TMI Blog2015 (12) TMI 1376X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... olved in any charitable activity as provided u/s. 2(15). After considering all the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the view that the assessee is not a charitable organization as provided u/s. 2(15) and as such assessee is eligible for exemption u/s. 11 and accordingly, the action of the AO in denying the exemption u/s.11 is confirmed - Decided against assessee. - ITA Nos. 5156 to 5159/Del/2015 - - - Dated:- 18-12-2015 - Sh. Aby T. Varkey, Judicial Member And Sh. O. P. Kant, Accountant Member For the Appellant : Sh. Simran Mehta, Adv For the Respondent : Sh. Amit Jain, Sr DR ORDER Per Bench These appeals by the assessee are directed against four separate orders dated 10.07.2013 passed by learned Co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... holding the action of the AO in denying to the assessee the benefit of exemption u/s 11 of the IT. Act, 1961 on grounds which are patently erroneous in law and violative of the 'principles of consistency' since said exemption has been allowed to it in past assessment years on the same set of facts and the position of law remains unchanged. vi. The CIT (A) while denying exemption u/s 11 failed to appreciate that the business of 'Hamdard Dawakhana' was irrevocably dedicated to charity and the principal predominant and primary object was genuine charitable activity and the commercial activity carried on by the appellant was merely a means to effectuate the charitable object. vii. That the CIT (A) like the AO erred i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd 2006- 07. No part of these accumulations was taxable in the assessment year 2006-07. xiii. The CIT (A) has further erred in confirming the levy of interest u/s 234B, 244A and 234D to the tune of ₹ 17,73,69,651/ -, ₹ 12,424/- and ₹ 72,229/- respectively. The assessee was not liable in law for any such levies. xiv. The appellant reserves to itself, the right to add, alter, amend, substitute, withdraw and/or any Ground(s) of Appeal at or before the date of hearing. 2. At the outset, the learned Authorized Representative brought to our notice the judgment of the Hon ble High Court in Civil Writ Petition filed by the assessee against the impugned order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). 3. The facts ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in appeal before us in respect of all the four assessment years. Simultaneously, the assessee also filed writ petition bearing WP(C) No. 3599/2012 before the Hon ble High Court seeking to quash the order of the ld. Director General of Income Tax (Exemptions) withdrawing the exemptions under Section 10(23C)(vi) of the Act as well as to quash the order of the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) i.e. the impugned orders for the assessment years 2006-07 to 2009-10. 3. The Hon ble High Court has decided all the Writ Petitions and quashed the order of the ld. Director General of Income Tax (Exemptions) and the order of the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). The relevant findings of the Hon ble High Court are as under: 108. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pondent did not hear the matter on 28.06.2013. As regards the scheduled hearing on 08.07.2013, Hamdard contends that no such hearing took place on the said date whereas the second Respondent contends that Hamdard s counsel - Mr. R.M. Mehta - made W.P.(C) 3599/12, 5715/13, 5716/13, 5718/13, 5729/13 5711/13 Page 73 submissions on that date. Hamdard has placed on record letters dated 19.07.2013 and 04.09.2013 wherein the second Respondent was urged to clarify that Hamdard s counsel did not appear before the second Respondent on 08.07.2013. Further, a perusal of the impugned orders dated 10.07.2013 would indicate that the second Respondent has omitted to consider Hamdard s submissions filed before the second Respondent s predecessor on 04.03. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y engaged in business activity and the assessee by itself is not engaged in any charitable activity except the donations made to HNF, which the assessee considers as a charitable organization. But it is seen that even the activities of HNF is not charitable as no free treatment or free medicines are distributed to the poor. The exemption u/s. 11 is available when the assessee is engaged in charitable activities, but in the present case it is an admitted fact that the assessee is engaged in business and is not directly involved in any charitable activity as provided u/s. 2(15). After considering all the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the view that the assessee is not a charitable organization as provided u/s. 2(15) and as such ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
