TMI Blog2019 (9) TMI 350X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... erely because the ld.CIT(E) does not agree with the view taken by the Assessing Officer, the same cannot be a ground for invoking the jurisdiction u/s 263. Assessing Officer, after considering the reply given by the assessee has passed a speaking order on the issue of exemption u/s 11 and 12 on account of violation of section 13(1)(c) of the Act, therefore, merely because the CIT(E) is not in agreement with the views taken by the Assessing Officer, the same, in our opinion, cannot be a ground to invoke the jurisdiction u/s 263 - Decided in favour of assessee - ITA No.2347/Del/2017 - - - Dated:- 6-9-2019 - Shri R.K. Panda, Accountant Member And Ms Suchitra Kamble, Judicial Member For the Assessee : Shri Arvind Kumar Jain, Advocate For the Revenue : Ms Ashima Neb, Sr. DR ORDER PER R.K. PANDA, AM: This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 20th March, 2017 of the CIT(E) passed u/s 263 of the IT Act relating to assessment year 2012-13. 2. Facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee is a society registered u/s 12A of the IT Act, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he ld.CIT(E) held that the order passed by the Assessing Officer u/s 143(3) dated 12th December, 2014 was framed in a hurried and casual manner without any application of mind and without considering the consistent stand of the Department and, therefore, the same is erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue. Accordingly, the ld.CIT(E) set aside the order u/s 263 of the Act with a direction to the Assessing Officer to examine the issue discussed in his order and pass a fresh assessment order in accordance with law and after affording due opportunity of being heard to the assessee. 5. Aggrieved with such order of the CIT(E), the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal raising the following grounds:- 1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(E) erred in assuming his jurisdiction u/s.263 of the I.T. Act, whereas the mandatory conditions for assuming such jurisdiction are totally absent, with the result that the impugned order passed u/s.263 is bad in law. 2 . On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(E) erred in arriving at a conclusion without any basis whatsoever ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g a substantial contributor to the assessee trust's corpus fund, and also on account of being a Governing Body Member, running the affairs of the Trust. In the preceding assessment years the assessee has been denied exemption us 11 12 on this very violation u/s 13(1)(c). 7. He submitted that the Assessing Officer in the questionnaire has asked the assessee as to why the benefit u/s 11 should not be disallowed following the order for earlier assessment years. Referring to page 3-5 of the assessment order, he drew the attention of the Bench to the reply submitted by the assessee and, thereafter, the order passed by the Assessing Officer. Referring to copy of the order of the Tribunal for assessment year 2006-07, copy of which is placed at pages 1-16 of the paper book, he submitted that the Tribunal has decided the issue by passing a speaking order and the Tribunal has not decided the appeal on account of low tax effect. It is for the Department whether to accept the orders of the Tribunal or not. Merely because the Revenue has not challenged the appeal on account of low tax effect, the assessee cannot be held responsible. He submitted that the issue on which t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sment year 2007-08, 2009-10, 2010-11 and 2011-12, has allowed the appeal filed by the assessee on the issue of denial of exemption u/s 11 due to violation of the provisions of section 13(1)(c) read with section 13(3) of the IT Act. It is also the submission of the ld. counsel for the assessee that when the Assessing Officer has taken a possible view, merely because the ld.CIT(E) does not agree with the view taken by the Assessing Officer, the same cannot be a ground for invoking the jurisdiction u/s 263. 10. We find merit in the above argument of the ld. counsel. A perusal of the order of the Tribunal for assessment year 2006-07, copy of which is placed at pages 1 to 16 of the paper book, shows that the Tribunal has threadbare discussed the issue of violation of provisions of section 13(1)(c) r.w. section 13(3) of the Act and, thereafter, has allowed the exemption u/s 11 of the IT Act. We find, following the order of the Tribunal in assessee s own case for assessment year 2006-07, the Tribunal in assessee s own case for assessment years 2007-08, 2009-10, 2010-11 and 2011-12, copies of which are placed at pages 17 to 35 of the paper book, has allowed the exemption u ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
