Gurdaspur Improvement Trust, Gurdaspur v. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Amritsar And Another

ITA No. 237 of 2015 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ITA No. 237 of 2015 (O&M) Date of Decision: 7.9.2015 Gurdaspur Improvement Trust, Gurdaspur ....Appellant. Versus Commissioner of Income Tax, Amritsar and another ...Respondents. CORAM:-HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL.HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAMENDRA JAIN. PRESENT: Mr. Rohit Sud, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. Denesh Goyal, Advocate for the respondents. AJAY KUMAR MITTAL, J. 1.Delay in refiling the appeal is condoned. 2.This order shall dispose of two appeals bearing ITA No. 237of 2015 and 59 of 2013 as both the appeals arise out of one and sameITA No. 461(Asr)/2011 for the assessment year 2006-07 wherein in onecase the said appeal has been dismissed whereas in other case thesame has been allowed. ITA No. 59 of 2013 has been filed by therevenue and ITA No. 237 of 2015 has been filed by the assessee. Forbrevity, the facts are being extracted from ITA No. 237 of 2015. 3.This appeal has been filed by the assessee under Section260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”) against the orderdated 23.1.2014 (Annexure A-3) passed by the Income Tax AppellateTribunal, Amritsar Bench, Amritsar (hereinafter referred to as “theTribunal”) in ITA No. 461(Asr)/2011 for the assessment year 2006-07 ITA No. 237 of 2015 claiming the following substantial questions of law:- (i)Whether in facts and circumstances of thecase, after the grant of registration undersection 12A of the Act can the assessing officergo into the objects and hold them to be non-charitable? If know, whether the ld. tribunal wasjustified to hold that the activities done by theappellant trust does not qualify for exemption? (ii) Whether in facts and circumstances of thecase, the impugned orders are liable to be setaside that on one hand it is observed that thecase laws relied by the CIT were relating to thegranting registration under section 12A of theAct and not relating to the exemption providedunder section 11 and 12 of the Act and on theother hand the Ld. ITAT has itself heavily placedreliance on the judgment of PUDA Vs. CITwhich was relating to the grant of registrationunder Section 12A of the Act making itcontradictory? (iii) (iv) Whether in facts and circumstances of thecase, the assessing officer was justified inassessing the appellant as local authoritydespite of the fact the appellant was grantedregistration under section 12AA of the Act?Whether in fact and circumstances of the case,the action of the authorities below, the impugned orders Annexure A-1 to A-3 arelegally sustainable in the eyes of law? 4.Put shortly, the few facts necessary for disposal of thepresent appeal as mentioned therein may be noticed. The appellantfiled its return of income on 23.7.2007 for the assessment year 2006-07declaring nil income in the status of a Trust. The said return wasprocessed under Section 143(1) of the Act. The Assessing Officer videorder dated 29.12.2008 (Annexure A-1) framed the assessment at` 46,30,435/-. Feeling aggrieved, the assessee filed an appeal beforethe Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Amritsar [hereinafterreferred to as “the CIT(A)”]. The CIT(A), Amritsar vide order dated22.6.2011 (Annexure A-2) partly allowed the appeal by grantingexemption of Section 11 of the Act. Being dissatisfied with the order,Annexure A-2, the revenue filed the appeal before the Tribunal, who videorder dated 23.1.2014 (Annexure A-3) allowed the appeal by upholdingthe assessment order dated 29.12.2008 (Annexure A-1). Hence, thepresent appeal by the assessee. 5.We have heard learned counsel for the parties. 5.We have heard learned counsel for the parties. 6.Both the appeals one by the assessee and the other by therevenue have been filed against the two conflicting orders dated9.10.2012 (Annexure A-3 in ITA No. 59 of 2013) and dated 23.1.2014(Annexure A-3 in ITA No.237 of 2015) passed by the Tribunal in one andthe same case, i.e. ITA No. 461(Asr)/2011 for the assessment year2006-07 between the same parties. 6.It was not discernible whether before passing the orderdated 23.1.2014, earlier order dated 9.10.2012 was recalled. Learnedcounsel for the parties are also unable to show that the order passed by ITA No. 237 of 2015 -4- the Tribunal on 9.10.2012 was ever recalled. In the absence of the saidmaterial, we are surprised to see how the second order came to bepassed. Moreover, earlier the case was decided in favour of theassessee and secondly the converse view has been taken. In suchcircumstances, it would be appropriate to remand the matter back to theTribunal. 7.In view of the above, both the impugned orders dated9.10.2012 (Annexure A-3) in ITA No. 59 of 2013 and dated 23.1.2014(Annexure A-3) in ITA No.237 of 2015 are set aside and the matter isremanded back to the Tribunal to decide afresh, in accordance with lawafter affording an opportunity of hearing to both the parties. (AJAY KUMAR MITTAL) JUDGE September 7, 2015gbs (RAMENDRA JAIN) JUDGE ITA No. 237 of 2015 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ITA No. 59 of 2013 Date of Decision: 7.9.2015 The Commissioner of Income Tax-II, Amritsar ...Appellant. Versus The Gurdaspur Improvement Trust, Gurdaspur ...Respondent. CORAM:-HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL.HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAMENDRA JAIN. PRESENT: Mr. Denesh Goyal, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. Rohit Sud, Advocate for the respondent. AJAY KUMAR MITTAL, J. For orders, see ITA No. 237 of 2015 (GurdaspurImprovement Trust, Gurdaspur v. Commissioner of Income Tax, Amritsar and another). (AJAY KUMAR MITTAL) JUDGE September 7, 2015gbs (RAMENDRA JAIN) JUDGE