9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (9) TMI 306X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Income Tax Appellate Tribunal [hereinafter referred to as "the Tribunal"], 'C' Bench in I.T.A.No.108/Mds/2015 for the assessment year 2011-12. 2.This appeal was admitted on 08.03.2016 on the following substantial questions of law: "(i) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that the appellant society is not entitled to exemption under Section 11 in the light of the amendment made to Section 2(15) with effect from 01.04.2009? (ii) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in denying the exemption under Section 11, when the Revenue had opted to withdraw the appeal filed by them for the earlier year (AY 2010-11) on the same set of fact ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... claim ;of exemption and as to how it is not hit by the amended proviso to Section 2(15) of the Act. The assessee furnished all the details with regard to the charitable activities conducted by them, various medical camps, free legal aid camps, etc. and sought to explain that they are eligible for exemption under Section 11 of the Act as their activities fall under the limb of medical relief and they are not hit by the amended proviso to Section 2(15) of the Act. 5.The Assessing Officer did not agree with the assessee and while completing the assessment under Section 143(3) of the Act, by order dated 31.03.2014 held that the activities of the assessee are not charitable in nature and its objects fall under the category of 'advancement o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... plying the Rule of Consistency the revenue cannot take a different stand for the assessment year under consideration, AY 2011-12. Further, we note that the returns filed by the assessee claiming exemption under Section11 of the Act was accepted by the revenue for the assessment years 2012-13, 2013-14, 2014-15 and only for the assessment year 2016-17, the issue was once again waked up and the matter is now pending before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). 7.It is the submission of the learned senior standing counsel appearing for the respondent/revenue that each assessment year is a distinct unit and the Assessing Officer is entitled to consider the return of income filed for the concerned year independently and take a decision in th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s not open for the revenue to take a contrary stand. 10.The Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Hitech Arai Ltd. [(2014) 368 ITR 0577 (Mad)], held that there is no justifiable reasons to differ with the finding rendered by the Tribunal, more so, taking note of the fact that the revenue had for the assessment years 1986-1987 to 1994-1995, for a period of nine years, accepted the fact that the payment made towards royalty is revenue expenditure and had not raised dispute thereon. It is further held that a sudden volte-face by the Department on the issue appears to be on account of a new interpretation by the subsequent Assessing Officer. It was held that while interpreting the very same agreement, the r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... me, the revenue preferred an appeal before the Tribunal in I.T.A.No.1600/Mds/2014 and the appeal was withdrawn by the revenue and accordingly, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn by order dated 22.07.2014. It is submitted by the learned senior standing counsel for the respondent that the appeal was not pursued by the revenue on account of low tax effect. This appears to be factually incorrect as could be seen from the order passed by the Tribunal dated 22.07.2014 which reads as follows: "The appeal has been filed by the Revenue against the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-VII, Chennai dated 19.02.2014 relevant to the Assessment Year (AY) 2010-11. 2.The Revenue has filed application for withdrawal of appeal stating followi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... i.e. on 31.03.2014. Therefore, the Assessing Officer ignored the cardinal principle of judicial discipline in not adhering to the orders passed by the Appellate Authority. Thus, for all the above reasons we find that the Tribunal ought not to have reversed the order passed by the CIT(A).
13.In the result, the tax case appeal is allowed, the order passed by the Tribunal is set aside and the order passed by the CIT(A) dated 14.10.2014 is restored. Since we have allowed the appeal by holding that the order passed by the CIT(A) dated 19.02.2014 for the assessment year 2010-2011 had attained finality and binds the Department, the substantial questions of law are left open. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
