TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (11) TMI 1254
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ntre, Delhi, u/s. 147 r.w.s. 144B, dated 25.03.2022, for Assessment Year 2016-17. 2. The solitary issue involved in this appeal is challenging the jurisdiction of the Id. CIT(E) for invoking the provision of section 263 of the Act on the ground that the assessment order passed by the ld. Assessing Officer is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. 3. Brief facts of the case are that assessee is a charitable trust registered under Bombay Public Trust Act, 1950 and a society registered under Societies Registration Act, 1860. It is also registered u/s. 12A of the Act claiming benefit of exemption u/s.11. Assessee has 17 campuses comprising of 65 schools, three colleges and one students' hostel. Primary objective of assessee....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the exemption available u/s. 11 and 12 which resulted in the total assessed income at Rs. 2,40,46,410/- for which assessee went in appeal before the ld. CIT(A). 4. In the meanwhile, ld. CIT(E), Mumbai noted from the perusal of assessment records that in Form No.10 filed by the assessee for Assessment Year 2016-17, it had shown total accumulation of Rs. 17,54,96,993/- u/s.11(2) for Assessment Year 2015-16. According to him, in the computation of income for Assessment Year 2016-17, assessee had claimed utilisation of accumulation amount of Rs. 15,95,41,824/- and remaining amount of Rs. 1,59,55,169/- was added back to the income of the assessee. Assessee then claimed accumulation of Rs. 19,00,00,000/- u/s.11(2) which included unutilised amoun....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ssed on 25.03.2022. Ld. Counsel contested that re-assessment proceedings u/s.147 were taken up on the issue relating to receipt on capitation fees/development fund alleged by the ld. Assessing Officer which has not been shown as income or receipt in the return filed by the assessee. The said re-assessment proceedings were completed by passing an order in which total income was assessed at Rs. 2,40,46,410/- against Nil income reported by the assessee, which was on account of capitation fee/development fund treated as general donation. 5.2. According to the ld. Counsel, issue raised by the ld. CIT(E) in the show cause notice issued u/s. 263 invoking revisionary proceedings is in respect of claim of Rs. 1,59,55,169/- out of accumulated funds ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....act accepted/assessed by order/intimation under section 143(1) of the Act." 5.4. Hon'ble Court observed that except the issue of non-genuine purchases, all other issues dealt with by the ld. CIT in order dated 30.03.2009 were not a subject matter of the assessment order passed on 28.06.2006 u/s. 143(3)/147 of the Act. All the other issues on which ld. CIT sought to exercise jurisdiction u/s.263 were concluded by virtue of an intimation u/s.143(1) which admittedly was done beyond a period of two years prior to the show cause notice dated 14.03.2022 issued u/s. 263. According to the Hon'ble Court, it is an admitted position that ld. CIT has not exercised revisional jurisdiction in respect of intimation passed u/s. 143(1) within two y....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ner of Income-tax exercising its revisional jurisdiction reopened the order of assessment only in relation to lease equalization fund which being not the subject of the reassessment proceedings, the period of limitation provided for under sub-section (2) of Section 263 of the Act would begin to run from the date of the order of assessment and not from the order of reassessment. The revisional jurisdiction having, thus, been invoked by the Commissioner of Income-tax beyond the period of limitation, it was wholly without jurisdiction rendering the entire proceedings a nullity." 5.6. Accordingly, on the strength of the above judicial precedents covering the present facts of the case, ld. Counsel asserted that the impugned proceedings u/s. 263....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f two years as prescribed u/s. 263. Accordingly, ld. CIT(E) had no jurisdiction to invoke revisionary proceeding on the issue referred by him in the said proceedings. 7. We have heard both the parties and perused the material on record. We have also given our thoughtful consideration to the judicial precedents relied upon. The issued dealt with by ld. Assessing Officer in the re-assessment proceedings and the order passed u/w. 147 and the one dealt in the revisionary proceedings u/s.263 and the order passed thereon by ld. CIT(E) are altogether un-related and different in their character. Ld. CIT(E) has sought to revise the re-assessment order on a subject matter which had not come to the notice of the ld. Assessing Officer in the re-assess....