Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “A”
Before: HON’BLE SH. SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM & HON’BLE SH. G. MANJUNATHA, AM
ADIT (Exempt)-II(2) The Advertising Club, 5th floor, Piramal Bombay, 504, Radhe बिधम/ Chambers, Lalbaug, Parel, Vallabh Society, French Mumbai-400012 Bridge, Corner, Opera Vs. House, Mumbai-400004 स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./ PAN No. AAATT0568Q (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : अपीलाथीकीओरसे/ Appellant by : Shri Hira Rai, AR प्रत्यथीकीओरसे/Respondentby : Shri Satishchandra Rajore, DR सुनवाईकीतारीख/ : 15.01.2019 Date of Hearing घोषणाकीतारीख / : 09.04.2019 Date of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R
Per Sandeep Gosain, Judicial Member:
The present Appeal filed by the assessee is against the order of Ld. CIT (Appeal) – 1, Mumbai dated 07.09.16 for AY 2012-13. The Advertising Club, Bombay
The solitary ground raised by the assessee relates to challenging the order of Ld. CIT(A) in confirming the order of AO denying the exemption u/s 11 of the Act and in holding that the proviso to section 2(15) of the Act was applicable to the case of the assessee.
Ld. AR appearing on behalf of the assessee submitted before us that the present case is fully covered by the order of Hon’ble ITAT in for AY 2011-12 in assessee’s own case, wherein the identical grounds raised in the present appeal have already been decided on merits.
On the other hand, Ld. DR fairly agreed to the contention of Ld. AR that the issue is covered in favour of assessee.
We have heard both the parties and we have also perused the material placed on record as well as the orders passed by revenue authorities. We find that the identical ground has already been decided by the Coordinate Bench of Hon’ble ITAT The Advertising Club, Bombay in for AY 2011-12 in assessee’s own case. The operative portion of the order of Hon’ble ITAT passed in ITA No. contained in para no. 5 & 6, which is reproduced below:- 5. We have heard both the parties and we have also perused the material placed on record as well as the orders passed by revenue authorities. We find that the identical ground has already been decided by the Coordinate Bench of Hon’ble ITAT in 5531/Mum/15 for AY 2010-11 in assessee’s own case. The operative portion of the order of Hon’ble ITAT passed in ITA No. contained in para no. 5.1 to 5.3, which is reproduced below:-
5.1 We have carefully heard the rival contentions and perused relevant material on record including documents placed in the paper book and judicial pronouncements as cited before us. At the outset we are of the opinion that the ratio of this Tribunal rendered in assessee’s own case for AY 1978-79 could not be applied since the assessee, post that decision, obtained registration u/s 12A vide certificate no. INS/31155 dated 14/01/2000 with effect from 01/04/1990, a copy of which has been placed on record. Therefore, the claim of the assessee for the impugned AY was to be examined The Advertising Club, Bombay at the threshold of statutory provisions of Section 11 & 12. Hence, the approach of Ld. AO, to that extent, was erroneous. 5.2 At the same time, the observation of the Ld. CIT(A) that the assessee was operating more like an event management entity where the booking of the shows were being made and sponsorship fees was being received and the event was being managed by outside agencies, also remain unrebutted. Upon perusal of financial statements for impugned AY as placed before us, we concur with this stand of Ld. CIT(A) since the broad break-up of the assessee’s gross receipts could be categorized as follows:- No. Nature of Receipts Amount (Rs.) 1. Membership Subscriptions, Entrance Fees, Misc. Incomes 6,25,950/- 2 Interest & Others 17,69,828/- 3. Award Functions 1,57,22,000/- 4. Programs, Seminars & Workshops 36,67,957/- 5. Premises Fund written back 98,35,845/- TOTAL 3,16,21,580/- It is clear from the above table that the assessee’s major activities during the impugned AY were confined to conducting Award Functions / programs only. The only plea in support of the same as raised by Ld. AR is the assertion that the said activities were incidental to carrying out the main objectives of the assessee Trust and secondly, there was no profit motive in carrying The Advertising Club, Bombay out the same. In support, certain judicial pronouncements have been cited before us. The Ld. AR has also raised an alternative plea that the amount of Rs.78.85 Lacs as written-off by way of credit to Profit & Loss Account had already been offered to tax in earlier years and therefore, the same is excludible while computing the surplus for impugned AY. In our opinion, these submissions require proper appreciation of factual matrix which has not been done by Ld. AO particularly the submissions that the activities being carried out by the assessee were incidental to carrying out the objectives on the basis of which registration was granted to the assessee.
5.3 Keeping in view the aforesaid facts and circumstances, keeping all issues open, we deem it fit to restore the matter back to the file of Ld. AO for re-adjudication of the same with a direction to the assessee to substantiate its claim as argued before us failing which Ld. AO shall be at liberty to decide the same as per law on the basis of material available on record.
After having gone through the facts of the present case as well as considering the orders passed by revenue authorities and Hon’ble ITAT as mentioned above in assessee’s own case, we find that the identical The Advertising Club, Bombay issues have already been decided by the Hon’ble ITAT in for AY 2010-11 in assessee’s own case. Therefore, respectfully following the decision of the Coordinate Bench of Hon’ble ITAT and in order to maintain judicial consistency, we apply the same findings in the present case which are applicable mutatis mutandis in the present case. Therefore, we order accordingly.
6. In the net result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed with no order as to cost.
After having gone through the facts of the present case as well as considering the orders passed by revenue authorities and Hon’ble ITAT as mentioned above in assessee’s own case, we find that the identical issues have already been decided by the Hon’ble ITAT in for AY 2011-12 in assessee’s own case. Therefore, respectfully following the decision of the Coordinate Bench of Hon’ble ITAT and in order to maintain judicial consistency, we apply the same findings in the present case which are applicable mutatis mutandis in the present case. Therefore, we order accordingly.
The Advertising Club, Bombay 7. In the net result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed with no order as to cost.
Order pronounced in the open court on 9th April, 2019 (G. Manjunatha) (Sandeep Gosain) लेखासदस्य / Acountant Memberन्याययकसदस्य / Judicial Member मुंबई Mumbai;यदनांकDated : 09.04.2019 Sr.PS. Dhananjay