ITO, Bhiwani v. Adarsh Shiksha Samiti, Bhiwani

ITA 3458/DEL/2010 | 2006-2007
Pronouncement Date: 04-11-2011 | Result: Dismissed

Appeal Details

RSA Number 345820114 RSA 2010
Assessee PAN ONACT1860V
Bench Delhi
Appeal Number ITA 3458/DEL/2010
Duration Of Justice 1 year(s) 3 month(s) 19 day(s)
Appellant ITO, Bhiwani
Respondent Adarsh Shiksha Samiti, Bhiwani
Appeal Type Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date 04-11-2011
Appeal Filed By Department
Order Result Dismissed
Bench Allotted A
Tribunal Order Date 04-11-2011
Date Of Final Hearing 03-11-2011
Next Hearing Date 03-11-2011
Assessment Year 2006-2007
Appeal Filed On 15-07-2010
Judgment Text
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH: A NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI RAJPAL YADAV JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A NOS. 3457 3458/DEL/10 ASSTT. YEARS 2002-03 2006-07 ITO WARD-1 BHIWANI. VS. ADARSH SHIKSHA SAMITI CIRCULAR ROAD BHIWANI (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY: SHRI ROHIT GARG SR. DR RESPONDENT BY: SHRI R.P. BASIA CA ORDER PER RAJPAL YADAV JM: THE PRESENT TWO APPEALS ARE DIRECTED AT THE INSTA NCE OF REVENUE AGAINST THE COMMON ORDER OF LD. CIT(A) DATE D 11 TH MAY 2010 PASSED FOR ASSTT. YEARS 2002-03 AND 2006- 07. THE REVENUE HAS TAKEN TWO GROUNDS OF APPEAL IN BOTH THE ASSTT. YEARS WHICH ARE VERBATIM SAME . GROUND NO. 2 IS GEN ERAL AND IN GROUND NO. 1 IT HAS PLEADED THAT LD. CIT(A) HAS ERR ED IN ALLOWING EXEMPTION TO THE ASSESSEE U/S 10 (23C)(III AD). 2. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE AT THE VERY OUT SET SUBMITTED THAT ISSUE IN DISPUTE IS SQUARELY COVERED IN FAVOUR OF ITA NOS. 3457 3458/DEL/10 ASSTT . YEARS 2002-03 2006-07 2 THE ASSESSEE BY THE ORDERS OF ITAT PASSED IN ITA NO . 3787/D/2008 FOR ASSTT. YEAR 2004-05 ITA NO. 3786/D /08 FOR ASSTT. YEAR 2005-06 ITA NO. 3590/D/10 FOR ASSTT. Y EAR 2003-04 ITA NO. 2824/D/11 FOR ASSTT. YEAR 2000-01 AND ITA N O. 2632/D/11 FOR ASSTT. 2001-02. HE PLACED ON RECORD C OPIES OF THESE ORDERS AND CONTENDED THAT ASSESSEE HAS BEEN R ECOGNISED AS SOCIETY EXISTING SOLELY FOR EDUCATIONAL PURPOSE AND NOT FOR PURPOSE OF PROFIT. IN ALL THESE YEARS EXEMPTION U/S 10(23C)(IIIAD) HAS BEEN ALLOWED TO THE ASSESSEE. HE FURTHER POINTE D OUT THAT LD. CIT(A) HAS OBSERVED THAT HE HAS UPHELD THE DISA LLOWANCE OF EXEMPTION U/S 10 (23C)(IIIAD) TO THE ASSESSEE IN TH E ASSTT. YEARS 2004-05 AND 2005-06 BUT TRIBUNAL HAS REVERSED HIS O RDER AND ALLOWED THE EXEMPTION TO THE ASSESSEE. THEREFORE F OLLOWING THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL HE ALLOWED EXEMPTION IN THESE ASSTT. YEARS. 3. ON THE OTHER HAND LD. DR WAS UNABLE TO CONTROVE RT THE CONTENTION OF LD . COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE. 4. WE HAVE DULY CONSIDERED THE RIVAL CONTENTION AND GONE THROUGH THE RECORD CAREFULLY. BEFORE ADVERTING TO T HE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES NARRATED BY THE AO IN THE ASSTT. ORDE R WE DEEM ITA NOS. 3457 3458/DEL/10 ASSTT . YEARS 2002-03 2006-07 3 IT APPROPRIATE TO TAKE COGNIGENCE OF THE FINDING RE CORDED BY LD. CIT(A) :- 3. THE APPELLANT HAS SUBMITTED THAT ITS APPEALS F OR THE AYS 2004-05 & 2005-06 WERE DISMISSED BY THE UNDERSIGNED CONSIDERING THE ISSUE OF EXEMPTION ON M ERITS VIDE ORDER DATED 28.11.2008; IT FILED APPEALS AGAIN ST THE AFORESAID ORDER BEFORE THE HONBLE ITAT. IN THE MEA N TIME A DECISION OF THE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT OF PUNJ AB & HARYANA IN THE CASE OF PINEGROVE INTERNATIONAL CHAR ITABLE TRUST VS UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS WAS DELIVERED VI DE ORDER DATED 29.1.2010 IN CWP NO. 6031 OF 2009. THE HONBLE ITAT CONSIDERED THE JUDGMENT OF THE HONBLE HIGH COURT IN PINEGROVE INTERNATIONAL CHARITABLE TRUST C ASE AND APPLIED THE RATIO OF THE SAME IN THE APPELLANTS APP EAL AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE UNDERSIGNED FOR THE AYS 20 04-05 & 2005-06 IN ITS ORDER DATED 23.4.2010. THE TRIBUNA L HAS HELD THE APPELLANT ELIGIBLE FOR EXEMPTION U/S 10 (2 3C) (IIIAD) OF THE IT ACT AFTER DISCUSSING THE ISSUE IN DETAIL. SINCE THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES INVOLVED IN THE A PPEALS UNDER CONSIDERATION FOR THE 2002-03 & 2006-07 ARE SIMILAR THE ACTION OF THE AO IN DISALLOWING EXEMPT ION TO THE APPELLANT U/S 10 (23C) (IIIAD) OF THE IT ACT I S HELD AS NOT IN ORDER IN VIEW OF THE AFORESAID PRONOUNCEME NTS OF THE HONBLE HIGH COURT AND THE HONBLE ITAT. THE IN COME OF THE APPELLANT IS HELD AS ELIGIBLE FOR EXEMPTION U/S 10 (23C) (IIIAD) OF THE IT ACT. THE APPEALS ARE ALLOWE D. 4. IN THE END THE APPEALS ARE ALLOWED. 5. WITH THE ASSISTANCE OF LD. REPRESENTATIVE WE HA VE GONE THROUGH THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL IN ASSTT. YEARS 2 004-05 AND 2005-06. THE TRIBUNAL HAS OBSERVED THAT ASSESSEE SO CIETY CAME INTO EXISTENCE IN 1969. IT WAS REGISTERED UNDE R THE SOCIETIES REGISTRATION ACT 1860 VIDE REGISTRATION N O. 20 OF 14 TH ITA NOS. 3457 3458/DEL/10 ASSTT . YEARS 2002-03 2006-07 4 JULY 1969. THE TRIBUNAL THEREAFTER EXTRACTED THE A IMS AND OBJECTS OF THE SOCIETY IN PARAGRAPH NO. 7. THE TRIB UNAL OBSERVED THAT RIGHT FROM 1970-71 SOCIETY IS RUNNING A COLLEGE FOR THE GIRLS IN THE NAME OF ADARSH MAHILA MAHAVIDY ALYA. ACCORDING TO THE TRIBUNAL THE MAIN OBJECT OF THE S OCIETY IS EDUCATION IN GENERAL AND WOMAN EDUCATION IN PARTIC ULAR. THE STATE GOVERNMENT OF HARYANA PAYS 95% OF SALARY OF S ANCTIONED TEACHING STAFF AND NON TEACHING STAFF. THE REMAININ G 5% IS BEING PAID BY THE ASSESSEE AADARSH SHIKSHA SAMITI. IT IS PAYING SALARY OF 100% FOR THE STAFF WHICH HAS BEEN EMPLOY ED ON NON SANCTIONED POST. ON A DETAILED ANALYSIS OF ALL THES E ASPECTS TRIBUNAL ARRIVED AT A CONCLUSION THAT ASSESSEE IS A SOCIETY MEANT FOR EDUCATION. ON THE CONTRARY WE FIND FROM THE ASSTT. ORDER FOR ASSTT. YEAR 2002-03 THAT AO HAS NOT HIGHL IGHTED ANY SPECIFIC FACT. HE REMAINED UNDER THE IMPRESSION THA T SOCIETY AND THE COLLEGE ARE TWO DIFFERENT INSTITUTIONS. HE HAS NOT REFERRED ANY INSTANCE WHICH CAN EXHIBIT THAT ASSESS EE IS NOT A SOCIETY EXISTING FOR THE PURPOSE OF EDUCATION. MOST OF HIS ORDER IS DEVOTED TOWARDS AS TO HOW HE HAS REOPENED THE AS SESSMENT AND THEREAFTER ALSO HE MADE REFERENCE TO THE DECISI ON OF ITA NOS. 3457 3458/DEL/10 ASSTT . YEARS 2002-03 2006-07 5 HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF MC DOWELL & CO . LTD. (154 ITR 148). HE HAS NOT REFERRED THE FACTUAL DECISION DEMONSTRATING THAT ASSESSEE IS NOT EXISTING FOR THE EDUCATION. THEREFORE CONSIDERING THE CONSISTENCE FINDING IN O THER YEAR AND THE OBSERVATION OF LD. CIT(A) WE DO NOT FIND ANY M ERIT IN THESE APPEALS. THESE ARE DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 4 TH NOVEMBER 2011. SD/- SD/- [SHAMIM YAHYA] [RAJPAL YADAV] ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED: 4.11.2011 VEENA COPY FORWARDED TO: - 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT (A) 5. DR ITAT TRUE COPY BY ORDER DEPUTY REGISTRAR ITAT