MUMBAI CRICKET ASSOCIATION,MUMBAI vs. ADDL.D.I.T.(E) RG.1, MUMBAI

We shall first take up the appeal filed by the assessee for assessment year 2008-09. The assessee is a public charitable trust and is engaged in the 2 Mumbai Cricket Association activities of promotion and regulation of game of cricket in Mumbai. The assessee was granted registration u/s 12A of the Act in the year 1975. The Ld DIT (Exemption), vide his order dated 31.12.2010, withdrew the registration retrospectively. The assessing officer passed the assessment order for assessment year 2008-09 on 31.12.2010 and by that time, the Ld DIT(Exemption) had cancelled the registration granted to the assessee u/s 12A of the Act with retrospective effect.

The assessee had computed income by availing exemption u/s 11 of the Act. One of the conditions for allowing exemption u/s 11 was that the charitable trust should have been registered by the Ld DIT (Exemption) u/s 12A of the Act. Since the registration granted to the assessee u/s 12A has been withdrawn by Ld DIT (Exemption) in the proceedings carried u/s 12AA(3) of the Act with retrospective effect, the AO rejected the claim for exemption u/s 11 of the Act and accordingly determined the total income of the assessee at Rs.1558.66 lakhs. The Ld CIT(A) also confirmed the same.

The Ld A.R submitted that the assessee had challenged the order passed by Ld DIT(Exemption) cancelling the registration granted to the assessee, by filing appeal before ITAT. He submitted that the ITAT has already passed its order in on 08th August, 2012 (138 ITD 0338), wherein it has been held that the cancellation of registration cannot be retrospective. Accordingly the Tribunal held that the cancellation of order shall take effect from 01.06.2010 only. Accordingly the Ld A.R submitted that the assessee shall be having registration u/s 12A of the Act during assessment year 2008-09 and accordingly contended that the assessee should be granted exemption u/s 11 of the Act.

We heard Ld D.R and perused the record. Having regard to the facts narrated above, we are of the view that the assessee should be granted exemption u/s 11 of the Act for assessment year 2008-09, since the Tribunal has held that the cancellation of registration shall take effect from 01-06-2010

We shall now take up the appeal filed by the revenue for assessment year 2009-10. The revenue has raised following two effective grounds:- 1. That on the facts and circumstanes of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) erred in directing the Assessing Officer to compute the income of the assessee in terms of section 11,12 r.w.s. 13 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, when the activities of the assessee are clearly business in nature and do not fall within the definition of “charitable purpose” as per section 2(15) of the I.T. Act.

The first ground relates to the applicability of the proviso to sec. 2(15) of the Act. The assessee set up certain recreational facilities in its premises, which were considered as commercial activities by the assessing officer. Further the AO also took the view that the cricket matches conducted by the assessee by selling tickets was a commercial activity. Hence he invoked the provisions of the Proviso to sec. 2(15) of the Act. Thus the assessing officer rejected the claim for exemption u/s 11 of the Act on two grounds, viz., (a) The registration has been cancelled by Ld DIT (Exemption) with retrospective effect.

The second ground urged by the revenue relates to the first reasoning given by the AO, i.e., the Ld DIT (Exemption) has cancelled the registration with retrospective effect and hence exemption u/s 11 should be denied to the assessee. The same is liable to be dismissed in view of the order passed by 4 Mumbai Cricket Association Tribunal in (supra), wherein the Tribunal has also held that the cancellation of registration shall take effect from 01-06-2010.

Coming to the second reasoning given by the AO, which is supported in the first ground of the revenue, we notice that the AO has taken the view that the conducting of cricket matches by selling tickets would amount to commercial activity. He has also taken the view that the recreational facilities created by the assessee also results in conducting of commercial activities. Accordingly the AO held that the assessee would be covered by the proviso to sec.2(15) of the Act and accordingly held that the assessee cannot avail exemption u/s 11 on this reason also.

Before Ld CIT(A), the assessee submitted that it has been conducting cricket matches for a number of years and there has been no change in facts. It was also submitted that the recreational facilities were not commenced during the year under consideration and it became operational only during AY 2010-11.

The Ld CIT(A) took the view that assessee is promoting cricket game by holding cricket matches and it is within the scope of its objects. Accordingly he rejected the view taken by the AO. With regard to the recreation facilities, the Ld CIT(A) noticed that the income of recreation centre is not received by the assessee and further the said facilities became operational only in the year relevant to AY 2010-11. Accordingly the Ld CIT(A) rejected the second reasoning given by AO in order to deny exemption u/s 11 of the Act. The revenue is aggrieved.

We heard the parties and perused the record. There is no dispute that the promotion of cricket falls within the scope of objects of the assessee. Further, the recreational facilities did not become operational during the year under consideration. Accordingly we do not find any infirmity in the order passed by Ld CIT(A) on this issue and accordingly confirm the same.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee filed for AY 2008-09 is treated as allowed for statistical purposes and the appeal of the revenue filed for AY 2009-10 is dismissed.