Commissioner Of Income Tax-(Exemptions v. Asian Centre For Organisation Research &Development

$~50 *IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI +ITA 1144/2017 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-(EXEMPTIONS) ..... Petitioner Through:Mr. Zoheb Hossain, Sr.Standing Counsel for Revenue. versus ASIAN CENTRE FOR ORGANISATION RESEARCH &DEVELOPMENT..... Respondent ..... Respondent Through:None. CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHATHON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA O R D E R%13.12.2017 1.The Revenue is aggrieved by the impugned order of theIncome Tax Appellate Tribunal (I.T.A.T) and Appeals to thisCourtunderSection260AoftheIncomeTaxAct,1961(hereafter referred to as ‘the Act’). 2.The assessment for the Assessment Years 2003-2004,2004-2005, 2005-2006 and 2006-2007 were sought to be re-opened through notices under Sections 147 and 148 of the Act. 3.Ground, on which the assessments were sought to bere-opened were that the amounts received by the Assessee(which had claimed and was granted the exemption under Section 12A), was that the income and receipts reflected in theconcernedassessmentyearswereinfactbusinessorprofessional income. The expenditure incurred was also soughtto be disallowed.One of the grounds that persuaded theRevenue to re-open assessment was the payment of someamounts to one Ms. Kiran Wadhera, who was, it wascontended, a ‘specified person’ under Section 33A of the Act. 4.The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) - later theITAT held that re-assessment was unwarranted because theRevenue had no access to any fresh or tangible materialwarranting the re-opening. It was also held that the AssessingOfficer did not make any enquiries in that regard.Both theAppellate Authorities noted that the grounds with respect tore-assessment, i.e. payments made to Ms Kiran Wadhera werealso unsupported because she was an employee and did not fallwithin the description of the ‘specified person’. 5.Having regard to the concurrent finding of the fact andthe circumstances, the re-assessment in this case fell outside thepermissible parameters indicated by the Supreme Court inCommissioner of Income Tax versus Kelvinator India, 320 ITR561(SC), the Court is of the opinion that no substantial questionof law arises. 6.The Court also finds that even otherwise on the merits,there is no change of circumstance warranting a treatmentdifferent from the one granted from the previous 27 yearsbecause the nature of the Assessee’s activities continued to be the same. 7.The Appeal is, therefore, dismissed. S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J DECEMBER 13, 2017‘Sn’ SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J