9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2017 (3) TMI 1386 - HC - Income TaxRevision u/s 263 - mere registration under Section 12-A would not preclude Assessing Authority from examining allowability under Section 11 - Held that - Assessment order dated 28.12.2010 stood merged with C.I.T.(A) s order dated 21.11.2013. Order dated 01.12.2011 was not an independent order but a partial revision of assessment order dated 28.12.2010. This was passed by Assessing Authority in order to give effect to Tribunal s order dated 21.06.2011 whereby C.I.T. s order dated 08.03.2010 cancelling registration was set aside and registration was restored. The issue of applicability of Sections 11 to 13 of Act, 1961 having been examined by C.I.T.(A) and decided in favour of Assessee, it was not open to C.I.T. to exercise power under Section 263 to re-agitate the same as it was beyond its jurisdiction. Any issue, if, has already been decided in appeal preferred by Assessee, to that extent C.I.T. will stand denuded of its power under Section 263.- Decided in favour of assessee
Issues Involved:
1. Jurisdiction of C.I.T. under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. Applicability of Sections 11 and 12 when Trust or Institution is granted registration under Section 12A. 3. Validity of Tribunal's decision on the applicability of Sections 11 to 13 based on the C.I.T. (A)'s order. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: I. Jurisdiction of C.I.T. under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961: The primary issue was whether the C.I.T.'s order dated 25.03.2014 under Section 263 was beyond its jurisdiction. The Tribunal held that the C.I.T. lacked jurisdiction to pass the order under Section 263 because the matter had already been adjudicated by a co-ordinate authority, the C.I.T.(A), in its order dated 21.11.2013. The Tribunal noted that the C.I.T.(A) had examined the applicability of Sections 11 to 13 in light of the restored registration under Section 12A and granted appropriate relief. The Tribunal emphasized that the assessment order dated 28.12.2010 had merged with the C.I.T.(A)'s order, and thus, the C.I.T. could not re-agitate the same issue under Section 263, as it was beyond its jurisdiction. II. Applicability of Sections 11 and 12 when Trust or Institution is granted registration under Section 12A: The Tribunal addressed whether the Assessing Authority could examine the applicability of Sections 11 and 12 when the Trust or Institution had been granted registration under Section 12A. The Tribunal held that the Assessing Authority could not reopen the question of registration from year to year, as it solely fell within the jurisdiction of the C.I.T. The Tribunal noted that the Assessing Authority had initially disallowed the claim of exemption under Section 12A based on the C.I.T.'s order dated 08.03.2010, which was later set aside by the Tribunal. Consequently, the Assessing Authority revised the assessed income, granting relief under Sections 11 and 12, which was in line with the Tribunal's order restoring the registration under Section 12A. III. Validity of Tribunal's decision on the applicability of Sections 11 to 13 based on the C.I.T. (A)'s order: The Tribunal's decision on the applicability of Sections 11 to 13 was based on the C.I.T.(A)'s order dated 21.11.2013. The Tribunal observed that the C.I.T.(A) had examined the expenses and application of income under Section 11, considering the restored registration under Section 12A. The Tribunal concluded that the assessment order dated 28.12.2010 stood merged with the C.I.T.(A)'s order, and the C.I.T. could not exercise power under Section 263 to re-agitate the same issue. The Tribunal referred to the Supreme Court's decision in CIT Vs. Arbuda Mills Ltd., which clarified that the C.I.T.'s powers under Section 263 extend only to matters not considered and decided in an appeal. Conclusion: The High Court upheld the Tribunal's findings, stating that the C.I.T. lacked jurisdiction under Section 263 to revise the assessment order dated 01.12.2011, as the matter had already been adjudicated by the C.I.T.(A). The High Court emphasized the concept of "partial merger" and noted that the Tribunal's decision was consistent with the statutory provisions and judicial precedents. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed, and the substantial questions of law were answered in favor of the Assessee and against the Revenue.
|
