COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. HELP AGE INDIA

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI . 03.03.2011 . Present: Ms. Prem Lata Bansal, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Deepak Anand, Advocate for the appellant. None for the respondent. . + ITA No. 439/2011 . The order of the Tribunal reveals that it has violated its earlier order in respect of the same assessee pertaining to assessment year 2005-06. Against that order, the Department has preferred ITA No. 828/2010 which was dismissed by this Court vide its judgment dated 13th July, 2010, inter alia, observing as under:- ?We have heard Mrs. Prem Lata Bansal, learned counsel for the revenue. It is urged by her that when the assessee had violated the conditions engrafted under Section 13(1)(d)(iii) of the Act, it was improper on the part of the CIT(A) as well as the tribunal to confer the benefit. To appreciate the said submission, we have bestowed our anxious consideration and perused the impugned orders. On a studied scrutiny of the same, it is perceptible that both the parties have taken note of the fact that the shares and bonds belonged to deceased intimates which normally would have gone to their legal heirs who were not traceable and that is why the assessee had not entered the shares in the books and further the bonds and shares were not immediately saleable. Under these circumstances, the tribunal has opined that the assessee could not be treated to be the de jure owner of the shares. The tribunal has also held that the term ?held? could imply ownership of the assessee to the exclusion of all others but the factual matrix does not indicate the same in the case at hand. Because of the said analysis, as is manifest, the tribunal has held that the denial of exemption under Section 11(1)(a) on the ground that the shares were held by the assessee could go against the spirit of provision. The principle applied by the tribunal in the facts of the case, we are disposed to think, cannot be found fault with and, accordingly, we concur with the same.? . ITA No. 439/2011 page 1 of 2 It is clear from the above that this Court accepted the opinion of the Tribunal that the assessee could not be treated to be de jure owner of the shares and therefore it would not have violated the provision of Section 13(1)(d)(iii) of the Income Tax Act. Following that order, three more appeals being ITA Nos. 1606/2010, 1607/2010 and 1608/2010 were dismissed on 21st October, 2010. In the aforesaid circumstances, the present appeal also requires to be dismissed. Ordered accordingly. . A.K. SIKRI, J. . M.L. MEHTA, J. MARCH 03, 2011 AK . . . . ITA No. 439/2011 page 2 of 2 . . . . . 2 #