9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (2) TMI 966 - AT - Income TaxRevision u/s 263 - as per CIT-A assessee was not eligible for deduction u/s 11 and 12 of the I.T.Act and the status of the assessee should be treated as an A.O.P. - Held that - The Cochin Bench of the Tribunal had held in assessee s own case for assessment year 2010- 2011 2018 (2) TMI 857 - ITAT COCHIN that activities of the assessee are charitable in nature and was not hit by the proviso to section 2(15) of the I.T.Act, and consequently, the assessee was entitled to exemption u/s 11 and 12 of the I.T.Act. As we hold that there is no error in the assessment orders for earlier assessment years in granting exemption u/s 11 and 12 of the I.T.Act the revisionary order passed u/s 263 is bad in law. - Decided in favour of assessee
Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the order passed under section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. Whether the activities of the assessee are in the nature of trade, commerce, or business and thus not eligible for exemption under section 11 of the Income Tax Act. 3. Whether the proviso to section 2(15) of the Income Tax Act applies to the assessee’s activities. 4. Whether the Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions) was justified in treating the assessee as an Association of Persons (AOP). Detailed Analysis: 1. Validity of the Order Passed Under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act: The appeals are directed against two orders passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax under section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, both dated 22.07.2016, for the assessment years 2012-2013 and 2013-2014. The assessee contended that the show cause notice and the consequent order under section 263 were bad in law and without jurisdiction. The Tribunal noted that the Assessing Officer had made detailed inquiries before completing the assessment under section 143(3) and was satisfied with the explanations provided by the assessee. Therefore, the Tribunal held that the revisionary order under section 263 was not justified and was bad in law. 2. Nature of Activities and Eligibility for Exemption Under Section 11: The Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions) argued that the assessee's activities were in the nature of trade, commerce, or business, and since it was receiving fees or cess from such activities, it was not eligible for exemption under section 11. However, the Tribunal referred to its own decision in the assessee’s case for the assessment year 2010-2011, where it was held that the activities of the assessee were charitable in nature and not hit by the proviso to section 2(15). The Tribunal reiterated that the assessee's activities were solely for the promotion of cricket and not for profit, and any surplus was not distributed among members. 3. Application of Proviso to Section 2(15) of the Income Tax Act: The Tribunal examined whether the proviso to section 2(15) applied to the assessee’s activities. The assessee’s objects included promoting cricket, conducting matches, and training players, which fall under ‘Advancement of any other object of General Public Utility’. The Tribunal held that the receipts from the Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI) were not in the nature of trade, business, or commerce, and the assessee was not providing any service to any trade, commerce, or industry. Thus, the proviso to section 2(15) was not applicable, and the assessee’s activities remained charitable. 4. Treatment as Association of Persons (AOP): The Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions) concluded that the status of the assessee should be treated as an AOP. However, the Tribunal found no justification for this conclusion, as the assessee was engaged in charitable activities and not in commercial activities. The Tribunal noted that the Assessing Officer had already accepted the assessee’s status and activities as charitable in nature for the relevant assessment years. Conclusion: The Tribunal concluded that there was no error in the assessment orders for the assessment years 2012-2013 and 2013-2014 in granting exemption under sections 11 and 12 of the Income Tax Act. Consequently, the revisionary order passed under section 263 was held to be bad in law. The appeals filed by the assessee were allowed, and the order pronounced on 08th February 2018.
|
