9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (7) TMI 83X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e Revenue has not accepted the said decision and has filed an appeal before the Hon'ble High Court of Bombay which is pending for adjudication." 2. 'The appellant prays that the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-1, Mumbai be set aside and that of the Assessing Officer be restored. 3."The appellant craves leave to amend or alter any ground or add a new ground which may be necessary. 3. None appeared on behalf of the assessee. We have heard rival DR and perused the materials available on record. We find that assessee is a chamber of commerce registered under 12A of the Act having main objects to promote and extend the commercial and industrial relations between Italy and India and the development of commercial exchanges between their respective industries, trades and businesses and to further the economic interest of Italy and India. The assessee is in existence with further objects to assist and facilitate new contracts between the trade, economic and industrial interest of both the countries. 3.1. The return of income for the A.Y.2009-10 has been filed by the assessee trust on 30/09/2009 along with audited income and expenditure and balance sheet decla ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... be denied as the conditions mentioned therein are not satisfied by the assessee. The assessee's submission filed on 19.12.2011 has been reproduced in Para 6 of the assessment order, Thereafter, the AO has discussed the issue in detail at pars 7,8 & 9 of the assessment order wherein placing reliance on the decisions in the case of Sole Trustee, Loka Shikshana Trust vs, CIT 101 ITR 234(SC), Bihar Institute of Mining and Mine Surveying vs CIT 2008 ITR 604 and referring to the amendment made u/s 2(15) of the Act wet 01.04.2009, observed that the assessee is not an educational institution and that its activities do not fall under the definition of charitable purposes. The AO further placed reliance on the decision of the Gujarat High Court in the case of Saurashtra Education Foundation vs CIT, 273 ITR 139 (Gujarat). The A0 further observed that the assessee is predominantly mutual association and has non-charitable objects and that the exemption u/s 11 as a charitable trust and principles of mutuality are mutually exclusive of each other. The AO further discussed the scheme of Sec.11 to 13 of the Act, particularly 13(1)(c) & 13(3) of the Act and finally concluded that the activities of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nciples of consistency Should be followed. The assesssee also placed reliance on the decision of Hon'ble ITAT, Mumbai in the case of Indo French Chamber of Commerce vs ADIT(E)-11(1) Mumba, In ITA No. 385/Mum/2013 and ITA No.1122/Mum/2013 for AY. 2009-10 and submitted that facts of their case are identical and their issue is squarely covered by the decision of jurisdictional Tribunal. It was accordingly submitted that they are entitled for exemption u/s 11 of the Act and the same should be granted to them. 6.2.1. The assessee made their further submission dated 2507.2017, wherein it was submitted that their assessment for A.Yrs. 2010-11, 2012-13. 2014-15 & 2016-17 were completed u/s 143(3) of the Act and the AO in all these years have accepted their claim u/s 11 of the Act. The assessee further placed reliance on the decision of Hon'ble Mumbai Tribunal in the case of Indian Merchant Chambers vs. ADIT(E)-11(1) in ITA No. 4076/Mum12013 dated 29.062016 for A.Y. 2009-10. 6.3 I have carefully considered the facts of the case, oral contentions and written submissions of the assessee. discussion of the AO in the assessment order and material available on record. It is seen that the AO ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Tribunal reached to the conclusion that even of amendment of section 2(15) of the Act w.e.f 01.04.2009. assessee association's having primary purpose at advancement of objects of general public utility and it would remain charitable even if an incidental or ancillary activity or purpose, for achieving the main purpose was profitable in nature. Hence, assesses is not hit by newly inserted proviso to section 2(15) 2(15) of the Act. It is further seen that the assessee has also submitted the copies of assessment orders in their own case for A.Y. 2010-11, 2012-13. 2014-15 and 2016-17. It is seen that in all these assessment years, orders were passed by the AO uls 143(3) of the Act and there is no denial of deduction u/s 11 of the Act in any of the assessments so completed. It therefore means that the AO in the subsequent assessment years has found the claim of the assessee u/s 11 of the Act as allowable. In such facts and circumstances of the case when the AO himself has allowed the claim of deduction u/s 11 of the Act by the assessee in subsequent assessment years and respectfully following decisions of Hon'ble jurisdictional ITAT in the case of Indian Merchant Chambers vs DDIT( ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
