TMI Blog2017 (1) TMI 668X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mount would be taxed. Hence, no prejudice is caused to the revenue so far as tax effect is concerned, except for the fact that section 11 is being sought to be examined from a different perspective. Thus the ground of appeal raised in the present appeal is squarely covered in favour of assessee. By following the order of Tribunal we hold that the order revised by ld DIT(E) is not prejudicial to the interest of revenue and the same is set-aside by accepting the appeal of the assessee. - ITA No.4049/Mum/2014 - - - Dated:- 9-11-2016 - SHRI B.R. BASKARAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER For The Appellant : Shri Nishant Thakkar with Ms. Jasmine (AR) For The Revenue : Shri B.B. Rajendra Prasad (CIT-DR) OR ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tra by enacting Slum Rehabilitation Act. The assessee enjoyed complete exemption from Income-tax u/s 10(20) and 10(20A) as local authority since its incorporation. The assessee is also having registration u/s 12AA of the Act to seek exemption u/s 11 on the ground that the authority/assessee is carrying out legal obligation within the definition of charitable purpose. The assessee filed return of income for AY 2010-11 declaring total income of Rs. Nil. The assessment was completed on 04.03.2013 u/s 143(3) of the Act assessing the total income of ₹ 171,29,90,270/-. Aggrieved by the order of Assessing Officer (AO) the assessee challenged the action of AO in appeal before the CIT(A). However, the DIT(E) by invoking section 263 set-aside t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 9-10. It is argued the ld. DIT(E) revised the order of assessment for AY 2009-10 and the assessee filed appeal before this Tribunal and the appeal was allowed vide ITA No. 2435/Mum/14. On the other hand, ld. DR for the Revenue argued that the case of the year under consideration is entirely different from the fact of AY 2009-10. Ld. The DR for the Revenue argued that the order of AO was erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of Revenue. In the rejoinder argument, the ld. AR of the assessee argued that for invoking the power u/s 263, there should be a subjective satisfaction that the order is erroneous as well as prejudicial to the interest of Revenue. The ld AR for assessee further argued that the order of assessment is not prejudicial t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... aside the original assessment order u/s 143(3) dated 22.12.2011 on the ground that, AO has failed to consider the amended provisions of section 2(15), that is, the Proviso inserted by Finance Act, 2008 w.e.f. assessment year 2009-10 has not been considered and examined. If the proviso would be applied then there might be a situation where assessee's activity may not be held to be for charitable purposes and exemption u/s 11 may not be available. In other words exemption u/s 11 is being sought to be denied on the ground of newly inserted Proviso to section 2(15). Even if such an exercise is done, then the result would be same, that is, again the entire assessment would be completed on the same income of ₹ 83,98,10,894/-. There w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... de such matter within the scope of section 263. On the second aspect also, which is purely academic, it is seen that, so far as tax effect is concerned, there is no difference at all between the income which was assessed in the original assessment order and the income which is now being sought to be assessed in wake of order u/s 263. Under both the assessments the surplus amount of ₹ 83.98 crores will get taxed. Hence, no prejudice is caused to the revenue so far as tax effect is concerned, except for the fact that section 11 is being sought to be examined from a different perspective. Accordingly, we hold that, firstly, the subject matter of revision u/s 263 has been merged with the order of the Tribunal, therefore, Ld. DIT is prec ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
