INDIAN SOCIETY FOR TECHNICAL EDUCATION,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, WARD-1(2), NEW DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 384/DEL/2018Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 November 2021AY 2014-154 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) did not consider the assessee's submissions sent via email and did not decide the appeal on merit. Therefore, the order of the CIT(A) was set aside.

What were the facts?

The Assessing Officer treated institutional and life membership fees as revenue receipts, leading to an addition. The assessee appealed to the CIT(A), but the appeal was dismissed ex-parte due to lack of effective representation.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) erred by not considering the assessee's submissions and deciding the appeal ex-parte without a decision on merit.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(3),Section 11(1)(d),Section 250

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI “C” BENCH: NEW DELHI

Before: SHRI G.S.PANNU & SHRI KUL BHARAT

Hearing: 02.11.2021Pronounced: 09.11.2021

ORDER PER KUL BHARAT, JM : The present appeal filed by the assessee for the assessment year 2014-15 is directed against the order of Ld. CIT(A)-40, Delhi dated 20.11.2017. The assessee has raised following grounds of appeal:-

“That having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, Ld. • CIT (A) has erred in law and facts of the case in passing order u/s 250 without taking into consideration the submissions filed by the assessee before Ld. CIT (A). • That having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT (A) has erred in law and facts of the case in passing order u/s 250 on the basis of material available on record and mentioning that the hearing is not attended by the assessee/ A.R.

• That having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT (A) has erred in law and facts of the case in confirming the action of Ld/- AO in making addition of Rs. 2,47,98,800/- on account of Institutional membership fee and Life membership fee and that too by treating it as non voluntary contribution and that too by recording incorrect facts and findings and without observing the principles of natural justice • That having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT (A) has erred in law and facts of the case in confirming the action of Ld/- AO in making addition of Rs. 2,00,239/- on account of Interest Income and that too by recording incorrect facts and findings and without observing the principles of natural justice.”

2.

Facts giving rise to the present appeal are that the case of the assessee was picked up for scrutiny assessment and the assessment u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”) was framed vide order dated 20.12.2016. The Assessing Officer while framing the assessment, observed that the assessee had claimed Institutional membership fee of Rs.30,76,800/- and Life membership fee of Rs.2,17,22,000/- as capital receipts. The Assessing Officer was of the view that these receipts were not in the nature of corpus donation within the meaning of provisions of section 11(1)(d) of the Act. Therefore, the Assessing Officer issued a show cause notice. In response thereto, the assessee filed its reply.

However, the reply was not found acceptable to the Assessing Officer. Therefore, he proceeded to treat these receipts as revenue receipts and computed income at Rs.1,29,35,086/-.

3.

Aggrieved against this, the assessee preferred appeal before Ld.CIT(A).

There was no effective representation on behalf of the assessee, therefore, the appeal of the assessee was dismissed as ex-parte to the assessee. Page | 2

4.

Aggrieved against the order of Ld.CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before this Tribunal.

4.1. Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that Ld.CIT(A) has recorded the facts incorrectly. It was contended that the assessee had filed its explanation through e-mail and also sought adjournment through e-mail. However, Ld.CIT(A) has not considered the submissions of the assessee.

5.

Per contra, Ld. Sr. DR opposed these submissions and supported the orders of the authorities below. He submitted that the assessee was given sufficient opportunity.

6.

We have heard the rival contentions and perused the material available on record. It is the say of the assessee that the assessee was not provided effective opportunity by Ld.CIT(A). Moreover, Ld.CIT(A) has not considered the submissions sent through electronic mode. It is also submitted that Ld.CIT(A) has not decided the issue on merit. Therefore, it was prayed that the appeal to be restored to the file of Ld.CIT(A). In view of the material placed before us and the statements of the Ld. Counsel for the assessee at bar that the submissions were sent through e-mail which were not considered by Ld.CIT(A). Coupled with the fact that Ld.CIT(A) has not given the finding on merit. We, therefore, set aside the impugned order and restore the grounds of appeal to the file of Ld.CIT(A) for decision on merit. Needless to say, the assessee would not seek adjournment without any reasonable cause.

7.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed.

Above decision was pronounced on conclusion of Virtual Hearing in the presence of both the parties on 09th November, 2021.

More judgments on Section 11(1)(d)

All 272 judgments and leading authorities on Section 11(1)(d) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →