Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax -6, Kanpur V. M/s. Artificial Limbs Manufacturing Corpn. of India, Kanpur

ITA 501/LKW/2012

• Counselvise Citation: 50123714 RSA 2012
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 8 month(s) 26 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 13-06-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 19-05-2014
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 17-09-2012
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: ALOK MITRA
• Assessee Lawyers: P K KAPOOR
• Keywords: Charitable institution
• Section: 12AA; 11

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.501/LKW/2012 ASSESSMENT YEAR:2009 - 10 A.C.I.T. - 6, KANPUR. VS. M/S ARTIFICIAL LIMBS MANUFACTURING CORPN. OF INDIA, G. T. ROAD, KANPUR. PAN:AAABCA8899F (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) C.O.NO.85/LKW/2012 (IN ITA NO.501/LKW/2012) ASSESSMENT YEAR:2009 - 10 M/S ARTIFICIAL LIMBS MANUFACTURING CORPN. OF INDIA, G. T. ROAD, KANPUR. PAN:AAABCA8899F VS. A.C.I.T. - 6, KANPUR. (OBJECTOR) (RESPONDENT) REVENUE BY SHRI ALOK MITRA, D.R. ASSESSEE BY SHRI P. K. KAPOOR, C.A. DATE OF HEARING 19/05/2014 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 1 3 /06/2014 O R D E R PER A. K. GARODIA, A.M. THE APPEAL IS FILED BY THE REVENUE AND THE CROSS OBJECTION IS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE, WHICH ARE DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF CIT (A) - II, KANPUR DATED 21/06/2012 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009 - 2010. 2. AT THE VERY OUTSET , IT WAS SUBMITTED BY LEARNED A.R. OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE CROSS OBJECTION IS NOT PRESSED AND ACCORDINGLY, THE CROSS OBJECTION FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED AS NOT PRESSED. 2 3. NOW WE TAKE UP THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE. IN THIS APPEAL, THE REVENUE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS: 1. THAT THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN DIRECTING THE AO TO RE - COMPUTE THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE IN VIEW OF PROVISION OF SECTION 10(23C) READ WITH SECTION 11 AND 13 OF THE IT ACT, 1961 WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE FACTS THAT PROVISION OF SECTION 10(23C) IS NOT APPLICABLE IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE IS ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF MANUFACTURING, BUYING, SELLING, IMPORTING AND EXPORTING OF ARTIFICIAL LIMBS ACCESSORIES AND CONSTITUENTS THEREOF AND EARNING PROFIT. THE COMPANY IS NOT A HOSPITAL, CHARITABLE INSTITUTION ETC. AS REQUIRED U/S 10(23C). MOREOVER, THE ORDER OF THE ITAT, DIRECTING FOR GRANT OF REGISTRATION U/S 12AA HAS NOT BEEN ACCEPTED BY THE DEPARTMENT. IT IS SUB JUDICE AS APPEAL U/S 260 IS PENDING BEFORE HON'BLE HIGH COURT ON THIS ISSUE. 2. THAT THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS OF THE CASE IN PASSING ORDER FOR CONSIDERING THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE U/S 11 AND 13 ON THE BASIS OF EXEMPTION GRANTED BY THE COMMISSIONE R OF INCOME TAX - II, KANPUR AND IGNORING THE FACTS THAT THE MATTER IS SUB JUDICE AS APPEAL U/S 260 IS PENDING BEFORE HON'BLE HIGH COURT. 3. THAT THE ORDER OF THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) BEING ERRONEOUS IN LAW AND ON FACTS DESERVES TO BE VA CATED AND THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER BE RESTORED. 4. THAT THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO MODIFY ANY OF THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL OR TAKE ADDITIONAL GROUND DURING THE PENDENCY OF THIS APPEAL. 4. LEARNED D.R. OF THE REVENUE SUPPORTED THE ASSESSMENT ORD ER WHEREAS LEARNED A.R. OF THE ASSESSEE SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF CIT(A). HE ALSO SUBMITTED THAT THIS ISSUE IS SQUARELY COVERED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE BY THE TRIBUNAL DECISION IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008 - 09 IN 3 I.T.A. NO.739/LKW/2011 DA TED 27/12/2013. HE SUBMITTED COPY OF THIS TRIBUNAL ORDER. 5. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS. WE FIND THAT AS PER PARA 8 OF ITS ORDER, THE CIT(A) HAS DIRECTED THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO RECOMPUTE THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE IN TERMS OF SECTION 11 TO 13 OF THE ACT KEEPING IN VIEW THAT CIT - II, KANPUR HAS ALREADY GRANTED REGISTRATION U/S 12AA OF THE ACT. IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008 - 09 ALSO, SIMILAR DIRECTION WAS GIVEN BY CIT (A) TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND THE TRIBUNAL HELD THAT NO IN TERFERENCE IS CALL ED FOR IN SUCH ORDER OF CIT(A). ACCORDINGLY, IN THE PRESENT YEAR ALSO, WE HOLD THAT NO INTERFERENCE IS CALLED FOR IN THE ORDER OF CIT(A). 6. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE STANDS DISMISSED. 7. IN THE COMBINED RESULT, THE CROSS OBJECTION OF THE ASSESSEE AS WELL AS THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE ARE DISMISSED. (ORDER WAS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THE DATE MENTIONED ON THE CAPTION PAGE) SD/. SD/. (SUNIL KUMAR YADAV) ( A. K. GARODI A ) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED: 1 3 /06/2014. *C.L.SINGH COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT. 3. CONCERNED CIT 4. THE CIT(A) 5. DR, ITAT, LUCKNOW ASSISTANT REGISTRAR