9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (9) TMI 350 - AT - Income TaxRevision u/s 263 - issue of exemption u/s 11 and 12 on account of violation of section 13(1)(c) - HELD THAT - Tribunal in assessee s own case for assessment year 2006-07 has allowed the exemption u/s 11 of the Act which was denied by the Assessing Officer and the CIT(A). Following the order of the Tribunal for assessment year 2006-07, the Tribunal in assessee s own case for assessment year 2007-08, 2009-10, 2010-11 and 2011-12, has allowed the appeal filed by the assessee on the issue of denial of exemption u/s 11 due to violation of the provisions of section 13(1)(c) read with section 13(3) of the IT Act. Merely because the Revenue has not filed any appeal against the order of the Tribunal on account of low tax effect the same in our opinion cannot be held as an adverse view against the assessee. In the case of CIT vs. Arvind Jewellers 2002 (7) TMI 50 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT has held that where the Assessing Officer has considered material on record and framed assessment, revision of order is not justified. When the Assessing Officer has taken a possible view, merely because the ld.CIT(E) does not agree with the view taken by the Assessing Officer, the same cannot be a ground for invoking the jurisdiction u/s 263. Assessing Officer, after considering the reply given by the assessee has passed a speaking order on the issue of exemption u/s 11 and 12 on account of violation of section 13(1)(c) of the Act, therefore, merely because the CIT(E) is not in agreement with the views taken by the Assessing Officer, the same, in our opinion, cannot be a ground to invoke the jurisdiction u/s 263 - Decided in favour of assessee
Issues:
Assessment order under section 263 of the IT Act for assessment year 2012-13. Analysis: 1. The appeal was filed by the assessee against the order dated 20th March, 2017 of the CIT(E) under section 263 of the IT Act for assessment year 2012-13. 2. The assessee, a registered society, was running a school and filed its return of income declaring 'nil' income. The Assessing Officer completed the assessment accepting the returned income. 3. The CIT(E) issued notice under section 263 due to improper examination of certain issues, including conversion of corpus donation into a loan, disputes over fund utilization, ownership disputes, and pending litigations among society members. 4. The CIT(E) set aside the assessment order, directing the Assessing Officer to re-examine the issues and pass a fresh order after affording the assessee a hearing. 5. The assessee challenged the CIT(E)'s order, arguing that the conditions for assuming jurisdiction under section 263 were absent, and the assessment order was not erroneous or prejudicial to revenue interests. 6. The counsel for the assessee contended that the Assessing Officer had applied his mind, and previous tribunal decisions supported the assessee's position on exemption under section 11. 7. The Department supported the CIT(E)'s order, alleging that the Assessing Officer had not properly considered the Department's consistent view. 8. The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's arguments, noting that the Assessing Officer had considered the issues and passed a speaking order. Previous tribunal decisions favored the assessee's position on exemption under section 11. 9. Citing legal precedents, the Tribunal held that the CIT(E) was not justified in assuming jurisdiction under section 263 as the Assessing Officer's order was not erroneous or prejudicial to revenue interests. 10. The Tribunal set aside the CIT(E)'s order and allowed the grounds raised by the assessee, ultimately allowing the appeal. This comprehensive analysis of the legal judgment highlights the key issues, arguments presented by both parties, and the Tribunal's decision, providing a detailed understanding of the case.
|
