TMI Blog2015 (10) TMI 2113X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t decided the issue and has asked the Assessing Officer to pass a de novo assessment order after examining all aspects and after providing reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. None of the judgments cited by Learned A.R. of the assessee is rendering any help to the assessee and we have also seen that that the assessment order is erroneous as well as prejudicial to the interest of Revenue because of the observation of the A.O. in the assessment order that the entire income of the assessee is not exempt and his action of allowing deduction u/s 11 of two huge amounts and therefore, we find no reason to interfere in the order of learned CIT. - Decided against assessee. - ITA No.286/LKW/2014, - - - Dated:- 10-9-2015 - SH ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ire income of the Corporation was not found exempt', therefore, entire income was liable to tax whereas the Assessing Officer was making disallowance of forest development expenses of ₹ 1,60,98,000/- and prior period expenses of ₹ 8,43,648/- as per his notice u/s 142 (1) of the Act. 4. BECAUSE the Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax-I has erred in law and on facts in holding as above contrary to the law 'the registration of a trust under section 12A of the Income-tax Act, 1961, once done is a fait accompli and the Assessing Officer has no option but to compute the income under section 11 of the Act.' 5. BECAUSE the Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax-I has erred in law and on facts in ignoring the main finding of t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he order of the Tribunal cannot be revised u/s 263 of the Act as it is neither erroneous since being in accordance with law and direction of the Tribunal nor prejudicial to the interest of revenue since being revenue neutral due to eligibility of the appellant to exemption u/s 11 of the Act. 3. It was submitted by Learned A.R. of the assessee that the notice issued by learned CIT u/s 263 of the Act on 15/01/2014 is available on page No. 11 of the paper book. He submitted that the order of learned CIT u/s 263 is not proper and valid. Reliance was placed by Learned A.R. of the assessee on the following judicial pronouncements: (i) Cargo Handling (P.) Workers Pool, Visakhapatnam vs. Dy.CIT [2012] 18 taxmann.com 101 (Visakhapatnam) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... arned CIT that under these facts, the deduction so allowed by the Assessing Officer is in clear contravention of Assessing Officer s own finding in the assessment order and therefore, the order of the Assessing Officer is erroneous as well as prejudicial to the interest of Revenue. In spite of this clear objection of learned CIT in the notice issued by him u/s 263 of the Act, the assessee has not been able to rebut this objection of learned CIT and a general statement was made by the assessee before learned CIT as noted by him in Para 3 of the impugned order that it was the submission of the assessee in reply that no error in law has been committed by the Assessing Officer in carrying out the direction of the Tribunal. This goes to show tha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Tribunal is binding or not on all tax authorities and it was held by the Tribunal in that case that the same is binding. The second dispute before the Tribunal in that case was as to whether any affected party who is not satisfied with the Tribunal order can carry the matter in appeal to High Court to seek suspension of operation of order of the Tribunal and it was held that it can be done and it was also held that in such a case, where the High Court suspends the order of the Tribunal, then tax authorities are under no obligation to follow such Tribunal order so suspended till the matter is decided by High Court. In the present case, the issue in dispute is regarding validity of the order passed by learned CIT u/s 263 and therefore, we do ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Authority (supra). In this case, the issue in dispute before Hon'ble High Court was the merit of exemption claimed by the assessee u/s 11 and allowed by the Tribunal in that case. In the present case, the issue involved is not on merit of allowability of exemption u/s 11 of the Act. In the present case, the issue is as to whether the assessment order is erroneous as well as prejudicial to the interest of Revenue. We have also seen that the Assessing Officer himself has observed in the assessment order that the assessee s entire income is not eligible for exemption u/s 11 and even after making this observation, he has allowed deduction of two huge amounts u/s 11 of the Act and under these facts, it was held by learned CIT that the order ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
