ITO (E), Circle-2(1), New Delhi V. Professional Assistance for Development Action, New Delhi

ITA 5805/DEL/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2021] 109 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 2921 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 5 month(s) 12 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 23-02-2021
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: F
• Assessment Year: 2013-2014
• Appeal Filed On: 11-09-2017
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Business income
• Section: 11

Judgement Text

ITA NO.-5805/DEL/2017 PROFESSIONAL ASSISTANCE FOR DEVELOPMENT ACTION PAGE 1 OF 4 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (DELHI BENCH: F: NEW DELHI) (THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCING) BEFORE SH. SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA, JUDICIAL MEMBE R AND SHRI ANADEE NATH MISSHRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO:- 5805/DEL/2017 ( ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2013-14) ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME - TAX (E), CIRCLE-2(1), NEW DELHI VS. PROFESSIONAL ASSISTANCE FOR DEVELOPMENT ACTION, 3, COMMUNITY SHOPPING CENTRE, NITI BAGH, NEW DELHI APPELLANT RESPONDENT PAN NO: AAA TP0345D REVENUE BY : SH. ATIQUE AHMED, SR. DR ASSESSEE BY : SH. K.V.S. R. KRISHNA, ADV. PER ANADEE NATH MISSHRA, A.M.: (A) THIS APPEAL BY THE REVENUE IS FILED AGAINST THE ORD ER OF LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-40, NEW DELHI, [LD. CIT(A), F OR SHORT], DATED 22/06/2017 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2013-14. GROUNDS TAKEN IN THIS APPE AL OF REVENUE ARE AS UNDER : 1. ON THE BASIS OF FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CAS E AND IN LAW, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN IGNORING THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT ELIGIBLE FOR EXEMPTION U/S 11 OF THE I.T.ACT, 1961. 2. ON THE BASIS OF FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CAS E AND IN LAW, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN IGNORING THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEES ACTIVITIES FALLS ITA NO.-5805/DEL/2017 PROFESSIONAL ASSISTANCE FOR DEVELOPMENT ACTION PAGE 2 OF 4 WITHIN THE SIXTH LIMB OF CHARITABLE ACTIVITY I.E. A DVANCEMENT OF GENERAL PUBLIC UTILITY AND IN LIEU OF THE SERVICES OF CONSU LTANCY AND TECHNICAL SUPPORT ASSESSEE IS RECEIVING CONSULTANCY FEE WHICH IS IN NATURE OF BUSINESS INCOME. 3. ON THE BASIS OF FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CAS E AND IN LAW, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN ALLOWING THE EXEMPTION U/S 11 WITH ALL CONSEQUENTIAL BENEFITS EVEN WHEN THE ASSESSEE SOCIE TY IS HIT BY PROVISO TO SECTION 2(15) OF THE ACT. 4. ON THE BASIS OF FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CAS E AND IN LAW, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN TREATING THE ASSESSEE NOT I NVOLVED IN ANY TRADE, COMMERCE OR BUSINESS AND MISCHIEF OF PROVISO OF SEC TION 2(15) OF THE ACT IS NOT APPLICABLE TO THE ASSESSEE. 5. THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD, TO ALTER OR AME ND ANY GROUND OF APPEAL RAISED ABOVE AT THE TIME OF HEARING. (B) THE ONLY ISSUE IN DISPUTE IN THIS APPEAL IS WHETHER THE ASSESSEE IS ELIGIBLE FOR EXEMPTION U/S 11 OF I.T. ACT READ WITH PROVISO TO 5 .2(15) OF I.T.ACT. AT THE TIME OF HEARING BEFORE US, BOTH SIDES WERE IN AGREEMENT THA T THE ISSUE IN DISPUTE IS COVERED IN FAVOUR OF ASSESSEE AND AGAINST REVENUE, VIDE ORD ER DATED 03.09.2019 FOR A.Y. 2011-12 (IN ITA NO. 3662/DEL/2015) AND ORDER DATED 08.12.2020 FOR A.Y. 2012-13 (IN ITA NO. 2826/DEL/2017) PASSED BY CO-ORDINATE BENCHE S OF ITAT, DELHI IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE; COPIES WHEREOF WERE FILED FROM ASSESSEES SIDE DURING APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS IN ITAT. WHEREAS THE LD. COUNSEL FOR ASSESSEE RELIED ON AFORESAID ORDER DATED 03.09.2019 AND 08.12.2020 OF CO-ORDINATE BENC HES OF ITAT DELHI; THE LD. SENIOR DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE FOR REVENUE RELI ED ON THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER (AO, FOR SHORT). NEITHER SIDE HAS BROUGH T ANY MATERIAL TO DISTINGUISH THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE FOR AY 2013-14 (TO WHICH THIS APPEAL PERTAINS) FROM FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF A.Y. 2011-12 AND A .Y. 2012-13 TO WHICH RESPECTIVELY THE AFORESAID ORDERS DATED 03.09.2019 AND 08.12.202 0 PERTAIN. NEITHER SIDE HAS ITA NO.-5805/DEL/2017 PROFESSIONAL ASSISTANCE FOR DEVELOPMENT ACTION PAGE 3 OF 4 BROUGHT ANY MATERIAL FOR OUR CONSIDERATION TO PERSU ADE US TO TAKE A VIEW DIFFERENT FROM VIEW TAKEN BY CO-ORDINATE BENCHES OF ITAT, DEL HI IN AFORESAID ORDERS DATED 03.09.2019 AND 08.12.2020. NEITHER SIDE HAS BROUGHT ANY MATERIAL FOR OUR CONSIDERATION TO PERSUADE US TO INTERFERE WITH THE AFORESAID IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 22.06.2017 OF LD. CIT(A). (C) IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING AF ORESAID ORDERS DATED 03.09.2019 AND 08.12.2020 OF CO-ORDINATE BENCHES OF ITAT, DELHI IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE; WE DECLINE TO INTERFERE WITH THE AFORESAID IM PUGNED ORDER DATED 22.06.2017 OF LD. CIT(A). ACCORDINGLY, THE ISSUE IN DISPUTE IN GR OUNDS OF APPEAL IN THE PRESENT APPEAL BEFORE US, ARE DECIDED IN FAVOUR OF ASSESSEE AND THE APPEAL FILED BY REVENUE IS DISMISSED. (D) ORDER WAS ALREADY PRONOUNCED ORALLY IN OPEN COURT ON 22.02.2021, IN THE PRESENCE OF REPRESENTATIVES OF BOTH SIDES, AFTER CO NCLUSION OF HEARING. THIS WRITTEN ORDER IS NOW HEREBY PASSED TODAY ON 23/02/2021. SD/- SD/- (SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA) (ANAD EE NATH MISSHRA) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTA NT MEMBER DATED: 23/02/2021 *BINITA* COPY FORWARDED TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(APPEALS) 5.DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT, NEW DELHI