Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, COCHIN BENCH, COCHIN
Before: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh
These Revenue’s twin appeals ITA.Nos.285 & 286/Coch/2014 and assessee’s cross-objections C.O.No.02/Coch./2016, arise against two separate order(s) of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Thiruvananthapuram [CIT(A)], as under :
Sl.No. ITA.No. AY Appeal No. Date of Proceedings Order u/sec. of the Income Tax Act, 1961 1. 285/Coch./2014 2010- ITA-43/TVM/ 2011 CIT(A)TVM/12- 28.02.2014 13 2. 286/Coch./2014 143(3) 50/TVM/CIT(A) 2009- 28.02.2014 3. C.O.No.2/Coch./2016 2010 in TVM/11-12 ITA.286/Coch./2014
Heard both the parties. Case files perused.
It emerges during the course of hearing that the Revenue’s identical substantive ground(s) in its instant twin appeal challenge the CIT(A)’s action granting relief to the assessee thereby reversing the assessment findings wherein the Assessing Officer has held that the assessee is covered under the last limb of section 2(15) of the Act and therefore, it was carrying out its activities which are commercial in nature. The assessee’s cross objection CO No. 2/Coch/2016 on the other hand are found to be supportive of the CIT(A)’s action treating it as carrying out charitable activities only.
Assistant Director of Income Tax (E) 3. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the rival contentions against the in support of the lower authorities’ findings. Suffice to say, there is hardly any dispute between the parties that these appeals stood adjourned suo moto in light of the assessee’s letter dated 14.09.2020 as under: - “14.09.2020 Please Quote: RK/101/IT The Registrar, Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Cochin Bench, Cochin 1st Floor, Block C-I & C-II, Kendriya Bhavan, Kakkanad Cochin-682037. Sir, Sub: Request for adjournment- Electronics Technology Parks, Kerala- PAN AAAAE6638A Ref: 1.
(Α.Υ. 2010-11) 2. (A.Y. 2009-10) 3. C.O. 02/Coch/2016 (A.Y. 2009-10) Kindly note that the above referred appeals are listed for consideration before the Hon'ble Forum, on 15.09.2020. Kindly note that we are awaiting the records from the office at Trivandrum, which is now functioning very marginally, due to Covid-19 pandemic. We may be granted an adjournment of hearing of the above referred appeals. Inconvenience caused, is deeply regretted. Thanking You, Yours faithfully”
It is in this backdrop that the learned CIT-DR submits before us that hon'ble apex court’s landmark decision in ACIT vs. Ahmedabad Urban Development Authority [2022] 144 taxmann.com 78 (SC) has categorically settled the issue that such business/commercial activities by the assessee concerned are covered under the last limb of section 2(15) of the Act, and not entitled for section 11 exemption therefore.
Assistant Director of Income Tax (E) 5. Learned counsel on the other hand submitted that their lordships have restored the matter back to the Assessing Officer for his afresh factual verification keeping in mind the assessee’s objects vis-à-vis activities carried-out. We thus deem it appropriate to go by their lordships reasoning mutatis mutandis to restore the Revenue’s twin appeals and assessee’s cross objection herein back to the learned Assessing Officer for his afresh adjudication in very terms.
It goes without saying that the assessee shall be indeed at liberty to plead and prove all the relevant facts by filing all supportive evidence(s). Ordered accordingly.
These Revenue’s twin appeals & 286/Coch/2014 and assessee’s cross objection CO 2/Coch/2016 are allowed for statistical purposes in above terms. A copy of this common order be placed in the respective case files.