9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (5) TMI 334X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ties of the assessee are benefiting the public at large at submitted by the assessee. Furthermore, it is not the case of the department that any change in object had taken place in the relevant year so as to take that assessee outside the ambit of section 2 (15). The receipts regarding Goa Fest 2010 and interest received on money deposited is exempt u/s 11. The orders of the lower authorities are set aside and appeal of the assessee is accordingly allowed. - ITA No. 2072/Mum/2016 - - - Dated:- 1-3-2019 - SRI MAHAVIR SINGH, JM AND SRI RAJESH KUMAR, AM For The Appellant : Shri Kamal Sawhney And Abhishek Tilak, ARs For The Respondent : Shri Chaitanya Anjania, DR ORDER PER MAHAVIR SINGH, JM: This appeal by the assessee is arising out of the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-1, Mumbai [in short CIT(A)], in appeal No. CIT(A)-I/E-II (86)/2014-15 vide order dated 28.01.2016. The Assessment was framed by the Additional Director of Income Tax (E), Circle II(2), Mumbai (in short ADIT/ITO/ AO ) for the A.Y. 2011-12 vide order dated 27.03.2014 under section 143(3) of the Incom ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 6529 (Bom) dated 20.01.1981 and further under section 12A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 vide N:INS/14183. The assessee filed complete added accounts i.e. income and expenditure account, balance sheet and audit report in form No. 10B claiming exemption under section 11 of the Act. The AO denied exemption on account of interest of ₹ 30,62,564/- and received on fixed deposit and income on account of Goa Fest 2010 amounting to ₹ 1,13,08,215/-. Aggrieved, assessee preferred the appeal before CIT(A). The CIT(A) reiterated the assessment order and confirmed the addition vide Para 6 as under: - 6. I have considered the facts and circumstances of the case, gone through the assessment order of the A.O and the submissions of the appellant and also discussed the case with the AR of the appellant. The contentions and submissions of the appellant are being discussed and decided here in under: i. In Ground No. 1, the appellant has disputed the taxability of interest income received from fixed deposits. The appellant has not made any specific submissions with reference to this ground. On the other hand the AO relying upon the judgments of the H ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed in proviso to section 2(15). iii. The appellant has relied upon Circular No. 11 issued by CBDT and has only partly reproduced the same. However, in the Circular itself it is mentioned that: 3.2. In the final analysis, however, whether the assessee has for its object: the advancement of any other object of general public utility is a question of fact. If such assesses is engaged in any activity in the nature of trade, commerce or business or renders any service/n relation to trade, commerce or business, it would not be entitled to claim that its object is charitable purpose. In such a case the object of general public utility will be only a mask or device to hide the true purpose which is trade, commerce or business or the rendering of any service in relation to trade, commerce or business. In this regard, it may be noted that the appellant is not disputing that its object Is not falling under 'the advancement of any other object of general public utility'. From the discussion in preceding para it is clear that the appellant is rendering services in relation to trade, commerce or business. Therefore, as mentioned in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . The intention of collecting subscription is not to make a surplus but the same is to cost of conducting the fest. The surplus has arisen due to an unprecedented response including last minute entries. Further Circular 11/2008 dated 19 December 2008 also says that the insertion of the proviso to section 2(15) of the Act is to curb the activity of assessee who carry on trade, commerce or business under a mask or a device of charitable purpose, which is clearly not so in this case. 5. We find that in the case of assessee not a single transaction is in nature of trade, commerce or business and the Goa Fest from the detailed facts enumerated above is abundantly and clearly wholly towards the advancement of Its objects which have been duly considered as being towards advancement of object general public utility, while granting registration under section 12A of the Act. The assessee contended that the surplus generated out of the Goa Fest activities is further accumulated or set apart for future application is charitable purpose in India. Furthermore, the income so accumulated or set apart were invested as per modes/ forms specified in Section 11(5) of the Act i.e. d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... antly the recent decision of this Court in India Trade Promotion Organization v. Director General of Income Tax (Exemptions) Others 371 ITR 333. 4.. The Tribunal held as follows- 7.7 We also agree with the submissions made by the Ld Counsel of the assesses that mere charging of fee front members or non-members for rendering services like training, conducting seminars would not ipso facto lead to denial of exemption. The dominant object of the assesses remains charitable and the aforesaid activities are only incidental to the main activity of the assesses. Also, the activities of the assessee are benefiting the public at large at submitted by the Id. Counsel for the assessee. Furthermore, it is not the case of the department that any change in object had taken place in the relevant year so as to take that assesse outside the ambit of section 2(75]. The effect of the amendment has been discussed elaborately by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in ITPO Case (supra) as well as the judgment of Apex Court in Andhra Pradesh Chamber of Commerce (supra) and the test of dominant object has not been alter ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
