Maharashtra Academy of Engg & Educational Research., Pune V. Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax, Central Circle-1(1), Pune

MA 08/PUN/2018

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 119 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 0962 (ITAT-PUNE)
• Duration Of Justice: 11 month(s) 28 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 27-11-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 26-10-2018
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 29-11-2017
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SANJEEV GHEI
• Assessee Lawyers: SUNIL PATHAK
• Section: 11

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL A BENCH, PUN E , , , , BEFORE MS. SUSHMA CHOWLA, JM AND SHRI ANIL CHATURVEDI, AM M.A. NOS. 07 & 08/PUN/2018 (ARISING OUT OF ITA NOS.2401 & 2402/PUN/2012) / ASSESSMENT YEARS : 2008-09 & 2009-10 MAHARASHTRA ACADEMY OF ENGINEERING AND EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH, S.NO.124, EX-SERVICEMAN COLONY, PAUD ROAD, KOTHRUD, PUNE 411 029 PAN : AAAAM1206F .. /APPLICANT / V/S. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), PUNE / RESPONDENT ASSESSEE BY : SHRI SUNIL PATHAK REVENUE BY : SHRI SANJEEV GHEI / DATE OF HEARING : 26.10.2018 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 27.11.2018 / ORDER PER SUSHMA CHOWLA, JM THE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATIONS FILED BY APPLICANT A RE AGAINST ORDER OF TRIBUNAL DATED 23.05.2017. 2. THE PRESENT MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATIONS RELATE TO TWO ASSESSMENT YEARS 2008- 09 AND 2009-10 WHEREIN THE ISSUE WAS IDENTICAL AND IN VIEW THEREOF WE DISPOSE OF THE PRESENT MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATIONS BY THIS CONSOLI DATED ORDER FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE. HOWEVER, THE REFERENCE IS BEING MADE TO THE FACTS AND ISSUES RAISED IN M.A.NO.07/PUN/2018 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09. 2 MA NOS.07 & 08/PUN/2018 A.YRS. 2008-09 & 2009-10 3. THE APPLICANT IS AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF THE T RIBUNAL DATED 23.05.2017 WHEREIN IT WAS HELD IN PARA NO.12 THAT THE DONATION S OF RS.18,62,575/- WERE NOT CORPUS DONATIONS AND FURTHER THE DEDUCTION CLAIMED UNDER SECTION 11 OF THE ACT IN RESPECT OF SUCH DONATIONS WAS NOT ALLOWED TO THE AS SESSEE. IT WAS POINTED OUT TO THE TRIBUNAL THAT THOUGH IT DOES NOT HAVE LETTERS OF TH E DONORS WITH THE DIRECTION THAT SUCH DONATIONS SHOULD BE TREATED AS CORPUS DONATIONS BUT THEY HAD TO BE TREATED AS NORMAL DONATIONS UNDER SECTION 11 OF THE ACT. 4. THE LEARNED AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE AS SESSEE IN THIS REGARD POINTED OUT THAT IN THE APPEALS DECIDED FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR S 1999-00 TO 2004-05 IN ITA NOS. 915 TO 920/PUN/2012, IN PARA NOS. 140 TO 144, THE T RIBUNAL HAD DEALT WITH SIMILAR ISSUE AND HAD HELD THAT THE SAID DONATIONS DO NOT C ONSTITUTE CORPUS DONATIONS, HOWEVER, THEY WERE TO BE INCLUDED AS INCOME IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE AND EXEMPTION WAS TO BE GRANTED UNDER SECTION 11 OF THE ACT. HE FURTHER STRESSED THAT IN EARLIER YEARS. ONCE THEY WERE HELD TO BE NOT CORPUS DONATIONS BUT THEY WERE CONSIDERED AS INCOME ELIGIBLE FOR DEDUCTION UNDER S ECTION 11 OF THE ACT. SIMILARLY, IN THE PRESENT CASE, THERE IS NO CHANGE IN FACTS AS IN THE EARLIER ASSESSMENT YEARS AND EXEMPTION UNDER SECTION 11 OF THE ACT SHOULD HAVE B EEN GRANTED TO THE ASSESSEE IN RESPECT OF THESE DONATIONS. HENCE, THE MISTAKE BEI NG APPARENT FROM RECORD WHERE THE EARLIER ORDERS OF THE TRIBUNAL WERE NOT FOLLOWED, T HEN THE SAME MAY BE RECTIFIED. HE ALSO POINTED OUT THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD NEV ER DOUBTED THAT IT WAS NOT DONATIONS. 5. THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE REVENUE ON THE OTHER HAND POINTED OUT THAT THE ARGUMENTS OF THE ASSESSEE HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED ELABORATELY BY THE TRIBUNAL WITH SPECIAL REFERENCE TO PARA NO.19 A ND THEREAFTER, THE DECISION HAS BEEN GIVEN AND THERE IS NO MERIT IN THE PRESENT MIS CELLANEOUS APPLICATION MOVED BY THE APPLICANT. 3 MA NOS.07 & 08/PUN/2018 A.YRS. 2008-09 & 2009-10 6. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PER USED THE RECORD. THE ASSESSEE IN THE PRESENT APPEAL HAD RAISED GROUND NO .6 AGAINST ADDITION MADE ON ACCOUNT OF RE-CASTED INCOME AND EXPENDITURE ACCOUNT WHICH ALSO INCLUDED SUM OF RS.18,62,575/- WHICH WAS CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE TO BE CORPUS DONATIONS. VIDE PARA NO.19, THE TRIBUNAL TAKES NOTE OF THE WRITTEN NOTE FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE WHEREIN IT HAD FAIRLY ADMITTED THAT IT WAS NOT HAVI NG THE LETTERS OF DONORS FOR TREATING THE DONATIONS AS CORPUS DONATIONS, ACCORDINGLY, AS IN T HE PAST YEAR, RS.18,62,575/- WAS TO BE INCLUDED IN INCOME UNDER SECTION 11 OF THE ACT. FURTHER, THE TRIBUNAL ALSO NOTES THE PLEA OF THE ASSESSEE THAT ASSESSEE FURTHER ADMITS THAT FOLLOWING THE ORDER O F TRIBUNAL, THE ASSESSING OFFICER BE DIRECTED TO DETERMINE THE INCOME AS PER SECTION 11 OF THE ACT. VIDE PARA NO.22, THIS PART OF GROUND OF APPEAL N O.6 WAS DECIDED AND IT WAS HELD THAT, IN THE ABSENCE OF THE LETTERS OF DONORS AGAIN ST ITS CLAIM OF DONATIONS BEING CORPUS DONATIONS TO THE EXTENT OF RS.18,62,575/-, THE SAID RECEIPTS WERE TO BE ADDED IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE. THE TRIBUNAL THEN HOLDS THA T THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT ENTITLED TO CLAIM OF DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 11 OF THE ACT IN R ESPECT OF SUCH DONATIONS. IT MAY BE POINTED OUT THAT ALL THE OBJECTIONS RAISED BY THE A PPLICANT IN THE PRESENT MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATIONS WERE THE ARGUMENTS OF THE ASSESSEE FOR WHICH A WRITTEN NOTE WAS ALSO FURNISHED AND THE SAME HAS BEEN CONSIDERED BY THE T RIBUNAL AND TAKEN NOTE IN PARA NO.19 OF THE ORDER DATED 23.05.2017 AND THEREAFTER , THE ISSUE HAS BEEN DECIDED AGAINST THE ASSESSEE VIDE PARA NO.22 OF THE IMPUGNE D ORDER. ONCE THE TRIBUNAL HAS NOTED AND CONSIDERED THE ARGUMENTS OF THE ASSESSEE WHILE DECIDING THE ISSUE, THEN SUCH ORDER WHICH HAS BEEN DECIDED ON MERITS IS NOT AVAILABLE FOR RECTIFICATION UNDER SECTION 254(2) OF THE ACT SINCE THE TRIBUNAL HAS NO POWERS TO REVIEW ITS DECISION. THE LIMITED POWER AVAILABLE TO THE TRIBUNAL UNDER SECTI ON 254(2) OF THE ACT IS TO CORRECT ANY MISTAKES APPARENT FROM RECORD. SINCE THE ISSUE HAS ALREADY BEEN CONSIDERED BY THE TRIBUNAL IT CANNOT BE CONSIDERED AS A MISTAKE APPAR ENT FROM RECORD. HENCE, WE FIND NO MERIT IN THE PRESENT MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION A ND THE SAME IS DISMISSED. 4 MA NOS.07 & 08/PUN/2018 A.YRS. 2008-09 & 2009-10 7. THE FACTS AND ISSUES RAISED IN THE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10 ARE SIMILAR TO THE FACTS AN D ISSUES RAISED IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09. ACCORDINGLY, OUR DECISION IN ASSESSM ENT YEAR 2008-09 WOULD APPLY MUTATIS-MUTANDIS TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10. 8. IN THE RESULT, BOTH THE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATIO NS OF THE ASSESSEE ARE DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON THIS 27 TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2018. SD/- SD/- (ANIL CHATURVEDI) (SUSHMA CHOWLA) /ACCOUNTANT MEMBER /JUDICIAL MEMBER / PUNE; / DATED : 27 TH NOVEMBER, 2018. SATISH / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. / THE APPELLANT. 2. / THE RESPONDENT. 3. THE CIT(A)-III, PUNE. 4. THE CIT CENTRAL, PUNE. 5. , , , / DR, ITAT, A BENCH, PUNE. 6. / GUARD FILE. / BY ORDER, // TRUE COPY // SENIOR PRIVATE SECRETARY , / ITAT, PUNE.