ITO, EXEMPTIONS WARD, SALEM V. XR EDUCTIONAL TRUST, SALEM

MA 6/CHNY/2022

• Counselvise Citation: [2022] 104 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 4348 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 month(s) 11 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 12-05-2022
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2016-2017
• Appeal Filed On: 02-03-2022
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Section: 254(2)

Judgement Text

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण ‘बी’ ायपीठ चे ई म । IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘B’ BENCH, CHENNAI माननीय ी महावीर िसंह, उपा!" एवं माननीय ी मनोज कु मार अ'वाल ,लेखा सद* के सम"। BEFORE HON’BLE SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, VICE PRESIDENT AND HON’BLE SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, AM M.P No.06/Chny/2022 (Arising out of ITA No.3267/Chny/2019) (िनधाAरण वषA / Assessment Year: 2016-17) M/s. XR Educational Trust 364/103C, Narayanan Street, Peramanur, Salem – 636 007. बनाम/ V s. ITO Exemptions Ward, Salem. थायी लेखा सं. /जीआइ आर सं. /P A N/ G I R No . AAAT X-0098-F (अपीलाथ /Appellant) : ( थ / Respondent) अपीलाथ की ओरसे/ Appellant by : None थ की ओरसे/Respondent by : Shri G. Johnson (Addl. CIT) – Ld. DR सुनवाई की तारीख/Date of Hearing : 13.05.2022 घोषणा की तारीख / Date of Pronouncement : 13.05.2022 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal (Accountant Member) 1. By way of this Miscellaneous Petition, the Revenue seeks amendment in Tribunal order passed in ITA No.3267/Chny/2019 on 03.11.2021. The bench, in para-4 of the order, restored the issue of claim u/s 10(23C)(iiiad) for re-examination of Ld. AO since the same was not examined by Ld. AO during the course of assessment proceedings. M.P No:06/Chny/2022 2 2. At the time of hearing, none appeared for assessee. On the last occasion also, none appeared for the assessee. Left with no option, we proceed to dispose-off the petition of the revenue after hearing Ld. Sr. DR. 3. The Ld. Sr. DR submitted that the alternative claim made by assessee during appellate proceedings u/s 10(23C)(iiiad) was rejected by the Ld. CIT(A). In the appellate order, it was held that the assessee was not eligible to claim this deduction. Since Ld. CIT(A) had already examined the issue, restoring the same to the file of Ld. AO would be repetitive and redundant exercise. 4. We find that alternative claim as made by the assessee u/s 10(23C)(iiiad) during appellate proceedings was not examined by Ld. AO in assessment proceedings. Accordingly, no factual findings were rendered in the assessment order in that regard. During hearing before the bench, Ld. AR pleaded that the said claim was not examined by Ld. AO and the assessee had no opportunity to substantiate its claim before Ld. AO. Accepting the same, the bench, in its wisdom, thought it fit to restore the matter to Ld. AO for re-examination with a direction to the assessee to substantiate its claim. In other words, the impugned order, to that limited extent, was set-aside and restored back to Ld. AO. The same was as per the adjudication of bench and therefore, it could not be said that there was any apparent mistake in the order which would require modification or amendment in terms of Sec. 254(2) of the Act. Accordingly, we are unable to accept the plea of the revenue. M.P No:06/Chny/2022 3 5. The miscellaneous Petition stands dismissed in terms of above order. Order pronounced in open court on 13 th May, 2022. Sd/- (MAHAVIR SINGH) उपा!" /VICE PRESIDENT Sd/- (MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL) लेखा सद* / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER चे+ई Chennai; िदनांक Dated : 13-05-2022 JPV JPVJPV JPV आदेशकीTितिलिपअ'ेिषत/Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथ /Appellant 2. यथ /Respondent 3. आयकर आयु (अपील)/CIT(A) 4. आयकर आयु /CIT 5. िवभागीय ितिनिध/DR 6. गाड फाईल/GF