9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (9) TMI 1094X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... venue : Shri Avikal Manu, Sr. DR For the Assessee : Shri KVSR Krishna, Adv. ORDER PER ANADEE NATH MISSHRA, AM (A) This appeal by Revenue is filed against the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal)-40, Delhi, dated 13.02.2018 for Assessment Year 2014-15. Grounds taken in this appeal of Revenue are as under: 1. On the basis of facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in ignoring the fact that the assessee is not eligible for exemption u/s 11 of the I.T. Act, 1961. 2. On the basis of facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in ignoring the fact that the assessee s activities falls within the sixth limb of charitable activity i.e. advancement of general public utility and in lieu of the services of consultancy and technical support assessee is receiving consultancy fee which is in nature of business income. 3. On the basis of facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in allowing the exemption u/s 11 with all consequential benefits even when the assessee society is hit by proviso to section 2(15) of the Act. 4. On the basis of fact ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ety and is working for providing relief and livelihood to the poor and rural people. It is submitted that the assessee gets the grants from the Central and State Governments and works in coordination with the State Governments. It has also been submitted that the assessee is also receiving the donation from the various corporate entities and reputed trusts like TATA trusts and the donors keep a watch and monitor the working and the implementation of the projects funded by the donors. It is submitted that the mere receipt of fees or receipts does not mean that the assessee is involved in any trade, commerce or business to attract the mischief of the proviso to section 2(15) and the assessee also relied on the various case laws being- i) GS1 India vs. DGIT (Exemption), 360 ITR 138 (Delhi) (2014). ii) Bureau of India Standards vs. DGIT (E), 358 ITR 78 (Delhi) (2013). iii) Director of Income Tax (E) vs. ICAI, 347 ITR 86 (Delhi)(2012). iv) ICAI vs. DGIT(E) 347 ITR 99 (Delhi) (2012). 4.1.3 As per the contention of the appellant its activities fall under the category of relief of poor and, in support, the appellant has relied on the objects of the societ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f section 2(15) and has held that mere receipt of fee or charge cannot be said that the assessee is involved in any trade, commerce or business and has accordingly allowed the relief to the 1TPO case vide Para 58 and 59 of the order. 4.6 After considering all the facts and circumstances of the case, 1 am of the view that apparently the assessee is not apparently involved in any trade, commerce or business and as such the mischief of Proviso of section 2(15) is not applicable and the assessee can be allowed the relief or exemption u/s 11(1) as a charitable society and accordingly the AO is directed to allow the exemption u/s 11(1) with all the consequential benefits. 4.1.6 It is seen from the assessment orders for the assessment years 2011-12, 2012- 13 and 2013-14 that the facts of the case are same as that for the assessment year under consideration, i.e., 2014-15, and that no new facts have been brought out in the assessment order for the year under consideration. Accordingly, the Assessing Officer is directed to allow exemption under section 11 with all the consequential benefits. Grounds of appeal nos. 1 to 7 of the appeal are allowed. (B.1) This present ap ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the view already taken by Co-ordinate Benches of ITAT, Delhi in assessee s own case by aforesaid orders dated 3.09.2019, 8.12.2020 and 23.02.2021 of Co-ordinate Benches of ITAT, Delhi, wherein issues have been decided in favour of the assessee in identical facts. Neither side has brought to our attention any distinguishing facts and circumstances for Assessment Year 2014-15 (to which the present appeal pertains) from facts and circumstances of the aforesaid orders dated 3.09.2019, 8.12.2020 and 23.02.2021 of Coordinate Benches of ITAT, Delhi. The Co-ordinate Benches of ITAT, Delhi have already decided the issues in dispute in favour of the assessee vide aforesaid orders dated 3.09.2019, 8.12.2020 and 23.02.2021 listed in foregoing paragraph no. (B.1) of this order. For ease of reference, the relevant portion of the aforesaid order dated 3.09.2019 passed by Co-ordinate Bench of ITAT, Delhi in assessee s own case, for Assessment Year 2011-12 in ITA No.3662/Del/2015, are reproduced as under: 2. Briefly stated facts of the case as culled out from the order of the lower authorities are that the assessee is registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860 and also registered ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e assessee was not engaged in trade, commerce or business. The Ld. DR referred to page 46 of the paper-book filed by the assessee and submitted that the assessee was not having any independence of working and its projects were being completely monitored by the donors. Accordingly, he submitted that the Assessing Officer has rightly denied exemption under section 11(1) of the Act invoking proviso to section 2(15) of the Act. 4. On the contrary, the Ld. counsel of the assessee filed a paper-book containing pages 1 to 231 and relied on the order of the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. counsel referred to various pages of the paper-book to substantiate that the assessee was engaged in projects related to providing relief to the poor. He specifically referred to page 53 of the paper-book wherein the grant was sanctioned by Sir Dorabji Tata Trust to enable the assessee for strengthening rural livelihoods in the economically poor regions of India. He also drawn our attention to page 26, 29, 30 34 of the paper-book highlighting the project done in backward areas particularly Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes communities of various states for taking up issues affecting their lives, i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... compared to assessment year 2009-10 and 2010-11. In support of the contention of the rule of consistency, the Ld. counsel relied on the decision of the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Radhasoami Satsang versus CIT (1992) 193 ITR 321 (SC). 7. We have heard rival submission of the parties and perused relevant material on record, including paper-book filed by the assessee. According to the Assessing Officer, the activity of the assessee falls under advancement of general public utility , and the assessee being engaged in business of providing services against fee, the activity is out of domain of charitable purpose in view of the proviso to section 2(15) of the Act. The contention of the assessee before us is that the activity of the assessee falls under the main limb of definition of the charitable purpose of relief to poor. The alternative contention of the assessee is that even if the activities of the assessee are considered under the limb of advancement of general public utility, same is not in the nature of trade, commerce or business as no profit motive is involved in providing the services and no extra fee is charged from the clients except cost of the projects ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t apparently the assessee is not apparently involved in any trade, commerce or business and as such the mischief of Proviso of section 2(15) is not applicable and the assessee can be allowed the relief or exemption u/s 11(1) as a charitable society and accordingly the AO is directed to allow the exemption u/s 11(1) with all the consequential benefits. 7.2 In our considered opinion, the assessee is not engaged in any trade, commerce or business and thus mischief of proviso of section 2(15) is not attracted in the case of the assessee. Accordingly, we uphold the finding of the Ld. CIT(A) on the issue in dispute. (C.2) The aforesaid order dated 3.09.2019 of Co-ordinate Bench of ITAT, Delhi was followed by Co-ordinate Bench of ITAT, Delhi for Assessment Years 2012-13 and 2013-14 in aforesaid orders dated 8.12.2020 and 23.02.2021 respectively. In identical facts and circumstances the issues in dispute were already been decided in favour of the assessee by aforesaid orders dated 03.09.2019, 8.12.2020 and 23.02.2021 of Co-ordinate Benches of ITAT, Delhi, for Assessment Years 2011-12, 2012-13 and 2013-14 respectively. In view of the foregoing, and respectfully following the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
