SARALA WOMEN WELFARE SOCIETY vs. DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION)

PDF · subscribers
ITA/95/2010HC CalcuttaWBCHCO001308201028 September 2022Bench: HON'BLE JUSTICE T. S. SIVAGNANAM,HON'BLE JUSTICE SUPRATIM BHATTACHARYA2 pages
AI SummaryWithdrawn

What did the High Court hold?

The appeal was disposed of on the ground that the appellant does not seek to proceed with the matter. Consequently, the substantial questions of law were left open. The Tribunal's decision on the merits of whether the assessee's objects constituted a "charitable purpose" and its entitlement to registration under Section 12A, as well as the binding force of the prior remand order, were not adjudicated upon by the High Court. No specific findings were made on the issues raised, and no operative directions were issued beyond disposing of the appeal as per the appellant's request.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Sarala Women Welfare Society, filed an appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, challenging an order dated October 9, 2009, passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, "C" Bench, Kolkata. The appeal was admitted on two substantial questions of law concerning the binding force of a prior remand order and the Tribunal's justification in holding that the appellant's objects were not for a "charitable purpose," thus disentitling it to registration under Section 12A. The procedural history involves a prior remand order dated April 11, 2008. The appeal was before the High Court at Calcutta, Original Side.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the prima facie observation in the order of remand dated April 11, 2008, regarding the disentitlement of the assessee's registration as a charitable institution, has any binding force at a later stage? 2. If not, whether, on a true and proper construction of Sections 2(15), 11, 12A, and 12AA of the Income Tax Act, 1961, the Tribunal was justified in law in holding that the appellant's objects were not "charitable purpose" and it was not entitled to registration under Section 12A, and if its findings were arbitrary, unreasonable, and perverse? Assessee's contention: The appellant does not seek to proceed with the matter for certain personal reasons. Revenue's contention: Not recorded in the judgment.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 260A,Section 2(15),Section 11,Section 12A,Section 12AA

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

OD-8 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA SPECIAL JURISDICTION (INCOME TAX) ORIGINAL SIDE

ITA/95/2010 SARALA WOMEN WELFARE SOCIETY VS. DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION), KOLKATA

BEFORE :

THE HON’BLE JUSTICE T.S. SIVAGNANAM

And THE HON’BLE JUSTICE SUPRATIM BHATTACHARYA Date : 28th September, 2022

Appearance : Ms. Sreetama Biswas, Adv. … for appellant Mr. Tilak Mitra, Adv. …for respondent

The Court : This appeal filed by the assessee filed under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is directed against the order dated October 9, 2009 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “C” Bench, Kolkata in ITA No.1370/Kol/09. The appeal was admitted on the following substantial questions of law :- i) Whether the prima facie observation of the order of remand dated 11th April, 2008 with regard to the disentitlement of the assessee’s registration as a charitable institution has got any binding force at a later stage or not ? ii) If not, whether on a true and proper construction of the provisions of Sections 2(15), 11, 12A and 12AA of the Income Tax Act, 1961, the

2 Tribunal was justified in law in holding that the appellant’s objects were not “charitable purpose” and it was not entitled to registration as a charitable institution under section 12A and its purported findings in that behalf are arbitrary, unreasonable and perverse ?” Learned counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that the appellant does not seek to proceed with the matter for certain personal reasons. In the light of the same, the appeal stands disposed of on the ground that the appellant does not seek to proceed with the matter. Consequently, the substantial questions of law are left open.

(T.S. SIVAGNANAM, J.)

(SUPRATIM BHATTACHARYA, J.)

S.Pal/SN

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 →