9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (12) TMI 117X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... peals are common, the appeals are clubbed, heard together and disposed of in common order for the sake of convenience. 2. In the appeal the assessee filed the following grounds of appeal : (i) The Order of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions), Hyderabad, is contrary to Law mid facts of the ease. (ii) The Order of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions), Hyderabad, is not in accordance with law, as the order which was revised by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions) Hyderabad, was already an order subjected to appeal by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Visakhapatnam.' Hence, the order passed by the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions), Hyderabad, is not maintainable and maykindly ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 26,908/- and the AO allowed the entire payments of Rs. 1,33,66,150/- as deduction and assessed the balance as income. 5.1. In respect of assessment for the AY 2008-09 the assessment was completed on total income of Rs. 46,45,640/-. The gross receipts of the assessee were Rs. 1,17,14,097/- and the AO allowed the entire payments of Rs. 70.68.459/- and assessed the balance amount for the purpose of income tax. 6. Aggrieved by the order of the AO, the assessee went on appeal before the CIT(A) and filed the appeal. During the pendency of appeal before the Ld.CIT(A), the CIT has taken up the case for revision u/s 263 and observed that out of the total payments allowed by the AO, a sum of Rs. 75,83,315/- was capital expenditure which is not allo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... appeal. The assessee has filed appeal before the CIT(A) with regard to granting of registration and to allow the exemption u/s 11 and 12 of the I.T.Act. The issue taken up by the CIT u/s 263 was relating to capital expenditure claimed by the assessee as revenue expenditure. Both the issues are different and independent. Therefore, the theory of merger is not applicable for the issues which are not pending in appeal. Since the issues raised by the CIT u/s 263 are not in appeal pending before the CIT(A), Ld.DR argued that there is no error in the order passed by the CIT(E) u/s 263 and no interference is called for. 9. We have heard both the parties and perused the material placed on record. The assessment in this case was completed u/s 143(3 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... fore, we do not find any infirmity in the order of the Ld.CIT and the same is upheld. The assessee's appeal on this ground is dismissed. 10. Ground No.3 is related to the validity of invoking the provisions u/s 263 of I.T.Act. The assessee is of the view that the assessment passed by the AO is neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the interest of the revenue, hence, the Ld.CIT should not have taken up the case for revision. 11. On the other hand, the Ld.DR relied on the orders of the Ld.CIT. 12. We have heard both the parties and perused the material placed on record. As per the assessment order from the gross receipts the assessing officer allowed entire payments as revenue expenditure. The AO has allowed the entire payments without veri ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
