9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (12) TMI 915X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he Tribunal. Therefore, in the absence of the same, we are unable to accept the request of the Assessee for grant of exemption u/s. 11 to 13 of the I.T. Act. See case of Jammu Development Authority vs. UOI (2014 (7) TMI 1160 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA), we uphold the impugned order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) and reject the grounds raised by the Assessee by dismissing the Appeal filed by the Assessee. - ITA No. 2686/Del/2016 - - - Dated:- 4-12-2017 - Shri H.S. Sidhu, Judicial Member And Shri L. P. Sahu, Accountant Member Assessee by : None Department by : Sh . S.S. Rana, CIT(DR) Sh. Kaushlendra Tiwari, Sr. DR ORDER PER H.S. SIDHU, JM The Assessee has filed this Appeal against the impugned order dated 24/2/2016 passed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... gainst the order of Hon'ble Allahabad High Court was not granted by the Apex Court. 4. The appellant craves leave to add or alter any of the ground of appeal before or at the time of hearing. 2. The facts in brief are that assessee has filed its return of income in the status of AOP (Trust) showing taxable income at Rs. NIL after claiming exemption u/s 11 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereafter referred as the Act) towards excess of income over expenditure at ₹ 4,77,10,186/-. In this case the return was processed u/s 143(1) of I.T. Act, 1961 on 14.01.2013 on returned income. Later, the case was selected under scrutiny through CASS and notice u/s 143(2) of I.T. Act, 1961 dated 07.8.2012 was issued and served upon the ass ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the Act. The assessment order therefore, denying such exemption in absence of mandatory registration u/s. 12AA calls for no interference. 3. Aggrieved with the impugned order dated 24.2.2016 passed by the Ld. CIT(a), Ghaziabad, Assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 4. In this case, Notice of hearing to the assessee was sent by the Registered AD post, in spite of the same, assessee, nor its authorized representative appeared to prosecute the matter in dispute, nor filed any application for adjournment. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the present case and the issue involved in the present Appeal, we are of the view that no useful purpose would be served to issue notice again and again to the assessee, therefore, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... A) and even before the Tribunal. Therefore, in the absence of the same, we are unable to accept the request of the Assessee for grant of exemption u/s. 11 to 13 of the I.T. Act. Keeping in view of the facts and circumstances of the present case, we are of the view that no interference is called for in the well reasoned order passed by the Ld. CIT(A), because the issue involved in the present Appeal is exactly similar to the issue involved in the case of Jammu Development Authority vs. UOI (2014-TIOL-115-SC-IT) in which Registration u/s. 12A of the I.T. Act was cancelled by the Ld. CIT(A) and order of the Ld. CIT(A) was upheld by the ITAT and Hon ble Jammu Kashmir High Court and finally an SLP filed by the Jammu Development Authority has a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
