Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Detected automatically from the text. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH: ‘F’: NEW DELHI
Before: SHRI H.S. SIDHU & SHRI ANADEE NATH MISSHRA
[A] This appeal has been filed by Revenue against the impugned appellate order dated 05.09.2014 passed by Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Ghaziabad, [in short, “Ld.CIT(A)”] pertaining to Assessment Year 2010-11, on the following grounds:
“1.Whether under the facts and circumstances of the case Ld. CIT(A)was correct in deleting the addition of Rs. 1,44,000/- on account of Holi Milan and Roza Iftar celebration, relying on the fact that it was registered u/s 12A, ignoring that the expenditure incurred by the assessee was not related to general public utility and Page 1 of 7
ITA No.- 6735/Del/2014 Rajkiya Audyogic Krishi Pradarshani Avam therefore, is not entitled for exemption u/s 11 of the IT Act., 1961.
Whether under the facts and circumstances of the case Ld. CIT(A) was correct in deleting the addition of Rs.4,00,000/- on account of Police Kanlyan Nidhi, relying on the fact that it was registered u/s 12A, ignoring that the expenditure incurred by the assessee was not related to general public utility and therefore, is not entitled for exemption u/s 11 of the IT Act., 1961.
Whether under the facts and circumstances of the case Ld. CIT(A)was correct in deleting the addition of Rs.6,38,881/- on account of Atithi Satkar/Hotel Samman, relying on the fact that it was registered u/s 12A, ignoring that the expenditure incurred by the assessee was not related to general public utility and therefore, is not entitled for exemption u/s 11 of the IT Act., 1961.
Whether under the facts and circumstances of the case Ld. CIT(A)was correct in deleting the addition of Rs.97,933/- on account of General/Stage Decoration, relying on the fact that it was registered u/s 12A, ignoring that the expenditure incurred by the assessee was hot related to general public utility and therefore, is not entitled for exemption u/s 11 of the IT Act., 1961.
Whether under the facts and circumstances of the case Ld. CIT(A)was correct in deleting the addition of Rs.31,96,697/- on account of expenditure for light and sound system 8i expenses on cultural shows nights, relying on the fact that it was registered u/s 12A, ignoring that the expenditure incurred by the assessee was not related to general public utility and therefore, is not entitled for exemption u/s 11 of the IT Act., 1961.
Whether under the facts and circumstances of the case Ld. CIT(A)was correct in deleting the addition of Rs.55,94,570/- on account of disallowance out of the other expenses, relying on the fact that it was registered u/s 12A, ignoring that the expenditure incurred by the assessee was not related to general public utility and therefore, is not entitled for exemption u/s 11 of the IT Act., 1961.
Whether under the facts and circumstances of the case Ld. CIT(A) was correct in deleting the addition of Rs.7,23,145/- on account of Tax Deduction at source claimed as expenditure.
Whether under the facts and circumstances of the case Ld. CIT(A) was correct in deleting the addition of Rs. 1,28,46,205/- on account of surplus during the year as per income and expenditure account relying on the fact that it was registered u/s 12A, ignoring that the assessee was not doing any charitable activity.
The order of Ld. CIT(A) be cancelled and the order of the AO be restored.
10. Appellant craves leave to modify/amend or add any one or more grounds of appeal.”
ITA No.- 6735/Del/2014 Rajkiya Audyogic Krishi Pradarshani Avam (B) Assessment Order dated 25.03.2013 was passed by the Assessing Officer (“AO”, for short) under Section 143(3) of Income Tax Act, 1961 (“I.T. Act”, for short) wherein total income was assessed at Rs. 2,36,42,330/- as against returned income of Nil. The exemption claimed by the assessee under Section 11 of I.T. Act was denied by the AO which resulted in the aforesaid addition of Rs. 2,36,42,330/-. The Assessing Officer followed the Order for Assessment Year 2005-06 in making the aforesaid addition and in denying exemption claimed by the assessee under Section 11 of I.T. Act. Aggrieved, the assessee filed appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). Vide impugned appellate order dated 05.09.2014, the Ld. CIT(A) following the orders of his predecessors and also the orders of Co-ordinate Bench of ITAT, in assessee’s own case on identical facts, for Assessment Years 2005-06 & 2006-07, 2008-09 and 2009-10, allowed the assessee’s appeal and deleted the additions / disallowance made by the AO. This present appeal has been filed by Revenue against the aforesaid impugned appellate order dated 05.09.2014 of Ld. CIT(A). Although the numerous grounds of appeal have been raised in this appeal, which have been reproduced earlier in this order; the core issue is whether the assessee is eligible for exemption under Section 11 of I.T. Act (C) At the time of hearing before us, the Learned Authorized Representative (“Ld.
AR”, for short) of the Assessee submitted at the outset, that the issues in dispute in the present appeal are covered in favour of the assessee by orders of Co-ordinate Bench of ITAT, in identical facts and circumstances, in assessee’s own case, vide order dated 31.08.2012 for Assessment Year 2005-06 & 2006-07 in ITA No.- 72& 73/Agr/2011; order dated 07.09.2012 for Assessment Year 2008-09 in and order Page 3 of 7
ITA No.- 6735/Del/2014 Rajkiya Audyogic Krishi Pradarshani Avam dated 15.03.2013, for Assessment Year 2009-10 in ITA No.- 500/Agr/2012. The Ld.
Departmental Representative (“Ld. DR”, for short) agreed that the issue in dispute in the present appeal are covered in favour of the assessee, vide the aforesaid orders dated 31.08.2012, 07.09.2012 and 15.03.2013 of Co-ordinate Bench of ITAT in identical facts and circumstances. However, the Ld. DR placed reliance on the aforesaid Assessment Order dated 25.03.2013.
(D) We have heard both sides. It is not in dispute that facts and circumstances in the present appeal before us are identical to facts and circumstances for Assessment Years 2005-06 & 2006-07, 2008-09 and 2009-10 for which vide aforesaid orders dated 31.08.2012, 07.09.2012 and 15.03.2013 of Co-ordinate Bench of ITAT has already decided the issues in dispute in assessee’s favour, in identical facts and circumstances.
Neither side has brought any distinguishing facts and circumstances for our consideration to persuade us to take a view different from the view already taken by Co-ordinate Bench of ITAT, in assessee’s own case by aforesaid orders dated 31.08.2012, 07.09.2012 and 15.03.2013 of Co-ordinate Bench of ITAT. We also find that Co-ordinate Bench of ITAT, in aforesaid orders dated 07.09.2012 and 15.03.2013 has followed the order dated 31.08.2012 of Co-ordinate Bench of ITAT, in & 73/Agr/2011 for Assessment Years 2005-06 & 2006-07. The relevant portion of the aforesaid order dated 31.08.2012 of Co-ordinate Bench of ITAT is reproduced as under:
“7. We have heard the Id. Representatives of the parties and records perused. We notice that the assessee has granted registration under section 12A/12AA of the Act dated ITA No.- 6735/Del/2014 Rajkiya Audyogic Krishi Pradarshani Avam 09.10.2000 w.e.f. 01.04.99. This registration has not been found cancelled. The objects of the Society are charitable as its aims and activities are to promote small scale industries, agriculturists, artists etc. The CIT(A) noted that the clauses of Memorandum & Article of Association mentions that income or funds are not divisible amongst the members of the trust and no benefits are to go to any individual, the entire funds or any surplus generated are dovetailed into the avowed of charitable activities of the Society. The CIT(A) has also noted the fact that the entire rental income generated is being ploughed back for the purposes of the Society. The GIT(A) has followed his predecessor’s order for A.Y. 2006-07 in assessee’s own case wherein it-was stated that the A.O. cannot simply override the order of CIT, Agra by pointing out certain defects in constitution of the Society and proceed to disallow the claim of exemption u/s 11 & 12 of the Act. Action of the A.O. was beyond jurisdiction. It has also been noticed in that order that the society was allowed registration under section 12A/12AA of the Act dated 9th October, 2000 and the assessee’s cases were scrutinized for the A.Ys. 1989-90, 1990-91 & 1995-96 wherein it was held that income of the society was exempt. As regards the contention of the Id. Authorised Representative regarding Society’s property, we agree with the contention of the Id. Authorised Representative that ‘property’ word used in section 11 is a term of widest import, and subject to any limitation or qualification which the context might require, it signifies every possible interest which a person can acquire, hold and enjoy. ‘Business’ would undoubtedly be ‘property’, unless there is something to the contrary in the enactment. There is nothing in the language of section 11 which restricts in any manner the normal and accepted meaning of the word ‘property’. In this regard, we may refer the judgment of Apex Court in the case of J.K. Trust vs. CIT, 32 ITR 535 (SC). Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of A.J. Patel vs. CIT, 97 ITR 683 (Bom) held that the right to exploit space on either side of an overbridge for advertisements is a ‘property’. In the light of the above discussion, we do not find any substance in the submissions of the Id. Departmental Representative, therefore, the same is dismissed.
8. As regards the objection of the ld. Departmental Representative in respect of disallowance of expenditure, we notice that the CIT(A) has rightly held that the A.O. himself accepted those expenses incurred for the purposes of the object of the Society as he made adhoc disallowance in part. The CIT(A) after verifying the facts satisfied that expenses were incurred for charitable purposes in accordance with the object of the Society.
9. In the light of the above discussion, we do not find any infirmity in the order of the CIT(A). The order of the CIT(A) is, therefore, confirmed.
As stated above that since the facts of the case for A.Y. 2006-07 are identical to the case for A.Y. 2005-06 of which detailed discussion has been made above, in the light of the same, order of the CIT(A) for A.Y. 2006-07 is also confirmed.”
(D.1) As facts and circumstances of the present appeal before us are identical to facts and circumstances for Assessment Years 2005-06 & 2006-07, 2008-09 and 2009-10 for which Co-ordinate Bench of ITAT has already taken view in favour of the assessee, vide
ITA No.- 6735/Del/2014 Rajkiya Audyogic Krishi Pradarshani Avam aforesaid orders dated 31.08.2012, 07.09.2012 and 15.03.2013; we also decide the issues in dispute before us in favour of the assessee; respectfully following the aforesaid orders dated 31.08.2012, 07.09.2012 and 15.03.2013 of Co-ordinate Bench of ITAT. Accordingly, we decline to interfere with the impugned appellate order dated 05.09.2014 of Ld. CIT(A).
(E) In the result, appeal filed by Revenue is dismissed.
Order pronounced in the open court on 16.01.20.