Forum
Read and express views
× Latest Case Laws on Income Tax by various Income Tax Appellate Tribunals in India

These are the latest case laws decided by various Income Tax Appellate Tribunals (ITAT) of India on Income Tax which have been published recently. The case laws are open for discussion and we invite expert comments from our members on its applicability and effect on relevant issues.

17-05-2019, Mercedes Benz Education, Section 10(23C)(vi), Tribunal Pune

  • amit
  • amit's Avatar Topic Author
  • Offline
  • Administrator
  • Administrator
More
3 months 4 weeks ago #9506 by amit
Section - 10(23C)(vi), 10(23C)
Order Date - 17-05-2019
Favouring - Assessee
Court - Tribunal Pune
Appellant - Mercedes Benz Education Academy
Respondent - ITO
Justice - SUSHMA CHOWLA, JM & D. KARUNAKARA RAO, AM
Citation - 519Taxpundit269
Appeal No. - ITA No.745/PUN/2015
Asstt. Year - 2006-07

Order

PER : SUSHMA CHOWLA, JM

The appeal filed by assessee is against the order of CIT(A)-I, Pune, dated 31.03.2010 relating to assessment year 2006-07 against order passed under section 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’).

2. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:-

1. The learned CIT (A)-I, Pune erred in law and on facts in confirming the action of the learned AO in denying the benefit of exemption u/s 10(23C)(vi) of the ITA 1961.

2. The learned CIT(A) erred in law and on facts in not appreciating that the appellant has been submitting form 56D (for claiming exemption u/s 10(23C)(vi) of the ITA, 1961) from time to time. The learned CIT(A) ought to have appreciated that the procedure adopted by the appellant was in tandem with the footnote & action point given at the end of form 56D.

3. The learned CIT(Appeals)-I, Pune has also erred in law and on facts in confirming the action of AO in denying the exemption u/s 10(23C)(vi) without appreciating that the appellant is existing solely for imparting education.

4. Alternatively and without prejudice, the learned CIT(A) erred in law and on facts in not granting benefit of set off of past years deficits (losses) against the taxable income of the appellant.

3. The present appeal is filed after delay of 1784 days. The assessee has filed an Affidavit along with an application for condonation of delay in filing the present appeal late. The main plea of assessee was hat because of multiplity of proceedings going on before different authorities filing of present appeal was delayed. The learned Authorized Representative for the assessee has filed before us an events chart of various assessment proceedings / appellate proceedings between the period 28.12.2007 to 21.05.2015, on which date the present appeal was filed before the Tribunal. Looking at the factual aspects of the case, wherein against the assessee, proceedings starting from assessment year 2002-03 were pending. The question which arises is whether the assessee was prevented by sufficient cause in filing the appeal late before the Tribunal. The learned Authorized Representative for the assessee before us has pointed out that the issue raised in present appeal now stands covered by different orders of Tribunal and lenient view may be taken in the factual aspects of the assessee.

4. The learned Departmental Representative for the Revenue however, has strongly objected to the condonation of delay in filling the appeal late by the assessee and it has been stressed that where the matter was old and the assessee was ignorant for almost five years before exercising his duty of filing appeal before the Tribunal, the delay in the case is not explainable. It is alleged that the assessee lacks sincerity and seriousness towards legal procedure and where the deliverance of justice is complete and absolute when it was done within reasonable time, then request was made to reject the petition for condonation of delay.

5. Admittedly, the receipt of order of CIT(A) is on 30.04.2010 by the assessee, wherein the last date for filing the appeal before the Tribunal was 29.06.2010. However, the appeal was filed before the Tribunal on 18.05.2015 i.e. after delay of 1784 days i.e. approximately five years. The assessee before us has filed events chart, wherein it was pointed out that after assessment orders were passed for various years, the appeals were filed before the CIT(A) starting from assessment year 2005-06 onwards and simultaneously reassessment proceedings for assessment years 2002-03 to 2004-05 also were initiated and against the said orders of Assessing Officer, appeals were filed before the CIT(A); so as on 30 04 2010 nearly for all the years starting from assessment year 2002-03 onwards, appeals were pending before the CIT(A). Thereafter, various orders were received from the CIT(A) and the Tribunal for assessment year 2005-06 first on 31.05.2011 and for assessment years 2002- 03 to 2004-05 on 14.02.2013 and for assessment year 2007-08 on 14.02.2013 with simultaneously the matter being re-adjudicated by either Assessing Officer or CIT(A) for all these years and the appeals thereafter being filed before the Tribunal, The assessee claims that it by an inadvertent mistake, had lost sight of the fact that appeal for assessment year 2006-07 was not filed within stipulated time. However, it was filed on 21.05.2015 after delay of about 1784 days.

6. In the totality of the facts where there were multiple proceedings pending before different Forums in the case of assessee, we find the plea of assessee to be bonafide and the delay in filing the present appeal is thus, condoned. It

Click to view and download Full Free Judgement of Mercedes Benz Education Academy vs. ITO

Unable to display Google Map.




Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

Time to create page: 0.213 seconds

If You Appreciate What We Do Here On TaxPundit, You Should Consider:

We are thankful for your never ending support.

Latest Analysis - High Courts

PCIT vs. Sahara States Gorakhpur

PCIT vs. Sahara States Gorakhpur

PCIT vs. Sahara States Gorakhpur Read More
GENPACT INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED vs. DCIT

GENPACT INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED vs. DCIT

GENPACT INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED vs. DCIT Read More
Jugender Singh Yadav vs. PCIT

Jugender Singh Yadav vs. PCIT

Jugender Singh Yadav vs. PCIT Read More
ROHIT KUMAR GUPTA vs PCIT

ROHIT KUMAR GUPTA vs PCIT

ROHIT KUMAR GUPTA vs PCIT Read More
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 9
  • 10
  • 11
  • 12
  • 13
  • 14
  • 15
  • 16
  • 17
  • 18
  • 19
  • 20
  • 21
  • 22
  • 23
  • 24
  • 25
  • 26
  • 27
  • 28
  • 29
  • 30
  • 31
  • 32
  • 33
  • 34
  • 35
  • 36
  • 37
  • 38
  • 39
  • 40
  • 41

Forum Features

Latest Case Laws
Latest Case Laws are instantly updated in the Forum into their respective section
Latest from CBDT
Latest Circulars, Notifications, Orders etc. from CBDT is updated in the Forum
Ask Experts
You can ask questions to the community
Support
Support queries are either replied via mail or in the Forum so that others can be benefited
Press Releases
Latest Press Notes and Press Releases are updated in the Forum
Connect with Members
You can connect with our community members by replying to their queries

Recommended Articles

 

SITE INFORMATION

All content herein is the copyright of Taxpundit. No images, text, or any other content may be, reproduced or redistributed without the express written consent of Taxpundit.

All Rights Reserved. All Content Copyright.

Newsletter

Subscribe to our newsletter and stay updated on the latest developments and special offers!

Company Master Data Since 1900. More than 1.75 Million Records. Register/Login to get FREE access. Read more
Toggle Bar