INCOME TAX OFFICER, INCOME TAX ( EXEMPTION), SAMBALPUR vs. JEEVAN KALYANA SADHANA KENDRA, JUNWANI, NUAPADA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 33/CTK/2024Status: HeardITAT Cuttack26 March 2024AY 2018-193 pages

In favour of the assessee: the Revenue's appeal was dismissed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) correctly followed judicial discipline by adhering to the jurisdictional ITAT's order in the assessee's own case for a prior assessment year. Therefore, no interference was warranted in the CIT(A)'s order.

What were the facts?

The revenue filed an appeal against the CIT(A)'s order, and the assessee filed a cross-objection. Both parties sought adjournment, but it was rejected by the Tribunal. The CIT(A) had followed a previous ITAT order in the assessee's own case regarding exemption claims.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) erred in allowing exemption claims by following a previous ITAT order in the assessee's own case. The propriety of rejecting adjournment petitions when grounds are unsupported.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 11

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL,

Hearing: 26/0Pronounced: 26/0

This is an appeal filed by the revenue against the order of the ld inst the order of the ld CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi dated 24.11.2023 in Appeal No. in Appeal No.NFAC/2017- 18/10035076 for the assessment year 2018-19. The cross objection No..2/CTK/2024 is filed by the assessee .2/CTK/2024 is filed by the assessee against the appeal of the revenue. against the appeal of the revenue.

P a g e 1 | 3 C.O.No.2/CTK/2024 Assessment Year : 2018-19

2.

None appeared on behalf of the assessee. However, ld AR for the assessee has sought adjournment as also the ld Sr DR of the revenue on the ground that 26.3.2024 is a holiday on account of ‘Holi’. ‘Holi’ was on 25.3.2024, which was on Monday and was a holiday. 26.3.2024 is not a holiday and the notice of hearing has been issued much in advance. Consequently, grounds raised in the adjournment petitions are found to be unsupported and, therefore, I reject the petitions and appeal of the revenue and cross objection of the assessee are disposed of on merits.

3.

A perusal of the order of the ld CIT(A), most specifically at para 4.2, shows that the ld CIT(A) has followed the judicial discipline in following the order of the Jurisdictional ITAT, Cuttack Bench in assessee’s own case in dated 2.3.2023 for the assessment year 2015-16, wherein, the issue in the appeal regarding the claim of exemption u/s.11 has been held in favour of the assessee. This being so, as it is noticed that the ld CIT(A) has followed the judicial discipline and has followed the order of the Tribunal in assessee’s own case for the assessment year 2015-16 (supra), I find no error in the order of the ld CIT(A), which calls for any interference. Consequently, the appeal of the revenue stands dismissed. As the appeal of the revenue stands dismissed, the cross objection of the assessee also stands dismissed as the same is in support of the order of the ld CIT(A).

P a g e 2 | 3 C.O.No.2/CTK/2024 Assessment Year : 2018-19

4.

In the result, appeal of the revenue and cross objection of the assessee is dismissed.

Order dictated and pronounced in the open court on 26/03/2024.

More judgments on Section 11

All 7,190 judgments and leading authorities on Section 11 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →