AI OCR 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (12) TMI 311
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nds of appeal:- "1. The Learned C.LT.(Exemption) [CIT) erred in law and on facts in invoking the provisions of section 263 of the Act in respect of the order passed by the learned Assessing Officer w/s. 147 r.w.s. 1448 of the Act. It is submitted that the order passed by the learned Assessing Officer is neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the interest of Revenue, and hence, the provisions of section 263 should not have been invoked qua such order. It is submitted that the order passed by the learned CIT be quashed. 2(i). The Learned CIT erred in holding that the order passed by the learned Assessing Officer is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of Revenue since the receipt of Rs. 718.87 crore received by the Appellant, which has....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....eted assessment in which certain additions and disallowances were made. These additions included income from contractual receipts, rental income, cash deposits, interest income, fee for technical/professional services, and time deposits. 4. Subsequently the Principal Ld. CIT(Appeals), upon reviewing the assessment records, noted that the assessee had claimed an exemption of Rs. 718,87,11,813 under Section 10(23C)(iiiab) of the Income Tax Act, but failed to provide the necessary supporting documentation or justification for this claim during the course of assessment proceedings. Principal CIT observed that the assessing officer, during the course of assessment proceedings had specifically taken note of the fact that assessee had claimed exe....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r the claim for exemption. The order also mentioned that the assessee failed to submit any proof of its registration as a charitable educational institution. The assessment order was deemed erroneous because, despite the absence of documentation, the Assessing Officer allowed the exemption of Rs. 718,87,11,813. The assessee also argued before Principal CIT that it was entitled to the exemption under Section 10(23C)(iiiab) and also under Section 10(23C)(iiac) of the Act. However, Principal CIT noted that the assessee had only made a claim under Section 10(23C)(iiiab) and did not file the necessary details to support this claim. Additionally, Section 10(23C)(iiiab) and Section 10(23C)(iiac) are separate provisions and the assessee is not perm....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he assessee during the course of 263 proceedings. One of the primary contentions of the counsel for the assessee before us was that the assessee was mostly in the receipt of funds from the State Government and therefore the claim of exemption under section Section 10(23C)(iiiab) of the Income Tax Act should be allowed to the assessee. Accordingly, it was taking into consideration the above facts that the assessing officer did not disallow the claim of the assessee under Section 10(23C)(iiiab) of the Income Tax Act. The assessee also placed reliance on several judicial precedents in support of claim of the aforesaid exemption. 6. In response, DR placed reliance on the observations made by Principal CIT in the 263 order. 7. We have heard th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rder, we observe that the assessing officer had specifically observed that the assessee had claimed exemption of Rs. 718, 87, 11, 813/-, the details of which remained unexplained. From the perusal of the assessment order, it is observed that the assessee was given as many as seven opportunities of hearing and despite the same, the assessee remained non-compliant. The assessing officer despite noting specifically that in absence of any details/proof filed by the assessee, it is not possible to verify the above transactions, while finalising the assessment order, did not make any additions with respect to the aforesaid claim of exemption of a sum of Rs. 718.87 crores in the assessment order. The judicial precedents cited by the assessee durin....