Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, AGRA BENCH: AGRA
Before: SHRI A. D. JAIN & DR. MITHA LAL MEENA
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.
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.
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.
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.
The ld. DR, on the other hand, has placed strong reliance on both the orders
under appeal.
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.
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.
In view of the above, both the orders under appeal are cancelled and both the
assessment orders are revived.
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