2003 (4) TMI 74 - HC - Income Tax

(i) Whether, CIT (Appeals) has erred in law in adjudicating upon an issue which did not arise out of the order of appeal and thereby holding that the income of the assessee is exempt under section 80P of the Act? (ii) Whether, CIT (Appeals) has erred in law in deleting the disallowance of Rs. 7,74,883 made out of the secretary pay fund? - we are satisfied that failure of the assessee to raise the plea of exemption before the Assessing Officer cannot disentitle it to the benefit of statutory exemption. Therefore, the first question raised by the Revenue cannot be treated as substantial question of law - We are further of the view that the reasons assigned by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) and the Tribunal for deleting the disallowance of Rs. 7,74,883 keeping in view the method of accounting followed by the assessee do not suffer from any legal infirmity requiring reconsideration of the issue by this court. Therefore, even the second question framed by the Revenue cannot be treated as substantial question of law

Summary

Issues:
1. Whether the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) erred in adjudicating upon an issue not arising from the order of appeal and holding the assessee's income exempt under section 80P of the Income-tax Act, 1961?
2. Whether the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) erred in deleting the disallowance of Rs. 7,74,883 made out of the secretary pay fund?

Analysis:

Issue 1:
The assessee, a cooperative society, filed a return for the assessment year 1992-93, showing a loss of Rs. 32,60,260, which was processed under section 143(1)(a) resulting in a loss of Rs. 32,42,910. Upon scrutiny, the Assessing Officer computed the loss at Rs. 15,74,180, making disallowances including Rs. 16,41,094 from the secretary pay fund. The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) partly allowed the appeal, holding the assessee exempt under section 80P and deleting the disallowance. The Tribunal upheld this decision, stating that no material was presented to disprove the exemption under section 80P. The court found no reason to interfere, emphasizing that failure to raise the plea of exemption before the Assessing Officer does not affect entitlement to statutory exemption. Thus, the court deemed the first issue raised by the Revenue unsubstantial.

Issue 2:
Regarding the second issue, the Tribunal justified the deletion of the disallowance of Rs. 7,74,830 from the secretary pay fund based on the detailed explanation provided by the assessee. The Tribunal found the reasons given by the assessee for the increase in the claim convincing and satisfactory, leading to the deletion of the addition. The court concurred with the Tribunal's decision, stating that the reasons provided by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) and the Tribunal did not have any legal flaws necessitating further review. Consequently, the court considered the second issue raised by the Revenue as insubstantial within the purview of section 260A of the Income-tax Act, 1961.

In conclusion, the court allowed the appeal, upholding the decisions of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) and the Tribunal.