PT. DEEN DAYAL UPADHYAY JAGRITI SAMITI,ETAWAH vs. CIT (EXMP.), LUCKNOW

PDF · subscribers
ITA 103/AGR/2016Status: DisposedITAT Agra13 April 2018AY 2007-083 pages

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

AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found that since no exemption under Section 10(23C)(iiiad) was granted in the original assessment orders, the orders could not be considered erroneous or prejudicial to revenue. Therefore, the revision orders were unsustainable.

What were the facts?

The CIT(E) revised assessment orders under Section 263, deeming them erroneous and prejudicial to revenue due to alleged lack of inquiry regarding two sets of accounts. The assessee society appealed this revision.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(E) was justified in revising assessment orders under Section 263 when the original assessment did not grant the exemption in question, making the orders neither erroneous nor prejudicial to revenue.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 263,Section 148

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, AGRA BENCH: AGRA

Before: SHRI A. D. JAIN & DR. MITHA LAL MEENA

For Appellant: Shri M.M. Agarwal, AR
For Respondent: Shri Inderjit Singh, CIT.DR
Hearing: 28.03.2018Pronounced: 17.04.2018

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AGRA BENCH: AGRA

BEFORE SHRI A. D. JAIN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND DR. MITHA LAL MEENA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

I.T.A Nos. 103 & 104/Agra/2016 (ASSESSMENT YEARs.-2007-08 & 2008-09)

Pt. Deen Dayal Upadhyay Jagriti, Vs..CIT,-(Exemption), 43, New Coloney, Chaugurji, Lucknow. Etawah. PANNo.AABAP1386Q (Assessee) (Revenue)

Assessee by Shri M.M. Agarwal, AR Revenue by Shri Inderjit Singh, CIT.DR.

Date of Hearing 28.03.2018 Date of Pronouncement 17.04.2018

ORDER PER, A. D. JAIN, JUDICIAL MEMBER: These are assessee’s appeals for assessment years 2007-08 and 2008-09. The ld. CIT(E), vide orders dated 29.02.2016, passed u/s 263 of the IT Act, for A.Ys.

2007-08 and 2008-09, has held the assessment orders passed on 28.03.2014 for

these two assessment years, to be erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the

Revenue. The assessee Society is in appeal.

2.

The ld. CIT(E) has observed that as per the notices (reproduced in the

impugned orders) issued u/s 263 of the IT Act, the assessee Society was

disqualified from availing exemption u/s 10(23C)(iiiad) of the IT Act, but after

I.T.A Nos. 103 & 104/Agra/2016 2

issuance of notice u/s 148 of the Act and also due to denial of registration, on

second thought, the assessee had presented a second set of undated accounts, in

order to claim exemption u/s 10(23C)(iiiad) of the IT Act, and the AO had not

made necessary inquiries regarding the two sets of balance sheets and accounts.

3.

The ld. CIT(E) has, as such, held the assessment orders for both the years to

be erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue. Both the assessments

have been set aside, to be framed afresh.

4.

The ld. Counsel for the assessee has contended that the ld. CIT(E) has failed

to consider that exemption u/s 10(23C)(iiiad) of the IT Act, the only reason for

which the notice u/s 263 were issued to the assessee for both the concerned years,

has not been granted to the assessee by the AO for either of the years and so, the

assessment orders for both the years are neither erroneous, nor prejudicial to the

interests of the Revenue.

5.

The ld. DR, on the other hand, has placed strong reliance on both the orders

under appeal.

6.

Having heard the parties, we find the grievance of the assessee to be correct.

The notices u/s 263 for both the years were issued proposing to cancel the

assessment orders for want of inquiry regarding the two sets of balance sheets and

accounts on the basis of which, exemption u/s 10(23C)(iiiad) of the IT Act had

been claimed by the assessee, though the assessee was disqualified from claiming

such exemption. Both the orders under appeal have also been passed on this very

I.T.A Nos. 103 & 104/Agra/2016 3

basis, cancelling the assessment as erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the

Revenue and directing them to be framed afresh.

7.

However, in the assessment order passed for both the years, no exemption

u/s 10(23C)(iiiad) of the IT Act, has been allowed to the assessee. Therefore, both

the assessment orders are not erroneous, much less has any prejudice been caused

thereby to the interests of the Revenue. That being so, neither of the necessary

requirements of the provisions of section 263 of the Act has been fulfilled and,

therefore, as rightly contended, the orders under appeal are unsustainable in law.

8.

In view of the above, both the orders under appeal are cancelled and both the

assessment orders are revived.

9.

In the result, both the appeals are allowed.

Order pronounced in the open court on 17/04/2018.

Sd/- Sd/- (DR. MITHA LAL MEENA) (A.D. JAIN) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Dated 17/04/2018 *AKV* Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(Appeals) 5. DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

More judgments on Section 263

All 13,616 judgments and leading authorities on Section 263 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →