9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2025 (1) TMI 691 - AT - Income TaxRevision u/s 263 - proviso to sec. 2(15) was applicable to the assessee and thus setting aside the assessment framed - Whether assessee is a charitable institution and is entitled to the exemption u/s 11 on the ground that services rendered by the assessee trust as public utility services is very meager and, therefore, sec. 2(15) is not applicable? - HELD THAT - We note that in the assessment year 2018-19 the Tribunal has decided the issue of applicability of proviso to section 2(15) to the assessee 2024 (7) TMI 135 - ITAT KOLKATA as held that the assessee is a charitable institution and is entitled to the exemption u/s. 11 on the ground that services rendered by the assessee trust as public utility services is very meager and, therefore, sec. 2(15) is not applicable. We are of the view that sec. 263 order passed by the Ld. CIT(E), which has been under challenge before us by the assessee, becomes infructuous as subsequent to the passing of such order, the ITAT has decided the issue as stated hereinabove in favour of the assessee. Accordingly, we quash the revisionary order passed u/s. 263 of the Act. Appeal of the assessee is allowed.
1. ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDERED The core legal question in this case revolves around the applicability of the proviso to Section 2(15) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, to the assessee and whether the revisionary order under Section 263 of the Act, passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions) [CIT(E)], was justified. The issue concerns whether the assessee's activities qualify as charitable under Section 11 of the Act, given that the income derived from public utility services was considered meager. 2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS Relevant legal framework and precedents: The legal framework involves the interpretation of Section 2(15) of the Income Tax Act, which defines "charitable purpose" and includes activities for the advancement of any other object of general public utility. The proviso to this section excludes activities that involve trade, commerce, or business unless the receipts are below a specified threshold. Section 263 allows the CIT to revise an assessment order if it is erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the revenue. Precedents include decisions by the Coordinate Bench in the assessee's own case for previous assessment years, as well as the Supreme Court's ruling in ACIT vs. Ahmedabad Urban Development Authority and other High Court decisions, which provide guidance on interpreting "charitable purpose" and the applicability of Section 11 exemptions. Court's interpretation and reasoning: The Tribunal found that the assessee's activities were charitable in nature, as they involved public utility services with only a meager profit, thus not falling within the ambit of the proviso to Section 2(15). The Tribunal relied on its previous decisions in the assessee's case and similar cases, emphasizing the principle that incidental business activities do not negate the charitable nature of an entity if the primary purpose remains charitable. Key evidence and findings: The Tribunal noted that the facts of the case for the assessment year in question were similar to those in previous years, where the assessee was granted exemption under Section 11. The Tribunal's findings were based on the consistency of the assessee's activities and the meager profit derived from such activities, which supported the claim of being a charitable institution. Application of law to facts: The Tribunal applied the legal principles established in previous rulings to the facts of the case, concluding that the assessee's activities did not constitute business activities as defined by the proviso to Section 2(15). The Tribunal emphasized the dominant purpose test, which assesses whether the primary objective of an entity is charitable. Treatment of competing arguments: The Tribunal considered the arguments from the Department, which relied on the CIT(E)'s revisionary order under Section 263. However, the Tribunal found that the CIT(E)'s order was rendered infructuous by the prior Tribunal decision favoring the assessee, which had already settled the issue of exemption under Section 11. Conclusions: The Tribunal concluded that the revisionary order under Section 263 was not sustainable, as the issue of exemption under Section 11 had been conclusively decided in favor of the assessee in previous proceedings. The Tribunal quashed the CIT(E)'s order and allowed the appeal of the assessee. 3. SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGS Preserve verbatim quotes of crucial legal reasoning: "The assessee is entitled to exemption u/s 11 of the Act on the ground that the profit derived from services rendered as general public utility is very meager... the decision of Co-ordinate Bench in the case of Indian Chamber of Commerce vs. DCIT... is clearly applicable." Core principles established: The Tribunal reinforced the principle that incidental business activities do not disqualify an entity from being considered charitable if the primary objective is charitable. It also emphasized the importance of consistency in applying legal principles across assessment years. Final determinations on each issue: The Tribunal determined that the assessee's activities were charitable and not subject to the proviso to Section 2(15), thus entitling the assessee to exemption under Section 11. The revisionary order under Section 263 was quashed, and the appeal was allowed. Order is pronounced in the open court on 15th October, 2024.
|
