ADIT (E), New Delhi V. Indian Evangelical Team, New Delhi

ITA 4671/DEL/2011

• Counselvise Citation: 467120114 RSA 2011
• Duration Of Justice: 2 month(s) 2 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 26-12-2011
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Next Hearing Date: 26-12-2011
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 24-10-2011
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: H L DHIMANA
• Section: 12A; 11

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH `C: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI C.L.SETHI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI A.N. PAHUJA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T. A. NO.4671/DEL/2011 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2008-09 ASSTT. DIRECTOR OF INCOME-TAX(E), INDIAN EVANGELICA L TEAM, TC-II, NEW DELHI. VS. 126, ANDHERIA MODH, CHATTARPUR, MEHRAULI, NEW DELHI. PAN: AAATI0283M (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI H.L. DHIMANA, CIT-D R. RESPONDENT BY : SHRI G EORGE KOSHI, ADVOCATE. O R D E R PER C.L. SETHI, JUDICIAL MEMBER: THE ONLY GROUND RAISED IN THIS APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 19.08.2011 OF THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS) IS WITH REGARD TO THE ASSESSEES CLAIM OF EXEMPTION UNDER SEC. 11 OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961 (THE ACT), WHICH READS AS UNDER:- ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN ALLOWING EXEMPTION U/S 11 O F THE I.T. ACT IS ENTITLED TO BOTH RELIGIOUS AND CHARITAB LE INSTITUTION. 2. THE ASSESSEE FILED ITS RETURN FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION ON 24.09.2008 DISCLOSING TOTAL INCOME AT RS. `NIL. T HE ASSESSEE SOCIETY 2 REGISTERED UNDER SEC. 12A VIDE COMMISSIONER OF INCO ME-TAX, AMRITSARS ORDER DATED 13.01.1977. THE RETURN FILED BY THE AS SESSEE WAS SELECTED FOR SCRUTINY. AFTER HEARING THE ASSESSEE AND CONSIDERI NG THE PROVISIONS OF SEC. 13(1)(B) OF THE ACT, THE AO HAS TAKEN A VIEW THAT T HE ASSESSEE TRUST HAS BEEN CREATED/ESTABLISHED FOR THE BENEFIT OF ANY PARTICUL AR RELIGIOUS COMMUNITY OR CASTE, WHICH IS PROHIBITED UNDER SEC. 13(1)(B) OF T HE ACT. THE AO, THEREFORE, DENIED THE EXEMPTION U/S 11 OF THE ACT. THE ASSESS EE HAS SHOWN RECEIPTS OF RS.7,79,83,439/- AGAINST WHICH, EXPENSES OF RS.71,0 9,910/- BEING 50% OF TOTAL EXPENSES CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE WAS ALLOWED AS DEDUCTION BEING EXPENSES NECESSARY FOR EARNING THE INCOME AND THE B ALANCE AMOUNT OF RS.7,08,73,529/- WAS BROUGHT TO TAX BY THE ASSESSIN G OFFICER. IT WAS ALSO STATED BY THE AO THAT THIS IDENTICAL ISSUE HAD COME EARLIER IN THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 1993-94 AND 2005-06, AND THOUGH THE MATTER WA S CONCLUDED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE BY THE TRIBUNAL, THE DEPARTMENT HAS NOT ACCEPTED THE TRIBUNALS ORDER AND PREFERRED AN APPEAL BEFORE THE HONBLE HIGH COURT. THE AO, THUS, STATED THAT ISSUE HAS NOT BEEN CONCLU SIVELY SETTLED. HE, THEREFORE, PASSED THE ASSESSMENT ORDER UNDER SEC. 1 43(3) OF THE ACT, DENYING THE EXEMPTION TO THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED UNDER SEC. 11 OF THE ACT. 3. ON AN APPEAL, THE LEARNED CIT(A) ALLOWED THE ASS ESSEES CASE AFTER OBSERVING THAT IDENTICAL ISSUE HAS BEEN DECIDED BY THE TRIBUNAL IN ASSESSEES 3 CASE FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 1992-93, 1993-94, 199 4-95, 1995-96 AND 2005-06, WHEREBY THE ASSESSEES CLAIM OF EXEMPTION UNDER SEC. 11 WAS ALLOWED. HE, THEREFORE, FOLLOWED THE TRIBUNALS OR DER PASSED IN EARLIER YEARS AND DIRECTED THE AO TO GRANT EXEMPTION UNDER SEC. 1 1 OF THE ACT AND ALLOW ALL THE EXPENSES. THE RELEVANT PORTION OF THE LEAR NED CIT(A)S ORDER IS AS UNDER:- 2.2 I HAVE GONE THROUGH THE ORDER OF AO AND WRITTE N SUBMISSION OF THE LD. AR. IN THIS REGARD, I AM INC LINED TO ACCEPT MY OWN DECISION FOR A.Y. 2007-08, WHEREIN IN THE RELEVANT PARA 2.1 & 3 I HAVE DECIDED THE ISSUE AS U NDER:- 2.1 DURING THE COURSE OF APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS, THE APPELLANT HAS ALSO FILED COPIES OF ORDERS PASSE D BY CIT(A) FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 1992-93 AND 1994- 95 ALLOWING EXEMPTION TO THE APPELLANT SOCIETY U/S. 11. THE APPELLANT HAS ALSO FILED COPIES OF ITATS ORDERS FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 1992-93, 1993-94, 1994-95 AND 2005-06, WHEREIN THE DEPARTMENTAL APPEALS AGAINST THE ORDER OF CIT(A) WERE DISMISSED AND THE APPELLANT WAS GRANTED EXEMPTION U/S.11. 3. I HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE ORDER OF THE AO, THE APPELLATE ORDERS PASSED BY CIT(A) FOR DIFFERENT YEARS AND THE ORDER OF THE ITAT FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 1992-93, 1993-94, 1994-95, 1995- 96 AND 2005-06 ALLOWING EXEMPTION TO THE APPELLANT US/ 11. RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE ORDER S OF THE ITAT FOR DIFFERENT ASSESSMENT YEARS, I AM OF THE VIEW THAT THE APPELLANT IS ENTITLED FOR EXEMPTI ON U/S 11 OF THE IT ACT. THE AO IS DIRECTED TO GRANT EXEMPTION U/S. 11 OF THE IT ACT TO THE APPELLANT TRUST AND ALLOW ALL THE EXPENSES DISALLOWED AND 4 ADDED BACK AS INCOME OF THE TRUST. THIS DISPOSES OFF GROUNDS NO.1 TO 5. 2.3 FURTHERMORE, FOLLOWING THE PRINCIPLE OF CONSIST ENCY, I AM OF THE VIEW THAT APPELLANT IS ENTITLED EXEMPTION U/ S.11 OF THE IT ACT. THE AO IS, THEREFORE, DIRECTED TO GRANT EXEMP TION U/S. 11 OF THE IT ACT TO THE APPELLANT TRUST AND ALLOW ALL THE EXPENSES DISALLOWED AND ADDED BACK AS INCOME OF THE APPELLAN T. 4. HENCE, THE DEPARTMENT IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 5. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE M ATERIAL ON RECORD. 6. AN IDENTICAL ISSUE HAS BEEN DECIDED BY THE ITAT, DELHI BENCH `C, NEW DELHI IN THE ASSESSEES CASE FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06 AFTER FOLLOWING THE EARLIER DECISIONS OF THE APPELLATE TR IBUNAL PASSED IN ASSESSMENT YEARS 1992-93, 1993-94 AND 1994-95. THE OPERATIVE PORTION OF THE TRIBUNALS ORDER DATED 18.06.2009 PASSED IN ASS ESSMENT YEAR 2005-06 IN ITA NO.45/DEL/20-09, IS AS UNDER:- 3. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE CONTENTION OF THE LEARNE D DR AND GONE THROUGH THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW AN D FOUND FROM THE RECORD THAT FOR AY 1992-93, 93-94 AND 94-9 5 THE AO HELD THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS A RELIGIOUS SOCIETY AND THEREFORE, WAS NOT ELIGIBLE FOR THE TAX EXEMPTION CONTAINED IN SECTION 11 OF THE ACT. ON APPEAL, THE CIT(A) VIDE HIS ORDERS DATED 2.8.1995 FOR AY 1992-93, 12.6.1996 FOR AY 1993-94 A ND 21.7.1997 FOR AY 1994-95 HELD THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS ENTITLED TO TAX EXEMPTION U/S 11 OF THE ACT. ON SECOND APPEAL BY THE DEPARTMENT FOR AY 1992-93, 1993-94 AND 1994-95, THE ITAT CONFIRMED THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) VIDE ORDERS DATED 9.4.2001 FOR AY 1992-93, 16.1.2002 FOR AY 1993-94 AND 13.9.2 002 FOR AY 1994-95 AND ALLOWED TAX EXEMPTION UNDER SECTION 11 TO THE ASSESSEE. DURING THE YEAR ALSO, THE AO HAS DENIED EXEMPTION ONLY ON THE GROUND THAT IT IS A RELIGIOUS SOCIETY. AS THE FACTS 5 AND CIRCUMSTANCES DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATI ON ARE IN PARI-MATERIA WITH THE FACTS DISCUSSED BY THE TRIBUN AL IN ITS ORDER DATED 9.4.2001 FOR AY 1992-93, 16.1.2002 FOR AY 1993- 94 AND 13.9.2002 FOR AY 1994-95, RESPECTFULLY FOLLO WING THE SAME, WE DO NOT FIND ANY INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A). THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS ALSO STATED IN HIS ORDER THAT IDENTICAL ISSUE WAS DECIDED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE BY THE TRIBUNAL B UT THE DEPARTMENT HAS FILED AN APPEAL BEFORE THE HONBLE HIGH COURT, HENC E THE MATTER IS PENDING ADJUDICATION. HOWEVER, THE FACT EMERGES THAT AS TH E POSITION STANDS TODAY, THE MATTER HAS BEEN DECIDED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESS EE BY THE TRIBUNAL, WHICH IS TO BE FOLLOWED IN THE PRESENT ASSESSMENT YEAR. 7. RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE AFORESAID TRIBUNALS ORDER PASSED IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06, WE ARE INCLINED TO UPHOLD THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT(A) IN GRANTING EXEMPTION UNDER SEC. 11 OF THE A CT. THUS, THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT(A) IS UPHELD. 8. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE I S DISMISSED. 9. THIS DECISION WAS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT O N 26 TH DECEMBER, 2011 IMMEDIATELY AFTER THE HEARING WAS OVER. SD/- SD/- (A.N. PAHUJA) (C.L. SETHI) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED: 26 TH DECEMBER, 2011. 6 ITA NO.4671/DEL/2011 COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO:- 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR BY ORDER *MG DEPUTY REGISTRAR, ITAT.