Case Of Jubilee Hills Education Socieby In1.T.a.1626/Hyderabad/2O14 And The Said Decision Wasbased On The. Decision Of The Honble Supreme Court In Thecase Of Ti v. State Of Kantatakal

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE AT HYOERABAD MONDAY, THE NINTH DAYOF TWO THOUSAND AND PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE [P.SAM ] ANDTHE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA INCOMTAX TRIBUNAL APPEAL No: [332][o12018] lncome Tax Tribunal Appeal Under [Section 260-A ][of the ][lncome Tax ][Act, ][1961]arising out of the order of the lncome-tax [Appellate Tribunal, ][Hyderabad Bench ][' ] [']Hyderabad, in l.T.A.No.13'll{12014, [dated 23-02-2011 Assessment ][Year ][2O1O-11]preferred against the Order of the Commissioner of [lncome ][Tax ][(Appeals)-lv']Hyderabad, Appeal No.93/DlT [(EyClT(A)-lV/2O13-14 ][datedtl4-11-2013, ][prefened]against the Order of the Deputy [Director ][of ][lncome-Tax ][(Exemptions)"1, Hyderabad]PAN/GIR No. dated 2243-2013. Between:The Commissioner of lncome-tax [(Exemptions), Hyderabad]ANDVidyananda Educational Society, [Khaiaguda Village, Golconda (Post),]Hyderabad. ...Appellant ...Respondent Counsel for the Appellant: A. Counsel for the Respondent: [SRI K. ] The Court made the following: THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTTCE [P.SAM KOSHY]ANDTHE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE LAXMI I.T.T.A.No.332 of 2Ol8 ORDER: firer tro n [ble ][Sn ]Justice [P.sA.Ii ]KosHY This appeal under Section 260'A of the [Income ][Tax]Act, 196 1, has been filed assailing the [order, ][dated]2a.O2.2O17 passed by the Income [Tax Appellate Tribunal,]Hyderabad Benchts'Hyderabad,1nI.T.A.No.l31 lHvdl2Ol4 for the [Assessment ][Year ][2010-]2011 2. Vide the impugned order, the Tribunal has confirmedthe ordcr passed b_v the Commissioner of Income [Tax](Appeals), clatcd 14.1 I.2013. The issue involved in thepresent appeal rvas disallowance of claim un.der Section [1 ]Iof the Inco me Ta-x Act, 196 I [(for ]short "the Act") [on ][the]ground that the Assessee is falling under Section 13(3) ofthe Act and the appellant was not granted [approval ][from]the prescribed authority under Section [lO(23-C) ][of the ][Act.]3. On perusal of the record, we lind that the Tribunal [in]the case has deciclcd the matter in the light [of ]the [decision]rendered bv the Tribunal [itsetf ][In-similar ][issue i.e., ][in ][the] PSI<,J & LNA,J case of Jubilee Hills Education Socieby in1.T.A.1626/Hyderabad/2O14 and the said decision wasbased on the. decision of the Honble Supreme Court in thecase of TIvIA Pai Found.ation Vs. State of Kantatakal. 4 . The ground placed by the appellant in the instantcase was that, it is a case where the Tribunal at the hrstinstance uide order, dated 25.05.2014 h,ad allowed theinstance uide order, dated 25.05.2014 h,ad allowed theappeal by the Revenue and it is only subsequently onreview application filed by the Assessee that the order,dated 23.05.2O 14 was recalled and the impugned order hasreview application filed by the Assessee that the order,dated 23.05.2O 14 was recalled and the impugned order hasbeen passed. The contention of the appellant was that theTribunal doeS not have any power to entertain the ReviewApplication to allow or recall once when the order has beenpassed. According to the learned counsel for the appellant,Tribunal doeS not have any power to entertain the ReviewApplication to allow or recall once when the order has beenpassed. According to the learned counsel for the appellant,having passed the order on 23.05.2O 14, the Tribunalbecame functus olficio and could not have entertained theapp Iication.app Iication. 5. The aforesaid contention of the learned counsel forthe appellant is difhcult to accept for the . [simple ][reason] t (2oo2l 8 scc 481 that, if we look into Section 254(21 of the Act, it [provides ]forsufficient po\\rers to the Tribunal to entertain application [to]recall an order and if required, modify and arnend [the]same, if any mistake had arisen while passing of theprevious order. The ground of the appellant is therefore,rejected. 5. The aforesaid contention of the learned counsel forthe appellant is difhcult to accept for the . [simple ][reason] t (2oo2l 8 scc 481 that, if we look into Section 254(21 of the Act, it [provides ]forsufficient po\\rers to the Tribunal to entertain application [to]recall an order and if required, modify and arnend [the]same, if any mistake had arisen while passing of theprevious order. The ground of the appellant is therefore,rejected. 6. Further, i,t is also found that the Tribunal inparagraph No.4 of the impugned order has categoricallyheld that the Assessing Officer had in fact not denied theexemption under Section 11 of the Act on the [ground ]thatthe Assessee u,as collecting any donation, building fund,etc., and that collection of donation and building fund, etc.,is not othenvise prohibited under the provisions of law andthat the Assessee is entitled to claim the benefits underSection 11 of the Act. Admittedly, the Assessee is anestablishment r-r,hich is otherwise registered under Sectionl2(A) of the Act 7. [n vieu, of the above, r.r,e do not find any substantialquestion of lau' made out by the appellant calling forinterference \,vith the order passed by the Income Tax PSK,J & LNA,JI.T.T.A.No.332 of 2Ot6 Appellate Tribunal. Accordingly, this appeal is rejectedorder as to costs. No 8. Consequently, miscellaneous petitions pending, ifany, shall stand closed. SD/.K.SRINIVASA RAOJOINT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTIOFFICER To, 1. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench [' ]B [' ]Hyderabad 2. The Commissioner of lncome Tax (Appeals)-lV, Hyderabad 3. The Deputy Director of lncome-Tax [(Exemptions!.1, Hyderabad] 4. One CC to SRI A. RADHA KRISHNA, Advocate IOPUCI 5. OneCCto SRI K. VASANT KUMAR, Advocate{OPUCI 6. Two CD Copieskam?.nq. HIGH COURT DATED:0911012023 ORDERITTA.No.332 of 2018 THE APPEALIS REJECTED ?AC.,2r\to [to-9] 1u [ST4;][A],)0 E [ll0li ][zsll]rt I./