9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (6) TMI 729X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... The assessee is an educational institution which is rendering the educational services to the society and should be given proper support for betterment of services. Therefore, we are of the considered opinion that there is no reason for placing bar on the assessee for no fault of the assessee. Having amended the objects, the assessee is qualified for exemption and would be entitled for the grant of approval and treating the application of the assessee as non-est is unjustifiable. Hence, we hold that the application of the assessee is valid and the CIT(E) must consider the grant of exemption u/s 10(23C) on merits. Accordingly, we set aside the order of the CIT(E) and remit the matter back to the file of the CIT(E) with a direction to con ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , since, the objects of the assessee include non-educational objects which are opposed for grant of exemption u/s 10(23C) of the Act. As per section 10(23C), exemption is granted to the institutions existing solely for educational purposes. On appeal before ITAT, the ITAT confirmed the order of the Ld.CCIT vide order in ITA No.390/Viz/2015 dated 18.04.2018. 4. Subsequently, the assessee filed a fresh application dated 19.09.2017 duly amending the objects of the society, solely for educational purposes. During the second round of application, the Ld.CIT(E) observed that since the first application of the assessee was rejected by the ITAT, issue had reached finality, hence he is of the view that the assessee woul ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Hon'ble ITAT has upheld the order of the CCIT, Visakhapatnam as mentioned in earlier part Therefore, the application filed by the assessee u/s. 10(23C)( ) has attained finality. Now, at this juncture, this office do not have any jurisdiction to interfere in the order of the CCII, Visakhapatnam dated 30.09.2015. Therefore, the application filed by the assessee 21.09.2017 becomes non-est. Therefore, the application filed by the assessee is hereby rejected. 5. Against the order of the Ld.CIT(E), the assessee has filed appeal before this Tribunal. During the appeal hearing, the Ld.AR argued that the assessee has filed the application for grant of approval u/s 10(23C) duly amending the objects of the society. After amend ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e application is made by the assessee seeking grant of approval u/s 10(23C) is reached finality, the assessee is barred from making any further application for 3 years as per Rule 2CA of I.T.Rules and which was clarified by the CBDT Circular No.7/2010 dated 27.10.2010. Thus, the Ld.DR contended that once the application is made and rejected, the assessee is not permitted to make application for further 3 years. Therefore, argued that the Ld.CIT(E) has rightly rejected the application and no interference is called for in the order of the Ld.CIT(E). 7. We have heard both the parties and perused the material placed on record and gone through the relevant provisions of the Act as well as the circular cited. In the instant case, t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lities for indoor and outdoor games for the recreation of pupils. It is observed from the above, that the assessee had duly amended the objects and after amending the objects, the objects of the society are solely for the purpose of education and the assessee qualifies for grant of approval u/s 10(23C) of the Act. The question before us is whether the assessee is permitted to make a fresh application, once the original application was rejected. The Ld.CIT(E) has taken the support of Rule 2CA which was amended in the year 2006, which reads as under : 4. The Rule 2CA was amended in the year 2006. The amended provision is asunder:- the approval of the Central Board of Direct Taxes o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
