GANAPATHI JANA SEVA BHANDER,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O.(EXEMPTION) WARD 1(1), KOLKATA

The assessee’s sole substantive grievance in the instant appeal is that both the lower authorities have erred in law as well facts in disallowing section 10(34) exemption in respect of dividend received amounting to Rs.10,57,484/-. Learned counsel’s case during the hearing is that the impugned exemption has been wrongly denied to the taxpayer. The Revenue’s case on the other hand rests on section 11(7) of the Act which reads as under:

Learned counsel’s case in rebuttal is that the tribunal’s coordinate bench’s order in ADIT vs. Mayank Welfare Trust has already decided the issue against the department. I have give my thoughtful consideration to the rival contentions. I find no merit in assessee’s grievance seeking to delete the impugned disallowance of section 10(34) exemption of dividend income to the trust section 11(7) of the Act makes it clear that a trust or an institution; enjoying section 12AA registration or section 12A (as it stood before its amendment) by the Finance Act (2) of 1996 is not eligible for any of the exemption benefits other than section 10(23C) of the Act. This tribunal’s coordinate bench’s decision (supra) does not take note of the same as in evident from the operative para 6 of the order. The same is treated as per incuriam as per the case law (1993) 202 ITR 222 (AP). I conclude in these facts both the lower authorities have rightly disallowed the impugned exemption to the assessee trust. The assessee fails in its sole substantive grievance.

The assessee’s appeal is dismissed.