9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (6) TMI 290 - AT - Income TaxGrant of approval u/s 10(23C)(vi) rejected - no registration u/s. 12A of the Act had been granted to the assessee by the Ld. CIT - proof of charitable activities - Held that - following the judgement in assessee s own case title BHARTIYA GRAM SEWA NIKETAN UDYOG MANDAL C/O. M/S. RRA TAX INDIA VERSUS CCIT, DEHRADUN 2018 (2) TMI 54 - ITAT DELHI wherein as held the main objects of the trust are to encourage backward and discarded people towards education and social development works, helping children by providing education and livelihood to them etc. The same was at no point amended by the assessee. Also the trust runs a college that helps in enhancing the future of students by providing the education and making available the diploma courses. Thus the approval u/s. 10(23C)(vi) of the Act is hereby granted - Decided in favour of assessee.
Issues Involved:
1. Cancellation of approval under Section 10(23C)(vi) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. Treatment of the assessee as an Association of Persons (AOP). 3. Taxation of surplus income over expenditure. 4. Disallowance of expenses for health camp and blanket distribution. 5. Adequate opportunity of hearing and principles of natural justice. Detailed Analysis: 1. Cancellation of Approval under Section 10(23C)(vi): The primary issue was the cancellation of approval under Section 10(23C)(vi) by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Dehradun. The CIT(A) observed that there was "No Element of Charity and the activities are purely commercial in character" and that the main aim of the assessee seemed to be to earn a huge surplus every year and invest it in the form of additions to the school building and other infrastructure. The Tribunal, however, noted that this issue was already decided in favor of the assessee in its own case for AY 2013-14 by the Coordinate Bench-C, ITAT, New Delhi, which granted the approval under Section 10(23C)(vi). The Tribunal followed the same ratio and allowed the appeals for AY 2014-15 and AY 2015-16, thereby granting the approval under Section 10(23C)(vi). 2. Treatment of the Assessee as an Association of Persons (AOP): The Assessing Officer (AO) treated the assessee as an AOP following the denial of exemption under Section 10(23C)(vi) and the fact that no registration under Section 12A had been granted. The Tribunal, following the decision in the assessee's own case for the previous year, held that the assessee should not be treated as an AOP since the predominant nature of its activities was educational and not for profit. 3. Taxation of Surplus Income Over Expenditure: The AO taxed the surplus of income over expenditure amounting to ?5,84,869. The CIT(A) upheld the AO's action in treating the assessee as an AOP and confirmed the addition of ?5,84,869. However, the Tribunal, referencing the previous year's decision, allowed the appeal of the assessee and did not bring the surplus to tax, as the activities were considered to be solely for educational purposes. 4. Disallowance of Expenses for Health Camp and Blanket Distribution: The AO disallowed expenses for health camp and blanket distribution amounting to ?1,73,635. The CIT(A) deleted this addition, and the Tribunal upheld this deletion, agreeing with the CIT(A) that these expenses were legitimate and should not be disallowed. 5. Adequate Opportunity of Hearing and Principles of Natural Justice: The assessee contended that the impugned order was passed without granting adequate opportunity of hearing, recording incorrect facts and findings, and without providing the opportunity for cross-examination. The Tribunal did not explicitly address this issue in detail but implicitly resolved it by following the precedent set in the previous year's case, which had considered similar procedural concerns. Conclusion: The Tribunal allowed the appeals of the assessee for both assessment years 2014-15 and 2015-16, granting the approval under Section 10(23C)(vi) and ruling that the surplus income should not be taxed, thereby resolving all the issues in favor of the assessee. The order was pronounced on 01-06-2018.
|
