Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax (Exem.), Lucknow V. M/s Mahila Samakhya, Lucknow

ITA 668/LKW/2015

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 133 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 4799 (ITAT-LUCKNOW)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 month(s) 18 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 15-01-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 11-01-2016
• Assessment Year: 2012-2013
• Appeal Filed On: 27-10-2015
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: K R RASTOGI

Judgement Text

1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL LUCKNOW BENCH A, LUCKNOW BEFORE SHRI SUNIL KUMAR YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI A.K. GARODIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO.668/LKW/2015 ASSESSMENT YEAR:2012-13 DY.C.I.T. (EXEMPTION), LUCKNOW. VS. M/S MAHILA SAMAKHYA UTTAR PRADESH 4/13, VISHAL KHAND, GOMTI NAGAR, LUCKNOW. PAN:AABTM2147B (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY SHRI AMIT NIGAM, D. R. RESPONDENT BY SHRI K. R. RASTOGI, C. A. DATE OF HEARING 11/01/2016 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 15/01/2016 O R D E R PER A. K. GARODIA, A.M. THIS IS REVENUES APPEAL DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORD ER OF LEARNED CIT(A)- IV, LUCKNOW DATED 14/08/2015 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEA R 2012-13. 2. IN THIS APPEAL, THE REVENUE HAS RAISED THE FOLLO WING GROUNDS: 1. THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN ALLOWING THE APPE AL OF THE ASSESSEE AND DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS.1,27,52,04 8/-. 2. THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN DECLARING THE ADDITI ON AS MISTAKE OF CALCULATION AND EXCLUDING THE OPENING BA LANCE OF FUNDS FOR COMPUTATION OF FUNDS UTILIZED. 3. THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN ALLOWING THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE AND IN DECLARING THAT ASSESSEE WAS NOT REQ UIRED TO FILE FORM NO. 10. 4. THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A) BE CANCELLED AND ORDER O F THE AO BE RESTORED. 2 3. LEARNED D. R. OF THE REVENUE SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF ASSESSING OFFICER WHEREAS LEARNED A. R. OF THE ASSESSEE SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF LEARNED CIT(A). HE ALSO SUBMITTED THAT THIS ISSUE IS SQUAR ELY COVERED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE BY THE TRIBUNAL ORDER IN ASSESSEES OWN CA SE FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2011-12 IN I.T.A. NO.886/LKW/2014 DATED 26/06/2015. HE SUBMITTED THAT THE COPY OF THIS TRIBUNAL ORDER IS AVAILABLE ON PAG E NO. 12 OF THE PAPER BOOK. 4. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS. WE FI ND THAT AS PER THE IMPUGNED ORDER, A CLEAR FINDING HAS BEEN GIVEN BY C IT(A) THAT A BARE PERUSAL OF THE ORIGINAL RECORDS REVEALED THAT THE TOTAL FUN DS RECEIVED DURING THE PRESENT YEAR ARE RS.1819.26 LAC AGAINST WHICH UTILI ZATION IS RS.1957.05 LACS AND NOT RS.1419.12 LACS AS STATED BY ASSESSING OFFI CER IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. THIS FINDING OF CIT(A) COULD NOT BE CONTROV ERTED BY LEARNED D. R. OF THE REVENUE AND HENCE, IN THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE, WE DO NOT FIND ANY REASON TO INTERFERE IN THE ORDER OF CIT(A) BECAUSE ONCE IT IS ACCEPTED THAT THE UTILIZATION IN THE PRESENT YEAR IS OF RS.1957.0 9 LACS AS AGAINST RS.1419.12 LACS AS NOTED BY ASSESSING OFFICER IN THE ASSESSMEN T ORDER, THE ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER DOES NOT SURVIVE. WE , THEREFORE, DECLINE TO INTERFERE IN THE ORDER OF LEARNED CIT(A). 5. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE STANDS DISMISSED. (ORDER WAS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THE DATE MENTIONED ON THE CAPTION PAGE) SD/. SD/. (SUNIL KUMAR YADAV) ( A. K. GARODIA ) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEM BER DATED:15/01/2016 *SINGH COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT. 3. CONCERNED CIT 4. THE CIT(A) 5. D.R., I.T.A.T., LUCKNOW ASSTT . REGISTRAR