9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (8) TMI 143X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... terest of revenue. Therefore, we find that there is no error committed by the Tribunal in holding that the exercise of jurisdiction under Section 263 was not proper and justified. In the light of the above substantial question of law is answered against the revenue. - ITAT/276/2017 IA NO. GA/2/2017 (Old No:GA/2531/2017 - - - Dated:- 28-7-2022 - THE HON BLE JUSTICE T.S. SIVAGNANAM And THE HON BLE JUSTICE BIVAS PATTANAYAK Mr. Soumen Bhattacharjee, Adv. .for Appellant Mr. Dwip Raj Basu, Adv. for Respondent ORDER The Court :- This appeal by the revenue filed under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act, for brevity) is directed against the order dated 1st June, 2016, passed by the Income Tax Appellate ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... may not arise. In the event we have to hold that substantial question of law no.3 is to be answered in favour of the revenue, then the need will arise to decide question nos.1 and 2. The assessee is a charitable trust, filed its return of income for the assessment year under consideration 2012-13 declaring the total income as nil. The Income Tax Officer (Exemption) 1, Kolkata, who was the assessing officer, completed the assessment under Section 143(3) determining the total income of the assessee at Rs.41,615/-. In the return of income the assessee claimed depreciation of Rs.68,43,455/- is allowable expenditure against receipts of the assessee during the previous year. The assessing officer has allowed the claim made by the assessee wh ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the assessee filed appeal before the Tribunal and relied on various decisions, some of which have been referred to above. With regard to the exercise of power by the CIT under Section 263 of the Act, the assessee contended that the CIT accepts that two views are possible in the matter and also noted that the assessee had followed the decision of this Court which is the jurisdictional High Court and, therefore, the assumption of jurisdiction under Section 263 was erroneous. This submission was considered by the Tribunal, referred to the decision in Malabar Industrial Company, 243 ITR 83 and pointed out that it is clear from the order passed by the CIT that two divergent views have been expressed by the High Courts in the matter and the decis ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
