M/s. Sukhmani Society for Citizen Services, Bathinda v. The Income-tax Officer,, Bathinda

ITA 400/ASR/2013 | misc
Pronouncement Date: 28-10-2013 | Result: Dismissed

Appeal Details

RSA Number 40020914 RSA 2013
Assessee PAN AAEAS7047J
Bench Amritsar
Appeal Number ITA 400/ASR/2013
Duration Of Justice 4 month(s) 15 day(s)
Appellant M/s. Sukhmani Society for Citizen Services, Bathinda
Respondent The Income-tax Officer,, Bathinda
Appeal Type Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date 28-10-2013
Appeal Filed By Assessee
Order Result Dismissed
Bench Allotted DB
Tribunal Order Date 28-10-2013
Date Of Final Hearing 21-10-2013
Next Hearing Date 21-10-2013
Assessment Year misc
Appeal Filed On 13-06-2013
Judgment Text
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AMRITSAR BENCH; AMRITSAR. BEFORE SH. H.S. SIDHU JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SH. B.P. JAIN ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. NOS. 398 399 400 & 401 (ASR)/2013 ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 & 2008-09 PAN: AAEAS7047J SUKHMANI SOCIETY FOR VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER CITIZEN SERVICES MINI WARD 1(1) BATHINDA SECRETARIAT ROOM NO. 120 BATHINDA (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY: SH. P.N. ARORA ADVOCATE RESPONDENT BY: SH. TARSEM LAL DR DATE OF HEARING: 09.10.2013 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 28.10.2013 ORDER PER BENCH 1. THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED THE PRESENT FOUR APPEALS A GAINST A CONSOLIDATED IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 28.03.2013 PASSED BY LEARNED CIT(A) BATHINDA FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 & 2008-09. 2. AS THE LEARNED FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY HAD DEC IDED THE PRESENT APPEALS INVOLVING COMMON ISSUES BY PASSIN G ONE CONSOLIDATED 2 I.T.A. NO. 398 399 400 & 401 (ASR)/2013 ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 & 2008-09 ORDER WE ALSO PROCEED TO DECIDE THESE APPEALS BY P ASSING A CONSOLIDATED ORDER. 3. THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED ALMOST IDENTICAL GROUNDS IN ALL THE APPEALS THUS FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE THE GROU NDS OF APPEAL RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IN I.T.A. NO. 398(ASR)/2013 ARE REPROD UCED AS UNDER: I. THAT THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FAC TS BY HOLDING THAT THE SOCIETY IS FORMED UNDER THE STATE ACT FOR PROVIDING SERVICES UNDER ONE ROOF TO THE PUBLIC PERTAINING TO ALL DEPARTMENTS OF THE GOVERNMENT AND NOT FOR THE PURPOSE OF ADMINI STRATING ANY CHARITABLE OR PUBLIC RELIGIOUS TRUST. THEREFORE TH E INCOME OF THE SOCIETY IS NOT EXEMPT UNDER SECTION 12(23BBA) OF TH E ACT. II. THAT THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FAC TS IN NOT ALLOWING EXEMPTION UNDER SECTION 11 12 OF THE ACT MERELY ON THE TECHNICAL GROUND I.E. NON-FILING OF APPLICATION WIT HIN THE PRESCRIBED TIME WHEREAS AS PER SETTLED LAW THE ASSESSEE APPELL ANT SHOULD NOT BE DENIED RELIEF MERELY ON THE TECHNICAL GROUND. ES PECIALLY IF THE NEEDFUL HAS BEEN DONE LATER ON AS AND WHEN IT HAS C OME TO THE KNOWLEDGE OF THE APPELLANT SOCIETY. III. THAT THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FAC TS IN NOT ALLOWING EXEMPTION UNDER SECTION 12(23C)(IV) OF THE ACT MERELY ON THE TECHNICAL GROUND I.E. NON-FILING OF APPLICA TION WITHIN THE PRESCRIBED TIME WHEREAS AS PER SETTLED LAW THE ASSE SSEE APPELLANT SHOULD NOT BE DENIED RELIEF MERELY ON THE TECHNICAL GROUND. ESPECIALLY IF THE NEEDFUL HAS BEEN DONE LATER ON AS AND WHEN IT HAS COME TO THE KNOWLEDGE OF THE APPELLANT SOCIETY. IV. THAT THE APPELLANT CRAVES PERMISSION TO ELUCIDATE AMEND ALTER ADD OR DELETE ANY GROUND OF APPEAL AT THE TIME OF HEARI NG. 4. AS STATED ABOVE THE ISSUES INVOLVED IN ALL THE APPEALS ARE IDENTICAL AND THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO RAISED ALMOST S IMILAR GROUNDS IN ALL THE 3 I.T.A. NO. 398 399 400 & 401 (ASR)/2013 ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 & 2008-09 APPEALS FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE WE ARE NARRAT ING THE FACTS OF I.T.A. NO. 398(ASR)/2013 AS UNDER: I. THE ASSESSEE DID NOT FILE ITS RETURN OF INCOME AS R EQUIRED UNDER SECTION 139(1) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT 1961 (IN SHOR T THE ACT) WHEREAS IT IN THE STATUS OF SOCIETY FILED ITS RET URN OF INCOME ON 13.04.2010 ONLY IN RESPONSE TO THE NOTICE UNDER SEC TION 148 OF THE ACT DATED 25.03.2010 AND HAS SHOWN AN INCOME OF R S. 8 04 674/- UNDER THE HEAD INCOME FROM BUSINESS OR PROFESSION . BUT NO TAX HAS BEEN PAID AND TAX PAYABLE HAS BEEN SHOWN NIL. THE ASSESSING OFFICER ISSUED NOTICES UNDER SECTIONS 143(2) AND 14 2(1) OF THE ACT TO THE ASSESSEE AND IN RESPONSE TO THE SAME THE AU THORIZED REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ASSESSEE-SOCIETY APPEARED FRO M TIME TO TIME BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND PRODUCED BOOKS OF ACCOUNT ALONG WITH OTHER INFORMATION AND DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE. II. THE ASSESSEE IS REGISTERED WITH THE SUB-REGISTRAR O F SOCIETIES BATHINDA AND WAS REQUIRED TO EXPLAIN HOW THE INCOM E OF RS. 8 04 674/- HAS BEEN CLAIMED AS EXEMPT BY IT. THE AS SESSEE STATED THAT THE INCOME HAS BEEN CLAIMED AS EXEMPT UNDER SE CTION 11 OF THE ACT. THE REPLY OF THE ASSESSEE WAS CONSIDERED B Y THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND REJECTED ON THE GROUND THAT THE ASSESSE E IS NOT REGISTERED UNDER SECTION 12AA OF THE ACT; HENCE THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 11 OF THE ACT ARE NOT APPLICABLE TO THE ASS ESSEE-SOCIETY. THUS THE ASSESSEE HAS WRONGLY CLAIMED ITS INCOME A S EXEMPT UNDER SECTION 11 OF THE ACT AND THE ASSESSING OFFIC ER ASSESSED THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE AT RS. 8 04 674/- ALONG WITH OTHER 4 I.T.A. NO. 398 399 400 & 401 (ASR)/2013 ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 & 2008-09 CHARGEABLE INTEREST BY PASSING ORDER DATED 12.11.20 10 UNDER SECTION 143(3) READ WITH SECTION 147 OF THE ACT FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06. III. EXACTLY SIMILAR ADDITION HAS BEEN MADE BY THE ASSES SING OFFICER IN THE CASES OF ASSESSEE FOR OTHER ASSESSMENT YEARS I. E. 2006-07 2007- 08 & 2008-09. 5. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDERS OF ASSESSING OFFICERS PA SSED FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 & 2008-0 9 THE ASSESSEE FILED APPEALS BEFORE THE LEARNED FIRST APPELLATE AU THORITY WHO VIDE CONSOLIDATED IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 28.03.2013 FOR TH E AFORESAID ASSESSMENT YEARS PARTLY ALLOWED THE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE. NOW THE ASSESSEE BEING AGGRIEVED WITH CONSOLIDATED IMPUGNE D ORDER DATED 28.03.2013 FILED THE PRESENT FOUR APPEALS. 6. AT THE TIME OF HEARING LEARNED DR STATED THAT T HE EXACTLY SIMILAR ISSUE HAS BEEN DECIDED BY THIS BENCH AGAINS T THE ASSESSEE AND IN FAVOUR OF THE REVENUE IN I.T.A. NO. 297(ASR)/2012 IN THE CASE OF SUKHMANI SOCIETY FOR CITIZEN SERVICES VS. COMMISSIO NER OF INCOME TAX-I ON 22.04.2013 REPORTED IN [2013] 144 ITD 38 1/36 TAXMAN.COM 326 (AMRITSAR-TRIB.). HE FURTHER STATED THAT THIS B ENCH HAS HELD THAT THE ASSESSEE-SOCIETY WAS ENGAGED IN PROVIDING SERVICES TO THE PUBLIC TO FACILITATE THEM IN OBTAINING DIFFERENT KINDS OF LIC ENSES PERMISSION OF 5 I.T.A. NO. 398 399 400 & 401 (ASR)/2013 ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 & 2008-09 REGISTRATION LIKE BIRTH DEATH MARRIAGE CERTIFICAT ES DRIVING LICENSES RATION CARDS ARMS LICENSES AND SENIOR CITIZEN CARD ETC. BUT BY CHARGING A FEE FOR EACH TYPE OF SERVICES THEREFORE SUCH ACTIVITIES C OULD NOT BE CONSIDERED CHARITABLE IN NATURE WITHIN THE MEANING OF SECTION 2(15) OF THE ACT AND THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT ENTITLED FOR EXEMPTION AS CLA IMED. 7. ON THE CONTRARY LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESS EE HAS NOT CONTROVERTED THE ARGUMENT ADVANCED BY LEARNED DR AN D HE RELIED UPON THE CONTENTIONS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE GROUN DS OF APPEALS. 8. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE R ELEVANT RECORDS AVAILABLE WITH US ESPECIALLY THE ORDER PASSED BY T HIS BENCH DATED 22.04.2013 IN I.T.A. NO. 297(ASR)/2012 IN THE CASE OF SUKHMANI SOCIETY FOR CITIZEN SERVICES VS. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -I JALANDHAR REPORTED IN [2013] 144 ITD 381/36 TAXMAN.COM 326 (A MRITSAR-TRIB.) AND WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE ASSESSEE IS CLAIMING TH E EXEMPTION OF INCOME UNDER SECTION 10(23BBA) OF THE ACT. ACCORDING TO TH E AVERMENTS OF THE ASSESSEE THE SOCIETY IS FORMED FOR ADMINISTRATING INTEGRATED SERVICES UNDER ONE ROOF TO THE PUBLIC BEING PROVIDED BY VARI OUS DEPARTMENTS OF PUNJAB GOVERNMENT REGISTERED AS PER LAW FOR THE TIM E BEING IN FORCE AND SOME OF THESE DEPARTMENTS SUCH AS PUNJAB URBAN DEVE LOPMENT AUTHORITY/BATHINDA DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY/IMPROVEMEN T TRUST ARE 6 I.T.A. NO. 398 399 400 & 401 (ASR)/2013 ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 & 2008-09 CHARITABLE INSTITUTIONS REGISTERED FOR CHARITABLE P URPOSE THEREFORE INCOME OF THE SOCIETY IS EXEMPT UNDER SECTION 10(23BBA) OF THE ACT. BUT THIS ARGUMENT HAS BEEN REJECTED BY THE LEARNED FIRST APP ELLATE AUTHORITY BY STATING THAT THE ASSESSEE-SOCIETY IS FORMED UNDER T HE STATE ACT FOR PROVIDING SERVICES UNDER ONE ROOF TO THE PUBLIC PER TAINING TO ALL THE GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS AND NOT FOR THE PURPOSE OF A DMINISTRATING ANY CHARITABLE OR PUBLIC RELIGIOUS TRUST. THE LEARNED F IRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY HAS REJECTED THE CONTENTIONS OF THE ASSESSEE BY HOL DING THAT THE ASSESSEE- SOCIETY IS NOT PERFORMING CHARITABLE WORK FOR THE S OCIETY OR GENERAL PUBLIC. KEEPING IN THE AFORESAID DISCUSSION AND THE CASE CITED ABOVE I.E. SUKHMANI SOCIETY FOR CITIZEN SERVICES VS. COMMISSIO NER OF INCOME TAX-I JALANDHAR (SUPRA) THE ISSUE RAISED IN GROUN D NO. 1 BY THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. 9. AS REGARDS TO THE DENIAL OF EXEMPTION UNDER SECT IONS 11 12 AND 10(23C)(IV) OF THE ACT ON TECHNICAL GROUND I.E. NON -FILING OF APPLICATION WITHIN THE PRESCRIBED TIME AFTER GOING THROUGH THE IMPUGNED ORDER WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE LEARNED FIRST APPELLATE AU THORITY HAS REJECTED THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE WITH LIBERTY TO THE ASSESSEE THAT AS AND WHEN THE REQUEST OF THE ASSESSEE IS CONSIDERED BY THE HON'BL E CENTRAL BOARD OF DIRECT TAXES FOR CONDONING THE DELAY IN FILING THE APPLICATION AND 7 I.T.A. NO. 398 399 400 & 401 (ASR)/2013 ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 & 2008-09 REGISTRATION GRANTED BY THE PRESCRIBED AUTHORITY T HE ASSESSING OFFICER MAY ALLOW THE EXEMPTION ACCORDING TO LAW. AS PER TH E IMPUGNED ORDER THE COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE HIMSELF AGREED THAT TH E ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO FULFILL THE NECESSARY REQUIREMENT FOR CLAIMING EXEM PTION UNDER SECTION 10(23C)(IV) OR 12AA OF THE ACT. THE ASSESSEE HAS AL SO FILED AN APPLICATION FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY TO THE CHAIRMA N OF CENTRAL BOARD OF DIRECT TAXES BUT NO DECISION HAS BEEN TAKEN TILL TH E PENDENCY OF APPEAL. KEEPING IN VIEW THESE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES WE A RE OF THE VIEW THAT LEARNED FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY HAS RIGHTLY DENIE D THE EXEMPTION TO THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED UNDER SECTION 11 12 OR 10(23C)(IV ) OF THE ACT AND GIVEN LIBERTY TO THE ASSESSEE THAT AS AND WHEN THE REQUEST OF THE ASSESSEE IS CONSIDERED BY THE HON'BLE CENTRAL BOARD OF DIREC T TAXES FOR CONDONING THE DELAY IN FILING THE APPLICATION AND R EGISTRATION GRANTED BY THE PRESCRIBED AUTHORITY THE ASSESSING OFFICER MAY ALLOW THE EXEMPTION ACCORDING TO LAW. HENCE WE DO NOT FIND ANY INFIRMI TY IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER ON THE ISSUE RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IN GROUND NOS. 2 & 3 ACCORDINGLY THE SAME ARE DISMISSED. 10. NO OTHER GROUND HAS BEEN RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE PRESENT APPEALS. 8 I.T.A. NO. 398 399 400 & 401 (ASR)/2013 ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 & 2008-09 11. KEEPING IN VIEW THE AFORESAID DISCUSSIONS WE AR E OF THE CONSIDERED VIEW THAT THE ISSUES INVOLVED IN THE PRE SENT APPEALS HAVE ALREADY BEEN DECIDED BY THIS BENCH AGAINST THE ASSE SSEE AND IN FAVOUR OF THE REVENUE IN THE CASE OF SUKHMANI SOCIETY FOR CIT IZEN SERVICES VS. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-I JALANDHAR(SUPRA) AND THE LEARNED FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY HAS PASSED A WELL REASONED ORDE R; THEREFORE NO INTERFERENCE IS CALLED FOR IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER. A CCORDINGLY WE DISMISS THE PRESENT APPEALS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE. 12. IN THE RESULT ALL THE FOUR APPEALS ARE DISMISSE D. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 28 TH OCTOBER 2013 SD/./- SD/./- (B.P. JAIN) (H.S. SIDHU) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED: 28 TH OCTOBER 2013 /RK/ COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. THE ASSESSEE: SUKHMANI SOCIETY FOR CITIZEN SERVICES MINI SECRETARIAT ROOM NO. 120 BATHINDA 2. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1(1) BATHINDA 3. THE CIT(A) BATHINDA 4. THE CIT BATHINDA 5. THE SR DR I.T.A.T. TRUE COPY BY ORDER (ASSISTANT REGISTRAR) INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AMRITSAR BENCH: AMRITSAR.