Sinhgad Technical Education Society, Pune V. Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax,

ITA 397/PUN/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 128 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6961 (ITAT-PUNE)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 5 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 08-03-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 07-07-2016
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 03-03-2014
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: NANDITA KANCHAN
• Assessee Lawyers: S N DOSHI
• Section: 143(3); 154

Judgement Text

] IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH B, PUNE BEFORE SHRI ANIL CHATURVEDI, AM AND SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY, JM / ITA NOS.397 & 398/PUN/2014 / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2006-07 SINHGAD TECHNICAL EDUCATION SOCIETY, S.NO.44/1, VADGAON (BUDRUK), OFF. SINHAGAD ROAD, PUNE 411041. PAN NO.AABTS9900Q. . / APPELLANT V/S A SST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(2), PUNE. . / RESPONDENT / ASSESSEE BY : SHRI S.N. DOSHI / REVENUE BY : SMT.NANDITA KANCHAN / ORDER PER ANIL CHATURVEDI, AM : THESE TWO APPEALS FILED BY ASSESSEE ARE EMANATING OUT OF TWO SEPARATE ORDERS OF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (A) - CENT RAL, PUNE DT.17.01.2014 AND 16.01.2014, RESPECTIVELY, FOR A.Y. 2006-07. 2. BEFORE US, AT THE OUTSET, LD.A.R. SUBMITTED THAT THOUGH THE 2 APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE ARE AGAINST TWO SEPARATE ORD ERS OF LD. CIT(A) BUT SINCE THE ISSUES ARE SIMILAR IN BOTH THE APPEAL S, HIS / DATE OF HEARING : 21.02.2017 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 08.03.2017 2 ARGUMENTS WILL ALSO BE COMMON AND THEREFORE BOTH THE APP EALS CAN BE HEARD AND DISPOSED OF TOGETHER. LD. D.R. DID NOT OBJE CT TO THE AFORESAID SUBMISSION OF LD.A.R. WE THEREFORE FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE PROCEED TO DISPOSE OF BOTH THE APPEALS TOGE THER BY A CONSOLIDATED ORDER. 3. THE RELEVANT FACTS AS CULLED OUT FROM THE MATERIAL ON RE CORD ARE AS UNDER :- 3.1 ASSESSEE IS AN AOP STATED TO BE ENGAGED IN RUNNING OF TECHNICAL EDUCATION INSTITUTION. ASSESSMENT U/S 143(3) OF TH E ACT WAS FRAMED ON 07.08.2008 AND THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE AS SESSEE WAS DETERMINED AT RS.34,79,98,520/-. SUBSEQUENTLY AN APPL ICATION U/S 154 WAS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE. THE PRAYER MADE IN T HE APPLICATION U/S 154 WAS REJECTED BY THE AO BY ORDER DT.1 0.03.2011. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF AO, ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MATT ER BEFORE LD. CIT(A), WHO VIDE ORDER DT.17.01.2014 DISMISSED THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A), ASSESSEE IS NOW IN APPEAL BEFORE US AND HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS. 4. THE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IN APPEAL NO.398/PUN/2014 READS AS UNDER : 1. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CAS E AND ALTHOUGH IT IS CONSEQUENTIAL AND OBVIOUS, NONETHELE SS THE CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN NOT DIRECTING THE ASSESSING OFF ICER TO PASS THE ORDER FOR GIVING EFFECT TO THE ORDER OF THE ITA T FOR THE A.Y. 2000-01 TO 2003-04. 2. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN NOT DIRECTING THE ASSESSING OFFICER FO R CARRYING OUT THE RECTIFICATION BY SETTING OFF THE UNABSORBED DEFICITS OF THE EARLIER A.Y.S 2000-01 TO 2003-04, DISREGARDING THE JUDGMENT OF JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY REF ERRED TO IN THE RECTIFICATION APPLICATION AS WELL AS IDENTICAL JUDGMENTS OF GUJARAT HIGH COURT AND RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT. 3. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CAS E THE CIT(A)S RELIANCE ON THE ORDER PASSED BY THE CIT(A) -CENTRAL IN 3 THE CASE OF BHARATI VIDYAPEETH IS TOTALLY MISPLACED AND HAS ALSO ERRED IN NOT APPRECIATING THE UNDISPUTED POSIT ION OF LAW SUPPORTING THE CONTENTION THAT UNABSORBED DEFICITS OF THE EARLIER YEAR HAS TO BE SET OFF AGAINST THE INCOME O F THE SUBSEQUENT YEAR. 5. THE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IN APPEAL NO.397/PUN/2014 READS AS UNDER : 1. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CA SE THE CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN NOT RECTIFYING THE MISTAKE WITH RESPECT TO THE ADDITION MADE OF RS.10,15,22,340/- MADE IN THE HANDS OF MR.M.N.NAVALE ON THE GROUND THAT THE SAID AMOUNT HA S BEEN SIPHONED OFF BY HIM OUT OF THE ALLEGED DONATIONS SH OWN AS COLLECTED AND ADDED IN THE ASSESSED INCOME OF THE A PPELLANT, OVERLOOKING THE FACT THAT THE SAID AMOUNT OF RS.10,15,22,340/- IS TAXED TWICE. 2. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CAS E THE CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN NOT APPRECIATING THE MISTAKE POINTED O UT IN THE GROUND NO.1, ABOVE AS CONSTITUTING THE MISTAKE APPA RENT FROM RECORD. 6. BEFORE US, AT THE OUTSET, LD.A.R. SUBMITTED THAT SOLITARY ISSUE INVOLVED IS ABOUT REJECTION OF RECTIFICATION SOUGHT BY THE A SSESSEE. LD.A.R. SUBMITTED THAT AGAINST THE QUANTUM ORDER PASSED BY THE AO, ASSESSEE HAD PREFERRED SECOND APPEAL BEFORE TRIBUNAL. HE SUBMITTED THAT THE CO-ORDINATE BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL V IDE ORDER DT.14.12.2016 IN ITA NO.320/PUN/2010 HAS DECIDED THE ISSU E IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE. HE THEREFORE SUBMITTED THAT IN V IEW OF THE ORDER OF TRIBUNAL, THE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE PRES ENT APPEALS HAVE BEEN RENDERED ACADEMIC AND THEREFORE INFRU CTUOUS. LD.D.R. DID NOT CONTROVERT THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BY LD.A.R. 7. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD. BEFORE US, IT IS ASSESSEE SUBMISSION TH AT PURSUANT TO THE ORDER OF TRIBUNAL IN ASSESSEES CASE, TH E PRESENT APPEALS OF ASSESSEE HAS BECOME INFRUCTUOUS. IN VIEW OF T HE 4 AFORESAID SUBMISSION OF THE LD.A.R., BOTH THE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE ARE DISMISSED AS INFRUCTUOUS. 8. IN THE RESULT, BOTH THE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE ARE DISMISSED AS INFRUCTUOUS. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON THE 8 TH DAY OF MARCH, 2017. SD/- SD/- ( VIKAS AWASTHY ) ( ANIL CHATURVEDI ) / JUDICIAL MEMBER ! / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER PUNE; ! DATED : 08 TH MARCH, 2017. YAMINI '#$%&'&$ / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. / THE APPELLANT 2. / THE RESPONDENT 3 . 4. 5. 6. CIT(CENTRAL), PUNE. CIT(A)-12, PUNE. . #$% &&'(, * '(, / DR, ITAT, B PUNE; %+, - / GUARD FILE. / BY ORDER, // TRUE COPY // // TRUE CO // TRUE COPY // . /012 / ASSISTANT REGISTRAR, * '( , / ITAT, PUNE.