9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (4) TMI 339X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... owed for the assessment years 1989-90 to 1991-92, 1995-96 to 2004-05 and 2006-07. Exemption u/s. 11 was denied for the first time in the assessment year 1992-93 mainly on the ground that the society was not a religious society and there was a violation of section 13(1)(b). The assessee was in appeal against the order of the Assessing Officer and it was submitted that the assessee is a religious society and the mischief of the provision of section 13(1)(b) was not attracted. The ld. CIT(A)-XVI, New Delhi in appeal No. 28/1995-96 allowed the appeal of the assessee mainly on the ground that the assessee has been allowed exemption for all the preceding years and there was no material change in the activities of the assessee and the mischief of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 1 has held as under: "3. We have heard the arguments of both the sides and have perused the material placed before us. We find the issue to be covered in favour of the assessee by the decision of ITAT in assessee's own case for assessment year 2009-10 vide ITA No. 3635/Del/2012 dated 11th September, 2012. In the said order, the ITAT, considering various decisions of the ITAT in earlier years, has decided the appeal in favour of the assessee. The relevant finding of the ITAT reads as under:- "5. We have heard both the parties and gone through the facts of the case. We find that the AO himself accepted the claim of the assessee for exemption u/s. 11 of the Act in the AYs 1989-90 to 1991-92, 1995-96 to 2004-05 & 2006-07 in identical ci ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ght to our notice any contrary decision, so as to enable us to take a different view in the matter while claim of the assessee for exemption has consistently been allowed in the preceding 3 ITA-2153/Del/2014 years, we are not inclined to interfere. Consequently, ground no. 1 in the appeal is dismissed." 4. Admittedly, the facts of the year under consideration are identical. Learned DR stated that in the earlier year, the Revenue is in appeal before Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court and, therefore, the matter may be kept pending till the decision of Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court. In our opinion, merely because the earlier year's appeals are pending before the High Court would be no ground for keeping the appeals pending. We ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
