Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, PATNA BENCH, PATNA
Before: DR. MANISH BORAD, HON’BLE & SHRI SONJOY SARMA, HON’BLE]
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PATNA BENCH, PATNA [VIRTUAL HEARING AT KOLKATA] [BEFORE DR. MANISH BORAD, HON’BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SONJOY SARMA, HON’BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER] Assessment Year: 2011-12 ACIT, Central Circle-2, Patna......................................……………………………..................Appellant Bihar-800 001. VS M/s. Shivam Educational Trust....................…………………………………………...........Respondent Road No. 04, Rajeev Nagar, Patna – 800013. [PAN: AAJTS 7036 B] Appearances by: Shri Rupesh Agrawal, Sr. DR appearing on behalf of the Revenue. Shri Devesh Poddar, Advocate appearing on behalf of the Assessee Date of concluding the hearing : October 11, 2022 Date of pronouncing the order : October 12, 2022 ORDER PER SONJOY SARMA, JM:
This appeal is preferred by the Revenue against the order of Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) – 3, Patna dated 22nd June, 2020 and the grounds raised therein by the Revenue read as under: “1. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the ld. CIT(A) by allowing relief u/s 10(23C) (iiad) of I.T. Act has failed to appreciate that: Receipts of Rs. 97,86,575/- were based on the seized documents resulting into suppression of receipts by Rs. 55,07,684/-. The receipts neither reconciled by Shri Ashok Kumar, trustee in his statement u/s 131(1) nor during assessment proceedings. Non furnishing of any explanation for the unaccounted receipt of Rs. 55,07,684/- in audited account of the trust and accordingly not used for the purpose of trust. The receipt of Rs. 55,07,684/- were used for the personal enrichment of the trustees.
2. The ld. CIT(A) failed to appreciate and consider provision of section 10(23C)(iiad) properly because the activity of assessee was not solely for Assessment Year: 2011-12 M/s. Shivam Educational Trust educational purpose but also for the personal enrichment of the trustees. Accordingly, purpose of section 10(23C)(iiad) did not apply.
3. That the ld. CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the assessee had not even claimed exemption u/s 10(23C)(iiad) of the I.T. Act. Copy of return of income evidencing no claim is enclosed.
4. That the order of the ld. CIT(A) being erroneous in law and on facts to be vacated and the order of the AO be restored.
5. That the applicant craves leave to add, alter, delete, modify the grounds of appeal before the Hon’ble ITAT.”
The ld. Counsel for the assessee at the outset has pointed out that the tax effect involved in this appeal filed by the Revenue is less than the revised monetary limit of Rs. 50,00,000/- fixed by the C.B.D.T. for filing the appeals of the Revenue before the Tribunal and this position which is clearly evident from the grounds raised by the Revenue in this appeal is not disputed even by the ld. D.R. In the Circular No. 17/2019 dated 8th August, 2019 issued by the C.B.D.T., the monetary limit for filing the appeal by Revenue before the Tribunal is revised to Rs. 50,00,000/-. As further clarified in the said Circular, the monetary limit so revised is applicable even to the pending appeals and the same are directed to be withdrawn or not pressed. We accordingly treat this appeal as withdrawn/not pressed on account of low tax effect in view of the C.B.D.T. Circular No. 17/2019 dated 8th August, 2019 and dismiss the same.
In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed. Order Pronounced in the Open Court on 12th October, 2022.