ADIT(E), Delhi V. M/s. Aggarwal Welfare Society, New Delhi

ITA 4950/DEL/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2015] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 97196 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 15 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 07-09-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 24-07-2015
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 22-08-2013
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: K K JAISWAL
• Section: 143(3); 12A; 11

Judgement Text

ITA NO. 4950/DEL/2013 ASSTT.YEAR: 2009-10 1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH `A NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI J.S. REDDY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI CHANDRAMOHAN GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A.NO.4950/DEL/2013 ASSTT.YEAR: 2009-10 ADIT(E), VS AGGARWAL WELFARE S OCIETY, INV. CIRCLE, BLOCK-D, PHASE-I, DELHI. ASHOK VIHAR, NEW DELHI-110052 (PAN: AAATA4571G) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY: SHRI K.K. JAISWAL, DR RESPONDENT BY : SHRI VED JAIN, ADV. PARANJAL SRIVASTAVA, ADV. SHRI ASHISH GOEL, CA DATE OF HEARING: 24.07.2015 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: O R D E R PER CHANDRA MOHAN GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER THIS APPEAL BY THE REVENUE HAS BEEN DIRECTED AGAIN ST THE ORDER OF CIT(A)-XXI, NEW DELHI DATED 13.6.2013 IN APPEAL NO. 328/11-12 FOR AY 2009-10. GROUND NO. 4 OF THE REVENUE BEING GENERAL IN NATURE NEEDS NO ADJUDICATION. REMAINING GROUNDS OF REVENUE READ AS UNDER:- 1. 'ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CA SE AND IN LAW, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDIT ION OF RS. 37,86,792/- MADE BY THE AO ON ACCOUNT OF INCOME FRO M SAMUDAIK BHAWAN AFTER ALLOWING EXPENSES I.E. NET INCOME WHIC H WAS RIGHTLY ITA NO. 4950/DEL/2013 ASSTT.YEAR: 2009-10 2 ASSESSED BY INVOKING PROVISO TO SECTION 2(15) OF TH E INCOME TAX ACT,1961. 2. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CAS E AND IN LAW, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDIT ION OF RS. 8,31,2631- MADE BY THE AO ON ACCOUNT OF INCOME FROM FITNESS CENTRE AFTER ALLOWING EXPENSES I.E. NET INCOME. 3. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CAS E AND IN LAW, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDIT ION OF RS. 14,74,6771- MADE BY THE AO ON ACCOUNT OF INCOME FRO M LICENSE FEE. 2. BRIEFLY STATED THE FACTS GIVING RISE TO THIS APP EAL ARE THAT THE AO PICKED UP THE CASE FOR SCRUTINY AND FINALISED THE ASSESSMENT U/S 143(3) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (FOR SHORT THE ACT) DETERMINING THE TAXAB LE INCOME AT RS.60,92,730 AS AGAINST THE NIL RETURNED INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. T HE AO, APPLYING THE AMENDED PROVISIONS OF SECTION 2(15) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, HELD THAT THE INCOME FROM SAMUDAIK BHAWAN, FITNESS CENTRE, AND LICENSE FEE IN THE FORM OF RENT FROM BOOK SELLER, UNIFORM SELLER, CANTEEN, MEDICAL SHOP AND BANK ETC. IS NOT EXEMPTED U/S 11 OF THE ACT BEING CLEARLY HIT BY THE AMENDED PROVISIONS OF SECTION 2(15) OF THE ACT AND THE SAME WAS BROUGHT TO TAX IN THE SAID ASSESSMENT ORDER. THE AGGRIEVED ASSESSEE PREFERRED AN APPEAL BEFORE THE C IT(A) WHICH WAS ALLOWED BY PASSING THE IMPUGNED ORDER. NOW, THE AGGRIEVED REV ENUE IS BEFORE THIS TRIBUNAL WITH THE GROUNDS/ISSUES AS REPRODUCED HEREINABOVE. 3. WE HAVE HEARD ARGUMENTS OF BOTH THE SIDES AND CA REFULLY PERUSED THE RELEVANT MATERIAL PLACED ON RECORD. LD. DR SUPPORT ING THE ACTION OF THE AO STRENUOUSLY CONTENDED THAT IF THE ASSESSEE IS ENGAG ED IN ANY ACTIVITY IN THE ITA NO. 4950/DEL/2013 ASSTT.YEAR: 2009-10 3 NATURE OF TRADE, COMMERCE OR BUSINESS, THEN IT WOUL D NOT BE ENTITLED TO CLAIM THAT ITS OBJECTS ARE CHARITABLE IN NATURE AND IN SUCH CA SES, THE OBJECT OF GENERAL PUBLIC UTILITY WILL BE ONLY MASK OR DEVICE TO HIDE THE TRU E PURPOSE WHICH IS TRADE, COMMERCE OR BUSINESS OR THE RENDERING OF ANY SERVIC E RELATING TO TRADE, COMMERCE OF BUSINESS. LD. DR FURTHER CONTENDED THA T EACH CASE WOULD BE DECIDED ON ITS OWN FACTS AND NO GENERALISATION IS P OSSIBLE AND IN THE PRESENT CASE, THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED THAT THEIR OBJECT IS CHA RITABLE IN NATURE WITHIN THE MEANING OF SECTION 2(15) BUT THE SAME WOULD BE WELL ADVISED TO ESCHEW ANY ACTIVITY WHICH IS IN THE NATURE OF TRADE, COMMERCE OR BUSINESS OR RENDERING OF ANY SERVICE IN RELATION TO TRADE, COMMERCE OR BUSIN ESS. 4. LD. DR FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE INCOME EARNED BY THE ASSESSEE FROM SAMUDAIK BHAWAN, FITNESS CENTRE, AND LICENSE FEE IN THE FORM OF RENT FROM BOOK SELLER, UNIFORM SELLER, MEDICAL SHOP AND BANK ETC. IS NOT EXEMPT U/S 11 OF THE ACT BEING CLEARLY HIT BY THE AMENDED PROVISIONS OF SECTION 2(15) OF THE ACT RIGHTLY BROUGHT TO TAX BY THE AO. LD. DR VEHEMENTL Y CONTENDED THAT THE CIT(A) DELETED THE SAID ADDITION WITHOUT ANY BASIS AND JUSTIFIED REASONING, THEREFORE, THE IMPUGNED ORDER MAY BE SET ASIDE BY R ESTORING THAT OF THE AO ON ALL THREE ISSUES. 5. REPLYING TO THE ABOVE, LD. COUNSEL OF THE ASSESS EE POINTED OUT THAT THE ASSESSEE TRUST WAS GRANTED REGISTRATION U/S 12A OF THE ACT DATED 3.6.1976 AND AN ORDER U/S 80G(5)(VI) DATED 13.08.2007 WHICH WAS VAL ID FROM 1.4.2007 TO ITA NO. 4950/DEL/2013 ASSTT.YEAR: 2009-10 4 31.3.2010 AND THE ASSESSEE WAS CARRYING OUT CHARITA BLE ACTIVITIES AS PER ITS MEMORANDUM OF ASSOCIATION RIGHT FROM ITS BEGINNING. LD. COUNSEL FURTHER CONTENDED THAT THERE WAS NO CHANGE IN THE ACTIVITIE S OF THE ASSESSEE SOCIETY IN COMPARISON TO EARLIER ASSESSMENT YEARS AND IN THE A SSESSMENT YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION I.E. 2009-10, THEREFORE, THERE WAS NO OCCASION OR VALID REASON FOR THE AO TO TREAT THE RECEIPTS OF THE ASSESSEE FROM S AMUDAIK BHAWAN, FITNESS CENTRE AND LICENSE FEE IN THE FORM OF RENT FROM BOO K SELLER, UNIFORM SELLER, CANTEEN OPERATOR AND BANK. LD. COUNSEL POINTED OUT THAT THE AO ON THE SIMILAR SET OF FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES GRANTED EXEMPTION U/ S 11 OF THE ACT ON THESE RECEIPTS AND THERE WAS NO VALID REASON DURING THE Y EAR UNDER CONSIDERATION TO TAKE A DEVIATED VIEW FROM EARLIER ASSESSMENT YEARS, THEREFORE, ACTION OF THE AO WAS NOT SUSTAINABLE AND IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW WHIC H WAS RIGHTLY DISMISSED BY THE CIT(A). SUPPORTING THE IMPUGNED ORDER, LD. COU NSEL TOOK US THROUGH THE OPERATIVE PARA 3 TO 3.5 OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER AND S UBMITTED THAT SINCE THE BASIC ACTIVITY OF OPERATING SAMUDAIK BHAWAN AND FITNESS C ENTRE HAS BEEN CONSIDERED AS CHARITABLE IN NATURE, THE ISSUE RAISED BY THE AO IN THE REMAND REPORT WITH RESPECT TO QUANTIFICATION OF PROFITS RECEIVED FROM SAMUDAIK BHAWAN AND FITNESS CENTRE DOES NOT REQUIRE ANY SPECIFIC TREATM ENT OR DIFFERENT TREATMENT FROM EARLIER ASSESSMENT YEARS. LD. COUNSEL PARTED WITH THE ARGUMENT WITH A FINAL SUBMISSION THAT THE ASSESSEE SOCIETY HAS APPL IED THE COMPLETE RECEIPTS FROM THESE ACTIVITIES IN ACHIEVING THE BASIS OBJECTS OF THE SOCIETY; THEREFORE, IT CANNOT BE SAID THAT THE RECEIPTS FROM THESE ACTIVITIES ARE TAXABLE BEING COMMERCIAL IN ITA NO. 4950/DEL/2013 ASSTT.YEAR: 2009-10 5 NATURE. LD. COUNSEL ALSO POINTED OUT THAT THE AO W AS NOT CORRECT IN DENYING EXEMPTION U/S 11 OF THE ACT ON IMPUGNED RECEIPTS OF THE ASSESSEE SOCIETY AND THE CIT(A) GRANTED RELIEF AFTER ANALYSING THE TOTAL ITY OF THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE WHICH IS BALANCED AND JUS TIFIED. 6. ON CAREFUL CONSIDERATION OF ABOVE RIVAL SUBMISSI ONS AND VIGILANT PERUSAL OF MATERIAL PLACED ON RECORD INCLUDING PAPER BOOK OF ASSESSEE SPREAD OVER 172 PAGES, ASSESSMENT ORDER AND IMPUGNED ORDER OF THE CIT(A), WE NOTE THAT THE CIT(A) GRANTED RELIEF FOR THE ASSESSEE SOCIETY WITH FOLLOWING OBSERVATIONS AND CONCLUSION:- 3. 1 HAVE GONE THROUGH THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, REMAN D REPORT, FACTS OF THE CASE AND THE SUBMISSIONS, DETAILS AND DOCUMENTS AND REJOINDER OF REMAND REPORT FILED BEFORE ME BY THE A R OF THE APPELLANT. THE WHOLE ISSUE IN THIS APPEAL REVOLVES AROUND THE FACT THAT WHETHER THE RECEIPTS MADE BY THE APPELLANT FRO M ITS SAMUDAYIK KENDRA AND FITNESS CENTRE ARE COMMERCIAL IN NATURE OR NOT. IN THIS RESPECT I NOTICE THAT THE PRIME OBJ ECT OF THE ASSESSEE IS PROVIDING FOLLOWING SERVICES: I) RUNNING A REGULAR SCHOOL UPTO THE 12TH STANDARD IN THE NAME OF MAHARAJA AGARSAIN PUBLIC SCHOOL II) RUNNING A HOSPITAL IN THE NAME OF MAHARAJA AGAR SAIN HOSPITAL, III) RUNNING A PHYSIOTHERAPY UNIT UNDER MAHARAJA AG ARSAIN HOSPITAL. IV) RUNNING A DHARAMSHALA CALLED MAHARAJA AGARSAIN BHAWAN & V) RUNNING A FITNESS CENTRE WITH SOPHISTICATED MACH INES. THESE MACHINES ARE NOT AVAILABLE IN THE PHYSIOTHERA PY CENTRE, THE FITNESS CENTRE IS BASICALLY USED BY THE PATIENT S OF MAHARAJA ITA NO. 4950/DEL/2013 ASSTT.YEAR: 2009-10 6 AGARSAIN HOSPITAL. HOWEVER, THE FITNESS CENTRE IS A LSO USED BY THE MEMBERS OF AGARWAL WELFARE SOCIETY (REGD.). 3.1 THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN PROVIDING E DUCATION, MEDICAL RELIEF AND RELIEF TO POOR HAS BEEN ACCEPTED BY THE AO IN HIS ASSESSMENT ORDER AS WELL. IT IS FURTHER NOTICED THAT THERE IS NO CHANGE IN THE OBJECT AND ACTIVITIES OF THE ORGANIZA TION SINCE LAST MANY YEARS. THOSE YEARS WERE ALSO SCRUTINIZED U/S 1 43(3) OF THE ACT AND THE AO HAS ALLOWED EXEMPTION UNDER SECTION 11 OF THE ACT AND HAS TREATED ACTIVITIES OF THE APPELLANT AS CHARITABLE UNDER THE MEANING OF SECTION 2( 15) OF THE ACT. HOW ACTIV ITIES HAS' CHANGED IN AY 2009-10 AND THE APPELLANT IS A NON-CH ARITABLE IN THE PRESENT YEAR IS ALSO A MAIN ISSUE TO BE ADDRESS ED. 3.2 THE APPELLANT WAS ASKED TO SPECIFY THE LIST OF ACTIVITIES CARRIED OUT AT THE SAMUDAYIK BHAWAN AND FITNESS CEN TRE. A PERUSAL OF THE DETAILS REVEALS THAT SAMUDAYIK AND F ITNESS CENTRE/ GYMNASIUM ARE PRIMARILY BEING USED FOR ACHIEVING TH E MAIN OBJECTS OF THE APPELLANT SOCIETY. THE SAMUDAYIK BHA WAN HAS BEEN UTILIZED BY THE MEMBERS OF THE SOCIETY FOR VARIOUS SOCIAL EVENTS LIKE BHAJAN SANDHYAS, CONDOLENCE MEETINGS, MARRIAGE S, RELIGIOUS EVENTS, ETC. AND THE FITNESS CENTRE (GYMNASIUM) HAS BEEN UTILIZED TO TREAT VARIOUS PATIENTS THROUGH PHYSIOTHERAPY. AL SO THE SAME HAS BEEN UTILIZED TO FACILITATE GOOD HEALTH OF THE MEMBERS OF SOCIETY. THE CHARGES LEVIED BY THE APPELLANT FOR TH E USE OF THESE PREMISES ARE VERY NOMINAL AND CANNOT BE CONSTRUED T O HAVE BEEN RECEIVED IN THE NATURE OF TRADE OR COMMERCE. THE SA ME HAVE BEEN LEVIED JUST TO RECOVER THE BASIC EXPENSES INCURRED BY THE SOCIETY ON MAINTAINING THE SAME. 3.3 THE FACT THAT THE BASIS ACTIVITIES OF THE SOCIE TY ARE CHARITABLE IN NATURE IS NOT IN DISPUTE. THE LAST LIMB OF THE DEFINITION UNDER SECTION 2(15) IS 'ANY OTHER OBJECT OF GENERAL PUBLI C UTILITY'. THE APPELLANT HAS BEEN ABLE TO CLEARLY DEMONSTRATE THAT THROUGH ITS SAMUDAYIK BHAWAN AND GYMNASIUM IT IS ENGAGED IN PRO VIDING SERVICES WHICH ARE IN THE NATURE OF GENERAL PUBLIC UTILITY, BUT NOT IN THE NATURE OF TRADE, COMMERCE OR BUSINESS. THE R ECEIPTS FROM THE SAME OR THE PROFIT FROM THE SAME IS UTILIZED WH OLLY AND EXCLUSIVELY FOR THE OBJECTS OF THE SOCIETY. IN SUPP ORT OF ITS CLAIM THE APPELLANT HAS PRODUCED VARIOUS DETAILS WHICH WE RE PERUSED BY ME AND AFTER CAREFUL CONSIDERATION OF THE VARIOU S DETAILS FILED AND PLACED ON RECORD. A PERUSAL OF THESE DETAILS EN VISAGE THAT THE SAMUDAYIK BHAWAN AND GYMNASIUM HAVE BEEN UTILIZED F OR THE BENEFIT OF THE MEMBERS OF THE SOCIETY. ITA NO. 4950/DEL/2013 ASSTT.YEAR: 2009-10 7 3.4 THOUGH THERE IS AN AMENDMENT IN THE ACT W.E.F. AY 2009-10, IT HAS BEEN CLARIFIED BY THE CBDT VIDE CIRCULAR NO. 11/2008 DATED 19.12.2008, WHEREIN, IT HAS BEEN EMPHASIZED T HAT EACH CASE WOULD BE DECIDED ON FACTS AND NO GENERALIZATIO N IS POSSIBLE. SO, I FIND THAT BY TAKING THE SHELTER OF THE AMENDM ENT, AO CANNOT HOLD THAT ACTIVITY DONE BY THE APPELLANT SOCIETY HA S BECOME NON- CHARITABLE BECAUSE OF THE AMENDMENT IN SECTION. AFT ER CONSIDERING THE REPLY OF THE APPELLANT AND FINDING OF THE AO, I AM OF A CONSIDERED OPINION THAT ASSESSEE'S ACTIVITY CO MES UNDER THE PURVIEW OF 'ANY OTHER OBJECT OF GENERAL PUBLIC UTIL ITY' WHICH IS THE FOURTH LIMB OF SECTION 2(15), BUT NOT DOING TRA DE, COMMERCE OR BUSINESS. SO THE ACTION OF THE AO IS FOUND TO BE MISCONCEIVED. FURTHERMORE, THE APPELLANT SOCIETY IS MAINTAINING S EPARATE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT FOR ITS FOLLOWING UNITS:- I) FOR SCHOOL UNDER THE NAME MAHARAJA AGARSAIN PUBL IC SCHOOL. II) FOR HOSPITAL UNDER THE NAME MAHARAJA AGARSAIN H OSPITAL. III) FOR PHYSIOTHERAPY CENTRE UNDER THE NAME MAHARA JA AGARSAIN HOSPITAL (PHYSIO WING). IV) FOR OTHER MISCELLANEOUS ACTIVITIES UNDER THE NA ME AGARWAL WELFARE SOCIETY (REGD) WHICH INCLUDES SAMUDAIK BHAW AN & FITNESS CENTRE . 3.5 SINCE THE BASIC ACTIVITY OF OPERATING SAMUDAIK BHAWAN AND FITNESS CENTRE HAS BEEN CONSIDERED AS CHARITABLE IN NATURE THE ISSUE RAISED BY THE AO IN THE REMAND REPORT WITH RE SPECT TO THE QUANTIFICATION OF PROFITS RECEIVED FROM SAMUDAYIK B HAWAN AND FITNESS CENTRE DOES NOT REQUIRE ANY SPECIFIC ADJUDI CATION. THE APPELLANT HAS APPLIED THE COMPLETE RECEIPTS FROM BO TH THESE ACTIVITIES IN ACHIEVING THE BASIC OBJECTS OF THE SO CIETY. THUS BY NO MEANS IT CAN BE SAID THAT RECEIPTS FROM THESE ACTIV ITIES ARE TAXABLE OR COMMERCIAL IN NATURE. BOTH THE GROUNDS O F APPEAL NO. L AND 2 ARE ALLOWED. 7. IN THE LIGHT OF OBSERVATIONS OF THE CIT(A), WE CLEARLY NOTE THAT THE AO ACCEPTED THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN PROVID ING EDUCATION, MEDICAL RELIEF AND RELIEF TO THE POOR AS PER OBJECTS MENTIONED IN ITS MEMORANDUM OF ITA NO. 4950/DEL/2013 ASSTT.YEAR: 2009-10 8 ASSOCIATION AND THERE WAS NO CHANGE IN THE OBJECTS AND ACTIVITIES OF THE ORGANISATION SINCE A NUMBER OF EARLIER ASSESSMENT YEARS FROM THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. THE CIT(A) ALSO OBSERVED THAT DURIN G THE EARLIER ASSESSMENT YEARS, THE ASSESSMENT ORDERS WERE PASSED U/S 143(3) OF THE ACT AFTER DUE SCRUTINY AND THE AO ALLOWED EXEMPTION U/S 11 OF THE ACT TREA TING THE ACTIVITIES OF THE ASSESSEE AS CHARITABLE UNDER THE MEANING OF SECTION 2(15) OF THE ACT. THE CIT(A) ALSO NOTICED THAT THERE WAS NO CHANGE IN THE OBJECTS AND ACTIVITIES OF THE ORGANISATION DURING THE RELEVANT FINANCIAL YEAR AND ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. THE AUTHORITIES BELOW SPECIFICALLY ASKED TO SPECIFY THE LIST OF ACTIVITIES CARRIED OUT AT THE SAMUDAIK BHAWAN AND FITNESS CENTRE IN VIEW OF AMENDED PROVISIONS OF SECTION 2(15) OF THE ACT. TH E ASSESSEE REPLIED THAT THE SAMUDAIK BHAWAN AND FITNESS CENTRE WERE PRIMARILY U SED FOR ACHIEVING THE MAIN OBJECT OF THE ASSESSEE SOCIETY AND THE SAMUDAI K BHAWAN HAD BEEN UTILIZED BY THE TRUST OF THE SOCIETY FOR VARIOUS SOCIAL EVEN TS LIKE BHAJAN SANDHYA, CONDOLENCE MEETINGS, MARRIAGES, RELIGIOUS EVENTS, E TC. AND THE FITNESS CENTRE (GYMNASIUM) HAS BEEN UTILIZED TO TREAT VARIOUS PATI ENTS THROUGH PHYSIOTHERAPY. IT WAS ALSO EXPLAINED BY THE ASSESSEE SOCIETY THAT THE SAME HAS BEEN UTILIZED TO FACILITATE GOOD HEALTH OF THE MEMBERS OF SOCIETY. T HE CHARGES LEVIED BY THE APPELLANT FOR THE USE OF THESE PREMISES ARE VERY NO MINAL AND CANNOT BE CONSTRUED TO HAVE BEEN RECEIVED IN THE NATURE OF TRADE OR COM MERCE. LD. COUNSEL OF THE ASSESSEE ALSO POINTED OUT THAT THE FEES/CHARGES LEV IED AND COLLECTED BY THE ASSESSEE SOCIETY HAVE BEEN LEVIED JUST TO RECOVER T HE BASIC EXPENSES/OPERATIONAL ITA NO. 4950/DEL/2013 ASSTT.YEAR: 2009-10 9 COST INCURRED BY THE SOCIETY ON MAINTAINING THE SAM UDAIK BHAWAN, FITNESS CENTRE, THEREFORE, THERE WAS NO ELEMENT OF PROFIT M OTIVE IN THE NATURE OF TRADE, COMMERCE OR BUSINESS. FROM OPERATIVE PART OF THE I MPUGNED ORDER, WE ALSO OBSERVE THAT THE CIT(A) ALSO NOTICED THAT THE RECEI PTS/PROFITS FROM THE ALLEGED ACTIVITIES WERE WHOLLY AND EXCLUSIVELY USED FOR THE OBJECTIVES OF THE SOCIETY AND THERE WAS NO ALLEGATION OF PROFIT MOTIVE OR COMMERC IAL ACTIVITY IN THE NATURE OF TRADE, COMMERCE OR BUSINESS. 8. IN VIEW OF ABOVE NOTED FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES, WE REACH TO A LOGICAL CONCLUSION THAT THE AO APPLIED/INVOKED AMENDED PROV ISIONS OF SECTION 2(15) OF THE ACT WITHOUT ANY REASONING AND JUSTIFIED BASIS A ND THE SAME WAS RIGHTLY DELETED BY THE CIT(A) AFTER DUE EXAMINATION AND ANA LYSIS OF THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. WE ARE ALSO INCLINED TO HOLD THAT THE CIT(A) WAS QUITE REASONABLE AND JUSTIFIED IN CONCEDING THAT TH E BASIC ACTIVITY OF OPERATING SAMUDAIK BHAWAN AND FITNESS CENTRE WAS CHARITABLE I N NATURE AND THE ALLEGATION OF ISSUES RAISED BY THE AO IN THE REMAND REPORT WIT H RESPECT TO QUANTIFICATION OF PROFITS RECEIVED THEREFROM DO NOT REQUIRE ANY SPECI FIC ADJUDICATION, BEING PLACED ON THE WRONG PREMISE. 9. LD. COUNSEL OF THE ASSESSEE HAS PLACED RELIANCE UPON THE JUDGMENT OF HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT OF DELHI IN THE C ASE OF INDIA TRADE PROMOTION ORGANIZATION VS DIRECTOR GENERAL OF INCOM E TAX(EXEMPTIONS) ITA NO. 4950/DEL/2013 ASSTT.YEAR: 2009-10 10 (W.P. (C) 1872/2013 DATED 20.1.2015 AND SUBMITTED THAT IT IS CLEAR FRO M THE FACTS OF THE CASE THAT THE DRIVING FORCE OF THE ACT IVITIES IS NOT THE DESIRE TO EARN PROFIT BUT THE OBJECT OF PROMOTING TRADE AND COMMER CE NOT FOR ITSELF BUT FOR THE NATION BOTH WITHIN INDIA AND OUTSIDE INDIA. LD. COUNSEL ALSO POINTED OUT THAT IN THIS JUDGMENT, HONBLE HIGH COURT OF DELHI LAID DOWN A PROPOSITION THAT WHEN THE ACTIVITIES OF THE ASSESSEE ARE FOR CHARITA BLE PURPOSES WHICH HAS AS ITS MOTIVE THE ADVANCEMENT OF AN OBJECT OF GENERAL PUBL IC UTILITY, TO WHICH THE EXCEPTION CARVED OUT IN THE FIRST PROVISO TO SECTIO N 2(15) OF THE ACT, THE SAME AMENDED PROVISION WOULD NOT APPLY TO THE PRESENT CA SE. 10. IN THE LIGHT OF RATIO LAID DOWN BY THE HONBLE HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF INDIA TRADE PROMOTION ORGANIZATION VS DIRECTOR GENE RAL OF INCOME TAX(EXEMPTIONS) (SUPRA), IN THE PRESENT CASE, WE NO TE THAT THE USE OF SAMUDAIK BHAWAN AND FITNESS CENTRE AND RECEIPTS OF CHARGES/F EES THEREFROM CANNOT BE HELD AS AN ACTIVITY IN THE NATURE OF TRADE, COMMERC E OR BUSINESS OR RENDERING OF ANY SERVICE IN RELATION TO TRADE, COMMERCE OR BUSIN ESS AND HENCE THE ACTION OF THE AO WAS NOT IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF THE ACT WHICH WAS RIGHTLY DISMISSED BY THE CIT(A). ON THE BASIS OF FOREGOING DISCUSSION AND RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE RATIO LAID DOWN BY THE HONBLE HIGH C OURT IN THE CASE OF INDIA TRADE PROMOTION ORGANIZATION VS DIRECTOR GENERAL OF INCOME TAX(EXEMPTIONS) (SUPRA), WE ARE UNABLE TO SEE ANY INFIRMITY, PERVER SITY OR ANY OTHER VALID REASON ITA NO. 4950/DEL/2013 ASSTT.YEAR: 2009-10 11 TO INTERFERE WITH THE CONCLUSION OF THE CIT(A) ON T HESE ISSUES. THEREFORE, WE ARE INCLINED TO HOLD THAT THE CIT(A) GRANTED RELIEF FOR THE ASSESSEE ON JUSTIFIED REASONING AND COGENT BASIS AND WE UPHOLD THE SAME. ACCORDINGLY, GROUND NO. 1, 2 AND 3 OF THE REVENUE BEING DEVOID OF MERITS ARE D ISMISSED. 11. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DIS MISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 07.09.2015. SD/- SD/- (J.S. REDDY) (CHANDRAMOHAN GARG) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DT. 7 TH SEPTEMBER, 2015 GS COPY FORWARDED TO:- 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. C.I.T.(A) 4. C.I.T. 5. DR BY ORDER ASSTT.REGISTRAR