Db Income Tax Appeal v. M/S Bade Mathureshji Temple Board, Patanpole, Kota

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR 1.DB Income Tax Appeal No.83/2014Commissioner of Income Tax, Kota versus M/s Bade Mathureshji Temple Board, Patanpole, Kota 2.DB Income Tax Appeal No.84/2014Commissioner of Income Tax, Kota versus M/s Bade Mathureshji Temple Board, Patanpole, Kota Date of Order: 21.4.2016 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MN BHANDARIHON'BLE MR JUSTICE VIJAY KUMAR VYAS Mrs Parinitoo Jain – for appellant BY THE COURT: By these appeals, a challenge is made to the commonorder dated 22.1.2014 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal,Jaipur Bench, Jaipur for the assessment years 2008-09 and 2009-10. Learned counsel for appellant submits that benefit ofsection 10 (23BBA) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short 'the Actof 1961') was not available to the assessee as the Bade MathureshjiTemple Board created under section 92 of the Code of CivilProcedure, 1908 was not registered. In absence of the registration ofthe Board, exemption provided under section 10 (23BBA) of the Act of 1961 could not have been given. The learned Tribunal, however,applied section 10 (23BBA) of the Act in ignorance of sections 11and 12 of the Act thus the impugned order passed by the ITAT maybe set aside. Since the issue raised by the appellant involvessubstantial question of law, hence, it may be framed and notices beissued to the assessee. We have considered the submissions made by the learnedcounsel and perused the record. It is a case where a Board for management of the templewas constituted by the District Judge under section 92 of the CPC.The creation of the Board being under the Central Act of 1908 thussection 10(23BBA) of the Act of 1961 applied. The Tribunalaccordingly dismissed the appeal preferred by the revenue whilemaintaining the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal).In our opinion, section 10 (23BBA) of the Act applies to a body orauthority (whether or not a body corporate or corporation sole)established, constituted or appointed by or under any Central, State orProvincial Act which provides for administration of any publicreligious or charitable trusts or endowments etc. In the instant case, the Board was constituted by the District Judge under section 92 CPC for administration of a publicreligious charitable trust. In view of above, we find that the Boardwas established under the Central Act, that too, for administration ofa public religious charitable trust. In view of above, section 10(23BBA) of the Act of 1961has rightly been applied by the Tribunal. Section 11 and 12 applywhere a body or authority is not created in the manner given undersection 10(23BBA) of the Act but the case in hand is not covered bysection 11 and 12 of the Act of 1961. We find that the learned Tribunal has rightly decided theissue and the present appeal against the said order does not involveany substantial question of law so as to entertain it. We further find that similar issue was considered by theOrissa High Court in the case of Shri Jagannath Temple ManagingCommittee versus Commissioner of Income Tax & ors, (2008)218CTR(Ori)568. The judgment aforesaid has been referred by theTribunal while dismissing the appeal preferred by the revenue. Theratio propounded therein applies to the case. In the light of aforesaid, we find no illegality in the order of the learned Tribunal. The appeal does not involve substantialquestion of law. The appeal is accordingly dismissed. (VIJAY KUMAR VYAS), J. (MN BHANDARI), J. bnsharma All corrections made in judgment/ order have beenincorporated in judgment/ order being emailed. (BN Sharma) Deputy Registrar