Society for Computer Technology And Research, Pune, Pune V. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption), Pune, Pune

MA 5/PUN/2024

• Counselvise Citation: [2024] 101 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6064 (ITAT-PUNE)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 month(s) 28 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 02-07-2024
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2017-2018
• Appeal Filed On: 04-02-2024
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Section: 11; 12A; 254(2)

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL SMC BENCH, PUNE BEFORE SHRI R. K. PANDA, VICE PRESIDENT MA No.5/PUN/2024 (Arising out of ITA No.603/PUN/2023) Assessment Year : 2017-18 Society for Computer Technology and Research, Pune S.No.27, Pune Satara Road, Dhanakawadi, Pune – 411043 Vs. ACIT (exemption), Pune PAN: AADCS9149N (Assessee) (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri Kiran Sanmane Department by : Shri Ramnath P Murkunde Date of hearing : 28-06-2024 Date of pronouncement : 03-07-2024 O R D E R PER R. K. PANDA, VP : The assessee through this Miscellaneous Application requests the Tribunal to rectify certain mistakes that have crept in the order of the Tribunal. 2. Ld. Counsel for the assessee referring to the contents of the Miscellaneous Application drew the attention of the Bench to the same which reads as under: “1. This miscellaneous application arises out of the assessee's appeal ITA No. 603/PUN/2023 decided on 15.06.2023. The said order was received by the assessee on 12th August 2023. 2. The only issue in ITA no.603/PUN/2023 (assessee's appeal against sec.143(3) order) was addition of Rs.6,00,000 being a voluntary donation paid by Mrs. Suprabha D Galakatu contending the same as capitation fees paid by the said person to the assessee society. 2 MA No.5/PUN/2024 3. Before the Hon'ble Bench, the assessee's main contention was that the learned Assessing Officer, while making the said addition, erred in believing in the statement made by Suprabha D Galakatu without appreciating the facts and without' providing any opportunity to the assessee to verify the correctness of her statement. The Hon'ble Bench, however, was pleased to hold that the subject donation of Rs.6,00,000 is received by the assessee society as capitation fees. (para 5, page 4 of the order). 4. However, the assessee, while arguing on this ground demonstrated and argued that the subject addition has been made merely relying upon the statement of a person without verifying its correctness and even without providing an opportunity to the assessee to verify its correctness. It was also argued that, the AO cannot deny the exemption u/s 11 of the Act based on the assumption that there is a violation of any other statutory provision (Law relating to the capitation fees) and therefore the learned AO could not have denied the exemption so long as the registration of the assessee u/s 12A of the Act is in force relying on Kammavari Sangham vs. Dy. DIT (Exemption [(2023) 146 Taxmann.com 367 (Kamataka)] and other similar decisions as submitted before the hon'ble Bench including that of the jurisdiction hon'ble ITAT Pune bench's decision in case of Maharashtra Academy of Engineering and Educational Research (MAEER) vs. CIT [(2010) 133 TTJ 706 (Pune-Trib.)]. Further, it was also argued that, the subject amount of Rs.6,00,000 was already included as part of the assessee society's income for the year and therefore, the subject addition amounts to double addition of the same income. The consequent application of funds towards the objects of the trust was also an undisputed fact in the matter. The said fact was mentioned in the Statement of Facts submitted through Form 35 filed before the hon'ble CIT(A) and the same is also reproduced in the hon'ble CIT(A)'s order at point no.3 and 4 on page 3 of the said order. This fact is not disputed either by the learned AO or by the hon'ble CIT(A) during the course of the respective proceedings before them. 5. Thus the subject addition clearly amounts to the double addition of the same amount of receipt. Thus an inadvertent error has crept in the order. This, in our humble submission that this creates an anomalous situation and is humbly submitted to be rectified. 6. In view of this we humbly pray that para 5 on page 4 of the order in ITA 603/PUN/2023 be suitably amended to the effect that the double addition of the same receipt be deleted.” 3. He accordingly submitted that the same being self explanatory, the order of the Tribunal be amended and the Miscellaneous Application filed by the assessee be allowed. 3 MA No.5/PUN/2024 4. The Ld. DR on the other hand submitted that there is no apparent error in the order of the Tribunal. While opposing the Miscellaneous Application filed by the assessee, the Ld. DR submitted that the Tribunal has passed a speaking order and therefore, there being no error in the order of the Tribunal, the same does not call for any rectification. The assessee through this Miscellaneous Application is requesting the Tribunal to rectify / amend the order of the Tribunal which amounts to review of its own order by the Tribunal which is not permissible in law. 5. I have heard the rival arguments made by both the sides and perused the order of the Tribunal. I find the assessee through this Miscellaneous Application is trying to re-argue its case and thereby persuading the Tribunal to recall / amend its own order which amounts to review of its own order by the Tribunal which is not permissible in law. 6. I find the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Reliance Telecom Ltd. (2022) 440 ITR 1 (SC) at para 6 of the decision has observed as under: “6. None of the aforesaid grounds are tenable in law. Merely because the Revenue might have in detail gone into the merits of the case before the ITAT and merely because the parties might have filed detailed submissions, it does not confer jurisdiction upon the ITAT to pass the order de hors Section 254(2) of the Act. As observed hereinabove, the powers under Section 254(2) of the Act are only to correct and/or rectify the mistake apparent from the record and not beyond that. Even the observations that the merits might have been decided erroneously and the ITAT had jurisdiction and within its powers it may pass an order recalling its earlier order which is an erroneous order, cannot be accepted. As observed hereinabove, if the order passed by the ITAT was erroneous on merits, in that case, the remedy available to the Assessee was to prefer an appeal before the High Court, which in fact was filed by the Assessee before the High Court, but later on the Assessee withdrew the same in the instant case.” 4 MA No.5/PUN/2024 7. In view of the binding decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Reliance Telecom Ltd. (supra), I do not find any merit in the Miscellaneous Application filed by the assessee. Accordingly, the Miscellaneous Application filed by the assessee is dismissed. 8. In the result, the Miscellaneous Application filed by the assessee is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open Court on 3 rd July, 2024. Sd/- (R. K. PANDA) VICE PRESIDENT प ु णे Pune; दिन ांक Dated : 3 rd July, 2024 GCVSR आदेश की प्रतितिति अग्रेतिि/Copy of the Order is forwarded to: 1. अपीलार्थी / The Appellant; 2. प्रत्यर्थी / The Respondent 3. 4. The concerned Pr.CIT, Pune DR, ITAT, ‘SMC’ Bench, Pune 5. गार्ड फाईल / Guard file. आदेशानुसार/ BY ORDER, // True Copy // Senior Private Secretary आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण ,पुणे / ITAT, Pune 5 MA No.5/PUN/2024 S.No. Details Date Initials Designation 1 Draft dictated on 28.06.2024 Sr. PS/PS 2 Draft placed before author 01.07.2024 Sr. PS/PS 3 Draft proposed & placed before the Second Member JM/AM 4 Draft discussed/approved by Second Member AM/AM 5 Approved Draft comes to the Sr. PS/PS Sr. PS/PS 6 Kept for pronouncement on Sr. PS/PS 7 Date of uploading of Order Sr. PS/PS 8 File sent to Bench Clerk Sr. PS/PS 9 Date on which the file goes to the Head Clerk 10 Date on which file goes to the A.R. 11 Date of Dispatch of order