THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS), CHANDIGARH vs. M/S THE INSTITUTE OF CORRECTIONAL ADMINISTRATION, INDUSTRIAL AREA, SECTOR 26 CHANDIGARH

PDF · subscribers
ITA/487/2017HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01117707201709 May 2018Bench: MR. JUSTICE RAMENDRA JAIN,MR. JUSTICE AVNEESH JHINGAN2 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that no substantial questions of law arise from the ITAT's order. The appeal filed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions) was dismissed. The Court did not delve into the specifics of the ITAT's reasoning regarding the genuineness of the society's activities or the benefit to prisoners. The Court's decision to dismiss the appeal implies agreement with the ITAT's conclusion that the respondent society was eligible for registration under Section 12-A, and that the CIT's objections were not legally sustainable as substantial questions of law. The operative direction is the dismissal of the appeal, meaning the ITAT's order granting registration stands.

What were the facts?

The Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions), Chandigarh (the appellant/Revenue) filed an appeal before the High Court of Punjab and Haryana against an order dated 18.10.2016 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Chandigarh. The ITAT's order was in appeal No. 1049/CHD/2013. The appeal concerns the respondent, M/s The Institute of Correctional Administration, Chandigarh, a society constituted by the Government. The core issue revolves around the grant of registration to the respondent under Section 12-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The respondent society is stated to impart training to officials in the criminal justice system with no profit motive, utilizing all funds for this public purpose.

What were the issues?

1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon'ble ITAT is right in holding that the genuineness of the applicant society's activities has not been doubted, thereby directing registration, when the CIT had established that the society's activities could not be termed as advancement of any other object of general public utility, as per Section 2(15) of the Income Tax Act, 1961? 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon'ble ITAT is right in holding that imparting training to Government officials in correctional administration would ultimately benefit prisoners by changing their behavior, when the CIT held that training Government officers, who are paid by their departments, cannot be termed as advancement of any other object of general public utility, as per Section 2(15) of the Income Tax Act, 1961? 3. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon'ble ITAT is right in directing registration to be accorded instead of reverting it back for re-examination in light of its findings? Assessee's contentions: Not recorded in the judgment. Revenue's contentions: The CIT had clearly established that the activities of the society could not be termed as advancement of any other object of general public utility. The CIT also held that imparting training to Government Officers, who were being paid by the Government Departments for performing their duties, could not be termed as advancement of any other object of general public utility.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 12-A,Section 2(15)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

ITA No. 487 of 2017 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ITA No. 487 of 2017 (O&M) Date of decision: 09.05.2018 The Commissioner of Income Tax ...Appellant (Exemptions), Chandigarh

Vs. M/s The Institute of Correctional ...Respondent Administration, Chandigarh CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK SIBAL Present: Mr. Denesh Goyal, Advocate for the appellant. **** RAJESH BINDAL, J. The present appeal has been filed against the order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Division Bench, Chandigarh raising the following substantial questions of law arising out of order dated 18.10.2016 passed in ITA No. 1049/CHD/2013:- "I. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon'ble ITAT is right in holding that the genuineness of activities of the applicant society have not been doubted and thereby directing to grant registration to the applicant whereas the CIT had clearly established that the activities of the society could not be termed as advancement of any other object of general public utility. II Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon'ble ITAT is right in holding that imparting training to the Govt. officials in correctional administration would ultimately benefit the Poonam Sharma 2018.05.23 13:06 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

ITA No. 487 of 2017 -2- prisoners to change their behavior whereas the CIT had clearly held that activities of the society of imparting training to Govt. Officers who were being paid by the Govt. Departments for performing could not be termed as advancement of any other object of general public utility. III Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the and in law, the Hon'ble ITAT is right in directing the registration to be accorded instead of reverting it back for re-examination in the light of its findings" The grievance of the appellant is regarding grant of registration to the respondent under Section 12-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short 'the Act'). The respondent is a society constituted by the Government for imparting training to various officers/officials involved in the criminal justice system with no profit motive at all and whatever funds are generated or received in aid are utilised for the aforesaid public purpose. In the aforesaid circumstances it cannot be said that there is any commercial motive and the application for registration granted under Section 12-A of the Act cannot be said to be erroneous. No substantial questions of law arises. The appeal is dismissed. (RAJESH BINDAL)

JUDGE (DEEPAK SIBAL)

JUDGE May 09, 2018 Poonam (II) Whether speaking/ reasoned Yes/No Whether Reportable Yes/No Poonam Sharma 2018.05.23 13:06 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

More judgments on Section 2(15)

All 2,878 judgments and leading authorities on Section 2(15) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →