KALPESH SATYENDRA JHAVERI,J. - (1.) By way of this appeal, the appellant has assailed the judgment and order of the tribunal whereby tribunal has allowed the appeal of the assessee.
(2.) Counsel for the appellant has framed following substantial question of law arises. (i) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the Hon'ble ITAT is right in not appreciating the facts that the assessee has violated the condition No. 2 mentioned in the order of approval granted u/s 10(23C)(vi) of the Act according to which "the assessee will not invest or deposit its funds (other than voluntary contribution received and maintained in the form of jewellery, furniture etc.) for any period during the previous year relevant to the assessment years mentioned specified in sub-section (5) of section 11 of the Act"? (ii) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon'ble ITAT is right in setting aside the order passed by CIT(E) inspite of the fact that the assessee has invested its funds in the modes specified u/s 11(5) of the IT Act, 1961? (iii) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon'ble ITAT is right in setting aside the order passed by the CIT(E) inspite of the fact that the assessee has provided undue benefit to the specified person covered u/s 13(3) of the IT Act, 1961? (iv) Whether on the facts and in circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon'ble ITAT is right in deciding that show cause notice should be signed by CIT(E) inspite of the fact that only requirement under 13th proviso to the section 10(23C) has complied by conducting personal hearing? (v) Whether on the facts ad in circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon'ble ITAT is right in travelling beyond law in pointing defect in show cause notice, when there is no requirement of issuing notice under the 13th proviso to section 10(23C)? (vi) Whether on the fact ad in circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon'ble ITAT is right in appreciating the fact that the ITO(Hq.)/AC/DC(Hq.) does have any independent power to issue such notices and they act on behalf of CIT(E) while issuing these notices?
(3.) Counsel for the appellant has firstly taken us to the order of the tribunal and contended that the tribunal has committed an error in holding that the person who has produced in evidence has no jurisdiction and has wrongly considered the provisions of Section 10(23C) and has given the benefit to the assessee.;