2014 (6) TMI 327

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....see is an educational society, and it filed its return of income for the assessment year 2005-06 on 1.11.2005, admitting NIL income. Assessment was originally completed on 28.12.2007 by the DDIT(E)-II Hyderabad, on a total income of Rs.42,25,000. Subsequently, based on the AIR information, assessment was reopened by issue of notice under S.148 of the Act by the ITO Ward-9(2), Hyderabad, on the ground that the assessee acquired RBI Bonds worth Rs. 2 crores. The Assessing Officer, who made the impugned assessment , got the records transferred from ITO Ward 9(2), and during the course of re-assessment proceedings asked the assessee to produce the copy of approval under S.10(23C)(vi) and a copy of Registration under S.12A of the Act. As the ass....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e in this appeal read as follows- "1. The order of the learned CIT(A) is erroneous both on facts and in law. 2. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in holding that the assessee was granted approval u/s. 10(23c)(VII) W.E.F. 15.1.1964, whereas the section itself was inserted in the Finance Act w.e.f. 01.04.1999. 3. The Ld. CIT(A) ought to have appreciated the fact that approval under sub-clause (vi) to the section 10(23C) of the I.T. Act, 1961 is distinct from provisions of section 88(5) of the I.T. Act. 4. The Ld. CIT(A) ought to have appreciated that sub-clause (vi) to section 10(23C), as inserted by the Finance Act, 1998 w.e.f. 01.04.1999, states that the University or other educational institution existing society for educational purpose, an....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....IT(A) on the issue for the succeeding year and the year under appeal are 'on different lines', no material has been brought on record to substantiate the said contention. It is also not known whether any appeal has been filed by the Revenue against the order of the CIT(A) for the assessment year 2006-07, or whether the view taken by the CIT(A) for that year has attained finality. In this view of the matter, we find no infirmity in the impugned order of the CIT(A), which is accordingly upheld and the grounds raised by the Revenue are rejected. 7. As for the grievance of the assessee in its cross-objection, we find that the proceedings for reopening of the assessment in this case have been initiated after completion of four years. That bei....