TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2011 (5) TMI 948
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..../s. 10(23C)(vi) of the ITA, 1961. 3. The learned AO erred in law and on facts in deciding the status of the appellant as that of an AOP (Trust) instead of an institution engaged in providing education as covered u/s. 10(23)(vi) of the ITA, 1961. 4. Alternatively and without prejudice, the learned AO erred in law and on facts in adding the Capital Outlay Contribution of Rs. 1,25,18,250 to the total income considering it to be a Revenue Receipt." 2. Besides above, the assessee has raised following additional Grounds with request to allow the same for adjudication of the Tribunal since issue involved therein is legal in nature which does not need consideration of material outside the record. : Additional Ground 1. The learne....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....y below. 4. Considering the above submissions, we find that so far the issue raised in additional Ground No. 1 is concerned, it is legal in nature which goes to the root of the matter and further that adjudication of the same does not require consideration of fresh material outside the record. We also find that the other additional Ground which is alternative in nature and the grounds of the appeal explaining the action of the first appellate authority are consequential to the issue raised in additional Ground No. 1. We thus allowed the request of the Ld. A.R. for adjudication of Additional Ground No. 1. We accordingly directed the parties to proceed with their arguments on additional Ground No. 1. 5. In support of the said additional....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e of the required approval for the exemption has been framed u/s. 143(3) on 28.12.2007 and the Ld CIT(A) vide its order dated 1.4.2009, has affirmed the action of the A.O again in absence of the required approval by the Ld Chief Commissioner on 1.4.2009. He pointed out that till Taxation Laws (Amendment) Act 2006 with retrospective effect from 1.4.2006 in Section 10(23C) proviso, whereby granting or rejecting of application order is required to be passed within the period of 12 months from the end of month in which such application was received, no time limit was prescribed for the action of the Ld Chief Commissioner on such application for the approval. Thus in absence of such prescribed time limit for the period before the amendment came ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... our mind in the present case is as to whether A.O or Ld CIT(A) can pass an order against the action of the ld. Chief Commissioner of Income Tax on the application moved for exemption u/s.10(23C) by an institution. The answer as per the provisions of law and procedure laid down under Income Tax Act, 1961, would be in negative. But here is a peculiar situation before us. In the present case, the revenue has not denied before us the claim of the appellant institution that it had moved application seeking approval of exemption u/s. 10(23C) in form No. 56D before the Ld. Chief Commissioner for A.Y. 2005-06 and for the next two years alongwith return of income for A.Y. 2005-06 well in time on 13.3.2006, but it has not been disposed off so far. T....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....cation for the purpose of framing assessment or for other action by the A.O. The further consequential question would arise as to what would be the reasonable time on passing whereof after the date of filing of the application would acquire deemed approval.Till Taxation Laws (Amendment) Act, 2006 with retrospective effect from 1.4.2006 in Section 10(23C) proviso (whereby granting or rejecting of application ordere is required to be passed within the period of twelve months from the end of month in which such application was received) no time limit was prescribed for the action of the ld. Chief Commissioner on such application for the approval. Thus the inference by implication would be that w.e.f. 1.4.2006 if the Chief Commissioner does not....