Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (E), Circle-1, Bangalore V. M/s. Karnataka State Muslim Federation, Bangalore

ITA 1684/BANG/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 121 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 4865 (ITAT-BANGALORE)
• Duration Of Justice: 7 month(s) 30 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 13-04-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Assessment Year: 2012-2013
• Appeal Filed On: 14-08-2017
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: DR P V PRADEEP KUMAR
• Assessee Lawyers: C R NULVI
• Section: 12

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL C BENCH, B ENGALURU BEFORE S HRI SUNIL KUMAR YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I TA NO. 1684 / BANG/2 0 1 7 (ASSESSMENT YEAR S : 20 12 - 13 & 2013 - 14 ) DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME - TAX(EXEMPTIO NS) CIRCLE 1, BENGALURU. VS. APPELLANT KARNATAKA STATE MUSLIM FEDERATION, NO.06/1, CANTONMENT RAILWAY STATION ROAD, BENGALURU. PAN:AAATK 5933C RESPONDENT APPELLANT BY : DR.P.V.PRADEEP KUMAR, ADDL.CIT(DR) RESPONDENT BY : SHRI C .R.NULVI, CA . DATE OF HEARING : 05 /0 4 /2018 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 13 / 0 4 /201 8 O R D E R PER SUNIL KUMAR YADAV, JM: THIS APPEAL IS FILED BY THE REVENUE AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME - TAX (APPEALS) - 14, LTU, [CIT(A)], BENG ALURU, DATED 31/05/2017. 2. THE REVENUE RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL: ITA NO . 1684/ BANG/20 17 PAGE 2 OF 3 3 . AT THE OUTSET, IT IS NOTICED THAT THE APPEAL IS DEFECTIVE AND THE SAME IS LIABLE TO BE DISMISSED SINCE THE DEFECTS POINTED OUT BY THE REGISTRY REMAIN UN RECTIFIED. M OREOVER, WE NOTICE THAT THE ISSUE RAISED BY THE REVENUE IS COVERED AGAINST THE REVENUE BY THE DECISION OF THE HON BLE APEX COURT IN THE CASE OF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX VS. RAJASTHAN & GUJARATI CHARITABLE FOUNDATION POONA (2018) (89 TAXMAN.COM127)(SC) WHE REIN IT WAS HELD AS UNDER: 2. AFTER HEARING LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES, WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT THE AFORESAID VIEW TAKEN BY THE BOMBAY HIGH COURT CORRECTLY STATES THE PRINCIPLES OF LAW AND THERE IS NO NEED TO INTERFERE WITH THE SAME. 3. IT MAY BE MENTIONED THAT MOST OF THE HIGH COURTS HAVE TAKEN THE AFORESAID VIEW WITH ONLY EXCEPTION THERETO BY THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA WHICH HAS TAKEN A CONTRARY VIEW IN ' LISSIE MEDICAL INSTITUTIONS V. CIT [2012] 24 TAXMANN.COM 9/209 TAXMAN 19 (MAG.)/348 ITR 344 (KER.) '. 4. IT MAY ALSO BE MENTIONED AT THIS STAGE THAT THE LEGISLATURE, REALISING THAT THERE WAS NO SPECIFIC PROVISION IN THIS BEHALF IN THE INCOME TAX ACT, HAS MADE AMEN DMENT IN SECTION 11(6) OF THE ACT VIDE FINANCE ACT NO. 2/2014 WHICH BECAME EFFECTIVE FROM THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2015 - 2016. THE DELHI HIGH COURT HAS TAKEN THE VIEW AND RIGHTLY SO, THAT THE SAID AMENDMENT IS PROSPECTIVE IN NATURE. ITA NO . 1684/ BANG/20 17 PAGE 3 OF 3 4. IN THE RESULT, THE APPE AL FILED BY THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 13 TH APRIL , 2018 S D/ - SD/ - (INTURI RAMA RAO) (SUNIL KUMAR YADAV) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER PLACE : BENGALURU. D A T E D : 13 / 0 4 /201 8 SRINIVASULU, SP S COPY TO : 1 APPELLANT 2 RESPONDENT 3 CIT(A) 4 CIT 5 DR, ITAT, BANGALORE. 6 GUARD FILE BY ORDER SENIOR PRIVATE SECRETARY INCOME - TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL BANGALORE