Appeal details
Counselvise Citation
[2023] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 132995 (ITAT-PUNE)
Assessee PAN
Bench
Appeal Number
Duration Of Justice
10 month(s) 19 day(s)
Appellant
Respondent
Appeal Type
Miscellaneous Application
Pronouncement Date
26-02-2023
Appeal Filed By
Department
Order Result
Dismissed
Bench Allotted
B
Next Hearing Date
16-02-2023
Assessment Year
2007-2008
Appeal Filed On
07-04-2022
Judgement Text
आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण “बी” न्यायपीठ पुणे में । IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH, PUNE BEFORE SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI S.S. VISWANETHRA RAVI, JUDICIAL MEMBER विविध आिेदन सं. / MA Nos. 180 to 186/PUN/2022 (Arising out of ITA Nos. 571 to 577/PUN/2016) वनधधारण िर्ा / Assessment Years : 2005-06 to 2011-12 DCIT, Cen. Cir. – 2(2), Pune .......अपीलार्थी / Appellant बनाम / V/s. Shikshana Prasaraka Mandali, Sharada Sabhagruha, S.P. College Campus, Pune – 411030 PAN : AABTS7821G ......प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent Assessee by : Shri Dharmesh Shah Revenue by : Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde सुनवाई की तारीख / Date of Hearing : 17-02-2023 घोषणा की तारीख / Date of Pronouncement : 27-02-2023 आदेश / ORDER PER S.S. VISWANETHRA RAVI, JM : The present Miscellaneous Applications filed by the Revenue seeking modification of the order passed by this Tribunal on the ground that the following additional grounds of appeal filed by the Revenue remain un- adjudicated in batch of cases in ITA Nos. 571 to 577/PUN/2016 for assessment years 2005-06 to 2011-12 vide order dated 24-06-2021. “1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition of capitation fees/donation made on substantive basis in the case of M/s. Shikshan Prasarak Mandali, Pune when the protective addition was deleted by CIT(A)-25, Mumbai in the case of Shri Uday Namdeo Salunke, Chembur, 2 MA Nos. 180 to 186/PUN/2022, A.Ys. 2005-06 to 2011-12 Mumbai, Director of Welingkar Institute run by M/s. Shikshan Prasarak Mandali, Pune. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition of capitation fees/donation made on substantive basis in the case of M/s. Shikshan Prasarak Mandali, Pune despite of the caveat laid down by CIT(A)-25, Mumbai that in case the CIT(A), Pune held tht addition was to be made in the case of Shri Uday Salunke and not in the case of M/s. Shikshan Prasarak Mandali, Pune, then the AO could make substantive addition in case of Shri Uday Salunke whereas this issue was neither raised nor adjudicate upon by the CIT(A)-12, Pune. 3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition of capitation fees/donation made on substantive basis in the case of M/s. Shikshan Prasarak Mandali, Pune without deciding as to in whose hands the income has to be assessed.” 2. It is submitted that the assessment in the case of respondent- assessee was completed by the AO after making additions on account of capitation fees/donations for the A.Y. 2005-06 to 2011-12. On appeal before the CIT(A), the CIT(A) deleted the additions made on account of capitation fees. However, the CIT(A) had failed to adjudicate the issue as to whose hands the additions have to be assessed i.e. whether, in the hands of the appellant’s society or Director of Welingkar Institute i.e. Shri Uday Namdeo Salunke. Hence, the Revenue had preferred the above additional grounds of appeal. 3. We have carefully gone through averments made in the present Miscellaneous Applications, on verification of logbook, we find that these additional grounds of appeal were not argued by the Ld. DR. The issue raised in the additional grounds of appeal that in case the addition is deleted in the hands of the respondent-assessee, the finding should be given that the amount should be assessed in the hands of Shri Uday Namdeo Salunke, Director of Welingkar Institute. This issue was not raised before the Tribunal during the course of arguments. The Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in the case of Dholadhar Investments P. Ltd. Vs. 3 MA Nos. 180 to 186/PUN/2022, A.Ys. 2005-06 to 2011-12 Commissioner of Income Tax reported in 362 ITR 111 (Delhi) held that the jurisdiction of Tribunal is limited to points raised before Tribunal, aspects and contentions not raised by parties to which points attention of the Tribunal is not drawn in course of proceedings cannot be rectified in exercise of jurisdiction power u/s. 254(2) of the Act. Nevertheless, the jurisdiction of the Tribunal is only limited to the assessee before it and can only give directions, render the decision in respect of assessee before it and also can give a direction, whether or not the particular income is taxable in the hands of assessee or not. It cannot give direction that a particular sum is not taxable in the hands of assessee but in the hands of another assessee who is not before it as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of ITO Vs. Murlidhar Bhagwan Das reported in 52 ITR 335 (SC) and reiterated in its subsequent decisions by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the cases of Sivalingam Chettiar Vs. CIT reported in 66 ITR 586 (SC), CIT Vs. Raghubir Singh Trust reported in 123 ITR 438 (SC), CIT Vs. Homi Mehta & Songs Pvt. Ltd. reported in 137 ITR 213 (Bom.). As stated by us in above para (supra), the additional ground of appeal raised the question of taxability in the hands of another assessee, who is not before the Tribunal. Hence, these grounds of appeal can be treated as dismissed. 4. In the result, all the Miscellaneous Applications are dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on 27 th February, 2023. Sd/- Sd/- (Inturi Rama Rao) (S.S. Viswanethra Ravi) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER पुणे / Pune; ददनाांक / Dated : 27 th February, 2023. रधव 4 MA Nos. 180 to 186/PUN/2022, A.Ys. 2005-06 to 2011-12 आदेश की प्रधतधलधप अग्रेधषत / Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलार्थी / The Appellant. 2. प्रत्यर्थी / The Respondent. 3. The CIT(A)-12, Pune 4. The Pr. CIT, Central, Pune 5. धवभागीय प्रधतधनधि, आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, “बी” बेंच, पुणे / DR, ITAT, “B” Bench, Pune. 6. गार्ड फ़ाइल / Guard File. //सत्याधपत प्रधत// True Copy// आदेशानुसार / BY ORDER, वररष्ठ धनजी सधचव / Sr. Private Secretary आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण ,पुणे / ITAT, Pune
AI Insights
The case involves the Revenue's Miscellaneous Applications seeking modification of a previous Tribunal order regarding the assessment of capitation fees/donations for the assessment years 2005-06 to 2011-12. The Revenue contended that the CIT(A) had erred in deleting the additions made on substantive basis without adjudicating in whose hands the income should be assessed, particularly in the context of a related case involving Shri Uday Namdeo Salunke, the Director of Welingkar Institute. The Tribunal, referencing decisions from the Delhi High Court and the Supreme Court, held that it could not assess the taxability of income in the hands of an assessee not present before it, leading to the dismissal of the Revenue's applications.
