1992 (9) TMI 131

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....Rs. 7,489 imposed on the respondent under section 271(1)(a) by the ITO. 2. The respondent in this case runs a school in Daulatbad near Badli. It is registered under section 12A(a) of the Act with the CIT. In the course of assessment proceedings, it made a claim that its income be exempted under section 10(22) of the Act on the ground that it was an educational institution. The ITO on a perusal ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....nse on the part of the assessee although numerous opportunities were allowed. In view of this situation, the ITO proceeded to levy the impugned penalty calculating it at 1 per cent of the gross income of Rs. 7,48,967. 4. Being aggrieved with the order passed by the ITO, the assessee came up in appeal before the DC (Appeals). During the course of hearing, it was contended that the assessed incom....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....the said figure. 6. The learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, supported the order passed by the DC (Appeals) contending in the process that although the ITO had not allowed the benefit of section 10(22), the Tribunal on subsequent appeal filed by the assessee, had been pleased to do so vide order dated 26-2-1991 in ITA No. 253/Del./88. He also invited attention to the fact that....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....r section 10(22) had not been granted to the assessee and this only came about much later as a result of the order passed by the Tribunal in Feb.'91. The position as of today however boils down to the uncontroverted fact that the assessee is enjoying the benefit of section 10(22) not only in the assessment year 1983-84, which is under appeal but also in the assessment years 1981-82 and 1982-83 onc....