Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Hyderabad
A.P. State Seed Certification Agency, ... vs Adit(Exemptions)-I,, Hyderabad on 25 November, 2016
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
HYDERABAD BENCHES "A" : HYDERABAD
BEFORE SHRI J. SUDHAKAR REDDY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
AND
SMT. P. MADHAVI DEVI, JUDICIAL MEMBER
ITA.No.1505/Hyd/2013
Assessment Year 2009-2010
A.P. State Seed Certification Asst. Director of Income Tax
Agency, Hyderabad. vs. (Exemptions)-I, Hyderabad.
PAN AAATA4858L
(Appellant) (Respondent)
ITA.No.1158/Hyd/2014 & 917/Hyd/2015
Assessment Years 2010-2011 & 2012-2013
A.P. State Seed Certification Asst. Director of Income Tax
Agency, Hyderabad. vs. (Exemptions)-I, Hyderabad.
PAN AAATA4858L
(Appellant) (Respondent)
For Assessee : Mr. S. Rama Rao
For Revenue : Smt. Suman Malik
Date of Hearing : 08.11.2016
Date of Pronouncement : 25.11.2016
ORDER
PER J. SUDHAKAR REDDY, A.M.
All these three appeals are filed by the assessee. The grounds of appeal in ITA.No.1505/Hyd/2012 for the A.Y. 2009- 2010 and in ITA.No.1158/Hyd/2014 for the A.Y. 2010-2011 and ITA.No.917/Hyd/2015 for the A.Y. 2012-2013 are as follows :
Grounds in ITA.No.1505/Hyd/2012 : A.Y. 2009-2010 :
1. "The order of the learned Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals) is erroneous both on facts and in law. 2
ITA.Nos.1158/H/14, 1505/Hyd/2013 & 917/Hyd/2015 A.P. State Seed Certification Agency, Hyderabad.
2. The Ld. learned Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals) erred in holding that the appellant is not entitled for exemption u/s 11 or u/s 10(23C) of the I.T. Act.
3. The learned learned Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals) ought to have seen that the appellant is a charitable institution and the income derived is exempt u/s 11 of the I.T. Act.
4. Any other ground that may be urged at the time of hearing."
Grounds in ITA.No.1158/Hyd/2014 - A.Y. 2010-2011 :
1. "The order of the learned CIT (A) is erroneous both on facts and in law.
2. The Ld. CIT(A) ought to have held that the appellant is eligible for exemption u/s 11 of the I.T. Act and the matter of cancellation of registration u/s 12AA is pending before the Hon'ble ITAT.
3. The Ld. CIT(A) ought to have considered the fact that the appellant is eligible for exemption u/s 11 of the I.T. Act as it is a charitable institution.
4. The Ld. CIT(A) ought to have seen that the appellant filed an appeal before the Hon'ble ITAT against the order cancelling the registration u/s 12AA of the I.T. Act ; in the alternate the learned CIT(A) ought to have considered the fact that the income is to be computed in accordance with the provisions u/s 28 to 44 of the I.T. Act when the provisions u/s. 11 or 10(23C) are not applicable.
5. Any other grounds that may be urged at the time of hearing."
Grounds in ITA.No.917/Hyd/2015 - A.Y. 2012-2013 :
1. "The order of the learned Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals) is erroneous both on facts and in law.3
ITA.Nos.1158/H/14, 1505/Hyd/2013 & 917/Hyd/2015 A.P. State Seed Certification Agency, Hyderabad.
2. The learned Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals) erred in holding that the appellant is not entitled for exemption u/ s 11 or u/s 10(23C) of the I.T. Act.
3. The learned Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals) ought to have seen that the appellant is a charitable institution and the income derived is exempt u/s 11 of the I.T. Act.
4. The learned Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals) ought to have seen that the appellant filed an appeal before the Hon'ble ITAT against the order cancelling registration u/ s 12AA of the I.T. Act. In the alternative, the learned CIT (Appeals) ought to have considered the fact that the income is to be computed in accordance with the provisions u/ s 28 to 44 of the I.T. Act when the provisions u/ s 11 or u/s 10(23C) are not applicable.
5. Any other ground that may be urged at the time of hearing."
2. As regards ground Nos.1, 2 & 3 in all the three appeals, admittedly the Hyderabad Bench of ITAT has dismissed the appeal of the assessee, against the order of cancelling Registration granted under section 12AA of the I.T. Act vide ITA.No.869/Hyd/2012 dated 30.09.2016. In view of this order of the Co-Ordinate Bench these grounds of the assessee are covered against the assessee. Hence Ground nos. 1, 2 and 3 of the assessee in all the three appeals are dismissed.
3. In the result, ITA.No.1505/Hyd/2013 of the assessee is dismissed as this appeal has these three grounds only.
4. Now, we take-up ground No.4 in appeals for the A.Ys. 2010-2011 and 2012-2013.
4ITA.Nos.1158/H/14, 1505/Hyd/2013 & 917/Hyd/2015 A.P. State Seed Certification Agency, Hyderabad.
5. We find that the Assessing Officer has simply brought to tax, the surplus income over expenditure reflected in the income and expenditure account of the assessee, without examining the nature of entries and computed the gross total income. The Assessing Officer is required to compute the income in accordance with the Income Tax Act. As this was not done, we set aside ground No.4 in both these appeals to the file of the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication in accordance with law, after giving adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee.
6. In the result, ITA No. 1505/Hyd/2013 for the A.Y. 2009-10 is dismissed. ITA.Nos.1158/Hyd/2014 for the A.Y. 2010-11 and ITA.No.917/Hyd/2015 for the A.Y. 2012-13 are partly allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced in the open Court on 25.11.2016.
Sd/- Sd/- (SMT. P. MADHAVI DEVI) (J.SUDHAKAR REDDY) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Hyderabad, Dated 25th November, 2016. VBP/- Copy to
1. A.P. State Seed Certification Agency, Hyderabad.
C/o. Shri S. Rama Rao, Advocate, Flat No.102, Shriya's Elegance, Door No.3-6-643, Street No.9, Himayatnagar, Hyderabad - 500 029.
2. The Asst. Director of Income Tax (Exemptions)-I, Hyderabad.
3. CIT(A)-IV, Hyderabad.
4. Director of Income Tax (Exemptions), Hyderabad.
5. Addl. DIT (Exemptions)-I, Hyderabad.
6. D.R. ITAT "A" Bench, Hyderabad.
7. Guard File.