IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL LUCKNOW BENCH B , LUCKNOW BEFORE SHRI. T.S. KAPOOR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY, JUDICIAL MEMBER M.A. NO.87 & 88 /LKW/2016 [ARISING OUT OF ITA NO. 332 & 333 /LKW/2013] ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2008 - 09 & 2009 - 10 KANPUR DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY MOTIJHEEL KANPUR V. ACIT - 1 KANPUR T AN /PAN : AAALK0324M (APP LIC ANT) (RESPONDENT) APP LIC ANT BY: SHRI RAKESH GARG, ADVOCATE RESPONDENT BY: SHRI AMIT NIGAM, D.R. DATE OF HEARING: 02 02 201 8 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMEN T: 09 0 2 201 8 O R D E R PER T.S.KAPOOR , A .M : THESE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATIONS PREFERRED BY THE ASSESSEE ARISE OUT OF THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL DATED 11/8/2016 IN ITA NOS.332 & 333/LKW/2013. 2 . THE LD. A.R. OF THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT IN PARA 7 OF ITS O RDER, THE TRIBUNAL HAS REPRODUCED GROUND NO.3 OF THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008 - 09 IN ITA NO.332/LKW/2013, WHICH READS AS UNDER: - 3. THAT THE LEARNED CIT(A) ERRED IN OBSERVING THAT ASSESSEE IS NOT ENTITLED TO CLAIM EXEMPTION U/S 11 OF I.T. ACT WHEN REGISTRATION U/S 12AA OF THE ACT WAS GRANTED BY THE CI T(A) - I, KANPUR ON 31/03/2006.' M.A. NO.87 & 88/LKW/2016 PAGE 2 OF 3 3 . THE TRIBUNAL WHILE DECIDING THE SAID ISSUE IN PARA 10 HAS OBSERVED AS UNDER: - 10. RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE SAID DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL, WE HOLD THAT T HE REGISTRATION U/S 12AA OF THE ACT GRANTED BY LEARNED C IT DOES NOT GRANT THE ASSESSEE A LICENSE TO CLAIM EXEMPTION U/S 11 OF THE ACT. ONCE THE ASSESSEE IS HIT BY FIRST PROVISO TO SECTION 2(15) OF THE ACT IN VIEW OF APPLICABILITY OF SECTION 13(8), THE ASSE SSEE IS NOT ENTITLED TO CLAIM EXEMPTION U/S 11 OF THE ACT. WE, THEREFORE CONFIRM THE ORDER OF CIT(A) ON THIS ISSUE. THUS, GROUND NO. 3 STANDS DISMISSED'. 4 . ACCORDINGLY, THE TRIBUNAL HAS DISMISSED THIS GROUND OF APPEAL . I N CONNECTION WITH THE SAME, IT IS SUB MITTED THAT THE TRIBUNAL HAS HELD THAT ONCE ASSESSEE IS HIT BY THE FIRST PROVISO TO SECTION 2(15) OF THE ACT IN VIEW OF APPLICABILITY OF SECTION 13(8), THE ASSESSEE IS NOT ENTITLED TO CLAIM EXEMPTION UNDER SECTION 11 OF THE ACT. THE FIRST PROVISO TO SECTI ON 2(15) WAS INSERTED W.E.F. 1/4/2009 AND HENCE WAS NOT APPLICABLE FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008 - 09. THUS, FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008 - 09, THE LAW AS APPLICABLE WAS TO BE APPLIED AND NOT THE LAW READ WITH THE PROVISO. SECTION 13(8) ALSO SPEAKS OF THE FIRST PROVI SO. INCIDENTALLY, THE FIRST PROVISO HAS ALSO COME INTO EXISTENCE W.E.F. 1/4/2009. IN VIEW OF THESE FACTS, IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THE FINDING OF THE TRIBUNAL IN PARA 10 OF ITS ORDER IS CONTRARY TO THE PROVISIONS OF THE ACT AND NEEDS TO BE RECTIFIED. 5 . THE AS SESSEE FURTHER STATES THAT IN ITA NO.332 & 333/LKW/2013 A COMPILATION OF CASE LAWS WAS FURNISHED, THE DETAILS OF WHICH ARE APPEARING IN THE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION AND NONE OF THE CASE LAWS HAVE BEEN DISCUSSED IN THE APPELLATE ORDER. THEREFORE, THERE IS A MISTAKE APPARENT ON RECORD, WHICH NEEDS RECTIFICATION. HE, THEREFORE, PRAYED THAT IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE, THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL MAY BE RECALLED AND DECIDED AFRESH. M.A. NO.87 & 88/LKW/2016 PAGE 3 OF 3 6 . WE HAVE PERUSED THE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION AND THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL AND ON PERUSAL OF THE SAME, WE FIND THAT THERE IS A MISTAKE APPARENT ON RECORD WHICH NEEDS RECTIFICATION. WE, THEREFORE, RECALL OUR ORDER DATED 11/8/2016 AND DIRECT THE REGISTRY TO FIX THE APPEALS FOR HEARING IN DUE COURSE. 7 . IN THE RESULT, BOTH THE MISCELLANEO US APPLICATIONS OF THE ASSESSEE ARE ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 09 / 0 2 / 201 8 . SD/ - SD/ - [PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY] [ T.S. KAPOOR ] JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED: 9 TH FEBR UARY , 201 8 JJ: 0502 COPY FORWARDED TO: 1 . APPELLANT 2 . RE SPONDENT 3 . CIT(A) 4 . CIT 5 . DR