ITO (E), NEW DELHI vs. M/S SUVASINI CHARITABLE TRUST, DELHI

Brief facts The brief facts of the case are that the appellant has been assessed to tax since its incorporation from AY 2005-06 as a charitable society engaged in the provision of medical relief to the poor, with an incidental object to assist in maintaining and improving the standard and health of the people and to preserve and improve the standard of public health and for the purposes of better health awareness a secondary object No.5 provided for promoting, cultivating and developing vegetarianism by providing hygienic food and thereby to create a healthy food habit. For this purpose, the ‘Premvati Cafeteria’ was held in Trust to provide ‘prasadam to the visitors of Akshardham complex and to raise funds to achieve objects of the trust. Rule- 18 was inserted at the instance of the Id. DIT(E) as a condition for grant of registration of the trust clearly providing that the surplus generated from this activity will be utilized to fulfil and achieve the objects of the Trust. Accordingly, the trust was granted exemption u/s 11 for all its income as applied for attainment of the objects of the Trust without any dispute up to AY 2008-09.

However, from Asstt. Year 2009-10, the learned AO started treating “Premvati Cafeteria’ as an independent activity in the nature of commercial activity and irrespective of its application to medical relief to the poor as per the objects of the trust, it was hit by the proviso to Section 2(15) of the Act. For the Asstt. Year 2012-13 also, learned AO held so and assessed the income of Rs.84,44,874/- to be taxed at maximum marginal rate of tax.

In the appeal preferred by the assessee, learned CIT(A) followed the orders of his predecessors and the Tribunal for the earlier years and allowed the exemption u/s 11(1) of the Act with all consequential benefits. The revenue is, therefore, in this appeal aggrieved by the impugned order.

It is not in dispute that for the earlier years, namely, 2009-10 and 2010-11, learned AO took the same view as he had taken for this year under consideration but the same was deleted by the first and second appellate authorities. It is also not in dispute that for the Asstt. Years 2013-14 and 2014-15, the first appellate authority granted relief to the assessee and the appeals preferred by the revenue were dismissed by the Tribunal. It is, therefore, clear that for the Asstt. Years 2009-10 and 2010-11, the assessee got the relief from the first appellate authority confirmed by the Tribunal by orders dated 17.3.2016 and 13.7.2016 respectively on the identical grounds raised

6. It is not the case of the revenue that there is any change of facts in this case from those involved in the Asstt. years 2009-10 and 2010-11. In such a situation, it is not possible for us to take a different view that was taken in the earlier years in view of the decision of the Hon’ble Apex court in the case of Radha Soami Satsang, (1992 AIR 377). Respectfully following the same, we hold that there is nothing illegal or irregular in the impugned order and the same has to be sustained. Hence, appeal of the revenue is dismissed