JT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(OSD)(EXEMPTIONS) CIRCLE, PUNE vs. MUKUND BHAVAN TRUST, PUNE

PDF · subscribers
ITA 83/PUN/2021Status: DisposedITAT Pune05 July 2022AY 2016-174 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remitted the matter back to the AO. The AO is to decide the issue afresh in line with the Tribunal's directions in earlier similar cases.

What were the facts?

The assessee trust claimed exemption under Section 11. The AO denied this as the trust charged lower rent to a trustee than to other tenants. The CIT(A) allowed the exemption, following previous tribunal orders.

What were the issues?

Whether the trust is eligible for exemption under Section 11 when it charged lower rent to a trustee, violating the conditions of Section 13.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 11,Section 13(1)(c),Section 13(2)(b)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(3)Show list

Detected automatically from the text. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.

  • 438 ITR 296
    438 ITR 296 · 2021 · SC
    196 citing
  • 432 ITR 206
    432 ITR 206 · 2020 · SC
    182 citing
  • 421 ITR 314
    421 ITR 314 · SC
    172 citing

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, PUNE BENCH, ‘A’ PUNE

Before: SHRI R.S. SYAL & SHRI S.S. VISWANETHRA RAVI

For Appellant: Shri V.L. Jain
For Respondent: Shri Kalika Singh

आदेश / ORDER

PER R.S. SYAL, VP : This appeal by the Revenue is directed against the order passed by the CIT(A)-10, Pune on 06-02-2020 in relation to the assessment year 2016-17. 2. There is a delay of 329 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. The ld. DR submitted that the delay is attributable to Covid-19 pandemic period. No serious objection was raised by the ld. AR. The delay is, therefore, condoned by virtue of judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Cognizance for Extension of Limitation, In re 438 ITR 296 (SC) read with judgment in Cognizance for Extension of Limitation, In re 432 ITR 206 (SC) dated 08-03-2021 and 421 ITR 314 and the instant appeal is admitted for disposal on merits.

3.

The only issue raised in this appeal is against the non- granting of exemption u/s.11 read with section 13(1)(c) and 13(2)(b) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter also called ‘the Act’) to the tune of Rs.8,73,62,557/-.

4.

Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the assessee claimed exemption u/s.11 of the Act, which was denied by the AO on the ground that the assessee had given some part of its property to trustee, Shri Purushottam Lohiya, for which rent charged was less than that charged from other tenants. When the matter came up before the ld. CIT(A), he, following the decision of the Tribunal in assessee’s own case for earlier years, allowed the appeal. Aggrieved thereby, the Revenue has come up before the Tribunal.

5.

Having heard the rival submissions and gone through the relevant material on record, it is observed that the issue under consideration is admittedly similar to the one decided by the Tribunal in its order for earlier years 2010-11 and 2011-12 (ITA Nos.223/PUN/2014 & followed by another order for the assessment year 2013-14 (ITA No.2439/PUN/2017). In the order for the assessment years 2010- 11 and 2011-12, the Tribunal has restored the matter to the file of AO with necessary directions. The relevant discussion has been made at paras 6 onwards of the Tribunal order. Since the facts and circumstances are admittedly similar, we set-aside the impugned order and remit the matter to the file of the AO for deciding the issue afresh as per law in conformity with the directions given by the Tribunal in the aforesaid order. Needless to say, the assessee will be allowed reasonable opportunity of hearing.

6.

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the Open Court on 05th July, 2022.

More judgments on Section 11

All 7,190 judgments and leading authorities on Section 11 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →