2023 (5) TMI 1116 - HC - Income Tax

Assessment order based on an earlier assessment order passed in an entity going by the name Caruna Bal Vikas CBV - The contention being that AO in passing the impugned assessment order has extracted only a part of the reassessment order passed in the case of CBV - petitioner, says that the reassessment order as it stands today, is intact, although CBV has preferred an appeal qua the same - HELD THAT - As 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 passed in the matter concerning CBV, and the judgments that the petitioner has relied upon. One of the judgments as adverted to, in this context, has been passed in the matter of Director of Income Tax vs. Society for Development Alternatives 2012 (1) TMI 77 - DELHI HIGH COURT . We are inclined to dispose of the writ petition with the following directions 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. 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. 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.

Summary

Issues Involved:
The core issue raised is the validity of the assessment order dated 28.03.2022 concerning Assessment Year 2013-14, based on an earlier assessment order passed for an entity named 'Caruna Bal Vikas' (CBV). Another issue is the delay in disposing of the statutory appeal lodged in February 2019.

Core Issue - Assessment Order Validity:
The petitioner contends that the impugned assessment order is based on only a part of the reassessment order dated 31.12.2016 passed in the case of CBV. It is argued that the Assessing Officer (AO) did not consider the entirety of the reassessment order, specifically paragraph 12 which highlighted a restricted sub-grant made by CBV in favor of the petitioner, exempting them from income tax. The petitioner asserts that the AO's omission of this crucial aspect has led to an incorrect denial of exemption under Sections 11 and 12 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

Delay in Disposing of Statutory Appeal:
The petitioner raised concerns about the delay in adjudicating the statutory appeal lodged in February 2019, which remains pending after four and a half years. The respondent, representing the revenue, argued that the petitioner's delay in approaching the court indicates laches. However, the court acknowledged the delay but deemed it necessary for the petitioner to seek judicial intervention to prompt a decision on the pending appeal.

Court's Decision:
The court directed that the respondent should dispose of all pending appeals within three months, considering the entirety of the reassessment order dated 31.12.2016 related to CBV and the relevant judgments. The court emphasized that the source of the grant from Compassion International to CBV, leading to the petitioner's restricted grant, must be thoroughly examined during the appeal process. Additionally, the petitioner's authorized representative is to be granted a personal hearing before the final decision on the appeal is made. The writ petition was disposed of based on these directions, with parties instructed to act upon the digitally signed copies of the order.