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

ITA 3057/DEL/2019

• Counselvise Citation: [2022] 106 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 2767 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 2 month(s) 18 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 26-06-2022
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: G
• Assessment Year: 2015-2016
• Appeal Filed On: 07-04-2019
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: ANUPAMA SINGLA
• Section: 11; 143(3)

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI (DELHI BENCH ‘H’ : NEW DELHI) BEFORE SH. SHAMIM YAHYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SH. ANUBHAV SHARMA, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No.3057/Del/2019 (Assessment Year : 2015-16) DCIT, Circle 1(1), Exemption, New Delhi Vs. Indian Evangelical Team 126, Mehrauli, Andheria More, New Delhi – 110074 PAN : AAATI0283M (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) Assessee by Sh. George Koshi, CA Revenue by Ms. Anupama Singla, Sr. DR Date of hearing: 09.06.2022 Date of Pronouncement: 27.06.2022 ORDER PER ANUBHAV SHARMA, JM: The Revenue has preferred this appeal against the order dated 14.01.2019 for the assessment year 2015-16 passed by Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-40, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the ‘First Appellate Authority’ or in short ‘Ld. F.A.A.’) in appeal before it against order dated 11.10.2017 u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter ITA No. 3057/Del/2019 Indian Evangelical Team 2 referred to as ‘the Act’) passed by ACIT, Circle 1(1), New Delhi ( herein after referred to as ‘Ld. Assessing officer or in short Ld. AO’). 2. The facts in brief are assessee is a registered society. The Return of income was filed declaring Nil income. The Ld. AO observed that though the trust professed to be a charitable trust, in the Memorandum of Association (MOA) most of its objects and activities were geared for the benefit of Christian religion which, as per the assessing officer, were violative of the provisions of section 13(1)(b). The assessing officer had denied the exemption to the assessee in the assessment years 1993-94, 1994- 95, 2005-06, 2007-08 to 2009-10 mainly on the ground of violation of section 13(1)(b) but the appeals were allowed by the Ld. CIT(A) and all the departmental appeals before the ITAT were dismissed by the ITAT. The Assessing Officer has followed his earlier orders and in the year under consideration, exemption has been denied to the assessee mainly on the ground that the assessee is a charitable society and there is a violation of section 13(1)(b) and the Assessing Officer has relied on the case laws of State of Kerala vs. M.P.Shanti Verma jain, 231 ITR 787 (SC) 1998 and Ghulam Mohidin Trust vs. CIT 248 ITR 587 (J&K) 2001. Ld. CIT(A) perused the orders of predecessors for assessment years 2007-08 (Appeal No. 37/2009-10), assessment year 2008-09 (Appeal No. 88/2010-11), assessment year 2009- 10 (Appeal No. 196/2011-12), assessment year 2010-11 (Appeal No. 299/2013-14) and assessment year 2011-12 (Appeal No. 570/2013-14) and assessment year 2012-13 (Appeal No. 6/2015-16). His own orders for assessment year 2013-14 (Appeal No. 134/2016-17) and assessment year 2014-15 (Appeal No. 406/2016-17). He also referred to the orders of the ITAT for assessment years 2007-08 (ITA No. 4937/Del/2010), ITA No. 3057/Del/2019 Indian Evangelical Team 3 assessment year 2008-09 (ITA No. 4671/Del/2011), assessment year 2009- 10 (ITA No. 3635/Del/2012), assessment year 2010-11 (ITA No. 2153/Del/2014) and assessment year 2011-12 (ITA No. 5251/Del/2014). He noted that the ITAT Delhi while deciding the appeal for assessment year 2011-12 has held as under: "7. We have heard both the parties and perused the material available on record. The ITAT in assessee's own case ADIT (E) Vs. Indian Evangelical Team being ITA No.3635/Del/2012( A.Y. 2009-10) held as under: "5. We have heard both the parties and gone through the facts of the case. We find that the AO himself accepted the 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 identical circumstances. In the AY 1992-93, though a similar claim for exemption was disallowed, the Id. CIT(A) allowed the claim and the ITAT upheld the findings of the Id.CIT(A). On further appeal, the question of law formulated by Hon'ble High Court is stated to be pending in ITA No.6/2002. In the AY 1993-94, AO rejected the claim and appeal is stated to be pending in IT A No.216/2002. For the AY 1994-95, the ITAT upheld the findings of the Id. CIT(A) allowing the claim for exemption u/s 11 of the Act and the appeal filed before the Hon'ble High Court is stated to be pending admission. In AY 2005-06, the 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 IT AN 0.45/D el/09. In the AYs 2007-08 & 2008-09, though the AO denied exemption u/s 11 of the Act, the 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 the AY2008-09, the ITAT vide their order dated 26th December,2011 in ITA N0.4671/D el/2011 upheld the findings ofld.CIT(A), granting exemption u/s 11 of the Act. The Id. CIT(A) in the impugned order followed this order of the ITAT for the AY 2008-09 in allowing exemption u/s 11 of the Act. In view of the foregoing, especially when ITA No. 3057/Del/2019 Indian Evangelical Team 4 the Revenue have not placed any material 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 claim of the assessee for exemption has consistently been allowed in the preceding3 ITA- 2153/Del/2014years, we are not inclined to interfere. Consequently, ground no.l in the appeal is dismissed." 3. The revenue has come in appeal raising following grounds :- (i) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law Id. CIT (A) is correct in not adjudicating the issue whether exemption u/s 11 of the Act can be allowed to the assessee even though the case squarely falls u/s 13(1) (b) of the Act. (ii) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the Id. CIT (A) is correct in not appreciating that the assessee was not eligible for the benefit of exemption u/s 11/12 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 in view of the finding that the assessee is engaged in activities for the benefit of particular community, contrary to section 13(l)(b). (iii) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the Id. CIT (A) is correct in not appreciating that the objects stated in the Memorandum of Association of IET clearly indicate that the main object of the trust was to provide benefit to the particular region. (iv) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the Id. CIT (A) is correct in not appreciating that the assessee society is set up for religious activities, while claiming charitable status which is a clear violation of Section 13(l)(b) of the I. T. Act,1961. (v) The appellant craves leave to add, to alter or amend any ground of appeal raised at the time of hearing.” 4. Heard and perused the record. ITA No. 3057/Del/2019 Indian Evangelical Team 5 5. Ld. DR submitted that the revenue has preferred appeal before Hon’ble High Court against the previous years adjudications of the ITAT. Ld. DR submitted that Ld. AO has taken into consideration the activities of the assessee and passed reasoned order. 6. Now, as a matter of admitted fact in the previous years including immediately preceding assessment years 2013-14 and 2014-15 similar controversy raised by the Revenue stands decided against the Revenue in ITA No. 1690/Del./2018 and 1691/Del/2018 for assessment year 2013-14, 2014-15 respectively vide order dated 18.03.2021. The case of revenue was not sustained with the following observations :- “7. As has been held in the above orders, the provisions of section 13(1)(b) are attracted in case of charitable societies only and not in case of religious societies and hence there is no violation of section 13(1)(b) as alleged by the Assessing officer, since this assessee is religious society. Keeping in view of the facts and circumstances of the case and respectfully following the orders of the ITAT in assessee’s own case, we decline to interfere with the reasoned order of the ld. CIT(A).” 7. Thus, merely for the assertion that revenue has challenged the previous orders of ITAT before Hon’ble High Court a different view is not justified. The appeal of revenue is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on 27 th June, 2022. Sd/- Sd/- (SHAMIM YAHYA) (ANUBHAV SHARMA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Date:- 27 .06.2022 *Binita, SR.P.S* Copy forwarded to: ITA No. 3057/Del/2019 Indian Evangelical Team 6 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(Appeals) 5. DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT, NEW DELHI