DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. SHRI BALAJI SOCIETY, PUNE

PER D. KARUNAKARA RAO, AM :

This appeal is filed by the Revenue against the order of CIT(A)-10, Pune, dated 15-07-2016 for the Assessment Year 2012-13.

assessment, the AO denied exemption to be in consistent with the earlier

assessment orders of his predecessor in the earlier assessment years

2008,09, 2009-10, 2010-11 and 2011-12. AO held in Para No.7.2 of his

order that the assessee society diverted the income of the assessee out of

the resources of the trust to SBC violating the provisions of section

40A(2)(b) of the Act.

No.9 that similar issue reached the Tribunal in the earlier assessment

years. The Tribunal, on similar facts and issues, raised by the Revenue,

directed for grant of exemption to the assessee society u/s.11 of the Act by

holding as under :

“9. Since, facts being identical, following appellate orders of my Ld. Predecessor for A.Y.2008-09, 2010-11 and 2011-12 which have been upheld at the level of Tribunal too, the Assessing Officer is directed to grant exemption u/s.11 of Income-Tax Act............”

consideration, the Revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal with the

following grounds :

“1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld.CIT(A) was correct in holding that the provisions of section 13(1)(c) and 13(2)(c) of the I.T. Act, 1961 were not attracted in this case despite the fact that payments were made on account of advertisement to prohibited persons? 2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld.CIT(A) was correct in holding that the assessee was allowed to claim exemption u/s.11 of the I.T.Act, 1961 despite the fact that the payments were made to prohibited persons as defined u/s.13(1)(c) and 13(2)(c) of the I.T. Act, 1961.”

submitted that the Ld.CIT(A) war not correct in holding that the provisions of section 13(1)(c) and 13(2)(c) of the Act are not attracted in this case

despite the fact that the payments were made on account of advertisement

to SBC the prohibited persons. Ld. DR prayed for reversing the order of

CIT(A) and allowing the appeal in favour of the Revenue.

to the order of the Tribunal in assessee’s own case in ITA Nos.710 &

711/PUN/2015, dated 30-06-2017 for the A.Yrs. 2010-11 and 2011-12 and

read the contents of Para No.7 to demonstrate that the issue has been

decided in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue.

r.w.s. 13(1)(c) of the Act and find that similar issue was adjudicated in

favour of the assessee by the Tribunal in the assessee’s own case for the

A.Yrs. 2010-11 and 2011-12. For the sake of completeness, we proceed to

extract the operational para of the order of the Tribunal here as under :

“7. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material on record. The issue in the present case is with respect to denial of exemption by invoking the provisions of sec.13(1)(c) of the Act. We find that Ld.CIT(A) while deciding the issue in favour of the assessee had relied on the decision of the Co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal in assessee’s own case for A.Y. 2008-09. Before us, Revenue has not placed any material on record to demonstrate that the facts in the year under appeal are distinguishable to that of earlier years. In view of the aforesaid facts and following the same reasoning of the Tribunal in assessee’s own case for A.Y. 2008-09, we find no reason to interfere with the order of Ld. CIT(A). Thus, the grounds of Revenue are dismissed.”

From the above, it is evident that the Tribunal granted gave relief to the

assessee on the similar issue of applicability of provisions of section 11

r.w.s. 13(1)(c) of the Act. It is undisputed fact that the Advertisement

expenditure were always paid by the assessee to the said SBC. In the

process, the Tribunal relied on its own order in the assessee’s own case for

the A.Y. 2008-09 as extracted in Para No.5 of the order of Tribunal.

Considering the settled nature of the issue, we are of the opinion that the

order of the CIT(A) is fair and reasonable and it does not call for any

interference. Accordingly, the grounds raised by the Revenue are

dismissed.

Order pronounced on this 02nd day of November, 2018.

Sd/- Sd/- (SUSHMA CHOWLA) (D.KARUNAKARA RAO) �ाियक सद� / JUDICIAL MEMBER लेखा सद� / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER पुणे / Pune; �दनांक Dated : 02nd November, 2018. Satish

आदेश क� आदेश क� �ितिलिप �ितिलिप अ�ेिषत अ�ेिषत/Copy of the Order is forwarded to : आदेश आदेश क� क� �ितिलिप �ितिलिप अ�ेिषत अ�ेिषत

अपीलाथ� / The Appellant; 1. ��यथ� / The Respondent; 2. आयकर आयु�(अपील) / The CIT(A)-10, Pune 3. आयकर आयु� / The CIT(Exemption), Pune 4. िवभागीय �ितिनिध, आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, पुणे “A” / DR ‘A’, 5. ITAT, Pune; गाड� फाईल / Guard file. 6.

आदेशानुसार आदेशानुसार आदेशानुसार/ BY ORDER,स आदेशानुसार

स�यािपत �ित //True Copy// Senior Private Secretary आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण ,पुणे / ITAT, Pune