Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Jaipur
Cit (Exemption), Jaipur vs Modern School Society, Delhi on 24 July, 2018
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES, JAIPUR
Jh fot; iky jkWo] U;kf;d lnL; ,oa Jh HkkxpUn] ys[kk lnL; ds le{k
BEFORE: SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, JM AND SHRI BHAGCHAND, AM
M.A. No. 53/JP/2018
(Arising out if ITA No. 1118/JP/2016)
fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Year :
The Commissioner of Income cuke Modern School Society,
Tax (Exemptions), Vs. C/o Kapil Goel, Adv.,
Jaipur. F-26/124, Sector-7, Rohini,
Delhi-110 085.
LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN No. AAATM 7045 H
vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent
jktLo dh vksj ls@ Revenue by : Shri P.P. Meena (JCIT)
fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by : Shri Kapil Goel (Advocate)
lquokbZ dh rkjh[k@ Date of Hearing : 20.07.2018.
?kks"k.kk dh rkjh[k@ Date of Pronouncement : 24/07/2018.
vkns'k@ ORDER
PER VIJAY PAL RAO, JM.
This is a Miscellaneous Application by the revenue against the order dated 20th December, 2017 in ITA No. 1118/JP/2016. The revenue has filed a very elaborate and detailed miscellaneous application alleging various mistakes in the impugned order of the Tribunal.
2. We have heard the ld. D/R as well as the ld. A/R and considered the relevant material on record. The ld. D/R has submitted that the Tribunal has set aside the order of the ld. CIT (Exemptions) withdrawing the approval granted under section 10(23C)(vi) of the I.T. Act on the ground that the show cause notice was not issued by the ld. CIT (Exemptions) but it was issued by the DCIT Headquarters. The ld. D/R has further contended that when the prior approval was taken by the DCIT 2 MA No. 53/JP/2018 Modern School Society, Kota.
Hqrs. from the ld. CIT (Exemptions) for issuing the show cause notice under section 10(23C)(vi) then it amounts that the notice was issued as per the directions and satisfaction of the ld. CIT (Exemptions) and, therefore, the order passed by the ld. CIT (E) is valid and within jurisdiction. Though there are other averments in the Miscellaneous Application, however, all the other contents are in the nature of arguments against the finding of the Tribunal on merits. Thus the ld. D/R has submitted that when the Tribunal has not considered this aspect that the show cause notice was issued with prior approval and as per the direction of the ld. CIT (E), then there is no deficiency or illegality in the said show cause notice merely because it was signed by the DCIT Hqrs. on behalf of the ld. CIT (E).
3. On the other hand, the ld. A/R of the assessee has submitted that the revenue has not pointed out any apparent mistake in the order of the Tribunal which can be rectified under section 254(2) of the IT Act. However, the revenue is raising the objections against the decision taken on merits. The Tribunal has decided the issue on merits after considering all the contentions and arguments which were raised by the revenue at the time of hearing and, therefore, the allegations made in the miscellaneous application are not pointing out any mistake apparent on record. In support of his contention, he has relied upon the following decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court :-
T.S. Balaram, ITO vs. Volkart Bros., 82 ITR 50 (SC) ACIT vs. Saurashtra Kutch Stock Exchange Ltd.
305 ITR 227 (SC) 3 MA No. 53/JP/2018 Modern School Society, Kota.
4. Having considered the rival submissions as well as the material on record, we note that the main grievance in the miscellaneous application filed by the revenue is against the finding of the Tribunal on the issue of validity of show cause notice and consequential order passed by the ld. CIT (E) under section 10(23C)(vi) of the Act. We find that though the revenue has raised the issue that once the prior approval was taken from the ld. CIT (E) for issuing the show cause notice under section 10(23C)(vi) then the said show cause notice is valid and will be considered as issued by the CIT (E). However, we find that all these contentions were considered by the Tribunal while passing the impugned order in para 6 to 10 as under :-
"6. We have considered the rival submissions as well as relevant material on record. There is no dispute that the additional ground raised by the assessee is purely legal in nature and goes to the root of the matter. It is also not disputed that no new facts are required to be examined nor any further enquiry was needed for adjudication of the issue raised in the additional ground. Further, this is first appeal against the impugned order and not a case of raising afresh plea for the first time before the Tribunal without raising the same before the first appellate authority. The assessee could have raised this ground in the original grounds of appeal without seeking any leave of the Tribunal. The additional ground was required to be filed because of the reason that the assessee could not raise the same in the form 36 along with the memo of appeals. Therefore, it is only matter of revising the grounds as this issue was raised in the additional ground which was missed in the original grounds. Accordingly, in the facts and circumstances of the case when the additional ground raised by the assessee is purely legal in nature and does not require any new facts to be examined or further enquiry to be conducted for adjudication of 4 MA No. 53/JP/2018 Modern School Society, Kota.
this issue, then in view of the decision of Hon'ble supreme Court in case of National Thermal Power Co. Ltd. vs. CIT(supra) we admit the additional ground raised by the assessee for adjudication.
7. On the validity of show cause notice issued u/s 10(23C)(vi)of the Act, the ld. AR of the assessee has submitted that the show cause notice dated 08.07.2016 has been issued and signed by DCIT(Hqr.) and not by ld. CIT(E). Therefore, show cause notice was not issued by the competent authority and the proceedings best on the illegal show cause notice and consequential order passed by the ld. CIT(E) are not valid and hence liable to be quashed. As per the provisions of Section 10(23C)(vi) of the Act the prescribed authority can examine and consider the non fulfillment of the conditions under the said provisions by the institutions, trust etc. and therefore, before initiating the proceeding u/s 10(23C)(vi) r.w.s. 13th proviso to the said section only competent authority can issue a show cause notice giving an opportunity to the assessee to reply and explain its case. Since show cause notice is not issued by the competent authority, therefore the same is not valid and in the absence of a valid note the provision assumed by the ld. CIT(E) is bad and void and lad and hence, the order passed u/s 10(23C)(vi) of the Act is not sustainable. In support of his contention, he has relied upon the following decisions:-
• Kolkata ITAT decision dated 20.03.2015 in case of Arun Kanti, order (ITA No. 1516/Kol/2014) • Kolkata ITAT Bench decision dated 15.01.2016 in case of M/s Assam Bangal Carriers, order (ITA No. 706/Kol/2016) • Hon'ble Allahabad High Court decision dated 02.07.2012 in case of Rajesh Kumar Pandey, order (ITA No. 47/2011) The ld. AR has also relied upon the various other decisions in support of his contention and submitted that the order passed in pursuant to invalid show cause notice is not sustainable.5 MA No. 53/JP/2018
Modern School Society, Kota.
8. Next contention of the ld. AR is that the assessments for prior years i.e. assessment years 2011-12, 2012-13 were completed u/s 143(3) and the Assessing Officer had not found any violation of the provisions of section 11(5) or 13(3) or any other provisions of the Act while completing the scrutiny assessment. However, due to impugned order the Assessing Officer has reopened the completed assessment of the earlier assessment years. Therefore, the withdrawal of approval with retrospective effect is not valid as the impugned order has been passed on the basis of the report of the AO for the assessment year 2013-14. In support of his contention he has relied upon the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of State of Rajasthan and others vs. Basant Agrotech India Ltd. and others 388 ITR 81 and submitted that only a legislation can make a law retrospective and prospectively subject justifiability and acceptability within the constitutional para-
meters. The subordinate legislation can be given with retrospective effect if a power in this behalf is contained in the principle Act. In the absence of such conferment of power the Government the delegated authority has no power to issue a notification with retrospective effect. Therefore, in the absence of any provision contained in legislative Act the delegatee cannot make a delegated legislation with retrospective effect. The ld. AR has thus contended that when no power has been conferred by the Act on the competent authority to withdraw the approval retrospectively, then the withdraw of the approval u/s 10(23C)(vi) of the Act can only be prospective.
9. On other hand, the ld. DR has submitted that the show cause notice is issued by the CIT(E) and the DCIT(Hqr.) has signed the same for and on behalf of the CIT(E). Hence, no fault can be found in the show cause notice issued u/s 10(23C)(vi) r.w.s. 13 proviso. The decision relied upon by the ld. AR are not applicable in this case because in those cases it was show cause notice issued u/s 263 for revision of the order of the Assessing Officer whereas in the case of 6 MA No. 53/JP/2018 Modern School Society, Kota.
the assessee it was for withdrawal of the approval granted u/s 10(23C)(vi) by the same authority. Thus, the ld. DR has contended that mere signing of the show cause notice by DCIT(Hqr.) would not render it invalid when it is issued by ld. CIT(E). The ld. DR has pointed out that the language and contents of the notice are required to be considered not mere signature. Further, it is withdrawal of approval and therefore, the same would be from the date of grant of approval i.e. with retrospective effect.
10. We have considered the rival submissions as well relevant material on record. The first objection of the assessee is regarding the validity of show cause notice that it was not signed by the competent authority and therefore, it is invalid. The power and jurisdiction to withdraw the approval granted u/s 10(23C)(vi) of the Act is provided under 13th proviso to the said section which reads as under:-
"Provided also that where the fund or institution referred to in sub-clause (iv) or trust or institution referred to in sub-clause (v) is notified by the Central Government 7[or is approved by the prescribed authority, as the case may be,] or any university or other educational institution referred to in sub-clause (vi) or any hospital or other medical institution referred to in sub-clause (via), is approved by the prescribed authority and subsequently that Government or the prescribed authority is satisfied that--
(i) such fund or institution or trust or any university or other educational institution or any hospital or other medical institution has not--
(A) applied its income in accordance with the provisions contained in clause (a) of the third proviso; or (B) invested or deposited its funds in accordance with the provisions contained in clause (b) of the third proviso; or
(ii) the activities of such fund or institution or trust or any university or other 7 MA No. 53/JP/2018 Modern School Society, Kota.
educational institution or any hospital or other medical institution-- (A) are not genuine; or (B) are not being carried out in accordance with all or any of the conditions subject to which it was notified or approved, it may, at any time after giving a reasonable opportunity of showing cause against the proposed action to the concerned fund or institution or trust or any university or other educational institution or any hospital or other medical institution, rescind the notification or, by order, withdraw the approval, as the case may be, and forward a copy of the order rescinding the notification or withdrawing the approval to such fund or institution or trust or any university or other educational institution or any hospital or other medical institution and to the Assessing Officer"
The 13th proviso to section 10(23C)(vi) confers the power/ jurisdiction to withdraw the approval to the Government or the prescribed authority. It further postulates that the prescribed authority, if satisfied that such fund or institution has not complied with the conditions as provided thereunder, can withdraw the approval. For Initiation of proceedings to withdraw the approval the mandatory pre-condition is the satisfaction of the prescribed authority. Undisputedly the prescribed authority is the ld. CIT(E) and the satisfaction of the prescribed authority is a must before issuing the show cause notice for withdrawal of the approval granted u/s 10(23C)(vi) of the Act. Therefore, what is material and mandatory condition is the satisfaction of the prescribed authority and non else. In case in hand the impugned show cause notice dated 08.07.2016 was signed by the DCIT (Hqr.) and issued as per directions of the ld. CIT(E). In paras 2 and 6 Of the show cause notice in our opinion are relevant to the issue and the same are reproduced as under:-
"2. In this regard, I am directed to state that your institution/society has violated the provisions of Section 10(23C)(vi) of the Act in respect of following issues:-
Xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 8 MA No. 53/JP/2018 Modern School Society, Kota.
6. Your case is fixed for hearing before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions), Jaipur on 25.07.2016 at 12.30 P.M. in the Income Tax office (Exemptions) room No. 303, 3rd floor, Kailash Heights, Lal Kothi, Tonk Road, Jaipur. You may attend either personally or through an authorized representative in this behalf (holding valid Power of Attorney). Any failure to comply may lead to the conclusion that the assessee has nothing further to say from his side in this regard, and the case may therefore, be accordingly decided."
The language and tenor of the show cause notice do not exhibit any thought process of ld. CIT(E) but it reveals it was issued and signed by DCIT(Hqr.) as per instructions and directions of ld. CIT(E). The matter would have been different if the show cause notice brings out the thought process and application of mind by the ld. CIT(E) but was only signed by the DCIT (Hqr.). In case in hand it is apparent that the ld. CIT(E) delegated its powers to DCIT (Hqr.) to issue show cause notice and therefore, it is based on the satisfaction of the DCIT (Hqr.) and not of ld. CIT(E). para 2 and 6 of the impugned show cause notice clearly manifest that it was issued by the DCIT (Hqr.) and not by the CIT(E). The language of the show cause notice does not give any impression or inference that it is an expression of the satisfaction of ld. CIT(E). The Kolkata Bench of this Tribunal in case of Arun Kanti vs. CIT (supra) while considering the issue of validity of show cause notice issued u/s 263 of the Act not signed by the ld. CIT has observed in para 5 and 5.1 as under:-
5. Investment/deposits of funds not in the prescribed modes:-
The sub clause (b) of 3rd proviso of section 10(23C) requires the society to invest/deposit the funds in the modes specified under section 11(5) of the Act. However, it is noticed that the society has made advances which is neither as per the objects nor in the modes prescribed u/s 11(5) of the Act. In the Balance Sheet as on 31.03.2013, it is noticed that the society has shown loans and advances in the following names:-9 MA No. 53/JP/2018
Modern School Society, Kota.
S.No. Name Amount 1. Trumurti Colonisers & Builders Pvt. Ltd. 1,38,00,000/- 2. A.K. Education Welfare Society 1,00,00,000/- 3. Ambience Land Developer 60,07,953/- 4. Surendra Kumar Meena 3,00,00,000/- 5.1 M/s Trimurti Colonizers & Builders Pvt. Ltd.:
On perusal of ledger accounts of M/s Trimurti Colonizers & Builders Pvt. Ltd produced during the course of assessment proceedings, it has been revealed that the balance as on 31.03.2013 was of Rs. 1,38,00,000-. The balance advances as on 31.03.2014 in the name of aforesaid company is also shown as Rs. 1,38,00,000/-. The society has submitted that it has given advances to aforesaid company for purchasing of land and society has not charged any interest on such advances. Perusal of 'Application Form' submitted by the assessee in respect of allotment of plot, it has been revealed that date, amount and place etc. are not mentioned on the said form. As per submission of the society, even till today any land/immovable property was not purchased out of these advances.
On giving show cause in this regard vide its reply dated 25.07.2016, the A/R of the assessee submitted as under:
i) Advance given to Trimurti Colonizers & Builders Pvt. Ltd- The society has given advances to Trimurti Colonizers & Builders Pvt. Ltd. for purchasing of land at The Future city at phagi Jaipur. The advance was given for setting up an educational institution at Jaipur. M/s Trimurti Colonizers & Builders could not give us converted land because they could not get land converted.
Your good self has mentioned that this advance given cannot be said for charitable activities and there is violation of section 11(5) of the IT Act, 1961. Sir, this advance is given for acquisition of land for opening of school and in accordance with the sole object of the society. Further clause (x) of the section 11(5) permits "investment in immovable property" as one of the modes of investment of funds, so there is no violation of section 11(5) of the Act.
10MA No. 53/JP/2018
Modern School Society, Kota.
Further vide reply dated 10.08.2015 submitted as under:
"The above party has informed us the final hearing of Gutab Kothari V/s State has completed and they are waiting for decision, however we have informed them that either they should give us land by end of this month or return our money. Please note that they are no way connected to us or neither we have any business relation with them except for this particular deal."
Further vide reply dated 02.09.2016 submitted as under:-
Regarding outstanding amount as informed in our letter dated 10.08.2016 that we had given time to party either to give land or refund the money before the end of August, 2016, now they have requested that the present time is very bad for construction industries and they wanted time till end of this year. They assured us that they will certainly fulfill their commitment. In fact we also do not have any other option to wait till year end, or to file a case against them."
A similar view was taken by the Kolkata Bench of this Tribunal in case of M/s Assam Bangal Carriers vs. CIT (supra) in paras 7 and 8 as under:-
"7. We have considered the rival submissions. A perusal of the records shows that the show cause notice u/s 263 of the Act dated 26.02.2013 was signed by A.C.I.T.(HQ)-XXI, Kolkata and not by C.I.T. The question regarding validity of the order passed u/s 263 of the Act when the show cause notice u/s 263 of the Act is not signed and issued by C.I.T. and had come for consideration before this Tribunal in the case of Bardhman Co-op Milk Producers' Union Ltd. Vs CIT, Burdwan (supra). This Tribunal on identical facts as in the present case has held as follows :- "4. We have carefully considered the submissions and perused the record and we find that delay of 290 days in filing in these cases has been attributed to mistake on the part of assessee's counsel. The counsel has clearly admitted the mistake on his part. When the delay in filing of these appeals is attributed to the mistake of the consultant, in our considered opinion, assessee should not be penalized on this count. The case law referred by the Ld. counsel for the assessee also supports this proposition. Accordingly, we condone the delay. 5. As regards the matter in appeal, we note that the same is against order passed by the Ld. CIT u/s. 263 of the Act. At the outset, in this case, Ld. counsel for the assessee pointed 11 MA No. 53/JP/2018 Modern School Society, Kota.
out that the notice to the assessee u/s. 263 of the Act in these case, was issued by letter dated 06-03-2007. The said notice was signed by ACIT, Hqrs., Burdwan for Commissioner. Referring to this aspect, the Ld. counsel for the assessee pleaded that Section 263 of the Act provides for notice and adjudication by the Ld. CIT. Ld. counsel for the assessee claimed that since notice u/s. 263 of the Act has not been signed by the Ld. Commissioner. The jurisdiction assumed is defective and the order u/s 263 of the Act, is liable to be quashed on this ground itself. In this regard, Ld. counsel for the assessee referred to the decision of Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in the course of cit v. Rajesh Kumar Pandey (2012) 25 taxmann.com 242 (All.). The Ld. counsel for the assessee further referred to the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Satish Kumar Kashri v. ITO 104 ITD 382 (Pat). ITA No.706/Kol/2013 M/s. Assam Bengal Carriers. A.Yr.2008-09 4 6. Ld. DR on the other hand submitted that above is not the material defect and he submitted that there is no reason to set aside the order u/s. 263 of the Act, on this account. 7. We have carefully considered the submissions and perused the record. We find that Section 263(1) of the Act provides as under:- "The CIT may call for and examine the record of any proceeding under this Act, and if he considers that any order passed by the AO is erroneous insofar as it is prejudicial to the interest of Revenue he may, after giving the assessee an opportunity of being heard and after making or causing to be made such inquiry as he deems necessary, pass such order thereon as the circumstances of the case justify, including an order enhancing or modifying the assessment, or cancelling the assessment and directing fresh assessment." Now we can also refer to the notice u/s. 263 of the Act issued to the assessee. This notice was signed as under:- " Yours faithfully Sd/- Vikramaditya (Vikramaditdya) ACIT, Hqrs., Burdwan, For Commissioner." From the above, it is clear that the said notice u/s. 263 of the Act ha s not been signed by the "Commissioner of Income Tax" rather it has been signed by ACIT, Hqrs., Burdwan. The Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in the case of Rajesh Kumar Pandey (supra) has expounded that when the Ld. CIT has not recorded his satisfaction, but it was the satisfaction of the Income Tax Officer (Technical) who is not competent to revise his order u/s. 263 of the Act, the order passed was liable to be set aside. The relevant portion of the order of Hon'ble Allahabad High Court reads as under:- "6. On perusal of the aforesaid provisions, it will be abundantly clear that the provisions of Section 299-BB deals with the procedure for service of notice and in case, there is a defective service of notice, it provides that if the assessee has cooperated, it will not be open for him to raise the plea, whereas in the instant case, it is not the case of the service of notice, but the initial issuance of notice, which has not been signed by the competent 12 MA No. 53/JP/2018 Modern School Society, Kota.
authority as a finding has been recorded by the Tribunal that the notice has been issued under the signature of Income-tax (technical), whereas in view of the provisions of powers under Section 263(1), it is only the Commissioner of Income-tax to issue notice. It is also relevant to add that pleas can be raised only out of the judgment passed by the Tribunal or other authorities, but the plea, which was not raised at any stage, cannot be raised for the first time before this Court. No other arguments have been advanced in respect of other questions framed in the memo of appeal." 8. Similarly, we note that in the case of Satish Kr. Keshari (supra), the Tribunal had held that when the notice u/s. 263 of the Act was not under the seal and signature of Ld. CIT and suffered for want of details on the basis of which Ld. CIT came into conclusion that the order of Assessing Officer is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of Revenue, assumption of jurisdiction u/s. 263 of the Act by the Ld. CIT was invalid. ITA No.706/Kol/2013 M/s. Assam Bengal Carriers. A.Yr.2008-09 5 9. From the above discussion regarding the provision of law and the case law in this regard, it is clear that for a valid assumption of the jurisdiction u/s. 263 of the Act, the notice issued u/s. 263 of the Act should be issued by the Ld. CIT. In this case, it is undisputed that notice was issued by ACIT, Hqrs, Burdwan who is not competent to assume jurisdiction u/s. 263 of the Act. Hence, the notice was not under the seal and signature of Ld. CIT. Hence, as per the precedents referred to above, the assumption of jurisdiction u/s. 263 of the Act in this case is not valid. Accordingly, the order u/s. 263 of the Act passed in these cases are quashed." 8. Facts of the present case being identical to the case referred to above, respectfully following the aforesaid decision we hold that the assumption of jurisdiction u/s 263 of the Act in the present case is not valid. Order u/s 263 of the Act is accordingly quashed and the appeal of the assessee is allowed. In view of the above conclusion, the other grounds of appeal are not taken into consideration."
The Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in case of CIT vs. Rajesh Kumar Pandey (supra) while dealing with the validity of notice and applicable of the provisions of section 299BB has observed as under:-
"299BB Notice deemed to be valid in certain circumstances-- Where as assessee has appeared in any proceeding or co-operated in any inquiry relating to an assessment or reassessment, it shall be deemed that any notice under any provision of this Act, which is required to be served 13 MA No. 53/JP/2018 Modern School Society, Kota.
upon him, has been duly served upon him in time in accordance with the provisions of this Act and such assessee shall be precluded from taking any objection in any proceeding or inquiry under the Act that the notice was--
(a) not served upon him; or
(b) not served upon time in time; or
(c) served upon him in an improper manner;
Provided that nothing contained in this section shall apply where the assessee has raised such objection before the completion of such assessment or reassessment."
Thus, it is settled proposition of law that the notice issued by the authority other than the prescribed authority is not valid and consequential order passed by the ld. CIT(E) is without jurisdiction. The show cause notice confers the jurisdiction to proceed and to pass the order. In case the notice itself is not valid then the jurisdiction assumed by the prescribed authority based on the invalid notice become invalid and consequential order passed by the authority is invalid and void abinitio for want of jurisdiction. Further, invalid show cause notice vitiates the proceeding and consequential order. Hence, we are of the considered opinion that the impugned order passed by the ld. CIT(E) is invalid and liable to quash on this ground." Therefore, the provisions of section 10(23C)(vi) were duly considered by the Tribunal and it was found that the show cause notice for withdrawing the approval granted under section 10(23C)(vi) is a mandatory condition and can be issued by the Competent Authority who has power to withdraw the approval. This defect in the show cause notice cannot be cured and, therefore, the provisions of section 292BB cannot be pressed into service for such an illegality and defect in the show cause notice. The Tribunal has also considered all the aspects of show cause notice issued as per the directions of the ld. CIT (E) and, therefore, it was found by the 14 MA No. 53/JP/2018 Modern School Society, Kota.
Tribunal that there is nothing in the language of the show cause notice to reveal that the decision was taken by the ld. CIT (E) to set out the grounds in the show cause notice for withdrawal of approval. The Tribunal has specifically considered this aspect and found that the language of show cause notice does not exhibit any thought process of ld. CIT(E) but it reveals that it was issued and signed by the DCIT Hqrs as per the instructions and directions of the ld. CIT (E). The Tribunal even went further on this point and observed that the matter would have been different if the show cause notice brings out the thought process and application of mind by the ld. CIT (E), but was only signed by the DCIT Hqrs. Hence the Tribunal found that the ld. CIT (E) delegated the power to the DCIT Hqrs to issue the show cause notice which is not permissible as per the provisions of the Act. In view of the detailed finding based on the analysis of the facts and provisions of law, the Miscellaneous Application filed by the revenue has no substance as the revenue is raising the contentions on the merits of the issue and not pointed out any apparent mistake which can be rectified as per the provisions of section 254(2) of the Act. The scope and jurisdiction to rectify the mistake under section 254(2) is very limited and circumscribed. The Tribunal can rectify the mistake which is manifest and apparent on the face of the record and not something which requires a long drawn reasoning. Hence the decision taken on merits cannot be reviewed or revised in the proceedings under section 254(2) of the Act. Even otherwise, the Tribunal has not restricted its finding only on the technical issue but the merits of the order passed by the ld. CIT (E) withdrawing the approval under section 10(23C)(vi) was also decided 15 MA No. 53/JP/2018 Modern School Society, Kota.
and hence in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, the Miscellaneous Application filed by the revenue is devoid of any merit. The same is dismissed.
5. In the result, Miscellaneous Application filed by the revenue is dismissed.
Order pronounced in the open court on 24/07/2018.
Sd/- Sd/-
¼ HkkxpUn ½ (fot; iky jkWo )
( BHAGCHAND) (VIJAY PAL RAO )
ys[kk lnL;@Accountant Member U;kf;d lnL;@Judicial Member
Jaipur
Dated:- 24/07/2018.
das/
vkns'k dh izfrfyfi vxzfs "kr@Copy of the order forwarded to:
1. The Appellant- The CIT (Exemptions), Jaipur.
2. The Respondent- Modern School Society, Kota.
3. The CIT(A).
4. The CIT,
5. The DR, ITAT, Jaipur
6. Guard File ( M.A. 53/JP/2018) vkns'kkuqlkj@ By order, lgk;d iathdkj@ Assistant. Registrar