TMI Blog2021 (12) TMI 512X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by the Commissioner dehors the objections of the assessee. But the assessee having become an onlooker or complacent of the ongoing procedure, now raises grounds on the findings recorded by the Commissioner before the Tribunal, on the material placed before the Tribunal. This Court is not observing that the Tribunal ought not to have received material sought to be relied on by the assessee. The material brought on record before the Tribunal and a case for reconsideration u/s 263 is made out, the Tribunal would be doing well by sending the matter back to the Commissioner for consideration and decision afresh, instead of adjudicating on the merits of the conclusions recorded by the CIT (Exemptions). By referring to the materials brought ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... RAHAM APPELLANTS: ADV CHRISTOPHER ABRAHAM RESPONDENT: SRI.M.GOPIKRISHNAN NAMBIAR, SRI.K.JOHN MATHAI, SRI.JOSON MANAVALAN, SRI.KURYAN THOMAS AND SRI.PAULOSE C. ABRAHAM OTHER PRESENT: ADV RAJA KANNAN JUDGMENT S.V. Bhatti, J. Heard the learned Advocates Mr Christopher Abraham and Mr Raja Kannan for parties. 2. The Commissioner of Tax (Exemptions), Kochi/Revenue is the appellant. M/s. Love in Action Society/assessee is the respondent. The assessee, on 07.10.2013 filed income tax returns for the Assessment Year 2013-14. The assessee is a Charitable Society registered under Section 12AA of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short, 'the Act'). On 29.03.2016 the assessment for the subject year, under Section 14 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to the interest of Revenue, in terms of Section 263 of the Act. Therefore, reassessment direction issued to the Assessing Officer is per se illegal. The issue noted by the CIT (Exemptions) arises under Section 11(1)d and the utilization of corpus donation for revenue expenditure allegedly incurred by the assessee. The Tribunal, in the order under appeal, examined the circumstances discernible from the material brought on record by the assessee before it and recorded a finding in conclusive terms that one cannot appreciate the actual loss of revenue from the omissions noted by the CIT (Exemptions). The consideration resulted in setting aside Annexure-B order. 3. For the view we are proposing to take, we avoid getting into detailed discus ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by the Commissioner, did not avail the opportunity and/or participated in the enquiry being carried out by the Commissioner. The participation of the assessee is not an empty formality as could be appreciated from the language employed in Section 263 of the Act. Had the assessee placed reply, deliberated on the nuances involved in the circumstances noted by the Commissioner, then, legitimately it could be argued that an adverse order was passed by the Commissioner dehors the objections of the assessee. But the assessee having become an onlooker or complacent of the ongoing procedure, now raises grounds on the findings recorded by the Commissioner before the Tribunal, on the material placed before the Tribunal. This Court is not observing t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the case on hand, primary satisfaction under Section 263 of the Act. Such a course is impermissible. Hence, we are of the view that the orders of the CIT (Exemptions) and the Tribunal in Annexures-B and C are set aside and the matter is remitted to the Commissioner for consideration and decision afresh in accordance with law. (i) The assessee is given liberty to file a reply/produce record by enclosing a copy of the judgment within six weeks from today. (ii) The Commissioner enquires into the notice and passes an order within six weeks thereafter. The questions are answered in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee. The Income Tax Appeal is allowed as indicated above. 6. After the judgment has been dictated, Mr Raja K ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
