Kamaraj Educational Trust, Krishnagiri V. ITO Exemption Ward , Salem

ITA 2598/CHNY/2018

• Counselvise Citation: [2022] 106 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 0033 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 4 month(s) 10 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 17-01-2022
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: D
• Assessment Year: 2013-2014
• Appeal Filed On: 06-09-2018
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL

Judgement Text

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, ‘डी’ ᭠यायपीठ, चे᳖ई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘D’ BENCH, CHENNAI Įी महावीर ͧसंह, उपाÚय¢ एवं Įी मनोज क ु मार अĒवाल, लेखा सदèय के सम¢ BEFORE SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, VICE PRESIDENTAND SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA No.: 2598/CHNY/2018 िनधाᭅरण वषᭅ /Assessment Year: 2013 - 14 M/s. Kamaraj Educational Trust, Kakankari Road, M. Savalur, Kaveripattinam P.O., Krishnagiri – 635 112. PAN : AABTK 6137B v. The Income Tax Officer, Exemption Ward, 3, Gandhi Road, Salem – 7. (अपीलाथᱮ/Appellant) (ᮧ᭜यथᱮ/Respondent) अपीलाथᱮ कᳱ ओर से/Appellant by : Shri S. Sridhar, Advocate ᮧ᭜यथᱮ कᳱ ओर से/Respondent by : Smt. R. Anita, Addl. CIT स ु नवाई कȧ तारȣख/Date of Hearing : 11.01.2022 घोषणा कȧ तारȣख/Date of Pronouncement : 18.01.2022 आदेश /O R D E R PER MAHAVIR SINGH, VP: This appeal by the assessee is arising out of order of the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Salem in ITA No.83/2016-17, vide order dated 29.06.2018. The assessment was framed by the Income Tax Officer, Exemption Ward, Salem for 2 I.T.A. No.2598/Chny/2018 the assessment year 2013-14 vide order dated 31.03.2016 u/s.143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter the ‘Act’). 2. The only issue in this appeal of assessee is as regards to non- adjudication of Ground No.2 raised before CIT(A). The ld.counsel for the assessee took us through the grounds raised in Form No.35 and the same is reproduced in the order of CIT(A), which is being reproduced herein below:- “2. The Appellant trust is running a school in Kaveripattinam (tk), Krishnagiri and for the F.Y.2012-13 the return of income was filed claiming exemption u/s 10(23c)(iiiad) of the Act.” 3. The ld.counsel for the assessee took us through the order of CIT(A) para No.6, wherein the CIT(A) has adjudicated the issue in regard to the provisions of Section 12A(2) of the Act. The ld.counsel stated that the CIT(A) has not adjudicated the claim of exemption made u/s.10(23c)(iiiad) of the Act. When this was put to ld.senior DR, she fairly conceded that matter can be restored back to the file of the CIT(A). But, the ld.counsel stated that matter can be restored back to the AO. When again countered, the ld.senior DR agreed that adjudication is not done by CIT(A), whereas the AO has adjudicated this issue and denied the claim of exemption u/s.10(23c)(iiiad) of the Act by a speaking order. 3 I.T.A. No.2598/Chny/2018 4. After hearing rival contentions and perused the materials, we noticed that the CIT(A) has not adjudicated the above said ground No.2 and as both sides conceded, the matter has to be restored back. In our understanding, the AO has adjudicated the issue but the CIT(A) has not adjudicated the issue. Hence, it will be fair and reasonable to restore the matter back to the file of the CIT(A). We order accordingly. 5. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose. Order pronounced in the open court on 18 th January, 2022 at Chennai. Sd/- Sd/- (मनोज कुमार अᮕवाल) (MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL) लेखा सद᭭य /ACCOUNTANT MEMBER (महावीर ᳲसह ) (MAHAVIR SINGH) उपा᭟यᭃ /VICE PRESIDENT चे᳖ई/Chennai, ᳰदनांक/Dated, the 18 th January, 2022 RSR आदेश कᳱ ᮧितिलिप अᮕेिषत/Copy to: 1. अपीलाथᱮ/Appellant 2. ᮧ᭜यथᱮ/Respondent 3. आयकर आयुᲦ (अपील)/CIT(A) 4. आयकर आयुᲦ /CIT 5. िवभागीय ᮧितिनिध/DR 6. गाडᭅ फाईल/GF.