9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (7) TMI 171X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... applicable to such organisation or institution , is not correct interpretation of law as CIT vs. Bar Council of Maharashtra [ 1978 (8) TMI 14 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] held that two provisions viz. section 11 section 10(23A) are not mutually exclusive but operated under different circumstances. So, merely on the basis of the fact that income of the appellant exempted u/s 10(23A) is not a bar to claim deduction in assessment u/s 11 of the Act, as such income is to be excluded u/s 11. Appellant had furnished financial of FYs 2016-17 2017-18 but the ld. CIT (E), without making any adverse findings on the same, proceeded to reject the registration on the ground that financials of FY 2018-19 have not been furnished. Thought it is not a requirement of law to furnish the financials as required by the ld. CIT (E) the appellant has come up with argument that now the financials of FY 2018-19 are available and they are ready to furnish the same. What has been discussed in the preceding paras, we are of the considered view that the appellant being engaged in safeguarding the rights, privileges and interest of the advocates, its dominating purpose is the advancement of general publi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e-tax Act, 1961 (for short the Act ) were rejected by the ld. CIT (E) on the grounds inter alia that since the appellant has failed to furnish balance sheet and income expenditure account for the FY 2018-19 despite called for, the conditions laid down u/s 12AA are not satisfied and that the name of the Bar Council of Delhi does not appear in approved association/institution notified by the Government thus not a charitable institution within the meaning of section 2(15) of the Act. 4. Feeling aggrieved, the appellant has come up before the Tribunal by way of filing the present appeal. 5. We have heard the ld. Authorized Representatives of the parties to the appeal, gone through the documents relied upon and orders passed by the revenue authorities below in the light of the facts and circumstances of the case. 6. Undisputedly, appellant has been established with object to control, supervise, regulate or encouragement of the profession of law for which there is a separate provision in the Act as contained u/s 10(23A) of the Act for exempting its income which shall not be included in its total income. Ld. CIT (E) proceeded to reject the application u/s 12AA and consequent e ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... section 10(23A) of the Act. The appellant also brought on record copy of Notification (supra) granting approval to the appellant vide communication dated 24.12.2019 issued by Ministry of Finance, Government of India, available at pages 176 to 187 of the paper book. Bare perusal of the Notification (supra) goes to prove that ld. CIT (E) has failed to take note of the fact that vide Notification (supra), the appellant has been duly approved/notified institution for the purpose of section 10(23) of the Act. 10. Now, the next question arises for determination in this case is :- as to whether activities of the appellant Bar Council/ professional body which is to control, supervise and regulate profession is not a charitable within the meaning of definition contained u/s 2(15) of the Act as has been held by the ld. CIT(E)? 11. Hon ble Apex Court in case of CIT vs. Bar Council of Maharashtra cited as 130 ITR 28, affirming the judgment of Hon ble Bombay High Court in case of Bar Council of Maharashtra vs. CIT reported in 126 ITR 27, held that primary and dominant purpose of an institution like the appellant is the advancement of the object of general public utility ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Act as has been held by Hon ble Apex Court in the identical facts and circumstances in a case of Bar Council of Maharashtra (supra), further scrutiny of the financials of the appellant are not required because it is otherwise within the purview of AO to examine at the time of assessment if the appellant is entitled to exemption u/s 11 of the Act. 14. Hon ble Kerala High Court in Sree Anjaneya Medical Trust vs. CIT 382 ITR 399 held that, no examination of modus of the application of the funds of the trustee committee or an examination of the ethical background of its settler is called for while considering an application for registration. The stage for consideration of the relevance of the object of the assessee and the application of its funds arises at the time of assessment. 15. Hon ble Apex Court in case of CIT vs. Andhra Chamber of Commerce (1965) 55 ITR 722 (SC) held that an object beneficial to a section of the public was an object of general public utility, as in the case of appellant, which is working to control, supervise and regulate a profession for the benefit of lawyers community at large. Operative part of the judgment is as under :- ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
