TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2012 (10) TMI 716
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ust be a person before Income Tax Act is applied. The appellant submits that as the appellant is not a person under the Income Tax Act, the appellant cannot be assessed under the Income Tax Act. 4. That the ld.AO has erred in law in holding that only AOPs other than covered and claiming exemption u/s 11, 12 and 13 of the Income Tax Act would be covered by the judgment of the Supreme Court in G.Murgugesan and Brothers Vs. CIT Madras (1973) 88 ITR 432 SC when the Supreme Court has ruled that AOPs which do not have their aims and objects to earn profit or gain does not fall in the definition of AOPs assessable under the Income Tax Act, 1961. 5. Any other ground which may be urged and allowed at the time of arguments." 3. At the time of hearing before us, it is stated by the learned counsel for the assessee that this is a second round of appeal and in the first round before the ITAT, the assessee has argued that assessee, which is a society, is not deriving any income and, therefore, it is not a person within the meaning of Section 2(31) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The ITAT set aside the matter to the file of the Assessing Officer. That while giving effect to the set aside....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Ltd. - 2004 (169) E.L.T. 165 (Mum). (xi) IOL Ltd. Vs. Collector of Customs - 1992 (59) E.L.T. 477 (S.B.). (xii) Fairdeal Motors Vs. CIT - (1975) 101 ITR 687 (J&K). (xiii) Satyadhyan Ghoshal and Others Vs. Sm. Deorajin Debi and Another - 1960 AIR 941 (SC). (xiv) Suga Ram @ Chhuga Ram Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. - (2006) 8 SCC 64 (SC). (xv) Sant Lal Gupta & Others Vs. Modern Coop. G.H.Society Ltd. - (2010) 13 SCC 336 (SC). (xvi) Ravi Yashwant Bhoir Vs. District Collector, Raigad & Ors. - AIR (2012) 1339 SC 1350 to 1351. 5. On the other hand, the learned DR stated that the letter written by the Assessing Officer on 3rd November, 2010 was only a letter written during the course of assessment proceedings. However, the income of the assessee is assessed vide assessment order dated 31st December, 2010, therefore, if the assessee is aggrieved, he ought to have filed the appeal against the assessment order dated 31st December, 2010 and not against any letter written during the course of assessment proceedings. During the assessment proceedings, the assessee has objected the assessment proceedings itself, therefore, vide this letter dated 3rd November, 2010, the Assess....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e CIT(A). The appeal before the ITAT arises against the order of the CIT(A) and not against the order of the Assessing Officer unless it has been specifically provided under the Income-tax Act. The grounds raised by the assessee are not arising from the order of the CIT(A) and at the time of hearing before us, the limited argument of the learned counsel was that the appeal was maintainable before the CIT(A). However, there is no such ground in the appeals filed by the assessee that the CIT(A) committed any error in not admitting the appeals. Therefore, technically, the assessee's appeals are not maintainable because the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are not arising out of the order of the CIT(A). 8. However, since the matter is an old one and it is the second round of litigation, we shall deal with the assessee's argument whether the appeal against the letter of the Assessing Officer dated 3rd November, 2010 was maintainable before the CIT(A). As we have already mentioned that in the first round of appeal, the Tribunal, vide order dated 30th November, 2009 in ITA No.3212/Del/2005 & Others, set aside the matter to the file of the Assessing Officer with the following fi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....raised objection against the assessment proceedings itself and claimed that it is not liable to be assessed under the Income-tax Act. The Assessing Officer, vide letter dated 3rd November, 2010, held that the assessee's claim that the society is beyond the ambit of Income-tax Act and is not an assessable entity as it is not covered by the definition of person as given in Section 2(31) of the income-tax Act is not correct and then, he directed the assessee to produce books of account and other documents etc. The relevant observation of the Assessing Officer at pages 6 to 8 reads as under:- "4.2 It may also be noticed that you have not filed the returns of Income for AY 1980-81, 1981-82, 1982-83, 1983- 84, 1984-85, 1986-87, 1988-89 and 1993-94; and earlier assessments for these years were accordingly framed on the basis of information available on record including assessment records for earlier years. So in terms of provisions of sub section (1) of section 142 of the income Tax Act, 1961, I require you to file the return(s) for the year(s) under consideration within a period of 15 days of receipt of this letter. Notices u/s 142(1) for the purpose is/are enclosed. 4.3 In view of....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... A.H. Qazi, Addl. Advocate General, Jammu has informed that the seized books of account and other documents in cases of Aparna Ashram are not lying with his record keeper and he is dealing only with OWP No.272/06 titled Laxman Chaudhary vs. State and Others in the Hon'ble High Court at Jammu in which the petitioner has prayed for direction to State of Jammu & Kashmir to deliver back and handover the property/building falling under khasra No.78 sector A. Block D extension area Gandhi Nagar, Jammu. Under the circumstances your contention that the documents/records are lying in the custody of the Nodal Officer is found to be not correct. In respect of seizure made at Vishvayatan Yogashram, New Delhi, you have only filed a copy of the order dated 04.04.1995 passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi whereby the Hon'ble Court had ordered appointment of receiver and preparation of the inventories of the documents, etc. lying at Vishvayatan Yogashram, New Delhi. You have only filed a copy of the judgment dated 04.04.1995 but have not filed a copy of the seizure memo or the inventories taken by the Receiver. Under these circumstances, this office is not in a position to locate the pa....