9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (4) TMI 1049X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... icial Member And Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon ble Accountant Member For the Appellant : Sri GVN Hari, AR For the Respondent : Sri ON Hari Prasada Rao, Sr. AR ORDER PER S. BALAKRISHNAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER : This appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-2, Guntur [CIT (A)] in ITA No. 10109/GNT/CIT(A)-2/2018-19, dated 10/02/2020 arising out of the order passed U/s. 143(3) of the Act for the AY 2016-17. 2. At the outset, it is noticed from the record that there is a delay of 192 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. With respect to the delay, the Ld. AR drew our attention to the petition filed by the assessee seeking condonation of delay, wherein the reasons ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ing the appeal belatedly before the Tribunal with a delay of 192 days. Therefore, in our view, this is a fit case for condoning the delay and hence we hereby condone the delay of 192 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal and proceed to adjudicate the appeal on merits. 4. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is carrying activities related to seed certification in the State of Andhra Pradesh. For the AY 2016-17, the assessee filed its e-return of income on 7/7/2017 admitting NIL income after claiming exemption U/s. 11 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The case was selected for scrutiny under CASS and accordingly notices U/s. 143(2) and 142(1) of the Act were served on the assessee along with questionnaire. In response, the asse ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... /s. 11 of the Act. Accordingly, the Ld. AO completed the assessment U/s. 143(3) of the Act and determined the assessed income at Rs. 26,09,113/- and made the addition on account of excess income over expenditure. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. AO, the assessee filed an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). 5. On appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) after discussing the issue, upheld the action of the Ld. AO by holding that the Ld. AO has rightly denied the exemption claimed by the assessee U/s. 11 of the Act while brining the excess income over the expenditure to the tax. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee failed an appeal before this Tribunal. 6. In the first round of proceedings, the case was taken up for hearing but due to non-app ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... have held that the exemption U/s. 11 is available for the appellant. 6. Any other ground that may be urged at the time of hearing. 8. Before us, at the outset, the Ld. AR drawn our attention to the decision of the Hon ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 21762 of 2017, dated 19/10/2022 in the case of Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions) vs. Ahmedabad Urban Development Authority and Others, wherein the assessee is also one of the Respondents, and submitted that the assessee s (Andhra Pradesh State Seed Certification Agency) SLP (C)15547/2013 was allowed in favour of the assessee by the Hon ble Apex Court. The Ld. AR therefore pleaded that the since the Hon ble Apex Court has allowed the assessee s SLP in its favour, t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
