CUTICON TN 2019,CHENNAI vs. CIT, EXEMPTIONS, CHENNAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 3287/CHNY/2019Status: DisposedITAT Chennai08 December 20223 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal set aside the order of the Commissioner and restored the matter for reconsideration. This was done in light of recent Supreme Court decisions on the subject, allowing the assessee an opportunity to present its case.

What were the facts?

The assessee, an association of persons, applied for registration under Section 12AA of the Income Tax Act. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption) rejected the application, citing that the assessee would not fall under 'legal obligation' and was anticipating a surplus.

What were the issues?

Whether the assessee's object of conducting conferences falls under 'legal obligation' for registration, and if anticipated surplus disqualifies it from registration.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 12AA,Section 13(9)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(3)Show list

Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘B’ BENCH, CHENNAI

Before: HON’BLE SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH & HON’BLE SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, AM

आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal (Accountant Member) 1. Aggrieved by rejection of registration application u/s 12AA of the Act by learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption), Chennai [CIT(E)] vide order dated 30-09-2019, the assessee is in further appeal before us. The assessee is an association of persons with the object of conducting conference for the purpose of disseminating knowledge of dermatology, Venerology and Leprology. The Ld. CIT(E) rejected registration, inter-alia, on the ground that the assessee would not fall within the term ‘legal obligation as contained in Explanation-1 below Sec.13(9). Further, the assessee was anticipating surplus.

1.

- 2 - 2. The Ld. AR, Shri K. Ravi, pleaded that it would not be necessary that the assessee applying for registration must necessarily be a trust and legal obligation could be derived from a contract, legislation or other operation of law. Reliance has been placed on various judicial decisions to support the same. Further, mere generation of surplus would not disentitle any entity to get registration as held by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Queen’s Educational Society vs. CIT 8 SCC 47. The Ld. Sr. DR, on the other hand, submitted that legal position has substantially been altered after the recent decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in bunch of appeals titled as New Noble Educational Society (143 Taxmann.com 276) as well as in ACIT vs. Ahmedabad Urban Development Authority (144 Taxmann.com 78). During hearing, it was point of agreement that considering the recent decisions of Hon’ble Apex Court on the subject, the matter may be set aside to Ld. CIT(E) for reconsideration.

3.

In view of the foregoing, it is deem it fit to set aside the impugned order and the matter of registration is restored back to the file of Ld. CIT(E) for re-consideration in the light of cited judicial decisions. All the issues are kept open. Needless to add that the assessee would be provided with adequate opportunity of hearing to substantiate its case.

4.

The appeal stand allowed for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced on 08th December, 2022.

More judgments on Section 12AA

All 4,243 judgments and leading authorities on Section 12AA →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →