9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (7) TMI 171X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e Commissioner of Income - tax (Exemption), New Delhi on the grounds inter alia that :- "1. That the Ld. CIT has erred in rejecting the application filed by Bar Council of Delhi seeking registration u/s 12A (a) of the Income Tax Act. 2. That the Ld. CIT has erred in holding that the provisions of section 12AA are not applicable to Bar Council of Delhi. 3. That the Ld. CIT has erred in holding that the genuineness of the activities of the Council could not be ascertained when the accounts of the Council were very much before the Ld. Commissioner. 4. That the Ld. CIT has erred in denying the approval u/s 80G of the Act holding that the charitable activities of the Council could not be substantiated, however activities of the Council w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt 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 exemption u/s 80G of the Act on two grounds inter alia that (i) in the absence of financials of FY 2018-19, the genuineness of the activities of the appellant could not be established; and (ii) that the appellant is not a notified institution by the Government of India. 7. Ld. AR for the appellant challenging the impugned order contended inter alia that at the time of grant of registration, the ld. CIT ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Allahabad), Shri Nathji Education Foundation vs. CIT ITA No.809/LKW/2014, Self Employers Service Society vs. CIT 247 ITR 18 (Kerala) and Kirti Chand Tarawati Ch. Trust vs. DIT 232 ITR 11 (Delhi). 9. First of all, ld. AR for the appellant drew our attention towards Notification dated 09.08.1966 available at page 109 of the paper book 2, issued by Ministry of Finance, Government of India, granting approval to the appellant w.e.f 22.01.1962 in terms of clause (ii) of Proviso to 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. Bar ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l. It is true that sub s. (2) provides that a State Bar Council may constitute one or more funds for the purpose of giving financial assistance to organise welfare schemes for the indigent, disabled or other advocates ; but it is an optional or discretionary function to be undertaken by the council. Apart from that, admittedly, the assessee council has not so far constituted any such fund for the purpose specified in the instant case. As and when such a fund is constituted, a question may arise for consideration and the court may have to decide whether the function so undertaken by a State Bar Council has become the dominant purpose for which that council is operating. Having regard to the preamble of the Act and the nature of the various o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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 :- "That the expression ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ) in the impugned order that, "the provisions of section 11 to 13 specifically section 12AA are not applicable to such organisation or institution", is not correct interpretation of law as Hon'ble Apex Court in the judgment cited as CIT vs. Bar Council of Maharashtra (supra) 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 of the Act. 19. Furthermore, the appellant had furnished financials of FYs 2016-17 & 2017-18 but the ld. CIT (E), without making any adverse findings on ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
