TMI Blog2016 (9) TMI 1272X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rance had been taken and the order was passed on 03.02.2016. Accordingly, we are of the view that the present M.A. is liable to be dismissed as there is no mistake much an apparent mistake in the order of the Tribunal dated 03.02.2016. Thus miscellaneous application of the assessee u/s.254(2) for the rectification of the mistake is hereby dismissed. - M.A. NO. 102/M/2016 (Arising out of ITA No. 2658/Mum/2012) - - - Dated:- 30-9-2016 - S/SHRI R.C.SHARMA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND AMARJIT SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessee by: Shri Nitesh Joshi Department by: Smt. Surabhi Sharma O R D E R PER AMARJIT SINGH, JM: The assessee moved an application u/s.254(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961( in short the Act ) for the rectif ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pass the order within the period of 90 days, therefore, the order dated 03.02.2016 passed by the Tribunal is wrong against law and facts and is liable to be recalled. It is also stated that it is not the case of the respondent that the activities of the trust was not being carried out in accordance with its objects. It is also stated that the Tribunal failed to consider the law relied by the applicant properly such as SAE India Vs. DIT(E) (2015)67 SOT 15 and DIT(E), Bangalore Vs. Karnataka Industrial Area Development Board (2015) 229 Taxman 539 (Karn) and Kodava Samaj Vs. DIT(E) ITA No.200/Ban/2012 and Khar Gymkhana Vs. DIT(E), ITA No.175/Mum/2012 and other law which has been mentioned in para 9 of the application, therefore, the order of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... been denied retrospectively for the period w.e.f 2009-10 which is also wrong against law and facts because order was passed on 01.03.2012 and accordingly this order is liable to be amended / rectified in accordance with law. 5. Before going further it is made clear that in the appeal filed by the assessee the Tribunal has upheld the order of DIT(E) dated 01.03.2012 in question wherein the registration was cancelled / withdrawn for the period w.e.f. 2009-10. The bone contention of the representative of the assessee is that the exemption cannot be cancelled on the basis of this fact that the receipt of the assessee has been exceeded the permissible limit as mentioned in the proviso of section 2(15) of the Act. The order dated 03.02.2016 s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y 2009. There is nothing on record that these findings have been set aside by any court. However, the DIT(E) has also placed reliance upon this observations. The law relied by the representative of the applicant has duly been discussed in the order and the Tribunal has arrived at this conclusion that the confirmation of the cancellation of the registration was not merely on the basis of the excess expenditure u/s.2(15) of the Act but the same was also for not working in accordance with the object of the club. However, we reproduced the finding of the DIT(E) under challenge. Once a charitable Trust / Institution hit by aforesaid proviso, then there is deeming provision that such entity shall not be for a charitable purpose. Hence, once t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ile passing the order dated 3-2-2016 which does not require to be discussed again. Any how the observation in case i.e Bangalore Vs. Karnataka Industrial Area Development Board (2015) 229 Taxman 539 (Karn) has duly been complied with. With regard to assessee s contention that order was passed beyond 90 days, we found that necessary administrative clearance had been taken and the order was passed on 03.02.2016. Accordingly, we are of the view that the present M.A. is liable to be dismissed as there is no mistake much an apparent mistake in the order of the Tribunal dated 03.02.2016. 7. In the result, miscellaneous application of the assessee u/s.254(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961( in short the Act ) for the rectification of the mistake i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
