M/s Spandana (Rural and Urban Development Organisation), Hyderabad v. The ITO, Ward-2(2), Guntur

ITA 436/VIZ/2010 | 2004-2005
Pronouncement Date: 25-10-2010 | Result: Dismissed

Appeal Details

RSA Number 43625314 RSA 2010
Assessee PAN AABTS9855J
Bench Visakhapatnam
Appeal Number ITA 436/VIZ/2010
Duration Of Justice 2 month(s)
Appellant M/s Spandana (Rural and Urban Development Organisation), Hyderabad
Respondent The ITO, Ward-2(2), Guntur
Appeal Type Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date 25-10-2010
Appeal Filed By Assessee
Order Result Dismissed
Bench Allotted DB
Tribunal Order Date 25-10-2010
Date Of Final Hearing 01-12-2010
Next Hearing Date 01-12-2010
Assessment Year 2004-2005
Appeal Filed On 24-08-2010
Judgment Text
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL VISAKHAPATNAM BENCH VISAKHAPATNAM BEFORE: SHRI SUNIL KUMAR YADAV JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI BR BASKARAN ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO S . 381&382 /VIZAG/ 20 10 ASSESSMENT YEAR S : 2004 - 05 & 2007 - 08 RESP ECTIVELY ITO WARD - 2(2) GUNTUR M/S. SPANDANA (RURAL AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT ORGANISATION) GUNTUR (APPELLANT) VS. (RESPONDENT) PAN NO.AABTS 9855J ITA NO.436/VIZAG/2010 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2004 - 05 M/S. SPANDANA (RURAL AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT ORGANISATIO N) HYDERABAD ITO WARD - 2(2) GUNTUR (APPELLANT) VS. (RESPONDENT) PAN NO.AABTS 9855J APPELLANT BY: SHRI T.L. PETER DR RESPONDENT BY: SHRI G.V.N. HARI CA ORDER PER SHRI S.K. YADAV JUDICIAL MEMBER : - THESE APPEALS ARE PREFERRED BY THE REVENUE AS WELL AS THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE RESPECTIVE ORDERS OF THE CIT(A). SINCE THESE APPEALS WERE HEARD TOGETHER THESE ARE BEING DISPOSED OFF THROUGH THIS CONSOLIDATED ORDER. WE HOWEVER PREFER TO ADJUDICATE THEM ONE AFTER THE OTHER. ITA NOS.381 & 382 OF 2010 : 2. THESE APPEALS ARE PREFERRED BY THE REVENUE IN WHICH THEY HAVE ASSAILED THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) ON VARIOUS GROUNDS BUT THEY ALL RELATE TO THE CLAIM OF EXEMPTION U/S 11 OF THE I.T. ACT. DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING OF THE APPEAL OUR ATTENTION WAS INV ITED THAT CIT(A) HAS ADJUDICATED THE ISSUE FOLLOWING THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE ASSESSEES OWN CASE PERTAINING TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005 - 06. THEREFORE NO ERROR CAN BE POINTED OUT IN THE 2 ORDER OF THE CIT(A) AS CONTENDED BY THE ASSESSEE. THE LD. D .R. ON THE OTHER HAND HAS SUBMITTED THAT THE TRIBUNALS ORDER WAS CHALLENGED BY THE REVENUE BEFORE THE HONBLE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH. THEREFORE THE CIT(A) SHOULD NOT HAVE FOLLOWED THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL AND SHOULD HAVE ADJUDICATED THE ISSUE IND EPENDENTLY ON ITS FACTS. 3. HAVING HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND FROM A CAREFUL PERUSAL OF THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) WE FIND THAT CIT(A) HAS ADJUDICATED THE ISSUE FOLLOWING THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL PERTAINING TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005 - 06 IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE. THOUGH THE REVENUE HAS CONTENDED THAT TH E ORDER OF TRIBUNAL IS CHALLENGED BEFORE THE HIGH COURT BUT NO EVIDENCE IS PLACED IN THIS REGARD. IT HAS BEEN REPEATEDLY HELD BY THE APEX COURT AND THE VARIOUS HIGH COURTS THAT MERE FILING OF AN APPEAL BEFORE THE APPELLATE AUTHORITIES DOES NOT AMOUNT TO A STAY OF THE OPERATION OF THE ORDER OF THE AUTHORITY WHICH IS UNDER CHALLENGE. THEREFORE SO LONG AS THE ORDER HOLDS THE FIELD THE SUBORDINATE AUTHORITIES ARE BOUND TO FOLLOW THE SAME. IN THE LIGHT OF THIS PROPOSITION OF LAW WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT NO EVIDENCE IS PLACED BEFORE US TO ESTABLISH THAT THE OPERATION OF THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL WAS EVER STAYED BY THE HONBLE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH. WE THEREFORE OF THE VIEW THAT SO LONG AS THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL HOLDS THE FIELD THE SUBORDINATE AUTHORITIES ARE BOUND TO FOLLOW THE SAME. THE CIT(A) HAS RIGHTLY FOLLOWED THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL AND WE THEREFORE FIND NO INFIRMITY IN HIS ORDER. WE ACCORDINGLY CONFIRM THE SAME. 4. IN THE RESULT TH E APPEALS OF THE REVENUE ARE DISMISSED. ITA NO.436 OF 2010: 5. THIS IS AN APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) ON A SOLITARY GROUND THAT LD. CIT(A) OUGHT TO HAVE HELD THAT TOTAL AMOUNT INCURRED FOR CHARITABLE PURPOSES I.E. ADVANCES UNDE R MICRO FINANCE PROGRAMME BEING RS.28 79 59 665/ - AS AGAINST THE AMOUNT CLAIMED IN THE COMPUTATION OF INCOME RS.1 66 97 168/ - AS T HERE IS NO SURPLUS RESULTING EVEN AFTER DISALLOWING THE CLAIM FOR PROVISION FOR DOUBTFUL DEBTS. DURING THE COURSE OF 3 HEARING OF THIS APPEAL IT WAS POINTED OUT THAT THIS APPEAL IS FILED LATE BY 91 DAYS. THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED AN APPLICATION FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY ALONG WITH AN AFFIDAVIT STATING THEREIN THAT THE OFFICE ASSISTANT OF THE SOCIETY TO WHOM THIS JOB WAS ENTRUSTED FO RGOT TO DO THE NEEDFUL IN ORDER TO FILE AN APPEAL DUE TO OVERSIGHT THEREFORE THE DELAY WAS BONA FIDE AND IT SHOULD BE CONDONED. DELAY IS ONLY FOR 91 DAYS AND SINCE IT IS DULY EXPLAINED WE CONDONE THE SAME AND ADMIT THE APPEAL FOR HEARING. 6. THE LD. C OUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS CONTENDED THAT THE ACTUAL ADVANCES UNDER THE MICRO FINANCE PROGRAM WAS RS.28 79 59 665/ - BUT IT CLAIMED IN COMPUTATION OF INCOME AT RS.1 66 97 168 / - AS THERE WAS NO SURPLUS RESULTING EVEN AFTER DISALLOWING THE CLAIM FOR PROVISIO N FOR DOUBTFUL DEBTS. NOW THE CIT(A) HAS REVERSED THE ORDER OF THE A.O. AND ALLOWED THE EXEMPTION U/S 11 OF THE ACT. THE NECESSARY MODIFICATIONS IN THE COMPUTATIONS ARE REQUIRED. THEREFORE THE NECESSARY DIRECTION MAY BE GIVEN TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER T O MAKE A COMPUTATION OF INCOME IN THE LIGHT OF THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) AND THE TRIBUNAL WITH REGARD TO THE EXEMPTION U/S 11 OF THE ACT. THE LD. D.R. ON THE OTHER HAND HAS SUBMITTED THAT THIS IS A NEW GROUND RAISED BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. IT WAS NEVER ADDRES SED BEFORE THE LOWER AUTHORITIES. THEREFORE THE TRIBUNAL CANNOT ENTERTAIN THIS NEW GROUND WHICH DOES NOT EMERGE FROM THE ORDER OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES. 7. HAVING HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND FROM A CAREFUL PERUSAL OF THE ORDER OF THE LOWER AUTHORI TIES WE FIND THAT THIS GROUND WAS NEVER ADJUDICATED BY ANY OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES. THEREFORE IT CANNOT BE AGITATED BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. ONLY THOSE ISSUES CAN BE CONSIDERED BY THE TRIBUNAL IF THE RELEVANT MATERIAL IS AVAILABLE BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL AND IT ARISES FROM THE ORDER OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES. SO FAR AS THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE COMPUTATION OF INCOME IS TO BE DONE AFTER GIVING AN EFFECT TO THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) AND THE TRIBUNAL WITH REGARD TO THE EXEMPTION U/S 11 OF THE ACT ARE CONCERNED WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT ASSESSEE COULD HAVE APPROACHED DIRECTLY TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER WITH A REQUEST TO GIVE A PROPER EFFECT OF THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL. IF HE DOES NOT DO SO AS PER LAW THEN THE ASSESSEE CAN RECOURSE THE REMEDY AVAILABLE UNDER THE LAW. WE THEREFORE DO NOT FIND IT PROPER TO 4 ISSUE ANY DIRECTIONS TO THE A.O. IN THIS REGARD AS THE ISSUE IN DISPUTE DOES NOT ARISE OUT OF THE ORDERS OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES. ACCORDINGLY THE REQUEST OF THE ASSESSEE IS TURNED DOWN. 8. IN THE RESULT THE APPEALS OF THE REVENUE AND THAT OF THE ASSESSEE ARE DISMISSED. PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 25.10 .20 10 SD/ - SD/ - (BR BASKARAN) (SUNIL KUMAR YADAV) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER VG/ SPS VISAKHAPATNAM DATED 25 TH OCTOBER 20 10 COPY TO 1 M/S. SPANDANA (RURAL AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT ORGANISATION) PLOT NO.79 CARE CRYSTAL VINAYAK NAGAR GACHIBOULI HYDERABAD 2 M/S. SPANDANA (RURAL AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT ORGANISATION) H.NO.4 D. NO. 8 - 2 - 86/7/4 BANJARA HILLS HYDERABAD 2 ITO WARD - 2(2) GUNTUR 3 THE CI T GUNTUR 4 THE CIT (A) GUNTUR 5 THE DR ITAT VISAKHAPATNAM. 6 GUARD FILE. BY ORDER SENIOR PRIVATE SECRETARY INCOME TAX APPEL LATE TRIBUNAL VISAKHAPATNAM