TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (8) TMI 304
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....filed his return of income on 16th February, 2012, declaring the total income of Rs. 70,460/-. In the course of the assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer noticed that the assesseetrust had undertaken activities of providing education to the students by running a school from nursery upto the 12th standard at Vastrapur. The assessee-trust had collected admission fees to the tune of Rs. 1,52,00,000/- from the students and the same was credited directly to the balancesheet treating it as a corpus donation without routing it through the income and expenditure account. The Assessing Officer held the receipts of admission fees as the revenue receipts instead of capital. The registration granted under Section 12AA of the Act was also cancelled by the DIT(E), Ahmedabad vide his order dated 16th March, 2011. The Assessing Officer held that the assessee was not eligible for deduction under Section 11(1)(d) of the Act, and in such circumstances, he made disallowance of Rs. 1,52,00,000/- under Section 11(1)(d) of the Act. 4. The assessee, being dissatisfied with the order passed by the Assessing Officer, preferred an appeal before the CIT (A). It appears that despite number of notices....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
...., the Tribunal, in its discretion, thought fit to give one opportunity of hearing to the assessee, and in such circumstances, remitted the matter to the CIT (A). According to Mr. Dave, if that be so, then no error could be said to have been committed by the Appellate Tribunal in passing such an order. In such circumstances, referred to above, Mr. Dave prays that there being no merit in this appeal and there being no substantial question of law as such involved, the appeal may be dismissed. ANALYSIS 9. The Assessing Officer, in his order, observed as under: "(i) The assessee had collected fees from the students at the time of admission and credited the same directly to the balance sheet treating this amount as corpus donation whereas, this amount was not reflected to the income and expenditure account, the nature of the receipt is revenue not capital. Hence the stand of assessee is not acceptable. (ii) It's activities were ascertained in commercial manner. (iii) The registration granted u/s.12AA of the I.T Act by the Hon'ble DIT(E), Ahmedabad too has been cancelled vide his order dated 16.03.2011. Therefore, the assessee is not eligible for deduction u/s.11(1....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....dabad too has been cancelled vide his order dated 16.03.2011. 3.1 I have considered the assessment order, statement of facts and the grounds of appeal of the appellant. The DIT (Exemption), Ahmedabad has cancelled the registration u/s. 12AA vide his order dated 16.03.2011. As the appellant is not registered u/s. 12AA, it is not eligible for deduction u/s. 11(1)(d). The addition made by the Assessing Officer is accordingly confirmed. 11. The Appellate Tribunal, in its order, observed as under: "We have also noticed that the impugned order is passed ex-parte. As noticed in the CIT (A)'s order, notice was served through Chartered Accountant but then, as is the contention of the assessee, the Chartered Accountant did not deal with the matter In intelligent manner and had therefore eventually disengaged by the assessee. We have also been assured by the assessee that given another opportunity of presenting his case before the learned CIT(A) he will scrupulously ensure early disposal of the appeal on merits and shall not resort to any dilatory tactics. Learned Departmental Representative also does not oppose the matter being remitted to the file of the learned CIT(A) for fr....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e Tribunal to remit the matter to the CIT (A) so as to give an opportunity of hearing to the assessee. 14. We have noticed in many matters that the Appellate Tribunal has been remitting the matters to the CIT (A) for no good reason, more particularly, when the Appellate Tribunal is able to decide the matter on its own merits. 15. In the aforesaid context, a Coordinate Bench of this Court has observed something very pertinent in the case of Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-3 vs. Ashokji Chanduji Thakor, Tax Appeal No.710 of 2018 and allied appeals, decided on 27th June, 2018. We quote the relevant observations: "7.0. Heard the learned advocates for the respective parties at length. Perused the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned Tribunal. By impugned judgment and order passed by the learned ITAT, the Tribunal has remitted the matter back to the file of the learned CIT(A) for afresh adjudication by solely observing that "we consider it expedient to restore the matter back to the file of the CIT(A) in the larger interest of justice with a view to enable the assessee to avail opportunity once more." No reasons whatsoever have been assigned by the learned ITAT a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ppeal exparte and decided the appeal on merits and confirmed the order passed by the AO confirming additions of unexplained investment. Thus, even learned CIT(A) also decided the matter on merits. On going through the orders passed by the AO as well as learned CIT(A), we are of the opinion that in absence of any explanation by the assessee on the investment in question, AO was justified in making the addition of unexplained investment and thereafter learned CIT(A) was justified in confirming the same. Therefore, even the order passed by the learned CIT(A) which was on merits was not required to be interfered with by the learned CIT(A) and ought not to have been quashed and set aside without assigning any reasons. Under the circumstances, the impugned orders passed by the learned Tribunal cannot be sustained." 16. There is one another valid reason for us to say that ordinarily the matter should not be remitted by the Appellate Tribunal to the CIT(A) if the Appellate Tribunal is in a position to decide the appeal on its own merits having regard to the evidence on record. Such remand orders lead to unnecessary delays and cause prejudice to the revenue. The Supreme Court in the case ....