IDEAL EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY,GHAZIABAD vs. DCIT, EXEMPTION CIRCLE, GHAZIABAD

PDF · subscribers
ITA 212/DEL/2019Status: DisposedITAT Delhi02 March 2020AY 2010-113 pages

In favour of the assessee: the assessee's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that since the quantum addition on which the penalty was based has been deleted, the penalty is not sustainable in law and therefore deleted it.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal was against an order for assessment year 2010-11. The penalty in dispute was imposed on a quantum addition that had already been deleted by the ITAT in a prior appeal.

What were the issues?

Whether a penalty is sustainable when the underlying addition has been deleted by a higher appellate authority. Whether providing hostel, transportation, or mess facilities is incidental to the main educational purpose.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 11(4A)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH “SMC”, NEW DELHI

Before: SHRI H.S. SIDHU

For Appellant: Ms. Ragini Handa, CA

ORDER This appeal filed by the Assessee is directed against the impugned order dated 24.10.2018 passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Ghaziabad pertaining assessment year 2010-11.

2.

Facts narrated by the revenue authorities are not disputed by both the parties, hence, the same are not repeated here for the sake of convenience.

3.

At the time of hearing, Ld. Authorised Representative of the Assessee, Ms. Ragini Handa, CA stated that the quantum on which the penalty has been imposed has already been deleted by the ITAT, ‘C’ Bench, New Delhi vide its order dated 12.06.2019 passed in (AY 2010-11) in assessee’s quantum appeal. For the sake of convenience, she filed the copy of the aforesaid Tribunal’s order dated 12.06.2019. Therefore, she requested that since the quantum addition has already been deleted by the Tribunal vide its aforesaid order dated 12.6.2019, therefore, the penalty in dispute is not sustainable in the eyes of law and hence, the same may be deleted accordingly.

4.

On the other hand, Ld. DR has not raised any objection on the request of the Ld. A.R. for the assessee.

5.

I have heard both the parties and perused the orders of the authorities below and the order of the ITAT passed in assessee’s quantum appeal, wherein the ITAT, ‘C’ Bench, New Delhi vide its order dated 12.06.2019 passed in (AY 2010-11) has already been deleted the addition in dispute by holding as under:-

“………The Hon’ble High Court in case of Mallikarjun School Society (Supra) held that an educational institute will not cease to be one existing solely for educational purposes since the object is not to make profit. In present case also the assessee society will not ceased to exist as educational institute because it is providing hostel facility or transportation facility or mess facility, as it is an incidental to the education purpose of the assessee society. Therefore, in view of the Hon’ble Uttrakhand High Court decision in case of Mallikarjun School Society (Supra) and orders of the Co-ordinate Bench in case of Delhi Public School Ghaziabad, the hostel facility provided by assessee society is not in the nature of business and is incidental to the attainment of the main object of the providing education to students. Therefore, provisions of Section 11(4A) will not be applicable to the assessee. Thus, Grounds Nos. 2, 2.1 and 2.2. are allowed…..”

5.1 After perusing the aforesaid finding of the Tribunal in assessee’s appeal, wherein quantum addition has already been deleted on which the penalty has been imposed. Hence, the penalty in dispute is not sustainable in the eyes of law, therefore, the same is deleted.

6.

In the result, the Appeal filed by the Assessee is allowed.

More judgments on Section 11(4A)

All 280 judgments and leading authorities on Section 11(4A) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →