TMI Blog2016 (1) TMI 1287X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er it was credited to the balance sheet and having applied its income to the chargeable purpose, the assessee has claimed exemption u/s 11 of the Act. For invoking the provision of Section 263 of the Act, the assessment is required to be held as erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. If the assessment order is only erroneous and not prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue the provision of Section 263 of the Act cannot be invoked. Since the assessee has taken the development fund to the income and expenditure account after treating it to be income, the assessment order cannot be called to be prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue, though it may be erroneous for certain reasons. Assessment order is neither erro ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eedings. (4) The Ld. C.l.T. (Exemption) had not doubted total receiving ₹ 47,72.01.3967-which also includes development fees ₹ 5,12,67,100-00/- and funds utilized for educational purposes including College Building construction ₹ 41,17,94,904/-. Thus, the assessment order is neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the Interest of Revenue. (5) That the present order is contrary to the facts, law. principle of natural justice and without providing sufficient time and opportunity to have its say on the reasons relied upon. 2. During the course of hearing, Ld. counsel for the assessee has invited our attention to the order of the CIT(Exemption) passed u/s 263 of the Act with the submission that CIT(Exemption) has revised ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e Revenue. In support of his contention that provisions of Section 263 of the Act can only be invoked where the assessment order is held to be erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. He has placed reliance upon the following judgments:- 1) CIT Vs. R.K. Construction Co. reported in 313 ITR 65. 2) CIT Bangalore Vs. Kurlon Ltd. reported 232 Taxman 107 3) Shri Deepak Singh Vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, ITA No. 276/Lkw/2015 4. CIT Vs. Associated Food Products Pvt. Ltd. reported in 280 ITR 377. 5. CIT Vs. Escorts Limited reported in 198 Taxaman 324. 6. Venus Woolen Mills Vs. CIT reported in 166 TTJ 58. 7. CIT Vs. Contimeters Electricals Pvt. Ltd. reported in 317 ITR 249. 3. Ld. DR on the other ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
