SFPS EMPLOYEES GRATUITY TRUST,CHENNAI vs. ASST DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX, CPC, BENGALURU

PDF · subscribers
ITA 369/CHNY/2021Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 June 2022AY 2018-193 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had adjudicated on an incorrect issue, not the one that was before him. Therefore, the order of the CIT(A) was set aside.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal before the CIT(A) concerned exemption under Section 10(25)(iv) of the Income Tax Act. However, the CIT(A) passed an order deciding on the issue of deduction under Section 80P(2)(a).

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) properly adjudicated the correct issue raised by the assessee, or if the decision was based on a misunderstanding of the grounds of appeal.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 10(25)(iv),Section 80P(2)(a)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘C’ BENCH, CHENNAI

Before: SHRI MAHAVIR SINGHAND SHRI G. MANJUNATHA

Hearing: 28.06.2022Pronounced: 28.06.2022

O R D E R

PER MAHAVIR SINGH, VICE PRESIDENT:

1.

This appeal by the assessee is arising out of the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi in Appeal No. CIT(A), Chennai-6/10341/2019-20, order dated 02.08.2021. The return of income was processed by the ADIT, CPC, Bangalore for the assessment year 2018-19 u/s. 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter the ‘Act’) vide order dated 12.02.2020.

2 2. At the outset, the ld.counsel for the assessee drew our attention to Ground No.5, which reads as under:- 5. The CIT(A) erred in deleting the appeal assuming that the issue involved was deduction u/s.80P(2)(a) though in the appellants case, the issue involved was exemption of the appellant’s income u/s.10(25)(iv).

3.

The ld.counsel for the assessee took us through the order of CIT(A) and stated that the issue before CIT(A) was adjudication of exemption u/s.10(25)(iv) of the Act, whereas CIT(A)’s decision is on the issue of 80P(2)(a) of the Act. The ld.counsel stated the CIT(A) was not at all aware and it seems that it is a cut, paste order and decision given on the facts of some other case.

4.

When these facts were confronted to ld. Senior DR, he could not controvert the above fact situation.

5.

After hearing both sides and going through the order of CIT(A) particularly decision, we noted that the issue before CIT(A) for adjudication was exemption u/s.10(25)(iv) of the Act and not, what he has adjudicated i.e., the claim of deduction u/s.80P(2)(a) of the Act. Hence, we set aside the order of CIT(A) and remand the matter back to his file for fresh adjudication. Needless to say, the 3 CIT(A) will allow reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee.

6.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced in the open court on 28th June, 2022 at Chennai.

More judgments on Section 80P(2)(a)

All 78 judgments and leading authorities on Section 80P(2)(a) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →