TMI Blog2020 (4) TMI 260X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ue before us. Hence exemption u/s 11 could not be denied to the assessee. In any case, we find that the assessee had not claimed any expenditure in the sum of ₹ 2,34,58,706/- in its income and expenditure account which factual finding given by the Ld. CIT(A) had also not been controverted by the Revenue before us. Hence, there cannot be any disallowance of the said sum treating the same as surplus in the assessment. - Decided against revenue. - ITA No.1666/DEL/2016 - - - Dated:- 23-1-2020 - Shri Amit Shukla, Judicial Member, And Shri M. Balaganesh, Accountant Member For the Appellant : Shri Amit Kr. Jain Sr. DR For the Respondent : Shri Satyajeet Goyal ORDER PER M. BALAGANESH, AM This appeal has been f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the assessee is an apex body of all major ports, which are centrally administered under, Ministry of Shipping, Government of India. All major ports of India are members of the assessee society. The main major ports are Jawaharlal Nehru Port Trust, Mumbai Port Trust, Kolkata Port Trust, Chennai Port Trust, Vishakhapatnam Port Trust, Kandla Port Trust, Cochin Port Trust, Mormugao Port Trust, Paradip Port Trust, New Mangalore Port Trust, Tutikorin Port Trust and Ennore Port Trust. The main object of the assessee is to undertake and promote engineering, technical, economic, financial, managerial and statistical studies and research into matters relating to the planning, organization, management operation maintenance and construction of ports ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ₹ 56,24,103/- Grant to associated organizations ₹ 60,00,000/- 7. It is not in dispute that the activities of the assessee falls under the last limb of definition charitable of purpose u/s 2(15) of the Act i.e. advancement of any other object of general public utility . The Ld. AO sought to invoke the first proviso on the assessee by stating that it had derived commercial receipts which would make the assessee association ineligible for claim of exemption 11 of the Act. We find that the Ld. Assessing Officer had also observed that the assessee has shown unpaid expenses of ₹ 2,34,58,706/- which includes (a) Major ports sports control Board Expenses of ₹ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ive of the nature of use or application, or retention, of the income from such activity. The assessee also pleaded that the income of the assessee would also be exempted on principle of mutuality. 9. We find that the assessee specifically mentioned the list of unpaid expenses amounting to ₹ 2,34,58,706/- mentioned by the Assessing Officer in the assessment order were never claimed in the income and expenditure account by the assessee. It was pleaded that once expenditure has not been claimed at all, there is no question of disallowance of the same in the assessment. We find that the Ld. CIT(A) had given a categorical finding that the assessee association is not involved in any trade, commerce or business so as to fall within the mi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nditions of Section 11(4A). In CIT, Madras vs. Andhra Chamber of Commerce (1965) 55 ITR 722, it was held by the Supreme Court that advancement or promotion of trade, commerce and industry leading to economic prosperity enured for the benefit of the entire community; that prosperity would be shared also by those who engaged in trade, commerce and industry, but on that account the purpose was not rendered any the less an object of general public utility. Echoing these sentiments another Bench of equal strength of the Supreme Court in Commissioner of Income Tax, New Delhi vs. Federation of Indian Chambers of Commerce and Industries, New Delhi 1981) 130 ITR 186 held that where the main object of the assessee was the promotion, protection a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... orted in 364 ITR 164 (Guj.). The relevant operative portions of the said judgments are not reiterated herein for the sake of brevity. We find that categorical finding given by the Ld. CIT(A) that the assessee in the instant case is not engaged in any activity of trade, commerce or business so as to fall within the mischief of first proviso of section 2(15) of the Act, is not controverted by the Revenue before us. Hence, in our considered opinion, exemption u/s 11 of the Act could not be denied to the assessee. In any case, we find that the assessee had not claimed any expenditure in the sum of ₹ 2,34,58,706/- in its income and expenditure account which factual finding given by the Ld. CIT(A) had also not been controverted by the Reven ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
