ACIT(E), CIRCLE- 1(1), NEW DELHI V. INDIAN EVANGELICAL TEAM, NEW DELHI

ITA 1690/DEL/2018

• Counselvise Citation: [2021] 108 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7802 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 16 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 24-03-2021
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Assessment Year: 2013-2014
• Appeal Filed On: 09-03-2018
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: VANITA R SHARMA
• Assessee Lawyers: GEORGE KASHI
• Keywords: Question of law
• Section: 11

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH C, NEW DELHI BEFORE SH. KUL BHARAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER DR. B. R. R. KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER (THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCING) ITA NO. 1690/DEL/2018 : ASSTT. YEAR : 2013-14 ITA NO. 1691/DEL/2018 : ASSTT. YEAR : 2014-15 ACIT(E), CIRCLE-1(1), NEW DELHI-110002 VS INDIAN EVANGELICAL TEAM, 126, ANDHERI MORE, MEHRAULI, NEW DELHI-110074 (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN NO. A A ATI0283M ASSESSEE BY : SH. GEORGE KASHI, CA REVENUE BY : MS. VANITA R. SHARMA, CIT DR DATE OF HEAR ING: 18. 0 3 .20 2 1 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 24 .03 .20 2 1 ORDER PER DR. B. R. R. KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: THE PRESENT APPEALS HAVE BEEN FILED BY THE REVENUE AGAINST THE ORDERS OF THE LD. CIT(A)-40, NEW DELHI DATED 14.12.2017. 2. SINCE, THE ISSUES INVOLVED IN BOTH THE APPEALS A RE COMMON, THEY WERE HEARD TOGETHER. 3. THE ASSESSEE HAD BEEN ALLOWED EXEMPTION U/S 11 O F THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 FROM THE VERY BEGINNING AND TH E SAME WAS ALLOWED FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 1989-90 TO 199 1-92, 1995-96 TO 2004-05 AND 2006-07. EXEMPTION U/S 11 WA S DENIED FOR THE FIRST TIME IN THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 1992-93 M AINLY ON THE GROUND THAT THE SOCIETY WAS NOT A RELIGIOUS SOCIETY AND THERE ITA NOS. 1690 & 1691/DEL/2018 INDIAN EVANGELICAL TEAM 2 WAS A VIOLATION OF SECTION 13(1)(B). THE ASSESSEE W AS IN APPEAL AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND IT W AS SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE IS A RELIGIOUS SOCIETY AND THE MI SCHIEF OF THE PROVISION OF SECTION 13(1)(B) WAS NOT ATTRACTED. TH E LD. CIT(A)- XVI, NEW DELHI IN APPEAL NO.28/1995-96 ALLOWED THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE MAINLY ON THE GROUND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN ALLOWED EXEMPTION FOR ALL THE PRECEDING YEARS AND T HERE WAS NO MATERIAL CHANGE IN THE ACTIVITIES OF THE ASSESSEE A ND THE MISCHIEF OF THE PROVISION OF SECTION 13(1)(B) WAS N OT ATTRACTED AS THE ASSESSEE WAS A RELIGIOUS SOCIETY. THE LD. CI T (A) ALSO RELIED ON THE CASE OF CIT VS. BARKATE SAIFIYAH SOCI ETY (1995) 213 ITR 492 (GUJ.) VIDE ORDER DATED 02.08.1995. THE DEPARTMENT FILED AN APPEAL AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) BUT THE TRIBUNAL DISMISSED THE DEPARTMENTAL APPEAL VIDE APPELLATE ORDER IN ITA NO.6323/DEL/1995 DATED 09.04 .2001. 4. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS FOLLOWED HIS EARLIER O RDERS AND IN THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION, EXEMPTION HAS BEEN DE NIED TO THE ASSESSEE MAINLY ON THE GROUND THAT THE ASSESSEE IS A CHARITABLE SOCIETY AND THERE WAS A VIOLATION OF SECTION 13(1)( B) AND THE AO HAS RELIED ON THE CASE LAWS OF STATE OF KERALA V S. M.P. SHANTI VERMA JAIN, 231 ITR 787 (SC) 1998 AND GHULAM MOHIDIN TRUST VS CIT 248 ITR 587 (J&K) 2001. 5. THE LD. CIT (A) O WING TO THE ORDERS FOR ASSESSMENT YEARS 2007-08 (APPEAL NO. 37/2009-10), ASSESSMENT YEAR 20 08-09 (APPEAL NO. 88/2010-11), ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10 (A PPEAL NO. 196/2011-12), ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010-11 (APPEAL NO. 2 99/2013- 14) AND ASSESSMENT YEAR 2011-12 (APPEAL NO. 570/201 3-14), ASSESSMENT YEAR 2012-13 (APPEAL NO. 6/2015-16) AND TO THE ITA NOS. 1690 & 1691/DEL/2018 INDIAN EVANGELICAL TEAM 3 ORDERS OF THE ITAT FOR ASSESSMENT YEARS 2007-08 (IT A NO. 4937/DEL/2010), ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09 (ITA NO. 4671/DEL/2011), ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10 (ITA NO. 3635/DEL/2012) AND ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010-11 (ITA NO. 2153/DEL/2014) ALLOWED THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE. 6. WE HAVE PERUSED THE ORDER OF THE ITAT DELHI FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010- 11 HAS HELD AS UNDER: '3. WE HAVE HEARD THE ARGUMENTS OF BOTH THE SIDES A ND HAVE PERUSED THE MATERIAL PLACED BEFORE US. WE FIND THE ISSUE TO BE COVERED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE BY THE DECISION O F ITAT IN ASSESSEE'S OWN CASE FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10 VID E ITA NO.3635/DEL/2012 DATED 11TH SEPTEMBER, 2012. IN THE SAID ORDER, THE ITAT, CONSIDERING VARIOUS DECISIONS OF T HE ITAT IN EARLIER YEARS, HAS DECIDED THE APPEAL IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE. THE RELEVANT FINDING OF THE ITAT READS AS UNDER:- '5. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND GONE THROUGH THE FACTS OF THE CASE. WE FIND THAT THE AO HIMSELF ACCEPTED T HE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE FOR EXEMPTION U/S 11 OF THE ACT IN THE AYS 1989-90 TO 1991-92, 1995-96 TO 2004-05& 2006-07 IN IDENTICA L CIRCUMSTANCES. IN THE AY 1992-93, THOUGH A SIMILAR CLAIM FOR EXEMPTION WAS DISALLOWED, THE ID. CIT(A) ALLOWED TH E CLAIM AND THE ITAT UPHELD THE FINDINGS OF THE ID.CIT(A). ON F URTHER APPEAL, THE QUESTION OF LAW FORMULATED BY HON'BLE H IGH COURT IS STATED TO BE PENDING IN ITA NO.6/2002. IN THE AY 19 93-94, AO REJECTED THE CLAIM AND APPEAL IS STATED TO BE PENDI NG IN ITANO.216/2002. FOR THE AY 1994-95, THE ITAT UPHELD THE FINDINGS OF THE ID. CIT(A) ALLOWING THE CLAIM FOR E XEMPTION U/S 11 OF THE ACT AND THE APPEAL FILED BEFORE THE HON'B LE HIGH COURT ITA NOS. 1690 & 1691/DEL/2018 INDIAN EVANGELICAL TEAM 4 IS STATED TO BE PENDING ADMISSION, HI AY 2005-06, T HE AO AGAIN DENIED EXEMPTION FOR VIOLATION U/S 13(L)(B) OF THE ACT. HOWEVER, ON APPEAL, THE ID. CIT(A)ALLOWED THE CLAIM AND THE ITAT UPHELD THE FINDINGS OF THELD.CIT(A) VIDE THEIR ORDER DATED 18TH JUNE, 2009 IN ITANO.45/DEL/09. IN THE AYS 2007-08 & 2008- 09, THOUGH THE AO DENIED EXEMPTION U/S 11 OF THE ACT, T HE ID. CIT(A) ALLOWED THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE IN THE AY 2007-08 AND THE FATE IN FURTHER APPEAL IS NOT KNOWN WHILE IN TH E AY2008-09, THE ITAT VIDE THEIR ORDER DATED 26TH DECEMBER,2011 IN ITA NO.4671/DEL/2011 UPHELD THE FINDINGS OFLD.CIT(A), G RANTING EXEMPTION U/S 11 OF THE ACT. THE LD. CIT(A) IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER FOLLOWED THIS ORDER OF THE ITAT FOR THE AY 20 08-09 IN ALLOWING EXEMPTION U/S 11 OF THE ACT. IN VIEW OF TH E FOREGOING, ESPECIALLY WHEN THE REVENUE HAVE NOT PLACED ANY MAT ERIAL BEFORE US, CONTROVERTING THE AFORESAID FINDINGS OF THE ID. CIT(A) NOR BROUGHT TO OUR NOTICE ANY CONTRARY DECISION, SO AS TO ENABLE US TO TAKE A DIFFERENT VIEW IN THE MATTER WHILE CLA IM OF THE ASSESSEE FOR EXEMPTION HAS CONSISTENTLY BEEN ALLOWE D IN THE PRECEDING3 ITA-2153/DEL/2014YEARS, WE ARE NOT INCLI NED TO INTERFERE. CONSEQUENTLY, GROUND NO.1 IN THE APPEAL IS DISMISSED.' 4. ADMITTEDLY, THE FACTS OF THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDER ATION ARE IDENTICAL. LEARNED DR STATED THAT IN THE EARLIER YE AR, THE REVENUE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE HON'BLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT AND, THEREFORE, THE MATTER MAY BE KEPT PENDING TILL THE DECISION OF HON'BLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT. IN OUR OPINIO N, MERELY BECAUSE THE EARLIER YEAR'S APPEALS ARE PENDING BEFO RE THE HIGH COURT WOULD BE NO GROUND FOR KEEPING THE APPEALS PE NDING. WE, THEREFORE, RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF I TAT IN ITA NOS. 1690 & 1691/DEL/2018 INDIAN EVANGELICAL TEAM 5 ASSESSEE'S OWN CASE FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10, UP HOLD THE ORDER OF LEARNED CIT(A) AND DISMISS THE REVENUE'S A PPEAL.' 7. AS HAS BEEN HELD IN THE ABOVE ORDERS, THE PROVIS IONS OF SECTION 13(1)(B) ARE ATTRACTED IN CASE OF CHARITABL E SOCIETIES ONLY AND NOT IN CASE OF RELIGIOUS SOCIETIES AND HEN CE THERE IS NO VIOLATION OF SECTION 13(1)(B) AS ALLEGED BY THE ASS ESSING OFFICER, SINCE THIS ASSESSEE IS RELIGIOUS SOCIETY. KEEPING I N VIEW OF THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND RESPECTFULL Y FOLLOWING THE ORDERS OF THE ITAT IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE, WE D ECLINE TO INTERFERE WITH THE REASONED ORDER OF THE LD. CIT (A ). 8. AS A RESULT, BOTH THE APPEALS OF THE REVENUE ARE DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 24/03/2021. SD/- SD/- (KUL BHARAT) ( DR. B. R. R. KUMAR) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACC OUNTANT MEMBER DATED: 24/03/2021 *SUBODH* COPY FORWARDED TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(APPEALS) 5. DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR