The Income-tax Officer, Jammu V. M/s. Bawa Lal Dayal, Jammu

ITA 393/ASR/2014

• Counselvise Citation: 39320914 RSA 2014
• Duration Of Justice: 7 month(s) 22 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 03-02-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 11-06-2014
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Tax effect

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AMRITSAR BENCH; AMRITSAR. BEFORE SH. A.D.JAIN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SH. B.P.JAIN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. NO.393(ASR)/2014 ASSESSMENT YEAR:2010-11 PAN :AABTB3497M INCOME TAX OFFICER, VS. M/S. BAWA LAL DAYAL, INSTI TUTE OF WARD 2(1), JAMMU. TEACHER TRAINING, F-26, EXCHANG E ROAD, JAMMU. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY:SH.TARSEM LAL, DR RESPONDENT BY:SH.JOGINDER SINGH, CA DATE OF HEARING:02/02/2015 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT:03.02.2015 ORDER PER A.D.JAIN, JM: THIS IS DEPARTMENTS APPEAL FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEA R 2010-11 AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A), JAMMU DATED 15.04.2014. T HE REVENUE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL: 1. WHETHER THE CIT(A), JAMMU WAS RIGHT IN LAW IN A LLOWING EXEMPTION U/S 10(23C)(IIIAD) OF THE I.T.ACT, 1961. 2. WHETHER THE CIT(A),JAMMU WAS RIGHT IN LAW IN NOT CONSIDERING THAT THE TRUST HAD GENERATED SURPLUS PROFIT OUT OF TOTAL RECEIPTS EVEN IN THE PAST AND IT HAS NOT SPENT ALL ITS RECEI PTS ON MAIN AIMS ITA NO.393(ASR)/2014 2 AND OBJECTS OF THE TRUST AND THUS IT CANNOT BE ACCE PTED THAT THE SURPLUS GENERATED IS MERELY INCIDENTAL. 3. WHETHER THE CIT(A),JAMMU WAS RIGHT IN LAW IN NOT CONSIDERING THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE UTTRAKHAND HIGH COURT I N THE CASES OF CIT VS. QUEENS EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY, HALDWANI AND CIT VS. ST. PAULS SR. SECONDARY SCHOOL, KATHGODAM DATED 24. 09.2007 WHEREIN THE HONBLE HIGH COURT HELD THAT THE ASSES SEE WAS NOT ENTITLED TO CLAIM THE DEDUCTION. 4. WHETHER THE CIT(A),JAMMU WAS RIGHT IN LAW IN NOT CONSIDERING THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE ITAT, JAIPUR BENCH IN T HE CASE OF JHUNJHUNU ACADEMY SAMMITTEE VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER (2006) REPORTED IN 103 TTJ 260. 2. AT THE TIME OF HEARING THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE A SSESSEE RAISED A PRELIMINARY OBJECTION THAT THE TAX EFFECT INVOLVED IN THE REVENUES APPEAL IS LESS THAN RS.3 LACS. THEREFORE, THE PRESENT APPEAL FILED BY THE DEPARTMENT MAY BE DISMISSED, AS THE SAME IS NOT MAINTAINABLE B EING CONTRARY TO CBDTS INSTRUCTION NO.3 OF 2011 DATED 09.02.2011. 3. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LD. DR RELIED UPON THE OR DERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. 4. AFTER HEARING BOTH THE PARTIES, IT IS SEEN THAT THE TAX EFFECT INVOLVED IN THIS APPEAL IS LESS THAN RS.3,00,000/-. HENCE, AS P ER CBDT INSTRUCTION NO. 3 OF 2011, DATED 9 TH FEB., 2011, WHICH IS BINDING ON THE DEPARTMENT, TH E DEPARTMENT IS PRECLUDED FROM FILING THE PRESENT APP EAL. WE ALSO FIND THAT THE REVENUE HAS FILED THE PRESENT APPEAL ON 11.06.201 4 MUCH AFTER THE ISSUANCE ITA NO.393(ASR)/2014 3 OF THE SAID CBDT INSTRUCTION NO. 3 OF 2011, WHICH I S EFFECTIVE FROM 9 TH FEBRUARY, 2011. THEREFORE, IN OUR CONSIDERED OPINIO N, THE SAID INSTRUCTION OF CBDT IS BINDING UPON THE DEPARTMENT AND THE PRESENT APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED CONTRARY TO THE SAID INSTRUCTION ISSUED BY THE CBD T. ACCORDINGLY, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED, AS NOT MA INTAINABLE. 5. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE I S DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 3RD F EBRUARY, 2015. SD/- SD/- (B.P. JAIN) (A.D.JAIN) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED: 3RD FEBRUARY, 2015 /SKR/ COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. THE ASSESSEE:M/S. BAWA LAL DAYAL, INSTITUTE OF TEAC HER TRAINING, F-26, EXCHANGE ROAD, JAMMU. 2. THE ITO WARD-2(1), JAMMU. 3. THE CIT(A), JAMMU 4. THE CIT, JAMMU. 5. THE SR DR, ITAT, AMRITSAR. TRUE COPY BY ORDER (ASSISTANT REGISTRAR) INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, AMRITSAR BENCH: AMRITSAR.