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

ITA 5251/DEL/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 126 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 3882 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 4 month(s) 5 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 30-01-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Appeal Filed On: 25-09-2014
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Question of law
• Section: 11

Judgement Text

1 ITA NO. 5251/DEL /2014 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLA TE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH: C NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI G. D. AGRAWAL, PRESIDE NT AND MS SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JUDI CIAL MEMBER I.T.A .NO. 5251/DEL/2 014 (A.Y 2011-12) ADIT (E) TRUST CIRCLE-II NEW DELHI (APPELLANT) VS INDIAN EVANGELICAL TEAM 126, ANDHERIA MORE, CHATTARPUR PAHARI, MEHRAULI NEW DELHI AAATI0283M (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY SH. GEORGE KOSHI, CA RESPONDENT BY SH. ARUN KUMAR YADAV, SR. DR ORDER PER G. D. AGRAWAL, PRESIDENT:- THE APPEAL BY THE REVENUE AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 1 8/7/2014 PASSED BY CIT(A)-XXI, NEW DELHI FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2011-12. 2. THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL ARE AS UNDER:- 1. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE A ND IN LAW, THE LD. CIT (A) HAS ERRED IN ALLOWING THE ASSESSEE BENE FITS OF EXEMPTION U/S 11 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT,1961 TO THE ASSESSEE, WHICH WAS DENIED BY THE AO BECAUSE THE ASSESSEE SOC IETY IS INVOLVED IN PROMOTION OF THE RELIGIOUS ACTIVITIES O F A PARTICULAR COMMUNITY, I.E., CHRISTIANITY. DATE OF HEARING 05.12.2017 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 30.01.2018 2 ITA NO. 5251/DEL /2014 2. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE A ND IN LAW, THE LD. CIT (A) HAS ERRED IN HOLDING THAT THE ASSESSEE TRUST IS A RELIGIOUS TRUST, THEREFORE NOT COVERED BY THE PROVI SIONS OF SECTION 13(1) (B) OF THE I.T. ACT, 1961. 3. THE APPELLANT CRAVES TO ADD, TO ALTER OR AMEND ANY GROUND OF APPEAL RAISED ABOVE AT THE TIME OF HEARING. 3. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD DENIED THE EXEMPTION T O THE ASSESSEE IN THE A.YS. 1993-94, 1994-95, 2005-06, 20 07-08 TO 2009- 10 MAINLY ON THE GROUND OF VIOLATION OF SECTION 13( L)(B) BUT THE APPEALS WERE ALLOWED BY THE CIT(A) AND ALL THE DEPA RTMENTAL APPEALS BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL WERE DISMISSED BY THE TRIBUNAL. THE DEPARTMENTAL APPEALS FOR THE A.YS 1992-93 AND 1993- 94 ARE SAID TO BE PENDING BEFORE THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT. IN THE PR ESENT ASSESSMENT YEAR, THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOLLOWED HIS EARLIER ORDERS AND DENIED THE EXEMPTION U/S 11 TO THE ASSESSEE ON THE SIMILAR GROUND THAT THERE IS VIOLATION OF SECTION 13(L)(B) AND THE AO HAS ALSO 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 VIDE THE ORDER OF THE ASSESS ING OFFICER . 4. BEING AGGRIEVED BY THE SAID ORDER THE ASSESSEE F ILED APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT(A). THE CIT(A) HAS ALLOWED THE APPE AL OF THE ASSESSEE. 3 ITA NO. 5251/DEL /2014 5. THE LD. DR SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS RIGHTLY DENIED THE EXEMPTION U/S 11 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT A ND RELIED UPON THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THE LD. DR FURT HER SUBMITS THAT THE CIT(A) HAS NOT TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT THAT THE ASSE SSEE SOCIETY IS INVOLVED IN PROMOTION OF THE RELIGIOUS ACTIVITY OF A PARTICULAR COMMUNITY WHICH IS NOT COVERED UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 13(1)(B) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961. 6. THE LD. AR SUBMITTED THAT THE TRIBUNAL ALREADY H ELD THIS ISSUE IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE IN EVERY EARLIER YEAR SIN CE 1992 TO 1993 TILL 2010 TO 2011. THE MATTER IS COVERED IN FAVOUR OF T HE ASSESSEE. THEREFORE, THE CIT(A) HAS RIGHTLY ALLOWED THE APPEA L OF THE ASSESSEE. 7. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE M ATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. THE ITAT IN ASSESSEES OWN CA SE 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 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 IDENTICAL CIRCUMSTANCES. IN THE AY 1992-93, THOUGH A SIMILAR CLAIM FOR EXEMPTION WAS DISALLOWED, THE LD. CIT(A) ALLOWED TH E CLAIM AND THE ITAT UPHELD THE FINDING OF THE LD. CIT(A). ON F URTHER APPEAL, THE QUESTION OF LAW FORMULATED BY THE HONBLE HIGH COUR T IS STATED TO BE PENDING IN I.T.A. NO. 6/2002. IN THE AY 1993-94, AO REJECTED 4 ITA NO. 5251/DEL /2014 THE CLAIM AND APPEAL IS STATED TO BE PENDING IN I.T .A. NO. 216/2002. FOR THE AY 1994-95, THE ITAT UPHELD THE F INDINGS OF THE LD. CIT(A), ALLOWING THE CLAIM FOR EXEMPTION U/S 11 OF THE ACT AND THE APPEAL FILED BEFORE THE HONBLE HIGH COURT IS S TATED TO BE PENDING ADMISSION. IN AY 2005-06, THE AO AGAIN DENI ED EXEMPTION FOR VIOLATION U/S 13(1)(B) OF THE ACT. HO WEVER, ON APPEAL, THE LD. CIT(A) ALLOWED THE CLAIM AND THE ITAT UPHEL D THE FINDINGS OF THE LD. CIT(A) VIDE THEIR ORDER DATED 18 TH JUNE, 2009 IN I.T.A. NO. 45/DEL/09. IN THE AYS 2007-08 & 2008-09, THOUGH THE AO DENIED EXEMPTION U/S 11 OF THE ACT, THE LD. CIT(A) ALLOWED THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE IN THE AY 2007-08, THE ITAT VIDE THEIR ORD ER DATED 26 TH DECEMBER, 2011 IN I.T.A. NO. 4671/DEL/2011 UPHELD T HE FINDINGS OF LD. CIT(A), GRANTING EXEMPTION U/S 11 OF THE ACT . THE LD. CIT(A) IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER FOLLOWED THIS ORDER OF THE IT AT FOR THE AY 2008-09 IN ALLOWING EXEMPTION U/S 11 OF THE ACT. IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, ESPECIALLY WHEN THE REVENUE HAVE NOT PLA CED ANY MATERIAL BEFORE US, CONTROVERTING THE AFORESAID FIN DINGS OF THE LD. CIT(A) NOR BROUGHT TO OUR NOTICE ANY CONTRARY DECIS ION., SO AS TO ENABLE US TO TAKE A DIFFERENT VIEW IN THE MATTER WH ILE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE FOR EXEMPTION HAS CONSISTENTLY BEEN ALLOWE D IN THE PRECEDING YEARS, WE ARE NOT INCLINED TO INTERFERE. CONSEQUENTLY, GROUND NO. 1 IN THE APPEAL IS DISMISSED. IT IS PERTINENT TO NOTE THAT THE TRIBUNAL HAS ALREA DY DEALT WITH THIS ISSUE SINCE ASSESSMENT YEAR 1992-93 TO 2009-10 AND IN IMMEDIATE 5 ITA NO. 5251/DEL /2014 PRECEDING YEAR 2010-11 IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE. THEREFORE, THERE IS NO NEED TO INTERFERE WITH THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A ). 8. IN RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DISMISSE D. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 30 TH 01.2018 SD/- SD/- (SUCHITRA KAMBLE) (G. D. AGRAWAL) JUDICIAL MEMBER PRESIDENT DATED: 30/01/2018 R. NAHEED * COPY FORWARDED TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(APPEALS) 5. DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT NEW DELHI DATE 1. DRAFT DICTATED ON 05/12/2017 PS 2. DRAFT PLACED BEFORE AUTHOR 06/12/2017 PS 3. DRAFT PROPOSED & PLACED BEFORE THE SECOND MEMBER .2018 JM/AM 4. DRAFT DISCUSSED/APPROVED BY JM/AM 6 ITA NO. 5251/DEL /2014 SECOND MEMBER. 5. APPROVED DRAFT COMES TO THE SR.PS/PS 30.01.2018 PS/PS 6. KEPT FOR PRONOUNCEMENT ON PS 7. FILE SENT TO THE BENCH CLERK 3 1 .01.2018 PS 8. DATE ON WHICH FILE GOES TO THE AR 9. DATE ON WHICH FILE GOES TO THE HEAD CLERK. 10. DATE OF DISPATCH OF ORDER. 7 ITA NO. 5251/DEL /2014