Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, CUTTACK BENCH, CUTTACK
Before: S/SHRI N.S SAINI & PAVAN KUMAR GADALE
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CUTTACK BENCH, CUTTACK
BEFORE S/SHRI N.S SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, JUDICIAL MEMBER
ITA No.601/CTK/2005: Assessment Year :2002-03 ITA No.602/CTK/2005: Assessment Year :2003-04 ITA No.192/CTK/2008: Assessment Year :1999-2000 ITA No.256/CTK/2008: Assessment Year :2000-2001 ITA No.257/CTK/2008: Assessment Year :2001-2002 ITA No.658/CTK/2008: Assessment Year :2005-2006 ITA No.269/CTK/2009: Assessment Year: 2006-07
Board of Secondary Vs. The ITO, Ward-2(1), Education, Cuttack Cuttack PAN/GIR No. AAAJB 0510 e (Appellant) .. ( Respondent)
Assessee by : Shri S.K.Jena, AR Revenue by : Shri Kunal Singh, CIT, DR/ D.K.Pradhan, DR
Date of Hearing : 15/05/ 2017 Date of Pronouncement : 17 /05/ 2017
O R D E R Per Bench
These are the appeals filed by the assessee against the separate
orders of CIT(A)-Cuttack, for the assessment years 1999-2000, 2000-
2001, 2001-02, 2002-03, 2003-04, 2005-06 and 2006-07, in respect of
assessments under section 143(3) and 143(3)/147 of the Income tax Act,
1961.
2 I T A N o . 6 0 1 / C T K / 2 0 0 5 : A s s e s s me n t Ye a r :2 0 0 2 -0 3 I T A N o . 6 0 2 / C T K / 2 0 0 5 : A s s e s s me n t Ye a r :2 0 0 3 -0 4 I T A N o . 1 9 2 / C T K / 2 0 0 8 : A s s e s s me n t Ye a r :1 9 9 9 -2 0 0 0 I T A N o . 2 5 6 / C T K / 2 0 0 8 : A s s e s s me n t Ye a r :2 0 0 0 -2 0 0 1 I T A N o . 2 5 7 / C T K / 2 0 0 8 : A s s e s s me n t Ye a r :2 0 0 1 -2 0 0 2 I T A N o . 6 5 8 / C T K / 2 0 0 8 : A s s e s s me n t Ye a r :2 0 0 5 -2 0 0 6 IT A N o . 2 2 9 /C TK /2 0 0 9 : A s s e s s me n t y e a r : 2 0 0 6 -0 7 2. Since these appeals pertain to same assessee and the grounds
raised therein are identical, they are heard together and decided by this
consolidated order. For the sake of convenience, we take up ITA
No.601/CTK/2015 for the assessment year 2002-03 and facts narrated
therein for our adjudication and the decision will apply mutatis-mutandis to
other appeals of the assessee.
Before we proceed for hearing, the ld Authorised Representative of
the assessee has filed an adjournment application explaining the facts that
the assessee has challenged the rejection of grant of exemption
u/s.10(23C)(vi) of the Act by the Chief Commissioner of Income Tax,
before the Hon’ble High Court of Orissa in a writ petition bearing W.P.(C)
No.4777 of 2008, which has been admitted and pending for hearing. The
Ld A.R. of the assessee emphasising for adjournment for the above
aforesaid cases, irrespective of the fact that it pertains to assessment years
1999-2000, 2000-2001, 2001-02, 2002-03, 2003-04 , 2005-06 & 2006-
07 and the appeals were numbered by the Tribunal in the year 2005, 2008
& 2009. When the Bench asked to ld A.R. of the assessee that sufficient
time was provided to the assessee to obtain the approval from the Chief
Commissioner of Income Tax u/s.10(23C(vi), theld Counsel explained that
the applications were rejected and against the rejection of application, writ
petition was filed and further as on date, no orders of approval is available
with the assessee in spite of the fact that more than 10 years have passed
3 I T A N o . 6 0 1 / C T K / 2 0 0 5 : A s s e s s me n t Ye a r :2 0 0 2 -0 3 I T A N o . 6 0 2 / C T K / 2 0 0 5 : A s s e s s me n t Ye a r :2 0 0 3 -0 4 I T A N o . 1 9 2 / C T K / 2 0 0 8 : A s s e s s me n t Ye a r :1 9 9 9 -2 0 0 0 I T A N o . 2 5 6 / C T K / 2 0 0 8 : A s s e s s me n t Ye a r :2 0 0 0 -2 0 0 1 I T A N o . 2 5 7 / C T K / 2 0 0 8 : A s s e s s me n t Ye a r :2 0 0 1 -2 0 0 2 I T A N o . 6 5 8 / C T K / 2 0 0 8 : A s s e s s me n t Ye a r :2 0 0 5 -2 0 0 6 IT A N o . 2 2 9 /C TK /2 0 0 9 : A s s e s s me n t y e a r : 2 0 0 6 -0 7 in respect of aforesaid assessment year and the assessee could not
establish to get the approval from the Chief Commissioner of Income Tax
or from the prescribed authority except mentioning that a writ petition has
been filed before the Hon’ble High Court.
We also perused the order sheet nothings and find that these appeals
were posted for hearing on 17.1.2006 and adjournment was sought by the
assessee explaining that writ petition is pending and also application is
pending before the prescribed authority for approval. When we asked for
copy of any approval obtained till date, ld A.R. of the assessee was not in
a position to offer a valid explanation, which could convince us. We also
perused the order sheet notings from 17.12006 to 30.9.2013. The appeals
were not taken up for hearing due to earlier adjournments by the assessee
and explanation discussed above recorded in the order sheet. Considering
the ground of adjournment sought by the assessee and the appeals relating
to the assessment years for more than 10 years old, we consider it
appropriate to reject the adjournment application and in the interest of
justice, we proceed to dispose of the appeals after hearing both the sides.
The assessee has raised the grounds of appeal as under:
“1. That the order dated 21.10.2005 of Ld. Commissioner of Income -Tax (Appeal) is unjustified, arbitrary, contrary to facts and bad in law.
That the Appellant being an instrumentality of Government is not coming under the purview of the provisions of the Income Tax Act and the Authorities have no jurisdiction to assess the Appellant.
4 I T A N o . 6 0 1 / C T K / 2 0 0 5 : A s s e s s me n t Ye a r :2 0 0 2 -0 3 I T A N o . 6 0 2 / C T K / 2 0 0 5 : A s s e s s me n t Ye a r :2 0 0 3 -0 4 I T A N o . 1 9 2 / C T K / 2 0 0 8 : A s s e s s me n t Ye a r :1 9 9 9 -2 0 0 0 I T A N o . 2 5 6 / C T K / 2 0 0 8 : A s s e s s me n t Ye a r :2 0 0 0 -2 0 0 1 I T A N o . 2 5 7 / C T K / 2 0 0 8 : A s s e s s me n t Ye a r :2 0 0 1 -2 0 0 2 I T A N o . 6 5 8 / C T K / 2 0 0 8 : A s s e s s me n t Ye a r :2 0 0 5 -2 0 0 6 IT A N o . 2 2 9 /C TK /2 0 0 9 : A s s e s s me n t y e a r : 2 0 0 6 -0 7 Therefore the Assessment order passed by the Ld.A.O. is non application of mind, contrary to the provisions laid down under the law, therefore is a bad in law.
That the impugned orders have been passed hurriedly without proper appreciation of facts and implication of law and suffers from giving reasonable opportunity to the appellant, therefore totally unjustified and liable to be quashed.
That the Ld. Commissioner of Income -Tax (Appeal) should have held that the Assessee being an educational institution existing since several decades solely for educational purposes could not have existed for carrying profit separately when it is created controlled and supervised by the state Government.
That the Ld. Commissioner of Income -Tax (Appeal) should have given reasonable opportunity to explain its case and ,in the absence of such opportunity, justice in this case have grossly miscarried.
Without prejudice to the above, the Ld. Commissioner of Income -Tax (Appeal) should have allowed all the expenses claimed as admissible deduction.””
Brief facts of the case are that the assessee, Board of Secondary
Education is established under the Örissa Secondary Education Act,
1953”and the main object is to provide education and establishment of
Board to regulate, control and develop secondary education in the State of
Orissa and also to publish and sale of textbooks for the use of students
without any profit. The Board consists of office bearers and the members
of the committee. The assessee has filed the return of income for
assessment year 2002-03 on 31.3.2004 with a total income Rs. Nil. And
the Return of income was processed under section 143(1) of the Act
accepting the returned income. Subsequently,the case was selected for
scrutiny and the Assessing Officer issued notices u/s.143(2) and 142(1)
5 I T A N o . 6 0 1 / C T K / 2 0 0 5 : A s s e s s me n t Ye a r :2 0 0 2 -0 3 I T A N o . 6 0 2 / C T K / 2 0 0 5 : A s s e s s me n t Ye a r :2 0 0 3 -0 4 I T A N o . 1 9 2 / C T K / 2 0 0 8 : A s s e s s me n t Ye a r :1 9 9 9 -2 0 0 0 I T A N o . 2 5 6 / C T K / 2 0 0 8 : A s s e s s me n t Ye a r :2 0 0 0 -2 0 0 1 I T A N o . 2 5 7 / C T K / 2 0 0 8 : A s s e s s me n t Ye a r :2 0 0 1 -2 0 0 2 I T A N o . 6 5 8 / C T K / 2 0 0 8 : A s s e s s me n t Ye a r :2 0 0 5 -2 0 0 6 IT A N o . 2 2 9 /C TK /2 0 0 9 : A s s e s s me n t y e a r : 2 0 0 6 -0 7 and called for information. In compliance to the notices, ld A.R. of the
assessee appeared before the Assessing Officer and produced books of
account consisting of cash book, ledger books, expenditure register and
collection register. The Assessing Officer on perusal of the financial
statement and written submissions filed by the assessee observed that the
assessee is emphasising that it has obtained approval under the prevailing
law under section 10(22) of the Act and referred to the decision of Hon’ble
High Court of Orissa in assessee’s own case reported in (1972) 86 ITR 408
(Ori), wherein, the Hon’ble High Court considered the facts and objects of
the assessee Board and gave a finding that any income of an University or
other educational institution, existing for educational purposes and not for
the purposes of profit is exempted from tax u/s.10(22) of the Act.
Therefore, the income derived by the assessee is claimed as fully exempt.
The Assessing Officer raised a valid reason to the ld A.R that the provisions
of section 10(22) have been omitted w.e.f. 1999-2000 and a new section
10(23C) have been inserted for availing exemption for the following
criteria:
a) 10(23C) (iiiab) – any university or other educational institution existing solely for educational purposes and not for purposes or profit, and which is wholly or substantially financed by the Government, or
b 10(23C) (iiiad) – any university or other educational institution existing solely for educational purposes and not for purposes of profit, if the aggregate annual receipts of such university or educational institution do not exceed Rs.1 crore, and;
6 I T A N o . 6 0 1 / C T K / 2 0 0 5 : A s s e s s me n t Ye a r :2 0 0 2 -0 3 I T A N o . 6 0 2 / C T K / 2 0 0 5 : A s s e s s me n t Ye a r :2 0 0 3 -0 4 I T A N o . 1 9 2 / C T K / 2 0 0 8 : A s s e s s me n t Ye a r :1 9 9 9 -2 0 0 0 I T A N o . 2 5 6 / C T K / 2 0 0 8 : A s s e s s me n t Ye a r :2 0 0 0 -2 0 0 1 I T A N o . 2 5 7 / C T K / 2 0 0 8 : A s s e s s me n t Ye a r :2 0 0 1 -2 0 0 2 I T A N o . 6 5 8 / C T K / 2 0 0 8 : A s s e s s me n t Ye a r :2 0 0 5 -2 0 0 6 IT A N o . 2 2 9 /C TK /2 0 0 9 : A s s e s s me n t y e a r : 2 0 0 6 -0 7 c. 10(23C) (vi) – any university or other educational institution existing solely for educational purposes and not purposes of profit, other than those mentioned in (a) and (b) supra and which may be approved by the prescribed authority i.e. Central Board or Direct Taxes/Chief Commissioner of Income Tax.
The Assessing Officer found that on the subsequent to insertion of
section 10(23C)(iiiad), the annual receipts should not exceed more than
Rs.1 crore, where as the assessee is having income from examination fees,
printing compilation and sale of text books, interest from FDR, bank
deposits, etc and the receipts of the assessee has exceeded more than Rs.1
crore during the said financial year. Finally, the assessee should get a
certificate of approval by the prescribed authority being Chief
Commissioner of Income Tax and at the time of assessment, the assesse
was not having any certificate of approval of exemption further and the
assessee could not satisfy the conditions prescribed under the provisions of
section 10(23C)(iiiad), therefore, the Assessing Officer considered the
provisions of law and the facts that the assessee was not having any
certificate during the assessment proceedings for claiming exemption, and
treated the excess of income over expenses as total income and assessed
income at Rs.3,82,26,140/- and passed order u/s.143(3) dated 31.3.2005,
inter alia, with other additions.
Aggrieved by the order of the Assessing Officer, the assessee filed an
appeal before the first appellate authority. In the appellate proceedings,
the assessee argued the grounds and reiterated the submissions made in
7 I T A N o . 6 0 1 / C T K / 2 0 0 5 : A s s e s s me n t Ye a r :2 0 0 2 -0 3 I T A N o . 6 0 2 / C T K / 2 0 0 5 : A s s e s s me n t Ye a r :2 0 0 3 -0 4 I T A N o . 1 9 2 / C T K / 2 0 0 8 : A s s e s s me n t Ye a r :1 9 9 9 -2 0 0 0 I T A N o . 2 5 6 / C T K / 2 0 0 8 : A s s e s s me n t Ye a r :2 0 0 0 -2 0 0 1 I T A N o . 2 5 7 / C T K / 2 0 0 8 : A s s e s s me n t Ye a r :2 0 0 1 -2 0 0 2 I T A N o . 6 5 8 / C T K / 2 0 0 8 : A s s e s s me n t Ye a r :2 0 0 5 -2 0 0 6 IT A N o . 2 2 9 /C TK /2 0 0 9 : A s s e s s me n t y e a r : 2 0 0 6 -0 7 the assessment proceedings and relied on the judicial decision in
assessee’s own case.
The ld CIT(A) having considered the submissions of the assessee and
findings of the Assessing Officer and the amended provisions of law
effective from 1999-2000 and also that there is no parameteria of
exemption of section 10(22) shall continue to the assessee, irrespective of
the fact that no application is made under the new provisions of section
10(23C), of the Act and observed that as on date, the assessee has not
obtained approval from the prescribed authority and the ld CIT(A)
concurred with the findings of the Assessing Officer, who has dealt on the
facts and the legal provisions in denying the exemption and partly allowed
the appeal of the assessee. Aggrieved by the order of the CIT(A), the
assessee filed an appeal with the Tribunal.
Before us, ld Authorised Representative argued the ground and
submitted that the CIT(A) has hurriedly confirmed the order of the
Assessing Officer and also no proper opportunity was provided. Further,
he submitted that the assessee is an educational institution existing from
more than two decades and controlled by the State Government. Ld A.R.
of the assessee explained that application made under section
10(23C)(iiiab) with the prescribed authority has been rejected by an order
dated 18.1.2007 and similarly for the other assessment years also, since
applications are rejected, a writ petition has been filed before the Hon’ble
High Court.
8 I T A N o . 6 0 1 / C T K / 2 0 0 5 : A s s e s s me n t Ye a r :2 0 0 2 -0 3 I T A N o . 6 0 2 / C T K / 2 0 0 5 : A s s e s s me n t Ye a r :2 0 0 3 -0 4 I T A N o . 1 9 2 / C T K / 2 0 0 8 : A s s e s s me n t Ye a r :1 9 9 9 -2 0 0 0 I T A N o . 2 5 6 / C T K / 2 0 0 8 : A s s e s s me n t Ye a r :2 0 0 0 -2 0 0 1 I T A N o . 2 5 7 / C T K / 2 0 0 8 : A s s e s s me n t Ye a r :2 0 0 1 -2 0 0 2 I T A N o . 6 5 8 / C T K / 2 0 0 8 : A s s e s s me n t Ye a r :2 0 0 5 -2 0 0 6 IT A N o . 2 2 9 /C TK /2 0 0 9 : A s s e s s me n t y e a r : 2 0 0 6 -0 7
We have rejected the adjournment application as we are satisfied
that sufficient opportunities were provided to the assessee from 2006 to
2013 and the assessee could not make the proper use of time and
procedures. Ld A.R. relied on the decision of Hon’ble Jurisdictional High
Court in assessee’s own case(supra) and also relied on the decision of
Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Assam State Text Book Production
and Publication Corporation Ltd vs CIT, (2009) 319 ITR4 317 (SC)
American Hotel and Lodging Association Educational Institute vs Central
Board of Direct Taxes and Others (2008) 301 ITR 86 (SC) and prayed for
allowing the appeals.
Contra, ld D.R. supported the orders of the ld CIT(A) and further
emphasised that the assessee was provided sufficient opportunities by the
lower authorities to substantiate its case and to obtain certificate of
approval from the prescribed authority, which, prima facie, the application
of approval has been rejected.
We have heard the rival submissions and perused the orders of
lower authorities and materials available on record and judicial
decisions cited. The sole crux of the issue raised by ld A.R. that the
assessee is a Board formed under the Government Statute to provide
education, therefore, exempt from filing the return of income. Ld A.R.
9 I T A N o . 6 0 1 / C T K / 2 0 0 5 : A s s e s s me n t Ye a r :2 0 0 2 -0 3 I T A N o . 6 0 2 / C T K / 2 0 0 5 : A s s e s s me n t Ye a r :2 0 0 3 -0 4 I T A N o . 1 9 2 / C T K / 2 0 0 8 : A s s e s s me n t Ye a r :1 9 9 9 -2 0 0 0 I T A N o . 2 5 6 / C T K / 2 0 0 8 : A s s e s s me n t Ye a r :2 0 0 0 -2 0 0 1 I T A N o . 2 5 7 / C T K / 2 0 0 8 : A s s e s s me n t Ye a r :2 0 0 1 -2 0 0 2 I T A N o . 6 5 8 / C T K / 2 0 0 8 : A s s e s s me n t Ye a r :2 0 0 5 -2 0 0 6 IT A N o . 2 2 9 /C TK /2 0 0 9 : A s s e s s me n t y e a r : 2 0 0 6 -0 7 emphatically relied on the order of the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High
Court in assessee’s own case, wherein, the Hon’b le High Court has
directed total income of the Board is exempt from income tax under
section 10(22) Act, which is as under:
“Where the law is clear and the assessing authorities have no power to make an assessment on account of exemption given under the Income Tax Act, there is no reason why the High Court should not exercise its power to quash the notices issued by the authorities. Under the Orissa Secondary Education Act, 1953, the Secondary Board of Education, Orissa, has a fund. One of the sources of income of the Board is profits from compilation, publication, printing and sale of text books. The profits so earned enter into the Board fund. The income and expenditure of the Board is controlled and the entire expenditur5e is to be directed towards development and expansion of educational purposes. Even if there is some surplus, if remains as a part of the sinking fund to be devoted to the cause of education as and when necessary. Thus being the objective and there being various ways of control of the income and expenditure, the Board of Secondary Education cannot be said to be existing for purposes of profit. It exists solely for purposes of education. The income of the Board is, therefore, exempt from income tax under section 10(22) of the Income tax Act, 1961.”
We find prima facie section 10(22) of the Act was omitted by Finance
No.(2) Act 1988 w.e.f. 1.4.1999 and also perused section 10(23C)(iiiab),
(iiiad) and (vi). On perusal of the provisions of section 10(23C)(vi) we find
that the assessee has to obtain approval from the prescribed authority, and
as per the records and submissions of the ld A.R., the assessee could not
obtain the approval and agitating for granting of approval before the
Hon’ble High Court. The Tribunal is final fact finding authority and we
10 I T A N o . 6 0 1 / C T K / 2 0 0 5 : A s s e s s me n t Ye a r :2 0 0 2 -0 3 I T A N o . 6 0 2 / C T K / 2 0 0 5 : A s s e s s me n t Ye a r :2 0 0 3 -0 4 I T A N o . 1 9 2 / C T K / 2 0 0 8 : A s s e s s me n t Ye a r :1 9 9 9 -2 0 0 0 I T A N o . 2 5 6 / C T K / 2 0 0 8 : A s s e s s me n t Ye a r :2 0 0 0 -2 0 0 1 I T A N o . 2 5 7 / C T K / 2 0 0 8 : A s s e s s me n t Ye a r :2 0 0 1 -2 0 0 2 I T A N o . 6 5 8 / C T K / 2 0 0 8 : A s s e s s me n t Ye a r :2 0 0 5 -2 0 0 6 IT A N o . 2 2 9 /C TK /2 0 0 9 : A s s e s s me n t y e a r : 2 0 0 6 -0 7 observe that the assessee neither in the assessment proceedings or before
the first appellate authority and even before us, could not submit the
approval of grant for exemption. The ld A.R. to support his arguments relied
on the decisions of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of American Hotel
and Lodging Association Educational Institute (supra), which was rendered
in respect of assessment year 1999-2000 and also gave the findings on the
provisions of section 10(23C) (vi) as under:
“With the insertion of the provisions of section 10(23C)(vi) the “applicant seeking approval has not only to show that it is an institution existing solely for educational purposes but it has got to obtain initial approval from the prescribed authority in terms of section 10(23C) (vi) by making an application in the standardised form as mentioned in the first proviso to that section. This condition was inserted because section 10(22) was abused by some educational institutions/universities. The proviso was inserted alongwith other provisions because there was no monitoring mechanism to check abuse of the exemption provision. With the insertion of the first proviso the prescribed authority is required to vet the application. While considering the approval application the prescribed authority is empowered under the second proviso before giving approval to call for such documents including annual accounts or information from the applicant to check the genuineness of the activities of the applicant institution. While judging the genuineness of the activities of the applicant, the prescribed authority has, under the third proviso, to ascertain as to whether the applicant applies its income wholly and exclusively to the objects for which it is constituted/established.”
We find the Hon’ble apex Court has considered the facts of granting
exemption u/s.10(22) as well as section 10(23C) and prima facie, due to
change in the position of law from assessment year 1999-2000, the
assessee is required to obtain the approval from the prescribed authority.
11 I T A N o . 6 0 1 / C T K / 2 0 0 5 : A s s e s s me n t Ye a r :2 0 0 2 -0 3 I T A N o . 6 0 2 / C T K / 2 0 0 5 : A s s e s s me n t Ye a r :2 0 0 3 -0 4 I T A N o . 1 9 2 / C T K / 2 0 0 8 : A s s e s s me n t Ye a r :1 9 9 9 -2 0 0 0 I T A N o . 2 5 6 / C T K / 2 0 0 8 : A s s e s s me n t Ye a r :2 0 0 0 -2 0 0 1 I T A N o . 2 5 7 / C T K / 2 0 0 8 : A s s e s s me n t Ye a r :2 0 0 1 -2 0 0 2 I T A N o . 6 5 8 / C T K / 2 0 0 8 : A s s e s s me n t Ye a r :2 0 0 5 -2 0 0 6 IT A N o . 2 2 9 /C TK /2 0 0 9 : A s s e s s me n t y e a r : 2 0 0 6 -0 7 Further, ld A.R.’s reliance on the decision in the case of Assam State Text
Book Production and Publication Corporation Ltd(supra), wherein, the facts
are that the main object of the assessee was to do research, printing and
publishing of text books for school students as per the norms prescribed
and approval by the Education Department of the State in respect of
assessment years 1981-82 to 1988-89 and 1990-91 to 1996-97, where the
provisions of section 10(23C) were not applicable and the issue in the
present case relate to the year 1999-2000 onwards . The provisions of
section 10(22) are only applicable to the assessment year 1988-89 and
were omitted. Therefore, we find the assessee cannot rely on above
decisions and we shall follow the law and rules in force from assessment
year 1999-2000. Considering the apparent facts and materials on record,
and the judicial decisions, we are of the opinion that the CIT(A) has
considered the facts, legal provisions and judicial decisions and the working
operations of the assessee and confirmed the order of the Assessing Officer.
Accordingly, we are not inclined to interfere with the order of the CIT(A)
who had dealt with the issue extensively and vis-à-vis the explanations of
the assessee and we uphold the action of the CIT(A) and dismiss the
grounds of appeal.
Similarly, the assessee has filed appeals for the assessment years
2003-04, 2005-06 and 2006-07, wherein, the issues are similar and
identical, therefore we uphold the action of the CIT(A) and dismiss the
grounds of appeal.
12 I T A N o . 6 0 1 / C T K / 2 0 0 5 : A s s e s s me n t Ye a r :2 0 0 2 -0 3 I T A N o . 6 0 2 / C T K / 2 0 0 5 : A s s e s s me n t Ye a r :2 0 0 3 -0 4 I T A N o . 1 9 2 / C T K / 2 0 0 8 : A s s e s s me n t Ye a r :1 9 9 9 -2 0 0 0 I T A N o . 2 5 6 / C T K / 2 0 0 8 : A s s e s s me n t Ye a r :2 0 0 0 -2 0 0 1 I T A N o . 2 5 7 / C T K / 2 0 0 8 : A s s e s s me n t Ye a r :2 0 0 1 -2 0 0 2 I T A N o . 6 5 8 / C T K / 2 0 0 8 : A s s e s s me n t Ye a r :2 0 0 5 -2 0 0 6 IT A N o . 2 2 9 /C TK /2 0 0 9 : A s s e s s me n t y e a r : 2 0 0 6 -0 7 17. In assessment year 1999-2000, 2000-2001 and 2001-02, the
assessee has also challenged the validity of reassessment proceedings and
the provisions of section 10(23C) of the Act, which was dismissed by the
CIT(A).
Even before us, the assessee has argued on the validity of
reassessment proceedings. Prima facie, we find that the reopening of
assessment is within a period of four years and we are of the opinion that
the present Assessing Officer has relied on records and tangible material,
which the predecessor has not verified and, therefore, believed that income
has escaped assessment. When the Assessing Officer has not examined
this aspect in the earlier assessment, the Assessing Officer is justified in
reopening the assessment under section 147 of the Act. So, considering the
apparent facts, we are of the opinion that the Assessing Officer was correct
in law in making re-assessment applying the provisions of section 147 of
the Act as the assessee was not having approval from the prescribed
authority as envisaged u/s.10(23C) of the Act. Accordingly, we confirm
the orders of the CIT(A) and dismiss the appeals of the assessee.
In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on 17 /05/2017 in the presence of parties. Sd/- sd/- (N.S Saini) (Pavan Kumar Gadale) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Cuttack; Dated 17 /05/2017 B.K.Parida, SPS
13 I T A N o . 6 0 1 / C T K / 2 0 0 5 : A s s e s s me n t Ye a r :2 0 0 2 -0 3 I T A N o . 6 0 2 / C T K / 2 0 0 5 : A s s e s s me n t Ye a r :2 0 0 3 -0 4 I T A N o . 1 9 2 / C T K / 2 0 0 8 : A s s e s s me n t Ye a r :1 9 9 9 -2 0 0 0 I T A N o . 2 5 6 / C T K / 2 0 0 8 : A s s e s s me n t Ye a r :2 0 0 0 -2 0 0 1 I T A N o . 2 5 7 / C T K / 2 0 0 8 : A s s e s s me n t Ye a r :2 0 0 1 -2 0 0 2 I T A N o . 6 5 8 / C T K / 2 0 0 8 : A s s e s s me n t Ye a r :2 0 0 5 -2 0 0 6 IT A N o . 2 2 9 /C TK /2 0 0 9 : A s s e s s me n t y e a r : 2 0 0 6 -0 7
Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. The Appellant : Board of Secondary Education, Cuttack 2. The Respondent. 3. The CIT(A) Cuttack 4. Pr.CIT, Cuttack 5. DR, ITAT, Cuttack 6. Guard file. //True Copy// BY ORDER,
SR.PRIVATE SECRETARY ITAT, Cuttack