9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Interpretation of provisions under sections 11 and 12 of the IT Act. 2. Rejection of rectification applications under section 254(2) of the IT Act. 3. Refusal of Tribunal to refer questions of law arising from the order. Analysis: Issue 1: Interpretation of provisions under sections 11 and 12 of the IT Act The assessed, a charitable trust, sought direction to refer questions of law to the High Court regarding the rejection of its application under section 254 of the IT Act. The trust, previously granted registration under section 12A(a) of the Act, faced challenges during assessment due to diversion of funds to prohibited persons under section 13(3) without adequate security. The ITO denied the benefit of section 11 of the Act based on violations of sections 13(1)(c) and 13(2)(a). The Dy. CIT(A) upheld this decision, emphasizing the lack of market value in the shares offered as security. The Tribunal also ruled against the assessed, leading to subsequent rectification applications. Issue 2: Rejection of rectification applications under section 254(2) of the IT Act The assessed filed rectification applications with the Tribunal, citing errors in the reliance on alleged statements and the introduction of new claims regarding security. The Tribunal dismissed these applications, stating that the alleged statement was made during the appeal hearing and rejecting the new security claim as not raised before. The Tribunal's decision was based on factual findings and lack of supporting evidence in the appeal order, leading to the assessed's further attempts to refer questions of law arising from the rectification refusal. Issue 3: Refusal of Tribunal to refer questions of law arising from the order The Tribunal rejected the assessed's applications for referring questions of law arising from the rectification refusal. The High Court, upon review, disagreed with the assessed's contention that questions of law arose from the Tribunal's order. The Court emphasized that the Tribunal's findings were factual, and no legal errors were apparent. The Court concluded that the assessed's attempt to reopen the matter exceeded the scope of section 254(2) of the Act, leading to the dismissal of the applications. In conclusion, the High Court dismissed the assessed's applications under section 254(2) of the IT Act, stating that no questions of law arose from the Tribunal's order. The Court highlighted the factual nature of the Tribunal's findings and rejected the assessed's attempt to reargue the matter under the guise of rectification applications.
|
