TMI Blog2023 (10) TMI 907X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d. Assessee filed two returns u/s. 139(1) and 139(4) - Two different intimations u/s. 143(1) were emanated and the appeals were filed by the assessee against the two intimations for redressal of its grievance - A.Y. 2015-16 - CIT(A) was erred to reject the appeal without considering the merit of the case - interest of justice would be sub served if the impugned order is set aside and the matters are remitted back to the ld. CIT(A) for consideration thereof afresh. Form No. 10BB could not be filed along with the return of income - CBDT extended time for filing the Form No. 10BB. Accordingly delay caused by the assessee for filing the Form No. 10BB for assessment year 2016-17 is duly condoned. We remit back the matter to ld. CIT(A) for considering the issue in the light of the CBDT circular no. 19/2020. The said circular is applicable during impugned assessment year. The issue is first time agitated before the ITAT. The ld. DR had not made any objection against the submission of assessee. We accept the grounds of appeal of the assessee - DR. M. L. MEENA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SH. ANIKESH BANERJEE, JUDICIAL MEMBER For the Appellant : Sh. Vineet Krishan, Adv. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Grounds of Appeal in ITA No. 454/ASR/2019: 1. That the order passed under section 250(6) by the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-2, Jalandhar in Appeal no. 2/10002/18-19/CIT(A)/Jal dated 02.04.2019 is contrary to law and facts of the case. 2. That the in the facts and circumstances of the case Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-2, Jalandhar gravelly erred in treating Appeal No. 2/10002/18-19/CIT(A)/ Jal dated 02.04.2019 as having appeal filed again on the same facts as order in Appeal no. 2/10014/16-17/CIT(A)/Jal dated 28.03.2018 whereas the appeal no. 2/10002/18-19/CIT(A)/Jal dated 2.04.2019 was against the intimation order dated 17.03.2018 passed under Section 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 in respect of revised return and the earlier appeal decided was in respect of intimation order dated 30.03.2017 under Section 43(1) regarding original return filed. 3. That in the facts and circumstances of the case Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-2, Jalandhar gravelly erred in not appreciating the facts that the ld. Assessing Officer had disallowed the exemption claimed by the appellant under section 10(23C)(iiiab) of Rs. 4,48,83,79 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... CIT(E) claimed that assessee was not eligible for deduction as per Rule 2BBB of the Income-tax Rule, 1962 as during the impugned assessment year, the assessee had received grant amount of Rs. 89,19,294/- as against the gross receipt of Trust amount to Rs. 2,66,32,390/-, which is 33.5% of the total receipt. Assessment order was duly set aside and revisional authority passed order u/s. 263 and treated the assessment order erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue. 3.1 For A.Y. 2015-16, assessee filed two returns. One original u/s. 139(1) and another revised u/s. 139(4) of the Act. The returns were processed and intimations u/s. 143(1) were served. The assessee filed appeal before the ld. CIT(A) by challenging both the intimations passed u/s. 143(1) by the CPC. The ld. CIT(A) without adjudicating the merit of the appeal related to intimation of revised return was duly passed the appeal order. The reason for not adjudicating the merit was that double effect in the filing appeals in same issue. 3.2 For assessment Year 2016-17, the claim u/s. 10(23C)(vi) of the Act was duly rejected by the ld. AO for non-furnishing of the Audit Report in Form No. 10BB within the stipula ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ons and considered the documents available in the record. For adjudication for A.Y 2012-13, the ld. CIT(E) had utilised the power beyond jurisdiction. The Rule 2BBB was not applicable during the impugned assessment year. No prospective effect is allowed related to this Rule. The ld. AR of the assessee respectfully relied on the order of Tolani Education Society v. Deputy Director of Income-tax (Exemptions) - I(2), Mumba, [2013] 30 taxmann.com 165 (Bombay). The relevant paragraph is extracted as below. 14. In the circumstances, and for these reasons, we have come to the conclusion that the Chief Commissioner of Income-tax was in error in holding that the Petitioner does not exist solely for the educational purposes or that it exists for profit. The issue pertaining to the claim of the Petitioner for the grant of an exemption under Sub- clause (iiiab) of Section 10(23C) for Assessment Year 2008-09 is now pending in Appeal before the CIT(A). It may also be noted here that the Petitioner has been consistently granted the benefit of the provisions of Section 11, which would postulate that the Petitioner does not exist for the purposes of profit. 7. In our considered view th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
