Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2017 (6) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2017 (6) TMI 434 - ITAT AMRITSARRejecting the assessee's application u/s. 10(23C)(vi) - assessee is a college of girls engaged in imparting education - whether CIT (E) has wrongly disregarded the Board's Circular No. 14/2015, dated 17.08.2015? - Held that:- So far as regards the present applicant, its existence for over the last 100 years as an educational institution has not been questioned. Its affiliation with GNDU remains undisputed. The factum of its being an aided college is patent. It's past history of having been granted exemption under different provisions of the Act is irrefuted. The position that it exists solely for educational purposes and not for any profit motive, stands accepted by the Department while granting exemption u/s. 10(23C)(iiiab). The only aid to the volte face challenged before us comes from the provisos to section 10(23C), recourse to which has expressly been barred by “American Hotel & Lodging Association Educational Institute (2008 (5) TMI 17 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA),” which mandate of the Hon'ble Supreme Court has been conveyed by the CBDT by way of its Circular. Further, as noted above, the mandate of section 119(1) comes with a rider, i.e., that no order, instruction or directions of the Board shall be as to interfere with the discretion of the Appellate Authority in exercise of his appellate functions. In the case at hand, however, the order under appeal nowhere states that the issuance of Circular No. 14/2015, dated 17.08.2015 interferes with his appellate functions in any manner, whatsoever. Thus, evidently, the ld. CIT (E) is not correct in holding that the CBDT Circulars are merely “guidelines to be normally followed”. We are sanguine that the authorities and officers employed in the execution of the Act, shall follow the mandate contained in section 119(1) of the Act in letter and spirit. Considering the above undisputed facts, the ld. CIT (E) is also found to have erred in observing in para 12, i.e., the concluding para of his order, that the application filed u/s. 10(23C)(vi) was, “at best infructuous”. In view of the preceding observations, it, obviously, is not so. For the foregoing discussion, the grievance of the assessee is found to be justified. It is accepted as such. The order under appeal is reversed. Approval u/s. 10(23C)(vi) of the Act is directed to be granted to the assessee forthwith. - Decided in favour of assessee.
|