9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (3) TMI 871X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 13) - - - Dated:- 17-2-2020 - SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI DR. B.R.R. KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Appellant by: Shri Rajesh Kumar Kedia, CIT-DR Respondent by: Shri R.S. Singhvi, CA. ORDER PER AMIT SHUKLA, J.M.: The aforesaid appeal has been filed by the Revenue against the impugned order dated 08.12.2016, passed by Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-XL, Delhi for the quantum of assessment passed u/s.143(3) for the Assessment Year 2012-13. In the grounds of appeal, the Revenue has raised following grounds:- 1. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the Ld. CIT (A) has erred in holding that the activities carried out by the assessee are not in the nature of trade, b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ose u/s 2(15) of the Act i.e. advancement of any other object of general public utility . The Ld. AO sought to invoke the first proviso on the assessee by stating that it had derived commercial receipts which would make the assessee association ineligible for claim of exemption 11 of the Act. We find that the Ld. Assessing Officer had also observed that the assessee has shown unpaid expenses of ₹ 2,34,58,706/- which includes (a) Major ports sports control Board Expenses of ₹ 64,00,000/- (b) Indian Maritime University expenses of ₹ 54,62,334/- (c) payments for pay and allowances of ₹ 99,21,958/- and the balance of ₹ 16,74,414/- under various heads, viz. Transport hire charges, audit fee, Sundry expenses etc. Th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... st of unpaid expenses amounting to ₹ 2,34,58,706/- mentioned by the Assessing Officer in the assessment order were never claimed in the income and expenditure account by the assessee. It was pleaded that once expenditure has not been claimed at all, there is no question of disallowance of the same in the assessment. We find that the Ld. CIT(A) had given a categorical finding that the assessee association is not involved in any trade, commerce or business so as to fall within the mischief of the first proviso of section 2(15) of the Act. 10. Per contra, the Ld. DR vehemently relied upon the order of the Ld. AO. 11. We find that the issue in dispute had been addressed by the decision of the Hon ble jurisdictional High Court ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... entire community; that prosperity would be shared also by those who engaged in trade, commerce and industry, but on that account the purpose was not rendered any the less an object of general public utility. Echoing these sentiments another Bench of equal strength of the Supreme Court in Commissioner of Income Tax, New Delhi vs. Federation of Indian Chambers of Commerce and Industries, New Delhi 1981) 130 ITR 186 held that where the main object of the assessee was the promotion, protection and development of trade, commerce and industry in India, its income from conducting a trade fair, rent for space allotted and sale of entry and gate tickets, fees for arbitration etc. would be exempted from tax under Section 11 read with Section 2(15) o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y activity of trade, commerce or business so as to fall within the mischief of first proviso of section 2(15) of the Act, is not controverted by the Revenue before us. Hence, in our considered opinion, exemption u/s 11 of the Act could not be denied to the assessee. In any case, we find that the assessee had not claimed any expenditure in the sum of ₹ 2,34,58,706/- in its income and expenditure account which factual finding given by the Ld. CIT(A) had also not been controverted by the Revenue before us. Hence, there cannot be any disallowance of the said sum of ₹ 2,34,58,706/- treating the same as surplus in the assessment. 13. In view of our aforesaid observations and respectfully following the aforesaid judicial preceden ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
