The Tribune Trust, Chandigarh V. The Commissioner of Tncome Tax(Expemptions), Chandigarh

ITA 660/CHANDI/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 127 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6593 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH)
• Duration Of Justice: 7 month(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 13-11-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: Not Allotted
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 13-04-2017
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: RAVI SARANGA L
• Keywords: Charitable institution
• Section: 263

Judgement Text

1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CHANDIGARH BENCHES B, CHANDIGARH BEFORE SHRI SANJAY GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER & DR. B.R.R. KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NOS. 660 & 661/CHD/2017 ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2010-11 & 2011-12 THE TRIBUNE TRUST, VS. THE CIT (EXEMPTIONS), SECTOR 29-C, CHANDIGARH CHANDIGARH PAN NO. AAATT2141D (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SH. TEJ MOHAN SINGH RESPONDENT BY : SH. RAVI SARANGAL DATE OF HEARING : 24.08.2017 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 13.11.2017 ORDER PER SANJAY GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER: THE PRESENT APPEALS HAVE BEEN PREFERRED BY THE ASSE SSEE AGAINST THE SEPARATE ORDERS OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ( EXEMPTIONS), [HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS CIT(E)], CHANDIGARH DA TED 30.03.2017 PASSED U/S 263(1) OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961 (IN SHORT 'T HE ACT') AGITATING THE ASSUMPTION OF REVISION JURISDICTION BY THE LD. CIT (E). 2. SINCE THE ISSUE INVOLVED IN BOTH THE APPEALS IS IDENTICAL, THESE HAVE BEEN HEARD TOGETHER AND ARE BEING DISPOSED OF BY TH IS COMMON ORDER. FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE, THE FACTS ARE TAKEN FROM I TA NO. 660/CHD/2017. 2 3. THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESS EE IS A TRUST AND INVOLVED INTO PRINTING AND DISTRIBUTION OF NEWSPAPE RS IN THE NAME OF TRIBUNE. THE ASSESSEE TRUST HAS BEEN NOTIFIED BY CE NTRAL BOARD OF DIRECT TAXES FOR EXEMPTION U/S 10(23C)(IV) VIDE NOTIFICATION NO. 60/2007 IN FILE NO. 197/67/2006-ITA-L DATED 28.02.2 007 AND WAS AVAILING THE BENEFITS OF EXEMPTIONS SINCE 1984-85. THE SAID NOTIFICATION EMANATED FROM A DECISION OF THE PRIVY COUNCIL IN TH E CASE OF THE ASSESSEE HOLDING THE ASSESSEE TO BE ELIGIBLE FOR THE TAG AS A TRUST PURSUING ADVANCEMENT OF ANY OTHER OBJECT OF GENERAL PUBLIC U TILITY. ASSESSEE HAD FILED INCOME TAX RETURN FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010-11 IN ITR-7 ON 11.10.2010 AND CLAIMED NET LOSS OF RS. 8,73,15.662/ - IN THE SAID RETURN. WHILE FRAMING THE ASSESSMENT ORDER FOR A.Y. 2010-11 , THE THEN ASSESSING OFFICER ACCEPTED THE RETURNED LOSS OF RS. 8,73,15.6 62/- VIDE ORDER DATED 29.11.2012. THE LD. CIT(E), HOWEVER, OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSIN G OFFICER HAD DECIDED THE MATTER ACCEPTING THE ASSESSEE'S CONTENT ION WITHOUT GOING DEEP INTO THE ISSUES INVOLVED AND EXAMINING THE VERACITY OF THE FACTS. PURSUANT TO THE AMENDMENT IN THE ACT IN 2009, (W,E,F. 01.04. 2009 RELEVANT TO ASSTT.YEAR 2009-10 ONWARDS), PARTICULARLY IN REFERENCE TO THE TRUSTS CLAIMING TO PURSUE 'ADVANCEMENT OF ANY OTHER OBJECT OF GENERAL PUBLIC UTILITY', IT WAS INCUMBENT UPON THE ASSESSING OFFIC ER TO EXAMINE WHETHER THE ASSESSEE STILL QUALIFIED FOR BEING LABELED AS AN EN TITY PURSUING 'CHARITABLE PURPOSES' AND TO THAT EXTENT FOR EXEMPTION UNDER SE CTIONS 10(23C)(IV), 11 AND 12 OF THE I.T. ACT, 1961. THE CASE REQUIRED IN DEPTH SCRUTINY AND INQUIRIES WHICH WERE NOT BROUGHT OUT FROM THE RECOR DS OF THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. HE, THEREFORE, EXERCISING HIS REVISION JURISDICTION U/S 263 OF 3 THE ACT, ISSUED SHOW CAUSE NOTICE TO THE ASSESSEE T RUST ON 30.1.2015. THE ASSESSEE WENT TO HON'BLE PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COUR T IN CWP NO. 2902. THE HIGH COURT HAD STAYED THE SHOW CAUSE PROCEEDING S VIDE ORDER DATED 20.02.2015. SUBSEQUENTLY, THE HONBLE COURT HAS DEC IDED THE CASE IN FAVOUR OF REVENUE IN ITA NO. 62, DATED 23.12.2016 F OR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10 IN CASE OF ASSESSEE. THE HON'BLE COURT HAS HELD THAT ASSESSEE IS ENGAGED INTO PRINTING AND DISTRIBUTION OF NEWSPAPE RS AND EARNING HUGE PROFITS FROM THE ADVERTISEMENT INCOME AND IS HIT BY THE PROVISO OF SECTION 2(15) OF I.T. ACT. EXEMPTION IS NOT ALLOWABLE IN TH E CASE EVEN SINCE IT DOESN'T QUALIFY FOR BEING PURSUING 'CHARITABLE PURP OSE' EVEN THOUGH IT MAY BE PURSUING ADVANCEMENT OF ANY OTHER OBJECT OF GEN ERAL PUBLIC UTILITY' BECAUSE OF ITS ACTIVITIES BEING HELD TO BE IN THE N ATURE OF TRADE, BUSINESS OR COMMERCE. IN SYNC WITH ITS OWN FINDINGS IN THE CASE RELEVANT TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10, THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT SUBSEQUENTLY V ACATED THE STAY UNDER CWP NO. 2902, DATED-24.01.2017 FOR A.Y. 2010-. FOLL OWING UP ON THIS VACATION OF STAY ORDERS, THE LD. CIT (E) ISSUED AN OTHER SHOW CAUSE NOTICE TO THE ASSESSEE ON 9.3.2017 AND AFTER DETAILED DISC USSION OF THE MATTER AND RELYING UPON THE DECISION OF THE HON'BLE PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF ITA NO. 62 DATED 23.12.2016 HELD THAT THE ASSESSEE TRUST WAS NOT ENTITLED TO EXEMPTION AS ITS ACTIVATES DID NOT GET COVERED UNDER THE LABLE OF CHARITABLE PURPOSES. HE, THEREFORE, HELD T HE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS ERRONEOUS AND PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTERE ST OF REVENUE AND ACCORDINGLY SET ASIDE THE SAME AND RESTORED THE MAT TER TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR ASSESSMENT AFRESH. 4. WE HAVE HEARD THE LD. REPRESENTATIVES OF BOTH TH E PARTIES. THOUGH, THE LD. AR OF THE ASSESSEE HAS CONTENDED THAT THE A SSUMPTION OF 4 JURISDICTION BY THE LD. CIT(E) WAS WRONG AND ILLEGA L, HOWEVER, WE ARE CONVINCED WITH THE ARGUMENTS OF THE LD. DR THAT THE CIT(A) HAS RIGHTLY EXERCISED HIS JURISDICTION U/S 263 IN THIS CASE. TH E LD. CIT(A) HAS RELIED UPON THE VARIOUS CASE LAWS AND ALSO THE DECISION OF THE HON'BLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN THE OWN CASE OF THE ASSESSEE WHEREIN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT HAS HELD THAT THE ACTIVITIES OF THE ASSESSEE TRUST CANNOT BE SAID TO BE FOR CHARITABLE PURPOSES, AS PER THE P ROVISIONS OF SECTION 2(15) OF THE ACT, THE SAME BEING HIT BY THE PROVISO TO SE CTION 2(15) OF THE ACT. HE HAS FURTHER HELD THAT THE JURISDICTION U/S 263 OF THE ACT CAN BE EXERCISED WHERE IT IS FOUND THAT THE ASSESSMENT O RDER WAS PASSED ON WRONG ASSUMPTION OF FACTS OR INCORRECT APPLICATION OF LAW OR WITHOUT DUE APPLICATION OF MIND MAKING THE ORDER ERRONEOUS SO F AR AS PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF THE REVENUE. WE, THEREFORE, DO NOT FIND ANY MERIT IN THIS APPEAL AND THE SAME IS ACCORDINGLY DISMISSED. 5. SINCE THE FACTS AND ISSUE INVOLVED IN BOTH THE A PPEALS ARE IDENTICAL, BOTH THE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE ARE HEREBY DISMISS ED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 13.11.2017 SD/- SD/- (DR. B.R.R. KUMAR) (SANJAY GARG) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED : 13 TH NOV., 2017 RKK COPY TO: 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CIT 4. THE CIT(A) 5. THE DR 5