THE NORTHERN INDIA ZONAL ASSESMBLY OF THE MARTHOMA CHURCH THROUGH ITS TREASURER V. INCOME TAX OFFICER (EXEMPTIONS) & ANR.

W.P.(C)/5929/2023

AI Insights

The case involves the Northern India Zonal Assembly of the Mar Thoma Church, represented by its treasurer, challenging an assessment order dated 29.12.2019 for the Assessment Year 2012-13. The petitioner argued that the assessment order was improperly based on a partial reassessment order from another entity, Caruna Bal Vikas (CBV), without considering relevant exemptions under Sections 11 and 12 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The respondent, represented by the Income Tax Officer (Exemptions), did not contest the notice and agreed to proceed without a counter-affidavit, focusing on the existing records. The court found merit in the petitioner's grievances, particularly regarding the incomplete extraction of the reassessment order and the undue delay in the statutory appeal process.

• Counselvise Citation: [2023] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 749267 (HC-DELHI)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 08-05-2023
• Assessment Year: misc
• Other Referred Cases: Director of Income Tax vs. Society for Development Alternatives (2012) SCC OnLine Del 225
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Applicant
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: ABHISHEK MARATHA; AKSHAT SINGH
• Assessee Lawyers: ABHISHEK JEBRAJ
• Keywords: Assessment Order; Delay and laches; Exemption; Income Tax; Reassessment order
• Section: 11; 12; 13(1)(b)

Judgement Text

"2023:DHC:3607-DB W.P.(C)No.5929/2023 Page 1 of 5 $~143 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of Decision: 08.05.2023 + W.P.(C) 5929/2023 THE NORTHERN INDIA ZONAL ASSESMBLY OF THE MAR THOMA CHURCH THROUGH ITS TREASURER ..... Petitioner Through: Mr Abhishek Jebraj, Advocate. versus INCOME TAX OFFICER (EXEMPTIONS) & ANR...... Respondents Through: Mr Abhishek Maratha, Sr Standing Counsel with Mr Akshat Singh, Advocate. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GIRISH KATHPALIA [Physical Hearing/Hybrid Hearing (as per request)] RAJIV SHAKDHER, J. (Oral): CM Appl.23226/2023 1. Allowed, subject to just exceptions. W.P.(C) 5929/2023 2. Issue notice. 2.1 Mr Abhishek Maratha, learned senior standing counsel, accepts notice on behalf of the respondents/revenue. 3. Given the directions that we propose to pass, Mr Maratha says that he does not wish to file a counter-affidavit in the matter and that he will argue the matter based on the record presently available with the court. Therefore, with the consent of the counsels for the parties, the writ petition is taken up for final hearing and disposal at this stage itself. Digitally Signed By:ATUL JAIN Signing Date:24.05.2023 14:49:18 Signature Not Verified 2023:DHC:3607-DB W.P.(C)No.5929/2023 Page 2 of 5 4. The core issue, which the petitioner has raised before us is that the impugned assessment order dated 29.12.2019 concerning Assessment Year (AY) 2012-13 is based on an earlier assessment order passed vis-à-vis an entity going by the name „Caruna Bal Vikas‟ [hereafter referred to as “CBV”]. The contention being that the Assessing Officer (AO) in passing the impugned assessment order has extracted only a part of the reassessment order dated 31.12.2016 passed in the case of CBV. 4. Mr Abhishek Jebraj, who appears on behalf of the petitioner, says that the reassessment order dated 31.12.2016, as it stands today, is intact, although CBV has preferred an appeal qua the same. 5. We may also note that it is not disputed by Mr Abhishek Jebraj, who appears on behalf of the petitioner, that qua the impugned assessment order dated 21.12.2019, a statutory appeal has been preferred, which is pending adjudication. 5.1 We are told that this appeal was lodged in and about February 2019. 6. Mr Jebraj also submits that the main ground on which exemption under Sections 11 and 12 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [in short, “Act”] was denied was that the petitioner fell within the purview of Section 13(1)(b) of the Act. 8. Mr Jebraj says that it has been noticed in the reassessment order dated 21.12.2019 (according to him, correctly) that CBV had made a restricted sub-grant in favour of the petitioner and therefore, was exempt from levy of income tax. Mr Jebraj says that this aspect was noticed in paragraph 12 of the reassessment order dated 31.12.2016. 8.1 According to Mr Jebraj, [an aspect which is alluded to hereinabove], paragraph 12 of the of reassessment order dated 31.12.2016 concerning Digitally Signed By:ATUL JAIN Signing Date:24.05.2023 14:49:18 Signature Not Verified 2023:DHC:3607-DB W.P.(C)No.5929/2023 Page 3 of 5 CBV, was not extracted by the AO in the impugned assessment order dated 21.12.2019. 8.2 Furthermore, Mr Jebraj says that the appeal has been pending since February 2019 and, for some reason or the other, has not been taken up for adjudication, causing detriment to the interests of the petitioner. 9. Mr Maratha says that since, concededly, CBV is an entity which has extended a sub-grant to the petitioner, in the ordinary course of things, the petitioner should have known about the reassessment order that was passed in the case of CBV. 9.1 The argument is that the petitioner has approached this court after a long lapse of time. In sum, Mr Maratha says that the petitioner is guilty of delay and laches. 10. We have heard the counsel for the parties. 11. According to us, the grievance of the petitioner is twofold. 11.1 First, the AO in the passing the impugned assessment order dated 21.12.2019 has taken recourse to a part of the reassessment order dated 31.12.2016 passed in the case of CBV. 11.2 Second, respondent no.2, with whom the statutory appeal lies, has not disposed of the appeal, although nearly four and a half years have elapsed. 12. The second grievance answers, to our minds, the objection raised by Mr Maratha with regard to delay and laches. In our opinion, the petitioner in this case was entitled to move the court to nudge respondent no.2 in the right direction. 13. Insofar as the first aspect is concerned, in our opinion, the petitioner is entitled to seek a direction that while disposing of the appeal, respondent no.2 should consider the entirety of the reassessment order dated 31.12.2016 Digitally Signed By:ATUL JAIN Signing Date:24.05.2023 14:49:18 Signature Not Verified 2023:DHC:3607-DB W.P.(C)No.5929/2023 Page 4 of 5 passed in the matter concerning CBV, and the judgments that the petitioner has relied upon. 14. We may note that one of the judgments which Mr Jebraj has adverted to, in this context, has been passed by a coordinate bench of this court in the matter of Director of Income Tax vs. Society for Development Alternatives (2012) SCC OnLine Del 225. 15. Therefore, having regard to the aforesaid, we are inclined to dispose of the writ petition with the following directions: (i) Respondent no.2 will dispose of all pending appeal at the earliest, though not later than three (3) months from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment. (ii) While adjudicating the appeal, respondent no.2 will take into account the entirety of the reassessment order dated 31.12.2016 passed in the case of CBV and the judgments on the issue concerning restricted grant. (ii)(a) We may note that the source of the grant is an organization going by the name Compassion International (CI). Mr Jebraj says that CI channeled the grant to CBV, which, in turn, gave a restricted grant to the petitioner. These are the aspects that respondent no.2 will deal with while adjudicating the pending appeal. (iii) Before respondent no.2 renders a final decision on the appeal, he/she will grant the petitioner‟s authorized representative a personal hearing in the matter. Digitally Signed By:ATUL JAIN Signing Date:24.05.2023 14:49:18 Signature Not Verified 2023:DHC:3607-DB W.P.(C)No.5929/2023 Page 5 of 5 16. The writ petition is disposed, accordingly, of in the aforesaid terms. 17. Parties will act based on the digitally signed copies of the order. RAJIV SHAKDHER, J GIRISH KATHPALIA, J MAY 8, 2023/pmc Digitally Signed By:ATUL JAIN Signing Date:24.05.2023 14:49:18 Signature Not Verified "