Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI ‘F’ BENCH,
Before: SHRI N.K. BILLAIYA & MS. SUCHITRA KAMBLE
PER N. K. BILLAIYA, AM:
This appeal by the revenue is preferred against the order of the CIT(A)-40, Delhi dated 03.02.2017 pertaining to A.Y. 2012-13.
The solitary grievance of the revenue is that the CIT(A)erred in allowing the appeal of the assessee ignoring the fact that any activity of 1 rendering any service in relation to any trade, commerce or business for a cess or fee shall not be charitable if receipt from such activities is more than 25 lacs during the year.
The assessee is a society registered u/s. 12 A of the Act and is also notified u/s. 80G(5)(vi) of the Act. The main objects of the society as per MOA are as follows :-
(a) In conformity with its name, the society is establish to provide professional, technical and management assistance to various agencies engaged in rural development and related action programmes. b) To offer know how advice, and technical guidance in the field of agriculture, animal husbandry, water resources, forestry, new and renewable energy sources, rural industries, formal and non formal education, community health habitat and environment, and any fields considered useful for the purpose of promoting integrated human development. c) To develop and promote appropriate prototypes, designs and technologies related to development, to set and popularize their application in the field, and to act as a clearinghouse of information o such matters, with or without the help of other agencies/institutions. d) To assist development agencies to find appropriate professionals for their projects and to assist persons interested in making a professional contribution to development to find suitable development agencies. Where they may work on a short or long term basis. e) To do planning and formulation of development projects independently or in association with other agencies, for implementation by itself or through other agencies engaged in development programs. f) To assist development agencies at the grass roots to effectively utilize physical assets required for the purpose of rural development and evolve systems to ensure equity and justice in their utilization. g) To monitor the progress of development projects, conduct evaluation, maintain information systems and report on its own development projects, or projects of other agencies at their request. h) To do all such other lawful acts deeds or things either alone or in conjunction with other organizations as are incidental or ancillary or conducive to the attainment of any of the above objectives.
While scrutinizing the return of income the AO noticed that the case of the assessee is directly covered by the proviso to section 2 (15) of the Act. Accordingly the AO was of the firm belief that the assessee is not entitled for any exemption, the AO completed the assessment by denying exemption u/s. 11 and 12 of the Act.
The assessee carried the matter before the CIT(A) and strongly contended that it is very much eligible for the claim of the exemption as it is engaged in charitable purpose as per relevant provisions of law.
After considering the facts and the submissions the CIT(A) found on identical facts in A.Y. 2011-12 his predecessor allowed the appeal of the assessee and directed the AO to allow exemption u/s. 11 of the Act. The relevant findings of the CIT(A) read as under :-
“4.1.4 It is seen from the assessment order for the assessment year 2011-12 that the facts of the case are same as that for the assessment year under consideration, i.e., 2012-13 and that no new facts have been brought out in the assessment order for the year under consideration. In view of this, respectfully following the order of my ld. predecessor, it is held that the assessee is apparently not involved in any trade, commerce or business and as such the proviso to section 2(15) is not applicable. Exemption under section 11(1) is allowed to the assessee. Accordingly, the Assessing
Officer is directed to allow exemption under section 11, with all the consequential benefits. Ground Nos. 1 to 13 of the appeal are allowed.”
Before us the counsel for the assessee directed our attention to the order of the Tribunal in A.Y. 2011-12 in and pointed out that the Tribunal has upheld the order of the CIT(A) in A. Y. 2011-12. It is the say of the counsel that the present appeal is directly covered in favour of the assessee and against the revenue.
Per contra the DR fairly conceded that the issues are covered in favour of the assessee.
We have carefully considered the orders of the authorities below. We find that in A.Y.2011-12 the CIT(A) allowed the appeal of the assessee and the revenue challenged that the order before the ITAT.
We find that this Tribunal in has upheld the findings of the CIT(A). The relevant findings read as under :-
Respectfully following the decision of the coordinate Bench (supra) we dismiss the appeal by the revenue.
Decision announced in the open court in the presence of representatives of both the sides on 08.12.2020.