KSHETRIYA KHADI GRAMODYOG SAMITI, Jaipur V. CIT, Alwar

ITA 655/JPR/2010

• Counselvise Citation: [2011] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 47935 (ITAT-JAIPUR)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 17 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 24-06-2011
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 25-01-2011
• Assessment Year: 2005-2006
• Appeal Filed On: 07-06-2010
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: LAJPAT RAI
• Section: 263; 10

Judgement Text

1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL JAIPUR BENCH A JAIPUR (BEFORE SHRI R.K.GUPTA AND SHRI N.L.KALRA) ITA NO.655/ JP/2010 ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06 PAN: AAACK 6377 M KSHETRIYA KHADI GRAMODYOG SAMITI VS. THE CIT KHADI BHANDAR ROAD, DAUSA WARD - DAUSA (APPELLANT ) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : SHRI LAJPAT RAI DEPARTMENT BY : SHRI SUNIL MATHUR ORDER PER N.L. KALRA, AM:- THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED AN APPEAL AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT, ALWAR DATED 26-03-2010 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 200 5-06. 2.1 THE FIRST GROUND OF THE ASSESSEE IS THAT THE LD . CIT WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN WITHDRAWING THE EXEMPTION U/S 10(23B) OF THE ACT BY PASSING ORDER U/S 263 OF THE ACT. 2.2 THE LD. CIT ISSUED A SHOW CAUSE NOTICE U/S 263 OF THE ACT ON 18 TH FEB. 2010 IN WHICH THE ASSESSEE WAS REQUIRED TO EXPLAIN AS TO WHY EXEMPTION U/S 10(23B) OF THE ACT BE NOT WITHDRAWN BECAUSE THE APP ROVAL BY KHADI & VILLAGE INDUSTRIES COMMISSION, MUMBAI WAS GIVEN FOR MORE THAN THREE YEARS. SECTION 10 (23B) MENTIONS IN THE PROVISO THA T KHADI & VILLAGE 2 INDUSTRIES COMMISSION, MUMBAI SHALL NOT GRANT APPRO VAL FOR MORE THAN THREE DAYS AT ANY ONE TIME. IN THE INSTANT CASE, THE APPR OVAL WAS GIVEN FOR FIVE YEARS THOUGH THE COMMISSION WAS PERMITTED TO ISSUE APPROVAL FOR THREE YEARS AS PER PROVISO TO SECTION 10(23B) OF THE ACT, THERE FORE, THE APPROVAL WAS TREATED FOR THREE YEARS AND WAS NOT CONSIDERED FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06. 2.3 DURING THE COURSE OF PROCEEDINGS BEFORE US, THE LD. AR HAS FILED A LETTER DATED 31-03-2011 IN WHICH KHADI & VILLAGE IN DUSTRIES COMMISSION, MUMBAI HAS GIVEN APPROVAL FOR ASSESSMENT YEARS 2003 -04, 2004-05 AND 2005-06. IT IS TRUE THAT SUCH APPROVAL WAS NOT BEFO RE THE LD. CIT. THE ONLY OBJECTION BY THE LD CIT IN NOT ALLOWING EXEMPTION U/S 10(23B) WAS THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT GIVEN THE APPROVAL OBTAINED FROM K HADI & VILLAGE INDUSTRIES COMMISSION, MUMBAI FOR THE ASSESSMENT YE AR UNDER CONSIDERATION. 2.4 THE LD. DR RELIED UPON THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT . 2.5 WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES. WE , FEEL THAT ORDER PASSED U/S 263 BY THE LD. CIT IS TO BE SET ASIDE SO THAT THE LD. CIT MAY CONSIDER THE APPROVAL WHICH HAS BEEN OBTAINED BY THE ASSESSEE AFTER PASSI NG THE ORDER BY HIM U/S 263 OF THE ACT. ACCORDINGLY THE ORDER U/S 263 OF TH E ACT IS SET ASIDE AND TO BE MADE AGAIN AFTER CONSIDERING THE APPROVAL OBTAIN ED BY THE ASSESSEE SUBSEQUENTLY. APPROVAL OBTAINED FOR PARTICULAR ASSE SSMENT YEAR IS OPERATIVE 3 EVEN THOUGH IT IS GIVEN ON SUBSEQUENT DATE. ATTENTI ON IS DRAWN TO THE FOLLOWING DECISIONS. 1. CIT VS. SANDAN VIKAS (INDIA) LTD. 2011-TIOL-132- HC-DEL- IT 2. CIT VS. M/S. WHEELS INDIA LTD. 2010-TIOL-773-H C-MAD-IT 3. ACIT VS. MECO INSTRUMENTS (P) LTD. 2010-TIOL-563 - ITAT-MUIM THE LD. CIT WILL ALSO CONSIDER SUCH LEGAL POSITION. 3.1 SINCE THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN ALLOW ED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES, THEREFORE, THERE IS NO NEED TO ADJUDICATE UPON THE OTHER GROUNDS OF APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE. 4. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALL OWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. THE ORDER IS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 24-06 -2011. SD/- SD/- (R.K. GUPTA) (N.L. KALRA) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JAIPUR DATED; 24 /06/2011 *MISHRA COPY FORWARDED TO :- 1. KSHETRIYA KHADI GRAMODYOG SAMITI, DAUSA 2. THE CIT , ALWAR 3. THE LD. CIT BY ORDER 4. THE LD.DR 5. THE GUARD FILE (ITA NO.655/JP /10) A.R, ITAT, JAIPUR 4 5 6