Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2021 (2) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2021 (2) TMI 1253 - AT - Income TaxExemption u/s 11 - Denial of registration u/s. 12A being engaged in the activities in the nature of trade, commerce or business, inasmuch as one of the dominant activities of the Assessee-Authority is acquisition and sale of immovable property, the receipt of which are in excess of ₹ 25,00,000/-, being the ceiling stipulated in second proviso of section 2(15) - HELD THAT:- Now the issue is no longer res integra, as it has already been held that “there is no good reasons for holding that Statutory bodies could not be treated as charitable within the meaning of section 2(15) of the Act, as its object is to provide shelter to the homeless people”. So there being no material/evidence on record supporting the case of the Revenue to reach the conclusion that the assessee was conducting its affairs on commercial lines with the profit earning motive and as such the proviso to section 2(15) of the Act is not attracted in this case and the assessee was entitled to exemption provided u/s. 11 of the Act. Moreover, no cogent reason or distinguishable facts have been brought on record by the Revenue if the year under consideration is different from earlier years, i.e., A.Yrs. 2009-10 to 2011-12 [2018 (6) TMI 685 - ITAT DELHI] which have already been decided in favour of the assessee. So, in these circumstances, the Revenue authorities are required to follow the “principle of consistency”, as has been laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Radhasoami Satsang vs. CIT [1991 (11) TMI 2 - SUPREME COURT] Consequently, grounds Nos. 1 to 4 are decided in favour of the assessee. Addition being the residual amount of opg. Bal. of infrastructure fund related to earlier years - as submitted amount of infrastructure fund is belonging to state and which was only on capital a/c credited to B/s etc and not belonging to assessee of which assessee is only a custodian - HELD THAT:- As infrastructure fund, development and reserve fund IDRF as per Notification dated 15.01.1998 belongs to State and the assessee-authority is a mere custodian, the same cannot be taxed in its hand. Even otherwise, the same has been utilized for general utility. So, in view of the matter, grounds Nos. 5 to 10 are also decided in favour of the assessee. Benefit of excess utilization of earlier years - HELD THAT:- Since the issue in controversy has already been decided by coordinate Bench of Tribunal in favour of the assessee in A.Y.2009-10 to 2011-12 on the basis of principle laid down in the case of CIT vs. Shri Plot Swetamber Murti Pujak Jain Mandal [1993 (11) TMI 17 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT] “that income derived from the trust property has also got computed on commercial principles and if commercial principles are applied, then the adjustment of the expenses incurred by the trust for charitable and religious purposes in the earlier year against income earned by the trust in the subsequent year will have to be regarded as application of income of the trust for charitable and religious purposes in the subsequent year”, and as such, the assessee is entitled for benefit of excess utilization of earlier years. Moreover, such benefit has already been granted to the assessee in earlier years at the level of ld. CIT(A) which has been accepted by the Revenue. So, “rule of consistency” is also applicable to this issue. Consequently, we decide ground No. 11 in favour of the assessee.
|