ITO(E), New Delhi V. M/s. Manav Bharti Institute of Child & Child Psycology, New Delhi

ITA 6262/DEL/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2015] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 91195 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 6 month(s) 29 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 24-06-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: E
• Next Hearing Date: 12-06-2015
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 25-11-2013
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: P DAM KANUNJNA SENIOR
• Assessee Lawyers: SANJEEV KAPOOR
• Section: 12AA; 12; 11

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (DELHI BENCH E : NEW DELHI) BEFORE SHRI S.V. MEHROTRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI GEORGE GEORGE K., JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NOS.6261 & 6262/DEL./2013 (ASSESSMENT YEARS : 2008-09 & 2009-10) ITO (E), TRUST WARD IV, VS. MANAV BHARTI INSTITU TE OF CHILD & CHILD PSYCOLOGY, NEW DELHI. PANCHSHEEL PARK (SOUTH), NEW DELHI 110 017. (PAN : AABTM2765M) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : SHRI SANJEEV KAPOOR, CA REVENUE BY : SHRI P. DAM KANUNJNA, SENIOR DR DATE OF HEARING : 19.06.2015 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 24.06.2015 O R D E R PER GEORGE GEORGE K., JUDICIAL MEMBER : THESE TWO APPEALS, AT THE INSTANCE OF THE ASSESSEE, ARE DIRECTED AGAINST THE SEPARATE ORDERS OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS)- XXI, NEW DELHI BOTH DATED 11.09.2013. THE RELEVA NT ASSESSMENT YEARS ARE 2008-09 AND 2009-10 . 2. IN THESE APPEALS, IDENTICAL GROUNDS ARE RAISED E XCEPT FOR VARIANCE IN FIGURE. SINCE COMMON ISSUES ARE RAISED IN THESE AP PEALS AND THEY PERTAIN TO THE SAME ASSESSEE, THEY ARE DISPOSED OFF BY THIS CO NSOLIDATED ORDER. ITA NOS.6261 & 6262/DEL./2013 2 GROUNDS NO.1 TO 5 3. IN THESE GROUNDS, THE REVENUE HAS CHALLENGED THE CIT (A)S ORDER IN ALLOWING EXEMPTION TO THE ASSESSEE U/S 11 & 12 OF T HE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961 EVEN THOUGH, ACCORDING TO THE REVENUE, THE ASS ESSEE HAS VIOLATED THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 13 OF THE ACT. 4. BRIEFLY STATED, THE FACTS OF THE ISSUE RAISED IN GROUNDS NO.1 TO 5 ARE AS FOLLOWS. THE ASSESSEE IS A TRUST REGISTERED U/S 12AA OF THE ACT. THE ASSESSEE TRUST ON ACCOUNT OF REGISTRATION U/S 12AA OF THE AC T WAS ENTITLED TO EXEMPTION U/S 11. THE ASSESSMENT FOR ASSESSMENT YE AR 2008-09 WAS TAKEN UP FOR SCRUTINY AND EXEMPTION U/S 11 WAS DENIED ON THE GROUND THAT IT HAD VIOLATED THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 13(1)(C) AND 13 (2) OF THE ACT AS THERE WERE EXCESS PAYMENT TO THE RELATED PARTIES. THE RE LATED PARTIES ARE SMT. BHARTI PANDEY, THE PRINCIPAL OF THE SCHOOL, WHO IS THE WIFE OF SHRI V.K. PANDEY WHO IS A TRUSTEE. SHRI PRASHANT PANDEY, BUR SAR WHO IS A SON OF SHRI V.K. PANDEY, TRUSTEE. SHRI NIKHIL PANT, THE COUNSE LOR, WHO IS THE SON OF SHRI J.C. PANT, TRUSTEE. IT WAS ALLEGED BY THE ASS ESSING OFFICER THAT EXCESS AND UNREASONABLE PAYMENTS WERE MADE BY THE SCHOOL T O SMT. BHARTI PANDEY, SHRI PRASHANT PANDEY AND SHRI NIKHIL PANT I N VIOLATION OF SECTION 13(1)(C) AND 13 (2). 5. AGGRIEVED BY THE DENIAL OF THE EXEMPTION, THE AS SESSEE PREFERRED AN APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT (A). BEFORE THE FIRST APPELL ATE AUTHORITY, IT WAS ITA NOS.6261 & 6262/DEL./2013 3 SUBMITTED THAT THE ISSUE IN QUESTION IS FULLY COVER ED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE BY THE VARIOUS ORDERS OF THE TRIBUNAL FOR ASSESSMENT YEARS 2005- 06, 2006-07 AND 2007-08. IT WAS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06, THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL, ON IDENTIC AL ISSUES, WAS CONFIRMED BY THE HONBLE HIGH COURT. IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT T HE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD DENIED THE EXEMPTION U/S 11 OF THE ACT TO THE A SSESSEE FOR THE REASON THAT EXCESS PAYMENT WAS MADE TO THE RELATED PARTIES FOR VARIOUS ASSESSMENT YEARS INCLUDING THE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEARS. THE CIT (A) ALLOWED THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE. THE RELEVANT FINDING OF TH E CIT (A) READS AS FOLLOWS : 2.2 I HAVE CONSIDERED THE ORDERS OF THE AO AND TH E SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE AND I FIND CONSIDERABLE MERIT IN THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE CASE OF TH E ASSESSEE IS FULLY COVERED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE BY THE A SSESSEES OWN CASE ON THE SIMILAR ISSUE BY THE ORDERS OF THE LD. CIT (A), HONBLE TRIBUNAL AND THE HONBLE HIGH COURT AS DISCUSSED ABOVE. AFTER CONSIDERING ALL THE FACTS A ND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, I AM OF THE VIEW THAT TH E CASE OF THE ASSESSEE IS COVERED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE A ND ACCORDINGLY THE AO IS DIRECTED TO ALLOW EXEMPTION U /S 11 TO THE ASSESSEE. 6. THE REVENUE, BEING AGGRIEVED, IS IN APPEAL BEFOR E US. 7. THE LD. DR FAIRLY CONCEDED THAT THE ISSUES RAISE D IN GROUNDS NO.1 TO 5 ARE COVERED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE BY VARIOUS ORDERS OF THE TRIBUNAL AND THE HONBLE HIGH COURTS JUDGMENT FOR THE ASSES SMENT YEAR 2005-06. 8. LD. AR WAS DULY HEARD. ITA NOS.6261 & 6262/DEL./2013 4 9. WE HAVE HEARD RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD. THE TRIBUNAL IN ITA NO.3382 (DEL.)/2009 ORDER DATED 27.11.2009 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06 HAS CONSIDERED AN IDENTICAL ISSUE AND HAD DECIDED THE MATTER IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE. THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL WAS CONFIRMED BY THE JUDGMENT OF HONBLE HIGH COURT IN ITA 881/2010 JUDGMENT DATED 13.07.2010. SINCE IDENTICAL ISSUE H AS BEEN CONSIDERED BY THE TRIBUNAL AND THE LD. DR HAS FAIRLY CONCEDED THA T IT IS COVERED BY THE EARLIER BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN ASSESSEES OWN CAS E FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06 (SUPRA) WHICH WAS DULY CONFIRMED BY THE HON BLE HIGH COURT, WE CONFIRM THE ORDER OF THE CIT (A) ON THIS ISSUE. HEN CE, GROUNDS NO.1 TO 5 RAISED BY THE REVENUE IS REJECTED. GROUND NO.6 10. GROUND NO.6 TAKEN BY THE REVENUE READS AS FOLLO WS : ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE LD. CIT (A) HAS ERRED IN ALLOWING THE APPE AL OF THE ASSESSEE IGNORING THIS FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NO T NOTIFIED U/S 10(23C)(VI) OF THE I.T. 11. ON PERUSAL OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER OF THE CIT (A) , WE NOTICE THAT THIS ISSUE RAISED IN REVENUES APPEAL DOES NOT ARISE OUT OF THE SAME, HENCE THIS GROUND IS REJECTED. ITA NOS.6261 & 6262/DEL./2013 5 GROUND NO.7 12. GROUND NO.7 READS AS FOLLOWS : ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE LD. CIT (A) HAS ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDI TION OF RS.1,43,00,000/- WHEREAS THE FUNDS SET APART WERE N OT ACCUMULATED FOR SPECIFIC PURPOSES. 13. THE ISSUE RAISED IN THIS GROUND ALSO, WE NOTICE DOES NOT ARISE FROM THE ORDER OF THE CIT (A)S ORDER, HENCE WE REJECT T HIS GROUND RAISED BY THE REVENUE. 14. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09 IS DISMISSED. 15. SINCE THE FACTS PERTAINING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2 009-10 IS IDENTICAL TO THE FACTS FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09, OUR REASONIN G IN ITA NO.6261/DEL/2013 HOLDS GOOD FOR THIS APPEAL ALSO. IT IS ORDERED ACCORDINGLY. 16. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10 IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON THIS 24 TH DAY OF JUNE, 2015. SD/- SD/- (S.V. MEHROTRA) (GEORGE GEORGE K) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED THE 24 TH DAY OF JUNE, 2015 TS ITA NOS.6261 & 6262/DEL./2013 6 COPY FORWARDED TO: 1.APPELLANT 2.RESPONDENT 3.CIT 4.CIT(A)-XXI, NEW DELHI 5.CIT(ITAT), NEW DELHI. AR, ITAT NEW DELHI.