Miss Lucy
← All judgments

Dharmaj Kelvani Mandal, , Baroda vs Assessee

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal10 April 2015

Ratio decidendi

The rule this decision rests on

No appeal lies to the Appellate Tribunal against an order passed by the Chief Commissioner of Income-Tax under section 10(23C) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, since the provisions of section 253 do not list such an order among those appealable to the Tribunal; the remedy against such an order lies elsewhere, not before the Tribunal, and the Tribunal therefore cannot entertain the merits of such an appeal and must dismiss it as not maintainable.

Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.

Judgment

As delivered

आयकर अपीलय अ धकरण, अहमदाबाद यायपीठ 'सी' अहमदाबाद ।IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL"C" BENCH, AHMEDABAD

ी एन0एस0 सैनी, लेखा सद य एवं ी कुल भारत, या%यक सद य के सम& BEFORE SHRI N.S. SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI KUL BHARAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ ITA No. 2930/Ahd/2014 %नधा)रण वष)/Assessment Year: Block Period

Dharmaj Kelvani Mandal CCIT, Aaykar Bhavan Post Box NO.31 Vs Vadodara 390 007. PC No.388430 Dharmaj, Anand - 388 430.

PAN : AAATD 1986 G

अपीलाथ,/ (Appellant) -.यथ,/ (Respondent)

Assessee(s) by : Shri Tej Shah Revenue by : Shri Nimesh Yadav, CIT-DR

सन ु वाई क तार ख/ Dateof Hearing : 25/03/2015 घोषणा क तार ख / Date of Pronouncement: 10/04/2015

आदे श/O R D E R

PER N.S. SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: This is an appeal filed by

the assessee against the order of the Chief Commissioner of Income- Tax, Baroda dated 29.9.2014 by raising the following grounds.

"1. That the ld.CIT erred in refusing to grant exemption certificate u/s.10(23C)(vi) of the Act.

2. Any other ground which may be raised before or during the time of hearing the appeal."

2. At the outset, the learned DR filed before us copy of order of this Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Sanskruti Sanraksha Charitable ITA No.2390/Ahd/2014 2

Trust Vs. CCIT, Baroda , ITA No.2639/Ahd/2010 order dated 30.6.2014 and submitted that the Tribunal in that case has held that no appeal against the order passed by the CCIT, Baroda under section 10(23C) can be filed before the Tribunal, hence, he submitted that the appeal of the assessee is liable to be dismissed.

3. The AR of the assessee agreed with the above submissions of the DR.

4. We find that Ahmedabad Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Sanskruti Samraksha Charitable Trust Vs. CCIT (supra) has held as under:

"4.1 We have examined the objection of the Revenue Department and noted that in terms of the provisions of Section 253(1)(c) an order passed by Chief Commissioner of Income Tax u/s.272A is subject to appeal. As per Section 253 of IT Act, any assessee aggrieved by the orders; as listed therein, may appeal to the Appellate Tribunal against such order. In the sub-clause, there is a list of orders against which an appeal can be filed before the Appellate Tribunal. On examination of all those clauses, we have noted that there is no provision for filing of an appeal against an order passed u/s.10(23C) of IT Act. As far as the written submissions filed by the assessee, the same are on merits of the case. But in this situation, we are not in a position to hear and decide this appeal on merits; therefore, the contentions as raised in those written submissions being beyond our jurisdiction, cannot be adjudicated upon. Few case laws have also been cited but all those judgments are passed by Hon'ble High Courts under Writ jurisdiction. Therefore, this appellant can seek redressal from that forum and not from the Tribunal. Resultantly, we hereby dismiss this appeal in limine being not maintainable before the Tribunal."

ITA No.2390/Ahd/2014 3 5. We, respectfully following the order of the Tribunal in the case of Sanskruti Sanraksha Charitable Trust (supra) dismiss the appeal of the assessee.

6. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed.

Order pronounced in the Court on Friday, the 10th April, 2015 at Ahmedabad.

Sd/- Sd/-

(KUL BHARAT) ( N.S. SAINI) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

Ahmedabad; Dated 10 /04/2015

This page reproduces a public judgment and a summary of it. It is research material, not legal advice, and it is no substitute for advice from an advocate on your own facts.

Research this judgment with Miss Lucy

Ask what it holds, what has followed it, and what it means for your matter — in plain English, with the citations.

Try Miss Lucy free