Revenue and it is only subsequently on review application filed by the Assessee that the order, dated 23.05.2O 14 was recalled and the impugned order has been passed. The contention of the appellant was that the Tribunal doeS not have any power to entertain the Review Application to allow or recall once when the order has been passed. According to the learned counsel for the appellant, having passed the order on 23.05.2O 14, the Tribunal became functus olficio and could not have entertained the app Iication. 5. The aforesaid contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is difhcult to accept for the . simple reason 2 t (2oo2l 8 scc 481 PSK,J & LNA,J I.T.T.A.No.332 oJ 2018 that, if we look into Section 254(21 of the Act, it provides for sufficient po rers to the Tribunal to entertain application to recall an order and if required, modify and arnend the same, if any mistake had arisen while passing of the previous order. The ground of the appellant is therefore, rejected. 6. Further, i,t is also found that the Tribunal in paragraph No.4 of the impugned order has categorically held that the Assessing Officer had in fact not denied the exemption under Section 11 of the Act on the ground that the Assessee u,as collecting any donation, building fund, etc., and that collection of donation and building fund, etc., is not othenvise prohibited under the provisions of law and that the Assessee is entitled to claim the benefits under Section 11 of the Act. Admittedly, the Assessee is an establishment r-r,hich is otherwise registered under Section l2(A) of the Act 7. [n vieu, of the above, r.r,e do not find any substantial question of lau' made out by the appellant calling for 3 interference ,vith the order passed by the Income Tax PSK,J & LNA,J I.T.T.A.No.332 of 2Ot6 Appellate Tribunal. Accordingly, this appeal is rejected No order as to costs. 8. Consequently, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. 4 To, SD/.K.SRINIVASA RAO JOINT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTI OFFICER 1. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench ' B ' Hyderabad 2. The Commissioner of lncome Tax (Appeals)-lV, Hyderabad 3. The Deputy Director of lncome-Tax (Exemptions!.1, Hyderabad 4. One CC to SRI A. RADHA KRISHNA, Advocate IOPUCI 5. OneCCto SRI K. VASANT KUMAR, Advocate{OPUCI 6. Two CD Copies ?.nq. m ka HIGH COURT DATED:0911012023 ORDER ITTA.No.332 of 2018 THE APPEAL IS REJECTED ?AC., 1uE ST4;A 0 E ll0li zsll rt I ./ ,) 2r to to-9 "