DIRECTOR OF I.T. vs. BHARAT KALYAN PRATISHTHAN

PDF · subscribers
ITA - 189 / 2002HC Delhi16 August 20021 pages
For Petitioner: RD JOLLY,RASHMI CHOPRA
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court dismissed the Revenue's appeal. The Court noted that the ITAT's impugned order for assessment year 1992-93 was based on its earlier order for assessment year 1991-92. The Revenue had appealed the earlier order (ITA No.125/02), which was dismissed by the High Court on July 19, 2002. The High Court's reasoning for dismissing the earlier appeal was that the findings recorded by the ITAT were pure findings of fact and did not raise any substantial question of law. Following this precedent, the High Court held that no substantial question of law arose in the present appeal either and therefore dismissed it. The operative direction was the dismissal of the appeal.

What were the facts?

The Revenue, represented by the Director of Income-tax (Exemption), filed an appeal under Section 260-A of the Income-tax Act, 1961, against an order of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Delhi Bench-D. The appeal pertained to assessment year 1992-93 and challenged the ITAT's decision to grant the assessee, Bharat Kalyan Pratishthan, the benefit of exemptions under Section 11 of the Income-tax Act. The ITAT's order was based on its earlier decision for assessment year 1991-92, against which the Revenue had also filed an appeal (ITA No.125/02). This earlier appeal was dismissed by the High Court on July 19, 2002, on the grounds that the Tribunal's findings were purely factual and did not involve a substantial question of law.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the ITAT has erred both on facts and merits in granting the benefit of exemptions under Section 11 of the Income-tax Act to the assessee for assessment year 1992-93? Assessee's Contentions: The judgment does not record any specific contentions made by the assessee. The assessee was represented by 'Nemo' (meaning no one appeared for the respondent). Revenue's Contentions: The Revenue contended that the ITAT erred both on facts and merits in granting the benefit of exemptions under Section 11 of the Income-tax Act to the assessee. The Revenue argued that a substantial question of law arose from the ITAT's order.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 260-A,Section 11

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

ITA 189/2002

DIRECTOR OF I.T. (EXEMPTION) ..... Appellant Through Mr.R.D.Jolly with Ms. Rashmi Chopra, Advocates

versus

BHARAT KALYAN PRATISHTHAN ..... Respondent Through Nemo

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D.K. JAIN HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE SHARDA AGGARWAL

O R D E R ----------- 16.08.2002

CM 86/2002 Allowed subject to just exceptions. ITA 189/2002 This is an appeal under Section 260-A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 by the Revenue against the order of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal Delhi Bench-D, New Delhi in ITA No.3593/Del/96, pertaining to assessment year 1992-93. According to the Revenue, the following substantial question of law arises for determination:

"Whether the ITAT has erred both on facts and merits in granting benefit of exemptions u/s 11 of the Income-tax Act to the assessee ?"

From the impugned order of the Tribunal, we find that while granting relief to the assessee the Tribunal ...contd/- : 2 : [ITA 189/02]

has relied on its earlier order dated 19 October 2001 in ITA No.7156/Del/94, pertaining to the assessment year 1991-92. Against the said order the Revenue had filed an appeal, being ITA No.125/02. The said appeal was dismissed by this Court on 19 July 2002 on the ground that the findings recorded by the Tribunal were pure findings of fact and no question of law, much less a substantial question of law, had arisen from the said order. Following the said order, this appeal is also dismissed.

D.K. JAIN, J

SHARDA AGGARWAL, J AUGUST 16, 2002 "v"

More judgments on Section 260-A

All 2,570 judgments and leading authorities on Section 260-A →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →