Prakash Gramudyog Samiti, Kanpur V. Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Tax-1, Kanpur

ITA 340/LKW/2013

• Counselvise Citation: 34023714 RSA 2013
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 8 month(s) 3 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 16-01-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 27-11-2014
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 13-05-2013
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Section: 143(3); 2

Judgement Text

1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL LUCKNOW BENCH B, LUCKNOW BEFORE SHRI SUNIL KUMAR YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI A.K. GARODIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO.340/LKW/2013 ASSESSMENT YEAR:2009 - 10 A.C.I.T. - 1, KANPUR. VS M/S PRAKASH GRAMUDYOG SAMITI, 87/8 - C, ACHARYA NAGAR, KANPUR. PAN:AAAAP0254G (RESPONDENT) (APPELLANT) NONE APPELLANT BY SHRI AMIT NIGAM, D.R. RESPONDENT BY 27/11/2014 DATE OF HEARING 16 /01/2015 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT O R D E R PER A. K. GARODIA, A.M. THIS IS AN ASSESSEES APPEAL DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER PASSED BY LEARNED CIT(A) - II, KANPUR DATED 30/01/2013 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009 - 2010. 2. THE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE AS UNDER: 1. THAT, IN VIEW OF THE PROVISIONS OF SEC. 10( 2 3 B ) READ WITH PROVISO TO SUB - SEC. 3 OF SEC. 143 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961, SUO - MOTO DENIAL OF EXEMPTION BY THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER IS BEYOND JURISDICTION AND THE ASSESSMENT ORDER IS LIABLE TO BE QUASHED. 2. THAT LD. ASSESSING OFFICER AND CIT (APPEALS) DID NOT PASS A SPEAKING ORDER ON THIS POINT OF LAW AND, THEREFORE, THE BOTH THE ORDERS ARE BAD - IN - LAW AND BE QUASHED. 3. THAT LD. ASSESSING OFFICER INFRINGED THE POWERS VESTED IN THE PRESCRIBED AUTHORITY U/S 10(23B) OF THE ACT; WHILE DISALLOWING THE SAID EXEMPTI ON, AND THEREBY AGAIN ACTED NON - JUDICIALLY AND BEYOND JURISDICTION. 2 4. THAT THE ASSESSEE IS GRANTED THE EXEMPTION CONTINUOUSLY FOR LAST SO MANY YEARS AND MERELY NON - COMMUNICATION OF THE EXEMPTION FOR ANY SPECIFIC YEAR DOES NOT AMOUNT TO THE REVOCATION OF THE EXEMPTION WITHIN THE MEANING OF SEC/ 10(23B) READ WITH PROVISO TO SUB - SEC. 3 OF SEC. 143 OF THE ACT. 5. THAT LD. ASSESSING OFFICER ERRED IN STATING THAT NO APPROVAL WAS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE, WHEREAS THE SAME WAS DULY FILED DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROC EEDING. 6. THAT LD. ASSESSING OFFICER AS WELL AS CIT (APPEALS) ALSO ERRED IN NOT APPRAISING THE WORDS 'FOR THE TIME BEING APPROVED' CONTAINED IN CLAUSE (II) OF THE FIRST PROVISO TO SEC. 10(23B) OF THE ACT. IN FACT, BOTH OF THEM SKIPPED TO ANSWER THE ISSUE AND APPRAISE THE LAW IN JUDICIAL MANNER. 7. THAT LD. ASSESSING OFFICER ALSO ACTED BEYOND JURISDICTION WHILE DENYING THE EXEMPTION ON THE GROUND THAT THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE IS NOT APPLIED FOR THE ADVANCEMENT OF KHADI & VILLAGE INDUSTRY, WHEREAS THIS F ACT IS TO BE SEEN BY THE PRESCRIBED AUTHORITY EMPOWERED TO GRANT THE EXEMPTION AND LD. ASSESSING OFFICER HAS ONLY THE COURSE PRESCRIBED UNDER PROVISO TO SUB - SEC. 3 OF SEC. 143 OF THE ACT; WHICH HE NEVER ADOPTED. HE ALSO FAILED TO ESTABLISH HIS CONTENTION A ND PASS A SPEAKING ORDER ON THIS POINT. 8. THAT LD. CIT (APPEALS) ACTED NON - JUDICIALLY WHILE DISMISSING THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE, IN SPITE OF THE FACT THAT ON THE SAME POINT OF LAW, IT HAS BEEN HELD IN TWO EARLIER YEARS THAT '....THEREFORE, THE EXEMPTIO N DENIED BY A. O. MERELY FOR WANT OF THE CERTIFICATE BECOMES ILLOGICAL AND INVALID AS PER LAW....' 3. NONE APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE ON THE APPOINTED DATE OF HEARING INSPITE OF NOTICE AND HENCE, WE PROCEED TO DECIDE THIS APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE EX - PARTE QUA THE ASSESSEE. 4. LEARNED D.R. OF THE REVENUE SUPPORTED THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. 3 5. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS OF LEARNED D.R. OF THE REVENUE, PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD AND GONE THROUGH THE ORDERS OF THE AUT HORITIES BELOW. WE FIND THAT AS PER P ARA 4.6 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, IT IS NOTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT PROVISO TO SECTION 143(3) IS NOT APPLICABLE BECAUSE IT IS NOT TH AT THE CERTIFICATE AS HAS BEEN PRESCRIBED U/S 10(23B) OF THE ACT IS NOT AVAILAB LE WITH THE ASSESSEE . HE HAS FURTHER HELD THAT THIS PROVISO IS RELEVANT ONLY IF THE ASSESSEE IS HAVING REQUISITE CERTIFICATE. NEITHER BEFORE THE CIT(A) NOR BEFORE US, IT IS SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE THAT THE ASSESSEE IS HAVING THE REQUISITE CERTIFICATE, AS R EQUIRED U/S 10(23 B ) OF THE ACT. HENCE, WE DO NOT FIND ANY REASON TO INTERFERE IN THE ORDER OF CIT(A). 6. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE STANDS DISMISSED. (ORDER WAS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THE DATE MENTIONED ON THE CAPTION PAGE) SD/. SD/. (SUNIL KUMAR YADAV) ( A. K. GARODIA ) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED: 16 /01/2015 *C.L.SINGH COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1.THE APPELLANT 2.THE RESPONDENT. 3.CONCERNED CIT 4.THE CIT(A) 5.D.R., I.T.A.T., LUCKNOW ASSTT. REGISTRAR