9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (5) TMI 148X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ent. 4. That CIT(A) wrongly ignored the Circular No. 10/2019 dated 22.05.2019 . wherein the CBDT had granted blanket permission of condonation of delay in filing Form 10BB pertaining to Asst. Year 2016-17 which was binding on both the authorities. 5. That the order of CIT(A) & AO are against the law and facts of the case. 2. At the time of hearing, ld. AR inviting attention to the impugned order submitted that the reasons prevailing with the ld. Commissioner for denying the claim of the assessee were not relevant and maintainable in law. Reliance was placed upon the order of the I TAT passed in assessee's own case for the immediately preceding a ssessment year dated 09.05.2019 wherein in I TA 1397/CHD/2018 on similar facts and circumstances, the departmental appeal was dismissed, copy of this order was filed. On a reading of this specific order, it was noticed that since the impugned order is dated 03.10.2019, the order of the I TAT having already been passed in May, 2019 was thus available to the parties prior to the passing of the impugned order, thus, why it was not relied upon before the First Appellate Authority it was questioned. 3. The ld. AR submitted that the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s it was his submission that the assessee's appeal was allowable . 6. The ld. Sr.DR relying upon the order submitted that the approval u/s 10(23C)(vi) to the assessee was granted on 22.02.2017 and since form 10BB had not been filed in accordance with law and had been filed in the assessment proceedings, he would have nothing further to state. 7. The ld. AR in reply submitted that there is ample case law on the basis of which the filing of From No. 10BB at the assessment stage was sufficient compliance of law in the peculiar facts of the present case where the approval came late. No adverse fact is referred to or available non has the position of law been assailed. Relying upon the written submissions and the legal position as canvassed, it was his submission that the claim wa s allowable. 8. I have heard the submissions and perused the material on record. A perusal of the record shows that before the CI T(A), following submissions were advanced on behalf of the assessee : "The brief facts of the case are that the assessee Sanskriti KMV School was established by Arya Shiksha Mandal its parent body in the year 2003 for imparting education to Nursery to XII classes o the C.B. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... various heads which are charged by all education institutions. The school is duly eligible to charge fee from students and it is not free school. It is not the power of the A.O to intervene into the matters o f charging of fees from students and paying salary to staff of school and it is not a criteria on the basis of which exemption u/s 10(23C)(Vi) be denied which has already been granted to the school by the ITAT-Amritsar vide its order dated 22.02.2017 and is applicable from theA.Y.2015-16. 8.1 It is seen that considering the same, the claim was dismissed holding as under : 4.1 I have carefully considered the facts of the case and submissions of the appellant. The assessee filed its return of income for A.Y. 2016-17 on 10.10.2016 declaring NIL income. The assessee is running an educational institution under the name and style of 'Sanskriti KMV School', Jalandhar. The lessee's application for approval u/s 10(23C)(vi) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was rejected by the CIT(E), Chandigarh. The Hon'ble ITAT vide order in ITA No.528(Asr)/2016 dated 22.02.2017 directed to grant approval u/s 10(23C)(vi)to the assessee. The assessing officer has observed that the asses ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dered while deciding the issue. A perusal of the record shows that in ITA 1397/CHD/2018, the Co- ordinate Bench proceeded to decide the issue in the following manner : 2. The assessee school is engaged in the activities of imparting education. The Id. CIT(A) has allowed benefit of exemption u/s 10(23C)(vi) of the Act to the assessee school by following the order of the Tribunal dated 22.02.2017 passed in the own case of the assessee in ITA No. 528/Asr/2016 decided along with other appeals with the lead case titled as 'Kanya Mahavidyala vs. CIT(Exemptions)'. The Id. CIT(A) has further mentioned that even subsequent to the decision of the Tribunal dated 22.02.2017 (Supra), he has also allowed the claim of the assessee for A.Y. 2014-15 vide order dated 14.06.2017. Since, there is no change in the facts and circumstances, the Id. CIT(A) following the above order of the Tribunal (Supra) has allowed the claim of the assessee for year under consideration also. 3. The Id. DR has also fairly agree that the issue is squarely covered in the case of the assessee by the order dated 22.02.2017 (Supra) passed in earlier assessment year. No contrary decision has been cited before us, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e assessee filed an appeal before the CIT (A) and also filed written submissions which have been reproduced by her in Para 3 and entire explanation was given to CIT(A). Further the assessee also filed the order of ITAT for A.Y 2015-16 which the CIT (A) has clearly ignored. Evidence of filling the order of ITAT on 18/09/2019 is enclosed herewith. The CIT (A) rejected the appeal of the assessee despite the order of ITAT by giving a finding in the Para 4.1 of the order that the assessee was an educational institution functioning on commercial principles with misplace focus on maximization of surplus which is outside the scope of charitable purpose as defined in sec 2(15). This finding of CIT(A) is contemptuous of not following the order of her predecessor for A.Y 15-16 which was duly confirmed by the ITAT. The second observation of the CIT (A) that form no. 10BB was not filed along with the return of income by 17/10/2016 as prescribed in proviso of 10(23c)(vi). The CIT(A) failed to appreciate that assessee was denied exemption by the CIT(E) for F.Y 14-15 but the exemption was allowed by ITAT by reversing the order of CIT(E) vide their order dated 22/2/17 refer paper book page no 4. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
