ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF INCOME-TAX(EXEMPTION), TRIVANDRUM vs. ELECTRONICS TECHNOLOGY PARKS- KERALA, TRIVANDRUM

PDF · subscribers
ITA 286/COCH/2014Status: DisposedITAT Cochin23 October 2024AY 2009-10Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara (Judicial Member), Shri Amarjit Singh (Accountant Member)4 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal considered the rival contentions and noted that the appeals were adjourned due to a letter from the assessee. The core dispute revolved around whether the assessee's activities were charitable or commercial under Section 2(15) of the Income Tax Act.

What were the facts?

The Revenue appealed against the CIT(A)'s decision to grant relief to the assessee, arguing that the assessee's activities were commercial. The assessee's cross-objection supported the CIT(A)'s view that the activities were charitable.

What were the issues?

The primary issue was whether the assessee's activities were charitable or commercial in nature, as defined under Section 2(15) of the Income Tax Act.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 2(15)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, COCHIN BENCH, COCHIN

Before: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

For Appellant: Shri Akhil Varghese, CA
For Respondent: Dr. S. Pandian, CIT-DR
Hearing: 22.08.2024Pronounced: 23.10.2024

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.

2.

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”

4.

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.

6.

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.

7.

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.

More judgments on Section 2(15)

All 2,878 judgments and leading authorities on Section 2(15) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →