9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (11) TMI 979X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nated from the order of the ld. ITO, Ward 1(3), Jammu, (in brevity the ld. AO) order passed u/s 143(3) of the Act. 2. The appeal of the assessee was filed with delay of 3080 days. The assessee filed the petition for condonation of delay with the affidavit. The assessee also relied of the order of the ITAT, Amritsar Bench in the case of M.K. Hotels & Resorts Ltd. vs. ACIT, In ITA No. 57/Asr/2021 date of order 01.03.2023 in which 9 years delay was condoned. He further relied on the ITAT, Amritsar Bench in the case of Smt. Rajinder Kaur vs. ITO in ITA No. 171/Asr/2022, order dated 22.03.2023. 2.1 The assessee further informed that the assessee is duly covered two years with an order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Suo Motu Writ Petition (C) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 8,36,120/- should have been deleted. The CIT(A) did not appreciate that there was no violation of section 13/13C of the IT Act, 1961. 4. That the worthy CIT(A) did not appreciate that under the same and similar circumstances, the IT AT, Amritsar Bench has already decided this issue in favour of the appellant and has granted registration. 5. That again the CIT(A) did not appreciate that this was educational trust and the turnover is below Rs. 1 Crore. As such the assessee is clearly for the exemption u/s 10(23C)(iiiad). As such there was no justification for making the addition of Rs. 8,36,120/- and the addition made may kindly be deleted which is not called for. 6. That there was no justification in confirming the addition of Rs. 1 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Being dissatisfied with the order of the ld. CIT(A) the assessee filed an appeal before us. 5. The ld. AR filed a written submission which is kept in the record. The ld. AR first argued that the assessee's turnover was less than Rs. 1 crore so eligible for the deduction u/s 10(23C) (iiiad). The ld. AR invited our attention to APB page 48 where the total turnover is showing Rs. 43,32,657/- out of this from tuition fee Rs. 40,86,660/-. So, the assessee is eligible for exemption u/s 11 of the Act. But the observation of the ld. AO related to violation of section 13, the ld. AR argued that the issue was squarely covered by assessee's own case by order of the ITAT, Amritsar Bench in the case of ITA No. 555 to 558/Asr/2011 dated of order 13.06.2 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... I.T.A. Nos. 555 to 558/Asr/2011 in respect of the Assessment Years: 2005-06 to2008-09 are hereby deleted. 15. In the result, the captioned four appeals of the Assessee Trust are allowed." 6. The ld. DR vehemently argued and relied on the order of the revenue authority. The ld. DR invited our attention in appeal order page 3 para 4 is reproduced as below: "4. Determination Ground No. 1 & 7 are general in nature and not required to be adjudicated. Ground No. 2 relates to not providing opportunity of being heard. I find from the assessment order that the appellant was provided several opportunities of being heard in person as-well-as through questionnaire. Therefore, this contention is in- correct and liable to be dismissed. Groun ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er of assessee during impugned assessment year is with in the limit specified u/s 10(23C)(iiiad). So, the assessee eligible for deduction u/s 11/12 of the Act. The second issue is related the advance to the trustee which is violation of section 13(1)(c)(ii) and section 13(d)(i) r.w.s. 13(2) and 13(3) of the Act. The issue is squarely covered by the assessee's own case in ITA No. 555 to 558/Asr/2011 dated of order 13.06.2022by the order of ITAT-Amritsar Bench. The assessment order is quashed, and the addition is deleted. The exemption claimed by the assessee is restored.
8. In the result, the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No. 190/Asr/2023 is allowed.
Order pronounced in the open court on 25.08.2023 X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
