TMI Blog2020 (3) TMI 341X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dent assessee for its educational activities / charitable purposes. In such circumstances, the first appellate authority held that there was no case of any benefit given / derived by specified person. Holding that denial of exemption was unjustified being not based on facts, the first appellate authority directed the Assessing Officer to delete the additions and to allow the exemption. Tribunal reiterated as a finding of fact that deposit of ₹ 6,68,00,000.00 was in pursuant of a valid lease agreement for user of the premises and various other facilities. Respondent - assessee had used the premises and other leased assets for carrying out educational activities / charitable purposes. Tribunal further held that departmental represent ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s of the assessee to its interested concern? 4. Respondent is a charitable trust which is registered with the Director of Income Tax (Exemption), Mumbai under Sections 12A and 80G of the Act. In assessment proceedings for the assessment year 2010-11, Assessing Officer took the view that respondent - assessee had diverted an amount of ₹ 6,68,00,000.00 to M/s. Kalyani Education Pvt Ltd. After issuing notice to the respondent - assessee and after hearing, Assessing Officer held that M/s. Kalyani Education Pvt Ltd is an excluded person under Section 13(3) of the Act. There is an agreement between the respondent - assessee and the excluded person. Signatory of the respondent - assessee who is a trustee is also a substantial shareholder ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e have already noticed the ground and reasons why the Assessing Officer declined exemption under Section 11 of the Act. In the appellate proceedings, the first appellate authority held that in the facts and circumstances of the case, question of applicability of Section 13 of the Act did not arise. Therefore, Assessing Officer was in error in denying the exemption under Section 11 of the Act. Relevant portion of the order passed by the first appellate authority is extracted hereunder:- 5.4 I have considered the facts and circumstances of the case and it is on record that the amount of ₹ 6,68,00,000/- has been paid to M/s Kalyani Education Pvt. Ltd. as a deposit for leased asset in terms of agreement dtd. 01.07.2008 for the use of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... asset as envisated in the agreement have actually been used by the appellant for its purposes. Thus, the findings of the AO on this issue are based on suspicion by ignoring the actual activities and transaction on this account where the leased assets were actually being used by the appellant for more than the amount of ₹ 6,80,00,000/- deposit paid against investments/payable for assets of the leaser (M/s Kalyani Education Pvt. Ltd.) to the extent of ₹ 7,70,00,000/- (Exhibited on pg.12 of the assessment order). After considering the above facts and the judicial pronouncements relied upon by the appellant, I find that there is no case of any benefit given/derived by specified person. Therefore, the conclusion reached by the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r its educational activities / charitable purposes. In such circumstances, the first appellate authority held that there was no case of any benefit given / derived by specified person. Holding that denial of exemption was unjustified being not based on facts, the first appellate authority directed the Assessing Officer to delete the additions and to allow the exemption. 9. In further appeal by the revenue, Tribunal after hearing the mater, did not interfere with the order passed by the first appellate authority and held as under:- 7. We have considered rival contentions and carefully gone through the orders of the authorities below and found from record that assessee is a charitable trust engaged in promotion of education and allied ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
