TMI Blog2022 (3) TMI 1185X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Tribunal have elaborately examined the accounts of the assessee, the payments made to the SBC, the payments made to other agencies for similar work, comparative rates of payments and came to the conclusion that no excess payment was made to the related person. Essentially, this is a pure question of fact. Two authorities concurrently held in favour of the assessee. - ITA No. 2438/PUN/2017 - - - Dated:- 21-3-2022 - Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, JM And Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, AM For the Appellant : Shri S.P. Walimbe For the Respondent : Shri Kishor Phadke ORDER PER PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY, JM : This appeal preferred by the Revenue emanates from the order of the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-10, Pune dated 04-08-2017 for the Assessment Year 2013-14 as per the following grounds of appeal on record. 1. Whether ld. CIT(A) is correct in holding that the expenditure on advertisement was legitimate expenditure incurred for the purpose the objects of the society. 2. Whether ld. CIT(A) is correct in holding that the funds of the society are not applied or used or diverted for the benefit of the person referred to sec. 13(3) in violation of con ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... CIT(A) making a grievance in respect of denial of exemption u/s 11 of the Act on the ground that there was no violation of provisions of sec. 13(1)(c) of the Act in respect of payments to M/s. SBC, where the trustees of the assessee are the partners. After taking into consideration the detailed arguments made by the assessee, the ld. CIT(A) found that an identical issue had arisen for the A.Y. 2008-09, 2009-10, 2010-11, 2011-12 and 2012-13, where the ld. A.O was directed to grant exemption u/s 11 of the Act. The facts and circumstances of the case for the year under consideration being similar to those for A.Ys 2008- 09, 2009-10, 2010-11, 2011-12 and 2012-13, the ld. CIT(A) directed the ld. A.O to grant exemption u/s 11 of the Act for the year under consideration as well. Being aggrieved, the Revenue is in appeal before us. 5. At the time of hearing, the ld. A.R of the assessee referring to both the grounds of appeal submitted that this issue has been consistently decided in favour of the assessee in assessee‟s own case for A.Y. 2008-09 and 2009-10 in ITA No. 1679/PN/2012 and 1204/PN/2013, dated 18-2-2015. Copies of relevant orders have been filed in the paper book before ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e have heard the rival submissions and perused the material on record. The issue in the present case is with respect to denial of exemption by invoking the provisions of Sec.13(1)(c) of the Act. We find that Ld.CIT(A) while deciding the issue in favour of the assessee had relied on the decision of the Co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal in assessee s own case for A.Y. 2008-09. Before us, Revenue has not placed any material on record to demonstrate that the facts in the year under appeal are distinguishable to that of earlier years. In view of the aforesaid facts and following the same reasoning of the Tribunal in assessee s own case for A.Y. 2008-09, we find no reason to interfere with the order of Ld.CIT(A). Thus, the grounds of Revenue are dismissed. 8. In the result, the appeal of the Revenue for A.Y. 2010-11 is dismissed. 9. As far as appeal for A.Y. 2011-12 is concerned, since both the parties before us have submitted that the facts of the case for the assessment year 2010-11 are identical to the facts of the case for A.Y. 2011-12. We, therefore, for similar reasons stated herein while disposing of the appeal for A.Y. 2010-11 and for similar reasons, dismiss the appe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... evenue is dismissed 9. We also find that Hon‟ble Jurisdictional High court in Income-tax Appeal No. 762 of 2016 and 782 of 2016 in the case of C.I.T. Vs. Shri Balaji Society considered the following questions: i) Whether the Tribunal was correct in law by holding that the provision of section 13(1)(c) and 13(2)(c) of the I.T. Act were not attracted in this case despite the fact that payments were made on account of advertisement to prohibited persons? (ii) Whether the Tribunal was right in holding that the assessee was allowed to claim exemption u/s 11 of the act despite the fact that the payments were made to prohibited persons as defined u/s 13(1)(c) and 13(2)(c) of the I.T. Act 10. The Hon‟ble High Court observed and held as follows: 3. The respondent assessee is a charitable trust and enjoys the registration under Section 12AA of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ( the Act for short). During the Assessment Years 2008-09 and 2009-10, the Assessing Officer noticed that the assessee had incurred expenditure, some of which was paid to one M/s. Sri Balaji Creativites ( SBC for short) towards advertisements in various magazines and souvenirs. The Asses ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
