Prakash Gramudyog Samiti, Kanpur vs Assessee
- CitationITA No.340/LKW/2013
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
The reasoning here is thin but present: the Tribunal holds that the proviso to section 143(3) is relevant only where the assessee possesses the certificate required under section 10(23B), and that where no such certificate is shown to exist, the proviso does not apply and the Assessing Officer's denial of exemption cannot be disturbed.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
M/s Prakash Gramudyog Samiti, Vs A.C.I.T.-1, 87/8-C, Acharya Nagar, Kanpur. Kanpur. PAN:AAAAP0254G (Appellant) (Respondent)
Appellant by None Respondent by Shri Amit Nigam, D.R. Date of hearing 27/11/2014 Date of pronouncement 16/01/2015
ORDER PER A. K. GARODIA, A.M.
This is an assessee's appeal directed against the order passed by learned CIT(A)-II, Kanpur dated 30/01/2013 for the assessment year 2009- 2010.
2. The grounds raised by the assessee are as under:
"1. That, in view of the provisions of sec. 10(23 B) read with proviso to sub-sec. 3 of sec. 143 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, suo-moto denial of exemption by the Ld. Assessing Officer is beyond jurisdiction and the assessment order is liable to be quashed.
2. That Ld. Assessing Officer and CIT (Appeals) did not pass a speaking order on this point of law and, therefore, the both the orders are bad-in-law and be quashed.
3. That Ld. Assessing Officer infringed the powers vested in the prescribed authority u/s 10(23B) of the Act; while disallowing the said exemption, and thereby again acted non-judicially and beyond jurisdiction.
2 4. That the assessee is granted the exemption continuously for last so many years and merely non-communication of the exemption for any specific year does not amount to the revocation of the exemption within the meaning of sec/ 10(23B) read with proviso to sub-sec. 3 of sec. 143 of the Act.
5. That Ld. Assessing Officer erred in stating that no approval was filed by the assessee, whereas the same was duly filed during the assessment proceeding.
6. That Ld. Assessing Officer as well as CIT (Appeals) also erred in not appraising the words "for the time being approved" contained in clause (ii) of the First Proviso to Sec. 10(23B) of the Act. In fact, both of them skipped to answer the issue and appraise the law in judicial manner.
7. That Ld. Assessing Officer also acted beyond jurisdiction while denying the exemption on the ground that the income of the assessee is not applied for the advancement of Khadi & Village Industry, whereas this fact is to be seen by the prescribed authority empowered to grant the exemption and Ld. Assessing Officer has only the course prescribed under proviso to sub-sec. 3 of sec. 143 of the Act; which he never adopted. He also failed to establish his contention and pass a speaking order on this point.
8. That Ld. CIT (Appeals) acted non-judicially while dismissing the appeal of the assessee, in spite of the fact that on the same point of law, it has been held in two earlier years that "....therefore, the exemption denied by A. O. merely for want of the certificate becomes illogical and invalid as per law...."
3. None appeared on behalf of the assessee on the appointed date of hearing inspite of notice and hence, we proceed to decide this appeal of the assessee ex-parte qua the assessee.
4. Learned D.R. of the Revenue supported the orders of the authorities below.
3 5. We have considered the submissions of Learned D.R. of the Revenue, perused the material available on record and gone through the orders of the authorities below. We find that as per Para 4.6 of the assessment order, it is noted by the Assessing Officer that proviso to section 143(3) is not applicable because it is not that the certificate as has been prescribed u/s 10(23B) of the Act is not available with the assessee. He has further held that this proviso is relevant only if the assessee is having requisite certificate. Neither before the CIT(A) nor before us, it is shown by the assessee that the assessee is having the requisite certificate, as required u/s 10(23B) of the Act. Hence, we do not find any reason to interfere in the order of CIT(A).
6. In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands dismissed.
(Order was pronounced in the open court on the date mentioned on the caption page)
Sd/. Sd/.
(SUNIL KUMAR YADAV) ( A. K. GARODIA ) Judicial Member Accountant Member
Dated:16/01/2015 *C.L.Singh
Copy of the order forwarded to : 1.The Appellant 2.The Respondent. 3.Concerned CIT 4.The CIT(A) 5.D.R., I.T.A.T., Lucknow Asstt. Registrar
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