TMI Blog2014 (5) TMI 937X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sion of the student - during the hearing of the appeals assessee pointed out that for subsequent AY 2011-12, the AO himself has allowed exemption u/s 11 of the Act, to the assessee – when the AO has himself has granted exemption u/s 11 to the assessee in AY 2011-12, there was no reason to interfere with the order passed by the CIT(A) – Decided against revenue. - I.T.A. Nos. 1303 & 1326/Hyd/2013 - - - Dated:- 16-5-2014 - Shri B. Ramakotaiah And Shri Saktijit Dey,JJ. For the Petitioner : Smt. K. Harita For the Respondent : Shri P. Murali Krishna ORDER Per Saktijit Dey, JM: These two appeals filed by the Department are against a common order of the CIT(A)-IV, Hyderabad dated 24/07/2013 for the assessment years 200 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Officer though accepted the fact that the assessee has been registered u/s 12A of the Act, but, she refused exemption u/s 11 of the Act to the assessee on the ground that the assessee being an educational institution can only avail exception u/s 10(23C)(vi). As the assessee has not obtained approval u/s 10(23C)(vi), it is not eligible for exemption and accordingly completed the assessment. Being aggrieved of the assessment order so passed for the aforesaid assessment years, the assessee preferred appeal before the CIT(A). 4. The CIT(A) after considering the submissions of the assessee accepted the claim that even if the assessee has not obtained approval u/s 10(23C)(vi) of the Act, but, still the assessee being registered u/s 12A of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... peatedly been expressed by the ITAT as in the following cases: 1. Vasavi Academy of education (ITA No. 1133/Hyd/2006, dated 15.4.2009) 2. Jamia Nizamia (ITA no. 763/Hyd/2007, dated 30.6.2008) 3. International Educational Academy (ITA No. 494/Hyd/2007) 4. Sri Venkata Sai Educational Society (ITA No. 1440/Hyd/2011, dated 9.4.2012) 3.5 Following the above decisions of the jurisdictional ITAT, it is held that if the Assessing Officer has found that besides fulfilling other prerequisites for exemption u/s. 11, as stipulated in sections 11 to 13 of the Act the appellant did not charge any money, by whatever name it is called, i.e. donation, building fund, auditorium fee etc., over and above the prescribed fee for the admission of t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ons referred to by the learned CIT(A). Moreover, it is also brought to our notice during the hearing of these appeals by the learned AR that for subsequent assessment year 2011-12, the AO himself has allowed exemption u/s 11 of the Act, to the assessee. A copy of the said assessment order was also submitted for our perusal. Therefore, when the Assessing Officer himself has granted exemption u/s 11 to the assessee in AY 2011-12, we do not find any reason to interfere with the order passed by the Ld. CIT(A), which in our view is just and proper. Accordingly, we dismiss the grounds raised by the Department. 7. In the result, both the appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on 16/05/2014. - - Tax ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
