ACIT (OSD) (EXEMPTION), WARD-2, AHMEDABAD vs. SHETH JAMNABHAI BHAGUBHAI RELIGIOUS TRUST NO.2, AHMEDABAD

PDF · subscribers
ITA 205/AHD/2018Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad24 October 2019AY 2015-164 pages

In favour of the assessee: the Revenue's appeal was dismissed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the appeal filed by the Revenue was not maintainable as the tax effect was below the enhanced monetary limit for filing appeals. The Revenue was granted liberty to move an application for recalling the order if their case fell under exceptions.

What were the facts?

The Revenue filed an appeal against the CIT(A)'s order concerning AY 2015-16. The appeal was filed by the Revenue against the assessee, a religious trust. The tax effect of the appeal was Rs. 31,85,805/-.

What were the issues?

Whether the appeal filed by the Revenue is maintainable based on the enhanced monetary limits for filing appeals. Whether the activities of the assessee fall under general public utility or imparting of education.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 11,Section 12,Section 2(15)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “ B ” BENCH, AHMEDABAD

Before: JUSTICE P.P. BHATT & SHRI WASEEM AHMED

For Respondent: Shri P.F. Jain, AR
Pronounced: 24/10/2019

आदेश / O R D E R

PER WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:

1.

1. The captioned appeal has been filed at the instance of the Revenue against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)–9, Ahmedabad [CIT(A) in short] vide appeal no.CIT(A)-9/11102/DCIT CPC BGR/16-17 dated 02/11/2017 relevant to Assessment Year (AY) 2015-16.

2.

The Revenue has raised the following grounds of appeal.

1.

The Ld.CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in holding that the activities of the assessee do not fall in the last limb i.e.

ACIT (OSD) [Exemptions] vs. Sheth Jamnabhai Bhagubhai Religious Trust No.2 Asst.Year – 2015-16

- 2 - advancement of general public utility but they are in the nature of imparting of education.

2. The Ld.CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in allowing the accumulation of Rs.4,25,00,000/- u/s.11(2) and accumulation @ 15% of Rs.2,22,99,121/- u/s.11(1)(a) of the Act without appreciating the fact that once the proviso to section 2(15) is applicable, the benefit of section 11 and 12 cannot be allowed further.

3. The Revenue carves over leave to add, alter, amend, modify substitute, delete and / or rescind all or any Grounds of Appeal on or before the final hearing, in necessity so arises.

3.

At the outset, the forgoing issues raised by the Revenue on merit, it was noticed that the limit for filing the appeal by the Revenue was enhanced by the CBDT in its Circular bearing No.17 of 2019 dated 08/08/2019 from Rs.20 lakhs to Rs.50 lakhs which is applicable on the pending appeals as held by this Tribunal in the case of ITO v/s. Dinesh Madhavlal Patel in for AY 1998-99 vide order dated 14/08/2019. The relevant extract of the Circular is reproduced as under:

“2. As a step towards further management of litigation. it has been decided by the Board that monetary limits for filing of appeals in income-tax cases be enhanced further through amendment in Para 3 of the Circular mentioned above and accordingly. the table for monetary limits specified in Para 3 of the Circular shall read as follows:

S.No. Appeals/SLPs in Income-tax matters Monetary Limit (Rs.)

ACIT (OSD) [Exemptions] vs. Sheth Jamnabhai Bhagubhai Religious Trust No.2 Asst.Year – 2015-16

1 Before Appellate Tribunal 50,00,000 2 Before High Court 1,00,00,000 3 Before Supreme Court 2,00,00,000”

4.

From the above Circular, there is no ambiguity that the appeal filed by the Revenue involving tax effect of Rs.50 lakhs is not maintainable. In the case on hand, the tax effect of Rs.31,85,805/- only. Therefore, the impugned appeal filed by the Revenue is not maintainable.

5.

Before parting, we are inclined to make it clear that Revenue is at liberty to move an application for recalling the order if the case of the Revenue falls in the exception as provided in the CBDT Circular bearing No.3 of 2018. Hence, we dismiss the appeal filed by the Revenue.

More judgments on Section 11

All 7,190 judgments and leading authorities on Section 11 →

Latest GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →