Commissionerof Incometax-(Exemptions v. Asian Centre For Organisationresearch& Development

$~15& 16 * IN THE HIGHCOURTOF DELHIAT NEW DELHI %Judgment delivered on; 24.11.2017 +ITA 1057/2017 COMMISSIONEROF INCOMETAX-(EXEMPTIONS) Appellant versus ASIAN CENTRE FOR ORGANISATIONRESEARCH& DEVELOPMENT Respondent +ITA 1058/2017COMMISSIONEROF INCOMETAX-(EXEMPTIONS) versus . ' V Appellant' ASIAN CENTRE FOR ORGANISATIONRESEARCH& DEVELOPMENT Respondents Advocates who appeared in this case: For the Appellant(s); .Mr. Zoheb Hossain,Sr. StandingCounselFor the Respondent(s):None. ; .Mr. Zoheb Hossain,Sr. StandingCounsel CORAM:-HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHATHON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.K. GAUBA RAVINDRA BHAT. J. rOPEN COURTS 1.The Revenueurges in these two appealsthat the ITAT fall into ITA 1057/2017 error in confirmingthe CIT(A)'sorder. The appellant-Commissionerhad set aside the re-assessmentfor the years 2005-06,2006-07. Theassessee'sreturnswere framed and filed under Section 143(1)(A) ofthe IncomeTax Act, 1961 (hereinafterreferredto as the 'Act')which-claimedthe benefitofSection12(AA)from the year2009-10 whichhad been grantedon 14.10.2008.The assessee's activitiesincludedaselaboratedinMemorandumofRulesandwere : Regulations "5.2Toconduct, organize, participate in andotherwise: associatewithseminars,discussionsconferences,courses, teams training and educationalprogrammespertainingto matters of interest to thedevelopmepit of.industrial,ruralandhealthorganizations.::; . 3.3To write, design & publish books, video-films,cassettes,manuals, journals,and other literatureoraudio-visualaidsfor thefurtherance oftheobjects.3.4To render assistance and advise on scientificmethodsofmanagemmt.ofmen,m^machinery, money and other , resources,and or,operations.3.5To do all other things and such other lawfulthings as may be conduciveto the\ attainment of theabove object or objects identical thereto, but not toengage in business as such. 3.6To utilize the income of the society towards thepromotion and aims and objectsofthe society.'" ITA 1057/2017 & 1058/2017 2.The assessmentfor the concernedyears were soughtto be reopened on two grounds; firstly, that the activities which yield anincome were not charitableand that amountedtoon a they canying-provision commercialactivitiesand secondly,that the provisionofSection 13(3) were violated because of the link with Ms. KiranWadhera. 3.The additions made the re-assessmentwere set aside duringon thethat noticeunderSection147 &148 was notprimarily groundjustified.However,the CIT(A) consideredthe merits and was of theopinionthat the assesseehad enjoyedthe benefituninterruptedlyfor27 years and that the income yielded and reported to the Revenuecould not be characterized as commercial.So far as the connectionwith Ms. Kiran Wadherawas concerned,the CIT(A)noticedthat shewasafull time employeeand thereforedid not fall withinthe mischiefof Section 13(c). The ITAT affirmedthe opinionof the CIT(A) butconfinedits discussionto the questionofreassessment. 4.The Revenueurgesthatthe ITAToughtto have appreciatedthecircumstancesthat the assessmentin this case was noton completedscrutinybasis but under Section 143(1) (A). Thus, the reassessmentcould not be upheld by the ITAT. Learned counsel also cited thedecisiontaken in ''CommissionerofIncome Tax Vs. Rajesh JhaveriStock Brokers Pvt. Ltd.(2008) 14 SCC 408(SC), in support of thesubmissions. r_____ 5.It is evidentin appealthat the CIT(A)went into the legalityofthe reassessmentof notice as well as merits of the case. Had theAppellate-Commissionerconfined his inquiry to the issu^ ofreassessment,the revenue might have been justifiedin its appeal.Given that the CIT(A) returned the findings on merits as to thepermissibilityofthe receiptwithinthe four comersofSection1ZA ofthe IncomeTax Act, the complaintthatthe ITAT confinedits hiquiryto the validityof the reassessmentin the circumstancesof the case,accordingto us, does not resultinto aquestionof law - much less asubstantial one. The Gourt also notices that the assesses hadcontinuouslyenjoyedthe benefitofSection12A for about27 years. r_____ 5.It is evidentin appealthat the CIT(A)went into the legalityofthe reassessmentof notice as well as merits of the case. Had theAppellate-Commissionerconfined his inquiry to the issu^ ofreassessment,the revenue might have been justifiedin its appeal.Given that the CIT(A) returned the findings on merits as to thepermissibilityofthe receiptwithinthe four comersofSection1ZA ofthe IncomeTax Act, the complaintthatthe ITAT confinedits hiquiryto the validityof the reassessmentin the circumstancesof the case,accordingto us, does not resultinto aquestionof law - much less asubstantial one. The Gourt also notices that the assesses hadcontinuouslyenjoyedthe benefitofSection12A for about27 years. 6.In view of the forgoing discussion,it is held that the appealshave no merit.They are accordinglydismissed. BEAT S. RAVINDRA (JUDGE)(JUDGE) NOVEMBER 24, 2017'rs' /TA 1057/20/7 & 1058/2017 %