9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (5) TMI 38X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ot involved in any activity of trade, business or commerce or service in relation to trade, business or commerce, the provision to S.2(15) of the Act has wrongly been invoked by the A.O. In our view the Ld.CIT(A) has correctly appreciated the facts of this case and had applied the correct proposition of law to the facts of this case and granted relief to the assessee. Thus we uphold the order of the First Appellate Authority and dismiss this appeal of the Revenue. - Decided in favour of assessee. - ITA No. 2754/Del/2013 - - - Dated:- 26-4-2016 - Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy, Accountant Member And MS. Suchitra Kamble, Judicial Member For the Appellant : Sh. Raman Kant Garg, Sr.D.R. For the Respondent : None ORDER Per J. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ess, trade or commerce. He denied exemption under section 11 and 12 of the Act. Aggrieved the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the Ld.C. I. T. (A). 3. The First Appellate Authority considered various submissions of the assessee and held that the Proviso to Section 2(15) does not apply to the assessee by relying on the judgement of the Hon ble Delhi High Court in the case of Bureau of Indian Standards vs. DGIT (E), in W.P.(C) No.1755 of 2012 dated 27th Sept.2012. He granted relief. Aggrieved the revenue is in appeal before us. 4. None appeared on behalf of the assessee despite issual of notice. On the earlier occasions the Ld.Counsel of the assessee requested for adjournment and this date was given at the request of the ass ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ale of quality literature and miscellaneous receipts of ₹ 70,12,636. The assessee further received an amount of ₹ 4,99,17,750/- on improvement of health services initiative. The issue is whether the assessee is covered under the newly inserted proviso to section 2(15) of the Act. 7. In our view the Ld. CIT(A) has rightly followed the propositions laid down by the Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Bureau of Indian Standards vs. DGIT(E), (supra). The Hon ble High Court has held that : The prescribing of standards, and enforcing of those standards, through accreditation and continuing supervision through inspection etc. cannot be considered as trade, business or commercial activity, merely because the testing procedures ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... education. 7.3. The assessee further submitted that the activities of the assessee carried on by NABCB relating to accreditation of certifying bodies doing Environment Management System and Environmental Impact Assessments. As it is involved in activities relating to medical relief, education and preservation of environment, covered by the specific categories set out under section 2 (15) of the Act and therefore the residuary clause does not come into play for such activities. 7.4. Be it as it may, the Hon ble Delhi High Court had the occasion to consider in the case of Bureau of Indian Standards (supra) wherein it was held as follows: Held, that the Bureau of Indian Standards (BIS) was a statutory body established under the BIS Act ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... should not involve rendering any service in relation to any trade, commerce, or business; and (iv) the activities in clauses (ii) and (iii) should not be for fee, cess or other consideration and if for fee, cess or consideration the aggregate value of the receipts from the activities under (ii) and (iii) should not exceed the amount specified in the second proviso. The earlier test of business feeding or application of income earned towards charity because of the statutory amendment is no longer relevant and apposite. It is evident from Circular No. 11 of2008 that a new proviso to section 2(15) of the Act is applicable to assessees who are engaged in commercial activities, i.e., carrying on business, trade or commerce, in the garb of publi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... organization covered by the last limb, when a token fee is collected from the beneficiaries in the course of activity which is not a business but clearly charity for which it is established and it undertakes. (emphasis ours) 8. Applying the propositions laid down in these case laws to the facts of this case, we have no hesitation in holding that the Assessing Officer was wrong in coming to a conclusion that the assessee activities are in the nature of trade, business or commerce or that the assessee was rendering any service in relation to such trade, business or commerce. The assessee has no profit motive and the fees collected for accreditation etc., is not for any activity which can be termed as business. As the assessee is not inv ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
