ACIT, CHENNAI vs. M/S. ADHIPARASAKTHI CHARITABLE MEDIAL EDUCATIONAL AND CULTURAL TRUST, KANCHEEPURAM

PDF · subscribers
ITA 2214/CHNY/2016Status: DisposedITAT Chennai01 August 2019AY 2012-134 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal decided to restore the issue of exemption on capital receipts to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication. This was done to ensure natural justice and allow the AO to examine the evidence, preventing the Tribunal's finding from pre-judging the AO's assessment.

What were the facts?

The Revenue appealed against the CIT(A)'s order allowing exemption under Section 11 on capital receipts. The Tribunal had previously re-opened the appeal for this specific ground but had not adjudicated it. The issue arose because the Assessing Officer was denied the opportunity to examine additional evidence submitted before the CIT(A).

What were the issues?

Whether exemption under Section 11 can be granted on capital receipts when the Assessing Officer was denied an opportunity to examine additional evidence submitted before the CIT(A).

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 11

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘C’ BENCH: CHENNAI

Before: SHRI GEORGE MATHAN & SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO

Hearing: 01.08.2019

Department by : Mr. R.Clement Ramesh- Kumar, Addl.CIT Assessee by : Mr.R.M.Narayanan, CA : 01.08.2019 सुनवाई क- तार�ख/Date of Hearing : 01.08.2019 घोषणा क- तार�ख /Date of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R PER GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER:

This is an appeal filed by the Revenue against the Order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-18, Chennai, in dated 07.04.2016 for the AY 2012-13.

2.

Shri R.Clement Ramesh Kumar, Addl.CIT, represented on behalf of the Revenue and Shri R.M.Narayanan, CA, represented on behalf of the assessee.

3.

It was submitted by the Ld.DR that original appeal came to be disposed off by an order dated 29.03.2017 as Ground No.7 in the Revenue appeal, which reads as follows:

“7. The Ld.CIT(A) erred in allowing the assessee’s claim of exemption u/s.11 on the capital receipts of Rs.2,04,24,749/-, when it is not eligible for exemption u/s.11 of the IT Act, 1961“. had not been adjudicated by the Tribunal and an Miscellaneous Petition was held for adjudicating the Ground No.7 of the Revenue appeal.

The Revenue had filed an Miscellaneous Petition in MP No.238/Chny/2017 and it had been held by an order dated 17.10.2017 that the appeal has to be re-opened only for the purpose of adjudicating Ground No.7 raised by the Revenue on merits. The appeal came to be disposed off by an order dated 31.01.2018 where again Ground No.7 was not adjudicated.

Consequently, the assessee filed an Miscellaneous Petition in MP No.86/Chny/2018 which came to be adjudicated by an order dated 26.10.2018, wherein, it was directed that the appeal was re-posted for adjudicating Ground No.7 raised by the Revenue. Today, the appeal has come up for adjudicating Ground No.7 of the Revenue appeal, which has been extracted herein above. The issue raised by the Revenue appeal in the Ground No.7, is against the action of the Ld.CIT(A) in allowing the assessee’s claim of exemption u/s.11 on the capital receipts, the assessee itself is not eligible for exemption u/s.11. A perusal of the order of the co- ordinate Bench of this Tribunal dated 27.03.2017 as also 31.01.2018 shows that in both the proceedings, it was agreed by both sides for remitting the matter back to the file of the AO for de novo consideration and consequently, in the interest of natural justice, the co-ordinate Bench of this Tribunal has remitted the matter back to the file of the AO for fresh consideration and the Cross-Objection filed by the assessee had been dismissed. The reasons for setting aside the issue to the file of the AO was that the AO was denied the opportunity to examine the additional evidences produced before the Ld.CIT(A) for the first time by the assessee.

4.

As the main issues in the Revenue appeal have already been restored to the file of the AO for re-adjudication on merits, it would not be appropriated for the Tribunal to give any specific finding in respect of Ground No.7 of the Revenue appeal in so far as such finding could and would bind the hands of the AO in the set aside proceedings. In these circumstances, in the interest of natural justice, the issue raised in respect of the claim of exemption u/s.11 on the capital receipts raised by the Revenue in its Ground No.7 is also restored to the file of the AO for re- adjudication after granting the assessee adequate opportunity of being heard.

5.

In the result, Ground No.7 of the Revenue appeal stands partly allowed for statistical purposes.

More judgments on Section 11

All 7,190 judgments and leading authorities on Section 11 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →