TRUSTEES OF JNANA VISTRAK SANGH, MUMBAI V. DY CIT CPC, BANGALORE

ITA 601/MUM/2020

• Counselvise Citation: [2021] 107 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 8662 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 5 month(s) 26 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 20-07-2021
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: E
• Assessment Year: 2015-2016
• Appeal Filed On: 24-01-2020
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: VIJAY KUMAR MENON
• Assessee Lawyers: GUNAL BANSAL
• Keywords: Rectification of order
• Section: 154; 250

Judgement Text

INTHEINCOMETAX APPELLATETRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCHEMUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SHAMIMYAHYA ACCOUNTANTMEMBERAND SHRI PAVANKUMARGADALE JUDICIAL MEMBER ITANO.601/MUM/2020 ASSESSMENT YEAR:2015-16 TRUSTEES OF JNANAVISTARAK SANGH, 2, DR.BHAJEKAR, STREET, KHETWADI, MUMBAI-400004. VS. DEPUTYCOMMISSIONER OF INCOMETAX, CPC, POST BAG NO. 2, ELECTRONICCITYPOST OFFICE, BANGLORE-560500. PANNO. AAATT0086B APPELLANT RESPONDENT ASSESSEEBY : MR.GUNAL BANSAL,AR REVENUE BY : MR. VIJAYKUMAR MENON, DR DATE OF HEARING : 15/07/2021 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 20/07/2021 ORDER PER PAVANKUMARGADALE, J.M. THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED THE APPEAL AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-1, MUMBAI PASSED U/S 154 AND 250 OF THE INCOME TAXACT,1961.THE ASSESSEE HASRAISEDFOLLOWINGGROUNDSOFAPPEAL 1. ON THE FACTS AND UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE LEARNED CIT (A) ERRED IN ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ACTION OF ASSESSING OFFICER, OF NOT GRANTING THEEXEMPTION U/S 11(1) OF RS.4,00,00,000/-, ALTHOUGH ALL THE CONDITIONS LAID DOWN IN SECTION 11(1) ARE SATISFIEDBY THEAPPELLANT. 2. ON THE FACTS AND UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE LEARNED CIT (A) ERRED IN ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ACTION OF ASSESSING OFFICER, OF CONCLUDING THAT THE TRUSTEES OF JNANA VISTARAK ITA NO.601/MUM/2020 2 APPELLANT HAS NOT EXERCISED THE OPTION U/S 11(1) WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE FACT THAT THE OPTION U/S 11(1) WAS EXERCISED BY THE APPELLANT WITHIN THE PRESCRIBED TIME AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF THE I. T.ACT AND THE SAME WAS SUBMITTED TO THE AO VIDE LETTER DATED 29.09.2015. 3. ON THE FACTS AND UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE LEARNED CIT (A) ERRED IN DISMISSING THE APPEAL WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE FACT THAT THE APPELLANT IS ELIGIBLE TO CLAIM THE EXEMPTION U/S 11(1) AND NOT GRANTING THE SAME HAS CAUSED GENUINE HARDSHIPTOTHE APPELLANT 2. AT THE TIME OF HEARING THE LD.AR OF THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE WISHES TO WITHDRAW THE APPEAL, AS THE RECTIFICATION ORDER U/SEC154 OF THE ACT WAS PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON 25.02.2020 AND PROVIDED SUBSTANTIAL RELIEF TO THE ASSESSEE. 3. THE LD.AR HAS FILED A LETTER ALONG WITH THE RECTIFICATION ORDER DATED 25.02.2020AND PRAYED FORWITHDRAWAL OF THE APPEAL.CONTRA, THE LD. DR HASNO OBJECTION. 4. WE AFTER HEARING THE SUBMISSIONS OF BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSAL OF MATERIAL FILED ON RECORD, PERMIT THE ASSESSEE TO WITHDRAW THE APPEAL. ACCORDINGLY,THEASSESSEESAPPEALISTREATEDASWITHDRAWNANDISDISMISSED. 5. IN THE RESULT,THE APPEAL FILEDBY THE ASSESSEE ISDISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCEDINTHE OPENCOURT ON20/07/2021. SD/- SD/- ( SHAMIM YAHYA ) (PAVANKUMARGADALE) ACCOUNTANTMEMBER JUDICIALMEMBER MUMBAI; DATED:20/07/2021. RAHUL SHARMA,SR. P.S. TRUSTEES OF JNANA VISTARAK ITA NO.601/MUM/2020 3 COPYOFTHEORDERFORWARDED TO : 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT. 3. THE CIT(A) - 4. CIT 5. DR, ITAT,MUMBAI 6. GUARDFILE. BY ORDER, //TRUE COPY// (DY./ASSTT.REGISTRAR) ITAT,MUMBAI