ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DELHI vs. YOUNG WOMENS CHRISTIAN ASSOCIATION OF DELHI, DELHI

The Revenue has raised following grounds of appeal :-

The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a registered Society engaged in the work of welfare, education and training of women in India. The Society is known for its pioneer work in women’s welfare, rehabilitation, training and has partnered with various International/ Government bodies like UNDP/USAIN /Govt. of Delhi etc. to run programmes for women welfare. The Organisation works in

During proceedings before us the Ld. Counsel for the assessee argued that the respondent society is committed to provide secure and cheap accommodation to women who come to NCR of Delhi searching for jobs till such time as they are able to complete their education and are able to stand on their own feet after completing their education and getting good job. He further explained that society Working Women’s Hostel sets up to cater to all women at very cheap rates as most of the capital expenditure and part of the revenue expenditure is met by the society from its own resources or is funded by the Government. Accordingly, he rebutted the findings of the AO that hostels are being run for trade / commerce and business purposes.

Per contra the ld. DR relied on the order of the Ld. AO.

We have heard both the parties. In our considered view, assessee’s hostel (running) activity cannot be called business activities. Accordingly, the appeal is decided.

The second issue is related to proviso of Section 2 (15) of the Income Tax Act. The AO has held that section 2(15) of the Act is hit by assessee’s application of income.

We have heard the arguments of both the parties and we have also gone through the assessment order passed by the AO and the appellate order passed by the Ld. CIT(A). We have also taken into consideration the paper book filed

The Ld. DR argued that keeping in view the case law decided by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case ACIT(E) Vs. Ahemdabad Urban Development Authority in Civil Appeal No. 21762 of 2017 since in the present case such receipts were much more than 20%, therefore, the proviso of section 2(15) of the IT Act is hit. Accordingly, the Ld. CIT(A)’s findings on this is erroneous. The Ld. DR brought on record that total receipt from the hostel is Rs.50398013/- out of the total receipt of Rs.11,50,44,555/- which is more than 20% of the threshold limited which is

Per contra the Ld. Counsel for the assessee supported the order of the Ld. CIT(A) on this issue and brought it on record the jurisdictional Hon’ble High Court order in assessee’s own case in assessment year 2009-10 where it was held as under :- “Further in the appellant’s own case for AY 2009-10, the ITAT and jurisdictional Delhi High Court accepted that imparting systematic training through non- recognized courses constitutes “education” u/s.2(15), reinforcing the charitable character and dominant purpose of the educational & welfare activities of the Appellant.” 11. We have considered the findings given by the AO and the assessment order and the Ld. CIT(A) in the appellate order. We have also considered the grounds of appeal of the revenue challenging the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and also considered the arguments. We have gone through the order of the jurisdictional Hon’ble High Court in assessee’s own case in A.Y. 2009-10 which actually covers entire issue and the nature of activities/ income of the assessee. We find that the issue raised by the revenue in the appeal is squarely covered by the issue decided by the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in assessee’s own case in its order for A.Y. 2009-10. Respectfully following the decision of the Jurisdictional Hon’ble High Court in assessee’s own case. The grounds of appeal taken by the revenue cannot be