2018 (10) TMI 1915 - AT - Income Tax

Exemption u/s 11 - proof of Charitable activity u/s 2(15) - Principle of consistency - assessee has charging fee/consideration from the activity of vocational training - as per AO activity of the assessee involves advancement of any other abject of general public utility and its receipts exceeds the mandatory limit as specified under proviso to section 2(15) - Whether CIT(A) erred in allowing the benefit of Section 11(1)(a) 11(2) of the Act which is contrary to the provisions of section 2(15) r.w.s. 13(8) of the Act.? - CIT-A deleted the addition HELD THAT - We note that there was no appeal preferred by the Revenue against the order of Ld. CIT(A) pertaining to the A.Y. 2011-12 which implies that the order of Ld. CIT(A) reached to its finality. In our considered view, once, the order of the Ld CIT(A) has reached to its finality to any of the assessment year then on the same ground no appeal by the Revenue can be preferred to the Hon ble ITAT in other years. In this regard, we draw support and guidance from the judgment of Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Excel Industries Limited 2013 (10) TMI 324 - SUPREME COURT . As no change in the facts and circumstances in the impugned case in comparison to the previous assessment years and the Revenue in earlier year has accepted the same. Therefore in our considered view the principles of consistency should be applied - see RADHASOAMI SATSANG 1991 (11) TMI 2 - SUPREME COURT - Decided against revenue.

Summary

Issues Involved:
Appeal against separate orders of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) regarding Assessment Years 2009-10 & 2012-13.

Analysis:

Issue 1: Benefit of Section 11(1)(a) & 11(2) of the Act

The Revenue contended that the Ld. CIT(A) erred in allowing the benefit of Section 11(1)(a) & 11(2) of the Act, contrary to Section 2(15) r.w.s. 13(8) of the Act. The AO observed that the assessee, an AOP trust providing vocational training, charged fees, falling under "the advancement of any other object of general utility." The AO sought clarification, disallowing the exemption under Section 11(1)(a)/11(2) of the Act. The assessee argued that its activities were educational and charitable, eligible for exemptions. Ld. CIT(A) deleted the additions, citing compliance with Section 11(2) and registration under Section 12AA. The Tribunal noted finality of the Ld. CIT(A)'s order for AY 2011-12, applying principles of consistency and citing the Supreme Court's judgment in CIT Vs. Excel Industries Limited. The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal, upholding the Ld. CIT(A)'s decision.

Issue 2: Identical Issues in AY 2012-13

The issues raised by the Revenue for AY 2012-13 were identical to those for AY 2009-10. Both parties agreed to apply the decision made for AY 2009-10 to AY 2012-13. Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal for AY 2012-13 based on the decision for AY 2009-10.

In conclusion, the Tribunal upheld the Ld. CIT(A)'s decision, allowing the benefit of Section 11(1)(a) & 11(2) of the Act to the assessee. The Tribunal emphasized consistency in decisions across assessment years and cited relevant legal precedents to support its judgment. Both appeals of the Revenue were dismissed, and the order was pronounced on 25/10/2018.