Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, COCHIN BENCH, COCHIN
Before: SHRI GEORGE GEORGE K.
Per GEORGE GEORGE K.,JUDICIAL MEMBER:
These appeals at the instance of the assessee are directed against two orders of the CIT(A), Kozhikode both dated 23/10/2019. The relevant assessment years are 2007-08 and 2010-11.
Common issues are raised in these appeals, hence they were heard together and are being disposed of by this consolidated order.
2.1 Identical grounds are raised in both the years. They read as follows: 1) The order of the ld. CIT(A) is opposed to law and facts of the case. 2) The ld. CIT(A) was not justified in invoking provision under section 147.
3) The ld. CIT(A) went wrong in confirming the denial of exemption under section 11 by the Assessing Officer.
4) The ld. CIT(A) was not justified in ignoring the finding of the Commissioner of Income-tax at the time of registration under section 12AA.
5) The ld. CIT(A) ought to have held that the learned Assessing Officer went wrong in is conclusion that discharging of liability taken over another association would be fatal to the claim for exemption under section 11.
6) The ld. CIT(A) relied on a decision CIT vs. Sarvodaya Illakiya Pannai in 343 ITR 300 (Madras) which was in favour of the assessee and not applicable to the issue to be decided.
7) Having quoted and relied on an unreported case of the ITAT in Prathima Educational Society vs. DCIT in the ld. CIT(A) ought to have given a copy of the said judgment he relied on.
8) At any rate the ld. CIT(A) ought to have directed application of tax at rates applicable to individuals and AOP.
` 9) The ld. CIT(A) went wrong in ignoring Ground No. 8 which was an alternate claim for allowing expenditure exemption under section 10(23C) (iiiad).
10) For these and other grounds that may be urged at the time of hearing it is prayed that the relief claimed may be allowed.
Briefly stated, the facts of the case are as follows:
The assessee is a Trust registered under section 12AA of the I.T. Act vide order dated 28/05/2003. For the assessment years 2007-08 and 2010-11, assessments were completed by denying the assessee’s claim of exemption u/s. 11 of the I.T. Act. The Assessing Officer held that the activities of the assessee being business like, does not qualify for exemption u/s. 11 of the I.T. Act. It was also noted by the Assessing Officer that for the earlier assessment years, the assessments were completed by denying the assessee’s claim of exemption under section 11 of the I.T. Act.
Aggrieved by the assessments completed for the assessment years 2007-08 and 2010-11, the assessee preferred the appeals before the first appellate authority. The CIT(A) confirmed the view taken by the Assessing Officer. The CIT(A) noted that on identical set of facts in assessee’s own case, the order of the Assessing Officer denying the benefit of exemption u/s. 11 of the I.T. Act was upheld by the ITAT. The CIT(A) after extracting the relevant finding of the ITAT in assessee’s own case for AY 2003-04, dismissed the appeals of the assessee.
Aggrieved by the orders of the CIT(A), the assessee has filed the present appeals before the Tribunal. The case was posted for hearing on 25/02/2020.
The assessee vide its letter dated 22/02/2020 had sought for adjournment stating that its auditor was not able to make travel arrangements, since the notice of hearing was received only on 20/02/2020. The Registry was directed to contact the AR and inform him that the case was adjourned to 26/02/2020.
When the Registry contacted the AR he informed that he would not be in a position to attend the hearing on 26/02/2020 and the case may be decided on merits.
5.1 The Ld. DR submitted that the issue in question is squarely covered in favour of the Revenue in assessee’s own case by the order of the Tribunal in 2018 (order dated 30/10/2018).
I have heard the Ld. DR and perused the material on record. On identical facts, the Tribunal in assessee‘s own case for the assessment year 2003-04 (supra) had decided the issue in question against the assessee. The relevant finding of the Tribunal has been reproduced in para nos. 8 and 9 of the impugned orders of the CIT(A), hence the same is not reiterated here. Since the issue raised in this appeal has been decided against the assessee by the order of the Tribunal for the assessment year 2003-04 (supra), I uphold the orders passed by the CIT(A) for the assessment year 2007-08 and 2010-11 as correct and in accordance with law. It is ordered accordingly.