M/s S.D. Collage Educational Society, Barnala V. ITO, Barnala

ITA 1001/CHANDI/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 127 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7010 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 9 month(s) 16 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 10-08-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 15-02-2017
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 24-10-2013
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: MANJIT SINGH
• Keywords: Reassessment proceedings
• Section: 143(3); 2

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DIVISION BENCH, CHANDIGARH BEFORE MS. DIVA SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND MS. ANNAPURNA GUPTA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NOS.1001/CHD/2013 (ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2010-11) S.D. COLLEGE EDUCATIONAL VS. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, SOCIETY, COLLEGE ROAD, BARNALA (PUNJAB) BARNALA. PAN: AAFTS8184A (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI VIBHOR GARG, CA RESPONDENT BY : SHRI MANJIT SINGH, DR DATE OF HEARING : 02.08.2017 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 10.08.2017 O R D E R PER ANNAPURNA GUPTA, A.M. : THIS APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LD.CIT(APPEALS), PATIALA DATED 26.9.2013 RELATING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010-11. 2. THE FACTS RELEVANT TO THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSE SSEE SOCIETY HAD FILED RETURN DECLARING NIL INCOME AFTER CLAIMING EXEMPTION U/S 10(23C)(VI) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 19 61 (IN SHORT THE ACT). THE ASSESSMENT U/S 143(3) OF THE ACT WAS FRAMED ON THE ASSESSEE DENYING THE SAID CLAIM FOR T HE REASON THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT BEEN GRANTED THE APPROVAL BY THE CCIT, CHANDIGARH U/S 10(23C)(VI). THE ASSESSING OF FICER ALSO HELD THAT THE PRIMARY CONDITIONS U/S 10(23C)(V I) HAD NOT BEEN SATISFIED IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE SOCI ETY AND, THEREFORE, THE EXEMPTION CLAIMED UNDER THE SAID SEC TION WAS 2 REJECTED AND THE ASSESSEE SOCIETY WAS ASSESSED IN T HE STATUS OF AOP AND TAXED ACCORDINGLY. 3. THE MATTER WAS CARRIED IN APPEAL BEFORE THE LD.CIT(APPEALS) WHO UPHELD THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSI NG OFFICER. 4. AGGRIEVED BY THE SAME THE ASSESSEE HAS COME UP I N APPEAL BEFORE US RAISING THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS: 1. BECAUSE THE CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN FACTS AND ON LA W BY UPHOLDING THE REASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS U/S 147,148 OF THE ACT. 2. BECAUSE THE CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN UPHOLDING THE DECLINING OF THE EXEMPTION U/S 10(23C)(VI) OF THE A CT, OF RS. 2,68,,82,750/-. 3. BECAUSE THE CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN UPHOLDING THE OR DER OF AO WHEREBY THE ORDER OF HON'BLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT HAS NOT BEEN FOLLOWED AND OR RESPECTED. 4. BECAUSE THE CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN UPHOLDING THE ACTION OF AO OF ASSESSING THE ASSESSEE AS AN AOP IN PLACE OF SOCIETY. 5. DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING BEFORE US, THE LD. DR STATED THAT THE ENTIRE ISSUE IN THE PRESENT APPEAL REVOLVES AROUND THE DENIAL OF APPROVAL TO THE ASSESSEE U/S 1 0(23C)(VI) IN THE ABSENCE OF WHICH THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN ASSES SED TO TAX IN THE STATUS OF AOP. LD.DR POINTED OUT THAT TH E MATTER OF DENIAL OF APPROVAL TO THE TRUST U/S 10(23C)(VI) OF THE ACT HAD BEEN CARRIED IN APPEAL BEFORE THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT WHO IN TURN HAD REMANDED THE SAME TO THE CIT(EXEMPT ION). THUS, LD. DR POINTED OUT THAT THE ISSUES IN THE PRE SENT APPEAL COULD BE DISPOSED OFF ONLY AFTER THE DECISIO N IN THE MATTER PENDING BEFORE THE CIT(EXEMPTION) REGARDING APPROVAL U/S 10(23C)(VI) OF THE ACT. THE LD. DR AL SO DREW OUR ATTENTION TO THE ORDER OF THE HON'BLE HIGH COUR T 3 REMANDING THE ISSUE OF APPROVAL TO THE LD.CIT(APPEA LS) VIDE ITS ORDER DATED 9.4.2015. 6. AT THIS JUNCTURE THE LD. COUNSEL FOR ASSESSEE WA S ASKED WHETHER THE CIT(EXEMPTION) HAD DISPOSED OFF T HE MATTER REMANDED TO IT BY THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT. T O THIS, THE LD. COUNSEL FOR ASSESSEE STATED AT BAR THAT THE SAME WAS STILL PENDING WITH THE CIT(EXEMPTION). 7. FURTHER BOTH THE PARTIES AGREED THAT IT WOULD BE EXPEDIENT AND IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE TO RESTORE THE CASE BACK TO THE FILE OF THE AO TO DECIDE THE MATTER AFR ESH AFTER THE ISSUE OF GRANT OF APPROVAL IS DECIDED BY THE CIT(EXEMPTION). 8. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES. THE ISSUE IN T HE PRESENT APPEAL PERTAINS TO DENIAL OF EXEMPTION U/S 10(23C)(VI) OF THE ACT AND SUBSEQUENT FRAMING OF ASSESSMENT IN THE STATUS OF AOP OF THE ASSESSEE. I T IS NOT DISPUTED THAT AS ON DATE, THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT BEEN GRANTED APPROVAL BY THE CIT(EXEMPTION) U/S 10(23C(VI) OF TH E ACT. FURTHER IT IS ALSO NOT DISPUTED THAT THE ISSUE OF G RANT OF APPROVAL HAS BEEN RESTORED TO THE CIT(EXEMPTION) BY THE ORDER OF THE HON'BLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT DATE D 9.4.2015 AND AS SUBMITTED BY THE LD. COUNSEL FOR AS SESSEE AT BAR, IS STILL PENDING BEFORE HIM. SINCE WE FIND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN DENIED EXEMPTION U/S 10(23C)(VI) OF THE ACT IN THE ABSENCE OF APPROVAL FROM THE COMMISSIONER F OR THE SAME AND SINCE THE ISSUE OF GRANT OF APPROVAL IS PE NDING BEFORE THE COMMISSIONER, WE CONSIDER IT FIT TO REST ORE THE CASE 4 BACK TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO DECIDE THE MATTER AFRESH AFTER THE ISSUE OF GRANT OF APPROVAL BY THE CIT(EXEMPTION) IS DECIDED. WE MAY ADD THAT THE ASS ESSEE BE GIVEN DUE OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING IN THIS REGARD AND IS FREE TO ADDUCE ALL EVIDENCE, IF REQUIRED DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING, BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 9. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT. SD/- SD/- (DIVA SINGH) (ANNAPURNA GUPTA) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED : 10 TH AUGUST, 2017 *RATI* COPY TO: 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CIT(A) 4. THE CIT 5. THE DR ASSISTANT REGISTRAR, ITAT, CHANDIGARH