Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding


  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2006 (2) TMI 91

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ssee submitted returns for the assessment years 1998-99 and 1999-2000 admitting the income as business income will not take away the rights of the assessee to claim the benefit of exemption, as there cannot be any estoppel against section 11 of the Act, for the simple reason that the Revenue has not raised any question of law in that regard - - - - - Dated:- 28-2-2006 - Judge(s) : P. D. DINAKARAN., P. P. S. JANARTHANA RAJA. JUDGMENT The judgment of the court was delivered by P.D. Dinakaran J.- As against the order of the Tribunal dated September 27, 2004, made in I.T.A. Nos. 1194, 1195, 1196, 1197 and 1203/Mds/2003, the Revenue has preferred these appeals, raising the following substantial question of law: "Whether, on the facts .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... rom the users. That apart, the assessee also started receiving voluntary donations from the accounting year 1989-90. Since the assessee did not file the return for the assessment years 1990-91 to 1999-2000, the Assessing Officer had reasonably believed that the income of the assessee was liable to be taxed. As the same escaped assessment on account of the failure on the part of the assessee to file return of income under section 139 of the Act, a notice was issued to the assessee under section 148 of the Act for the assessment years 1990-91 to 1997-98, since the assessee itself admitted the income for the assessment year 1998-99 and 1999-2000, as income from the business, which was also accepted under section 143(1)(a) of the Act. Therefo .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... 2000 10,800 --------------------------------------- Against the order of the Assessing Officer, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals). The Commissioner held that letting out of the marriage hall by the assessee would not lose the benefit of exemption. That apart, the Commissioner, applying the ratio laid down in Addl. CIT v. Surat Art Silk Cloth Manufacturers Association [1980] 121 ITR 1 (SC) wherein it is held that it is sufficient to take into consideration the dominant and primary object of the trust to decide its character whether it is for charitable purpose or not, allowed the appeals preferred by the assessee and granted exemption under sections 11 and 12AA of the Act, whic .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... It is not in dispute that the assessee used to let out the kalyana mandapam for social and charitable activities collecting nominal rent. Based on these undisputed facts, the Commissioner and the Tribunal rendered a concurrent finding that the very activity of constructing the kalyana mandapam and letting it out to the local people, mainly weavers and agriculturists, satisfied the charitable object, even though the assessee had not diverted the accumulated fund for any other charitable purpose, viz., for the upliftment of the poor, education and other social and charitable activities. In our considered opinion, the failure or non-diversion of the accumulated funds for any other charitable purpose, as referred to above, by itself, would no .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... n of the kalyana mandapam and letting out itself is a charitable activity, the decision rendered by this court in CIT v. Halai Nemon Association [2000] 243 ITR 439 has no application to the facts of the case. On the other hand, this court, in CIT v. Samyuktha Gowda Saraswatha Sabha [2000] 245 ITR 242, held that letting out of the kalyana mandapam, even though was not one of the objects of the assessee, but an activity carried on to fulfil the objects of the trust and the income earned by the trust by such activity cannot be construed as its business income, but its property income and, therefore, the same is entitled to be exempted under section 11 of the Act. But the case on hand is stronger than the case in CIT v. Samyuktha Gowda Sarasw .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates