Angel Christian Charitable Foundation India, CHENNAI V. DDIT, CHENNAI

MA 143/CHNY/2015

• Counselvise Citation: [2015] 124 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 3595 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 month(s) 1 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 16-10-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 09-10-2015
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Appeal Filed On: 14-09-2015
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: A V SREEKANTH
• Assessee Lawyers: RAJA B SINGH
• Keywords: Charitable institution
• Section: 2

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME - TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL A BENCH, CHENNAI , . , BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI , ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SHRI V. DURGA RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER M.P. NO S . 14 2 AND 143 /MDS/2015 [IN I.T.A.NO S . 750 AND 751 /MDS/201 5 ] ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2010 - 11 & 2011 - 12 ANGEL CHRISTIAN CHARITABLE FOUNDATION INDIA, NEW NO. 36, H BLOCK, 13 TH MAIN ROAD, ANNA NAGAR, CHENNAI 600 040. [PAN: AADCA9740R] VS. THE D EPUTY DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS) III, AAYAKAR BHAWAN ANNEXE, NO. 121, MAHATMA GANDHI ROAD, CHENNAI 600 034. ( / APPELLANT ) ( / RESPONDENT ) / APPELLANT BY : SHRI RAJA B. SINGH , C.A. / RESPONDENT BY : SHRI A.V. SREEKANTH, JCIT / DATE OF HEARING : 0 9 . 1 0 .201 5 / DAT E OF P RONOUNCEMENT : 16 . 1 0 .201 5 / O R D E R PER V. DURGA RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER : BY MEANS OF TH E S E TWO MISCELLANEOUS PETITION S , THE ASSESSEE SEEK TO GET RECALLED THE CONSOLIDATED ORDER PASSED BY THE TRIBUNAL IN I.T.A. NOS. 750 AND 751/MDS/2015 DATED 31 .0 7 .2015 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2010 - 11 AND 2011 - 12 . IN THE PETITION S , T HE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS S TATED THAT WITH REGARD TO NAME OF THE AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ASSESSEE IS MENTIONED AS SHRI BINU GEORGE, FINANCE MANAGER INSTEA D OF SHRI RAJA B. M.P. NO S . 14 2 - 1 4 3 /M/ 1 5 2 SINGH, C.A., WHO HAS APPEARED BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL ON THE DATE OF HEARING ON 27.05.2015 AND THE APPEALS WERE REPOSTED AND HEARD ON 17.07.2015, WHERE SHRI BINU GEORGE, FINANCE MANAGER HAS APPEARED. THEREFORE, THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSE E HAS REQUESTED FOR INCLUSION OF THE NAME OF THE C.A. ORIGINALLY APPEARED AND ARGUED ON 27.05.2015. HE HAS FURTHER POINTED OUT THAT THE TRIBUNAL HAS MISTAKENLY RECORDED THAT THE ASSESSEE MAINTAINS A TV CHANNEL CALLED GOD TV WHICH INVARIABLY AIRS PROGRAMM ES CONTAINING CHRISTIAN MISSIONARY STUFF, WHEREAS, THE ABOVE STATEMENT WAS RECORDED BY THE LD. CIT(A) AND NOT SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE. HE FURTHER POINTED OUT THAT THE TRIBUNAL HAS COMMITTED MISTAKE BY OBSERVING THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT CARRIED OUT ANY A CTIVITY RELATING TO THE OBJECTS AS ENUMERATED FOR THE PURPOSE OF WHICH THE ASSESSEE IS INCORPORATED. FURTHER, HE HAS SUBMITTED THAT THE TRIBUNAL HAS NOT CONSIDERED SECTION 13(1)(B) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 . IT WAS ALSO SUBMITTED THAT GROUND NO. 6 IN THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL HAS NOT BEEN CONSIDERED AND DISPOSED OFF. ACCORDINGLY, THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS PRAYED THAT THE COMMON ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL DATED 31 .0 7 .2015 MAY BE RECALLED. 2 . ON THE OTHER HAND , T HE LD. DR SUPPORTED THE ORDER PASSED BY THE TRIBUNAL. 3. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH SIDES AND PERUSED THE PETITION S FILED BY THE ASSESSEE. SO FAR AS NON - RECORDING THE NAME OF THE COUNSEL IS CONCERNED, M.P. NO S . 14 2 - 1 4 3 /M/ 1 5 3 BOTH THE APPEALS WERE INITIALLY HEARD ON 27.05.2015 AND S HRI RAJA B. SINGH, C.A. APPEARED AND SUBSEQUENTLY, WHEN THE CASE WAS FIXED FOR CLARIFICATION ON 17.07.2015, SHRI BINU GEORGE, FINANCE MANAGER HAS APPEARED. THEREFORE, AS PER ORDER SHEET ENTRY, HIS NAME WAS RECORDED. THUS, THERE IS NO MISTAKE COMMITTED BY T HE TRIBUNAL. 4. THE NEXT MISTAKE AS POINTED OUT BY THE ASSESSEE IS THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS MENTIONED IN HIS ORDER THAT IT IS A UNDENIED FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE MAINTAINS A TV CHANNEL CALLED GOD TV WHICH INVARIABLY AIRS PROGRAMME CONTAINING CHRISTIAN MI SSIONARY STUFF. THIS FINDING GIVEN BY THE LD. CIT(A) AND NOT THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE. HOWEVER, THIS OBSERVATION OF THE TRIBUNAL, THERE IS NO MISTAKE APPARENT ON RECORD AS IT HAS NO RELATION TO THE DECISION RENDERED BY THE TRIBUNAL. THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE WAS DECIDED BY CONSIDERING THE OBJECTS OF THE TRUST AND FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. 5. ANOTHER MISTAKE POINTED OUT BY THE ASSESSEE IS THAT THE TRIBUNAL COMMITTED A MISTAKE BY GIVING A FINDING THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT CARRIED AN Y ACTIVITY RELATING TO THE OBJECTS FOR WHICH IT IS INCORPORATED. THE TRIBUNAL HAS GIVEN A CATEGORICAL FINDING THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT CARRIED OUT ANY ACTIVITY RELATING TO THE OBJECTS AS ENUMERATED FOR THE PURPOSE OF WHICH THE ASSESSEE IS INCORPORATED ON THE GROUND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT INCURRED SINGLE PAISA FOR THE PURPOSE OF ANY CHARITABLE ACTIVITIES FOR THE CAUSE OF M.P. NO S . 14 2 - 1 4 3 /M/ 1 5 4 EDUCATION, MEDICAL RELIEF OR RELIEF TO THE POOR. FURTHER THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO ADMITTED THAT OURS IS A RELIGIOUS ORGANIZATION AND THE ASSESSEE ORGANIZATION HAS UNDERTAKEN RELIGIOUS PILGRIMAGE AND OTHER ACTIVITIES RELATING TO THE RELIGIOUS. THE TRIBUNAL HAS GIVEN A FURTHER FINDING THAT THE ASSESSEE IS A PUBLIC CHARITABLE TRUST AND NO CHARITABLE ACTIVITIES ARE CARRIED OUT BY THE ASSESSEE . ACCORDINGLY, WE FIND THAT THE TRIBUNAL HAS NOT COMMITTED ANY MISTAKE AND THE MISCELLANEOUS PETITION FILED BY THE ASSESSEE DOES NOT COME WITHIN THE PURVIEW OF SECTION 254(2) OF THE ACT. 6. IN SO FAR AS ANOTHER ARGUMENT OF THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE THAT THAT THE TRIBUNAL HAS FAILED TO CONSIDER GROUND NO.6 RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS PASSED THE ORDER MORE THAN FOUR MONTHS FROM THE DATE OF HEARING AND SUBMITTED THAT IT IS CONTRARY TO THE DECISION OF THE HON BLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF SHIVSAGAR VEG. RESTAURANT V. ACIT 317 ITR 433. IN THE ABOVE CASE, THE HON BLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT HAS DIRECTED THE HON BLE PRESIDENT, ITAT TO ISSUE SUITABLE GUIDELINES FOR DISPOSAL OF APPEALS. THE ABOVE JUDGMENT HAS NO APPLICATION TO THE FACTS OF THE CASE FOR THE REASON THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS TO PASS THE ORDER AS PER THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 AND THERE IS NO TIME FRAME FIXED BY THE ACT . THEREFORE, THER E IS NO MISTAKE APPARENT ON RECORD AND BY NON - CONSIDERING THE GROUND, WE FIND THAT GROUND NO. 6 RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IS IRRELEVANT AND IMMATERIAL. M.P. NO S . 14 2 - 1 4 3 /M/ 1 5 5 7. IN THE RESULT, BOTH THE MISCELLANEOUS PETITIONS FILE D BY THE ASSESSEE ARE DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNC ED ON FRIDAY, THE 16 TH O F OCTOBER , 2015 AT CHENNAI. SD/ - SD/ - ( CHANDRA POOJARI ) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ( V. DURGA RAO ) JUDICIAL MEMBER CHENNAI, DATED, THE 16 . 1 0 .201 5 VM/ - / COPY TO: 1. / APPELLANT , 2. / RESPONDENT , 3. ( ) / CIT(A) , 4. / CIT , 5. / DR & 6. / GF.