TMI Blog2016 (3) TMI 689X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l stand dismissed. - ITA No. 207 of 2001 - - - Dated:- 18-3-2016 - Girish Chandra Gupta And Indrajit Chatterjee, JJ. For the Appellant : Mr. S.B. Saraf, Adv. For the Respondent : Mr. S. K. Kapoor, Sr. Adv. Mr. J. P. Khaitan, Sr. Adv. ORDER Girish Chandra Gupta J. The appeal is directed against a judgement and order dated 16th November, 2000 passed by the learned Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, E - Bench, Calcutta pertaining to the assessment year 1992- 93 by which the learned Tribunal dismissed the appeal preferred by the revenue agreeing with the views of the CIT that the funds were raised by the assessee for the philanthropic purposes. The facts and circumstances of the case appearing from the order of the as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ant's appeal involving the issue was allowed by me in respect of assessment year 1988-89 in respectful agreement with the decision of the ITAT for the preceding years. Contention on behalf of the appellant stands accepted for assessment years 1989- 90 to 1991-92 vide order dated 31.3.95 of my predecessor-inoffice. I see no reason to disagree with the appellate findings involving the same issue, arising from identical facts and circumstances. Neither any fresh material or further arguments have been brought on record by the A.O. in negating the claim in so far as assessment year 1992-93 is concerned, I am accordingly, inclined to allow the appeal. As the appellant is to be treated as entitled to exemption U/s. 10(22A) dealing with indivi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was correct in holding that the Association was eligible for exemption under section 10(22A) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 as a medical institution existing solely for philanthropic purposes? We have considered the following questions in great detail in our judgement delivered on the same day pertaining to the assessment year 1988-89. i) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in law in granting exemption under Section 10(22A) of the Act ignoring the fact that the assessee had lent money on interest to different companies? ii) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e find that this appeal has been filed by violating the instruction issued by the CBDT, which was binding upon the appellant in view of the provisions contained in Section 268A of the Income Tax Act, 1968. We, thus, dismiss this appeal on that ground alone. He has also drawn our attention to an affidavit filed by the assessee wherein the assessee has alleged as follows:- I say that the Assessing Officer made a mistake in mentioning the amount of income tax as ₹ 17,96,619/- whereas the correct amount of tax @ 50% on the assessed income of ₹ 33,44,150/- amounted to ₹ 16,72,075/-. At the same time, the figure of surcharge of ₹ 2,50,811/- mentioned in the challan is correct, being 15% of the correct amount of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... draw the appeal under the circular dated 10th December, 2015. The question whether the revenue is liable to withdraw the appeal and the question whether the appeal can be entertained if the tax effect is less than the prescribed amount was gone into by a Division Bench of this Court in an earlier decision which was relied upon by Mr. Khaitan and which we have quoted above. Since we are bound by that decision of the Division Bench the appeal is disposed of by the following order. The question is answered in the negative and in favour of the revenue. The matter is, however, remanded back to the assessing officer for examining the tax effect, in the light of the Circular no.21 of 2015 dated 10th December, 2015 issued by CBDT. After ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
