Itta/601/2013 Of Commissioner Of Income Tax v. Nidamanuru Educational Society

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRAPRADESH AT HYDERABAD TUESDAY, THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OFDECEMBERTWO THOUSAND AND THIRTEEN PRESENT THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICESRI KALYAN JYOTI SEN GUPTA AND THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR I.T.T.A. No.601 OF 2013 Between: Commissioner of Income Tax,Rajkamal Complex, Lakshmipuram Main Road,Guntur. ..... Appellant AND Nidamanuru Educational Society,QIS college of Engineering, Vengamukkalapalem, Pondur Road, Ongole .....Respondent The Court made the following : JUDGMENT:(per the Hon’ble the Chief Justice Sri K.J. Sengupta) This appeal is sought to be preferred against the judgment and order of the learned Tribunal dated13.11.2009 in relation to the assessment year 2005-2006 on the following suggested questions of law: 1.The order of the Hon’ble Tribunal is contrary to law,material on record and vitiated by irregularity in exerciseof jurisdiction.material on record and vitiated by irregularity in exerciseof jurisdiction. 2.The Hon’ble Tribunal erroneously did not consider theeraborate reasoning given in the assessment order whilerejecting the subject issue and it has dismissed theappeal of the revenue by following its earlier order,without deciding the same on the facts and merits of thecase.eraborate reasoning given in the assessment order whilerejecting the subject issue and it has dismissed theappeal of the revenue by following its earlier order,without deciding the same on the facts and merits of thecase. 3.The Hon’ble Tribunal failed to note that the requirementof obtaining approval in terms of Section 10(23C)(vi) ofthe Income Tax Act is mandatory, in view of the facts ofthe assessee’s case even though it claimed exemptionunder Section 11 of the Act and on this count, it ought tohave allowed the appeal of the revenueof obtaining approval in terms of Section 10(23C)(vi) ofthe Income Tax Act is mandatory, in view of the facts ofthe assessee’s case even though it claimed exemptionunder Section 11 of the Act and on this count, it ought tohave allowed the appeal of the revenue 4.The Hon’ble Tribunal failed to note that the approvalunder Sec. 10(23C)(vi) of the Income Tax Act being amandatory provision in the assessee’s case, it cannotclaim exemption either under Section 10(23C) or underSection 11 of the Income Tax Act.under Sec. 10(23C)(vi) of the Income Tax Act being amandatory provision in the assessee’s case, it cannotclaim exemption either under Section 10(23C) or underSection 11 of the Income Tax Act. We have heard Mr. B.Narasimha Sarma, learnedcounsel for the appellant and gone through the impugnedjudgment and order of the Tribunal. It appears that thelearned Tribunal has decided the matter following theconsistent view taken by the Tribunals at Delhi as well asin this State. Nothing has been produced before us toshow that the decisions of the Tribunal on the identicalpoint, has been challenged in any Court. When theRevenue has accepted consistent judgment of the Tribunal on this issue, it is not open for them to challengeit once again. Under this circumstance, we do not find any merit inthis appeal. The appeal is accordingly dismissed. Noorder as to costs. ______________________Kalyan Jyoti Sengupta, CJ. December 17, 2013MAS ______________Sanjay Kumar, J.