Oxford Education & Charitable Society, KOTKAPURA V. The Commissioner of Income Tax, Bathinda

MA 2/ASR/2015

• Counselvise Citation: [2022] 104 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 4470 (ITAT-AMRITSAR)
• Duration Of Justice: 7 year(s) 3 month(s) 24 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 05-05-2022
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: misc
• Appeal Filed On: 11-01-2015
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Section: 254(2)

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AMRITSAR BENCH, AMRITSAR BEFORE DR. M. L. MEENA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SH. ANIKESH BANERJEE, JUDICIAL MEMBER M. A. No. 02/Asr/2015 (Arising out of ITA No. 26/Asr/2011) Assessment Year: NA Oxford Educational & Charitable Society, Kotkapura [PAN: AABTT 6670Q] Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, Bathinda (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by : None Respondent by: Sh. Rahul Dhawan, CIT DR Date of Hearing: 22.04.2022 Date of Pronouncement: 06.05.2022 ORDER Per Dr. M. L. Meena, AM: This miscellaneous application was filed by the assessee for recalling the order of the Tribunal dated 16.01.2014 in ITA No. 26/Asr/2011. 2. In the captioned application, it was contended that the Tribunal has not adjudicated the Ground Nos. 3, 4, 5 & 6 which are interlinked to each other being pertaining to the statement the donors of Gurchand Singh, Pritam Singh and Harinder Tiwari, were recorded by DCIT, Circle-IV, but the ld. CIT has made not discussed while passing the order u/s MA No. 02/Asr/2015 Oxford Educational & Charitable Society v CIT 2 12AA(1)(b)(ii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, which has not been considered by the Tribunal. 3. We have gone through office records; miscellaneous application filed assessee and heard the Departmental Representative at length while deciding the application. 4. It is noted that the tribunal vide order dated 16.01.2014 in ITA No. 26/Asr/2011 in the case of assessee has passed a detailed order mentioning the facts of the case, that the ld. CIT, Bathinda called the assessee to verify the books of account and relevant document for last three years but none attended nor the assessee did comply to the inquiries/quarries raised by the CIT, although various hearing being afforded to the assessee to substantiate its claim as regards to genuineness of activities and charitable nature of objectives by observing in para of its order. The tribunal passed the order on merits holding that the assessee society has been non-cooperative and not file documenatary evidence in proceeding before the CIT, Bhatinda to his satisfaction and after considering the appellants submissions and citation, the Tribunal held that case law relied on the assessee was not on identical facts of the present case and thus decided the appeal against the assessee on merits. 5. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the recent Judgement of “Commissioner of Income-tax (IT-4), Mumbai vs. Reliance Telecom Ltd.”, [2021] 133 taxmann.com 41 (SC) held that while considering application under section 254(2), Tribunal was not required to re-visit its original order and go in details on merits and completely recall its order as powers under provision MA No. 02/Asr/2015 Oxford Educational & Charitable Society v CIT 3 of section 254(2) were only to rectify/correct any mistake apparent from record. In our view, there is no apparent from record, and as such the miscellaneous application of the assessee is required to be rejected. 6. In the result, the miscellaneous application filed by the assessee is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on 06.05.2022 Sd/- Sd/- (Anikesh Banerjee) (Dr. M. L. Meena) Judicial Member Accountant Member Date: 06.05.2022 *GP/Sr. PS* Copy of the order forwarded to: (1) The Appellant: (2) The Respondent: (3) The CIT(A), (4) The CIT concerned (5) The Sr. DR, I.T.A.T (6) The Guard File True Copy By Order