9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (1) TMI 1898X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... u/s 10 (23BBA) of the Act. (ii) not considering cost of acquisition of land at village Ranpur adopted by A.O. at Rs. 1,38,940/- and also not considering computation of capital gain of Rs. 21,08,58,996/-. (iii) the appellant craves liberty to raise additional ground and to modify/amend the ground of appeal at the time of hearing." 4. From the above grounds, it is gathered that the main grievance of the department relates to the exemption u/s 10(23BBA) of the I.T. Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the "Act" in short) directed to be allowed to the assessee by the Ld. CIT(A), Kota. 5. Facts of the case in brief are that the assessee filed the return of income on 30/1/2009 declaring Nil income. The assessee derived income of Rs. 2,40,46,337/- from capital gain, which was claimed as exempt. The Assessing Officer, however, framed the assessment at an income of Rs. 21,08,57,000/- by deducting cost of acquisition amounting to Rs. 7,65,559/- out of the compensation of Rs. 21,16,22,555/- received from Urban Improvement Trust, Kota. The Assessing Officer also did not allow deduction u/s 11(1)(a) of the Act. 6. Being aggrieved the assessee carried the matter to the Ld. CIT(A) and the s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd attracts thousands and lakhs of Hindu devotees from all over India. The temple stands as a symbol of religious traditions of 'Vallabhkul Vaishnav Sampradaya' of Hindu religion and an icon of faith, belief and worship for countless Hindu devotees all over India. As such in order to properly organize its management and to formulate a scheme of running the affairs of the temple, the Appellant Board was constituted as already mentioned above and in furtherance of the same. Hon'ble District Judge Shri. S.R. Kothari vide order dated 07/05/1974 in Civil Execution No. 32 of 1973 constituted the Appellant-Board for the first time. A copy of such order dated 07/05/1974 is placed in the paper book at page No. 26 to 27. 4. The Appellant Board is a body corporate under the said Scheme and having a perpetual succession and a common seal and can sue and be sued in its own name. Further, the powers of the Appellant Board regarding the administration and governance of Shree Bade Mathureshji Temple and its funds are absolute. Excepting the Appellant Board set up as per the Scheme no other authority is vested with the power of administration and governance of the temple and its administratio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ons mentioned in section 10 (23BBA) of the act for getting unconditional exemption of its income from income tax as it is also a body corporate constituted under a Central Act (i.e. C.P.C., 1908) for the administration and management of Shree Bade Mathureshji Temple and hence it was unconditionally eligible for exemption u/s 10(23BBA) of the Act in respect of its income from any source and in spite of the same, the Ld. Assessing Officer did not even discuss such eligibility of the Appellant Board for getting exemption in respect of all its incomes leave alone dismissing such eligibility on some ground and has therefore, erred in passing the impugned assessment order. 8. It is also submitted that the said exemption u/s 10(23BBA) of the Act was introduced in order to exempt the income of the bodies or authorities which are set up by or under any Central, State or provincial Act and which are entrusted with the administration of public religious and charitable trusts within their jurisdiction. It was made clear while incorporating the said provision that since the bodies are not engaged in any commercial activity, it was proposed to insert a new clause (23BBA) to section 10 in order ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... b. provides for the administration of such trust which is a public religious trust and the said statutory provision of the Central Act provides for administration of the public charitable and religious trusts. Hence, it is clear that the Appellant Board qualifies for exemption u/s 10(23BBA) of the Act. 12. It is also relevant to submit that the Scheme amended by the High Court as mentioned in para 2 above as its Point No. 12 clearly provided that the Appellant Board shall manage the properties and affairs of the temple and further at Point No. 26 provided that after the Board is constituted, all rights and interests in the properties moveable or immovable, rights and liabilities vested in the receiver shall be transferred to the Board by the Operation of the Scheme. Therefore, in respect of all the properties/incomes belonging to the temple or to the Deity of Shree Bade Mathureshji, the Appellant Board was liable for management as well as administration and use of such properties/incomes as per the rules laid down in the Scheme and that is why, in the present case, the Appellant Board was assessed in relation to the compensation received from UIT, Kota for compulsory acquisiti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the assessee. 10. We have considered the submissions of both the parties and carefully gone through the material available on record. To resolve the present controversy, it is pertinent to discuss the provisions of Section 10(23BBA) of the Act, which reads as under:- "10. In computing the total income of a previous year of any person, any income falling within any of the following clauses shall not be included- "(23BBA) any income of any body or authority (whether or not a body corporate or corporation sole) established, constituted or appointed by or under any Central, State or Provincial Act which provides for the administration of any one or more of the following, that is to say, public religious or charitable trusts or endowments (including maths, temples, gurudwaras, wakfs, churches, synagogues, agiaries or other places of public religious worship) or societies for religious or charitable purposes registered as such under the Societies Registration Act, 1860 (21 of 1860), or any other law for the time being in force: Provided that nothing in this clause shall be construed to exempt from tax the income of any trust, endowment or society referred to therein;" From the ab ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as the present petitioner. Therefore, it is clear that it is only those institutions/bodies whose incomes are "conditionally exempt", are required to file their "IT returns" and the bodies like the petitioner whose incomes are "unconditionally exempt" from the levy of income tax are consequently not required to file their IT returns. It is, therefore, clear from Circular No. 4 of 2002, date. 16th July, 2002 that the bodies or authorities which are covered under s. 10(23BBA) are not statutorily required to file any return of income under s. 139 nor any tax is required to be deducted at source from such authority under s. 194A. Therefore, the direction of the It authorities in the notice purported to be issued under s 142(1) for submission of return by the petitioner is contrary to the mandate of the said circular. Equally, the direction to deduct tax at source under s.. 194A in respect of income of the petitioner which is totally exempted under s. 10(23BBA) is not authorized under law. Various directions which have been issued on the bank for deduction of tax are set aside. The petitioner is not required to file any return under s. 142(1) and the directions given by the Revenue to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
