Ita/402/2015 Of Haryana State Pollution Control Board v. Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Panchkula Circle, Panchkula

--I TAs 402, 412, 413, 422, 464 & 468 2015 ( O&M)-Dat e of deci si on: 25. 07. 2016 Har yana St at e Pol l ut i on Cont r ol Boar d, Panchkul a . . . Appel l ant Ver sus Deput y Commi ssi oner of I ncome Tax, Panchkul a . . . Respondent CORAM: HON’ BLE MR. JUSTI CE S. J. VAZI FDAR, ACTI NG CHI EF JUSTI CEHON’ BLE MR. JUSTI CE DEEPAK SI BAL Pr esent : -Mr . Sandeep Goyal , Advocat e,f or t he appel l ant . Mr . Denesh Goyal , Advocat e,f or t he r espondent . * * * * S. J. VAZI FDAR, A. C. J. ( ORAL) Li ber t y t o amend t he appeal s by annexi ng t he compl et ecopy of t he i mpugned or der of t he Tr i bunaldat ed 28. 04. 2015 asAnnexur e A- 5/ 1. Needl ess t o add t hat t he same shal l be donewi t hout r emovi ng t he exi st i ng Annexur e A- 5. The appeal s ar e agai nst t he or der of t he Tr i bunaldi smi ssi ng t he appel l ant ’ s appeal s.The appeal s per t ai n t o t heassessment year s 2006- 2007 t o 2011- 2012.2.The appeal s ar e admi t t ed on t he f ol l owi ng subst ant i al- quest i ons of l aw r ai sed i n par agr aph 3: - “ ( i ) Whet her on t he f act s andci r cumst ances of t he case, t he char gesr ecei ved by t he appel l ant Boar d can bedeemed t o be i ncome and t huschar geabl e t o t ax? ( i i ) Whet her on t he f act s andci r cumst ances of t he case, t he Ld.Tr i bunalwas j ust i f i ed i n di smi ssi ng t he appeal oft he appel l ant wi t houtawai t i ng f or out come of r esul t ofappl i cat i on moved u/ s 10( 23) ( c) ( i v) ?” 3.The Tr i bunal i n par agr aph 11 obser ved t hat at t het i me of consi der i ng t he appl i cat i on f or r egi st r at i on underSect i on 12 AA, t he concer ned aut hor i t y i s r equi r ed t o exami neonl y t he ai ms and obj ect s ofa par t i cul ar i nst i t ut i on and i ft he same ar e f ound t o be char i t abl e i n nat ur e t he r egi st r at i onshoul d be gr ant ed.I t was f ur t her obser ved t hat t he ot heri ssues such as non audi t of account s, non appl i cat i on of 85% oft he f unds f or char i t abl e pur poses can be exami ned onl y at t het i me of assessment when t he exempt i on i s gr ant ed under Sect i ons11 and 12 of t he Act .What t he Tr i bunalobvi ousl y meantwast hat t he ot her i ssues woul d be exami ned i f t he exempt i on i sgr ant ed.I t i s i mpor t ant t o not e t hat t he Tr i bunal f ur t herobser ved t hat i n t hese cases t he Commi ssi oner had not r ecor dedany f i ndi ngs as t o how t he obj ect s of t he assessee ar e notchar i t abl e.Last l y, i t i s di r ect ed t hat i n t he event of t heappel l ant obt ai ni ng t he appr oval under Sect i on 10( 23C) , t heAssessi ng Of f i cer shoul d consi der t he mat t er i n t he l i ght ofsuch appr oval . Thi s i s f ol l owed by t he oper at i ve par t of t heor der di smi ssi ng t he appel l ant ’ s appeal s. 4.I n our vi ew, i t was not a si mpl i ci t or or an absol ut eor der of di smi ssal .The Tr i bunal pr oceeded on t he basi s t hatt he appel l ant had not obt ai ned r egi st r at i on under Sect i on 12Aor under Sect i on 10( 23C) ( i v) . The or der , however , expr essl yhol ds t hat t he CI T ( Appeal s) had r i ght l y decl i ned t he exempt i onunder Sect i on 12A. I t i s i mpor t ant t o not e t hat t he Tr i bunalhel d t hat i f t he assessee i s abl e t o obt ai n appr oval underSect i on 10( 23C) , t hen t he Assessi ng Of f i cer shoul d consi der t hemat t er i n t he l i ght of such appr oval . The oper at i ve par t of t heor der of t he Tr i bunal i n par agr aph 19,however , di smi sses t he appel l ant ’ s appeal s.I n vi ew of what wasobser ved i n t heear l i er par agr aph, we hol d t hat t he di smi ssal was not absol ut e.As af or esai d, t he Tr i bunal had di r ect ed t he Assessi ng Of f i cert o consi der t he mat t er af r esh i n t he event of t he appel l antobt ai ni ng appr oval even under Sect i on 10( 23C) . appel l ant ’ s appeal s.I n vi ew of what wasobser ved i n t heear l i er par agr aph, we hol d t hat t he di smi ssal was not absol ut e.As af or esai d, t he Tr i bunal had di r ect ed t he Assessi ng Of f i cert o consi der t he mat t er af r esh i n t he event of t he appel l antobt ai ni ng appr oval even under Sect i on 10( 23C) . 5.Af t ert he or der of t he Tr i bunal , t he appel l antobt ai ned t he exempt i on under Sect i on 10( 23C) ( i v) by an or derdat ed 01. 03. 2016. The appl i cat i on f or t he same was, however ,made on 28. 01. 2013. The appr oval i t i s agr eed has been gr ant edwi t h r et r ospect i ve ef f ect f or t he assessment year s 2006- 2007 t o2014- 2015. Thi s cover s t he per i od i n quest i on, namel y, t heassessment year s 2006- 2007 t o 2011- 2012.I n t heseci r cumst ances,i t i s not necessar y f or t he appel l ant t ochal l enge t he or der i n so f ar as Sect i on 12AA i s concer ned.6.I n vi ew of t he obser vat i ons i n t he or der of t heTr i bunal t o t he ef f ect t hat i n t he event of t he appel l antobt ai ni ng appr oval under Sect i on 10( 23C) , t he Assessi ng Of f i cershoul d consi der t he mat t er i n t he l i ght of such appr oval , i t i snot necessar y t o r emand t he mat t er t o t he Tr i bunal . The pr opercour se woul d be t o r emand t he mat t er t o t he Assessi ng Of f i cer . 7.The appeal s ar e, t her ef or e, di sposed of by di r ect i ngt he Assessi ng Of f i cer t o consi der t he mat t er r egar di ng t heappel l ant ’ s assessment f or t he year s 2006- 2007 t o 2011- 2012 i nt he l i ght of t he exempt i on gr ant ed under Sect i on 10( 23C) . ( S. J. VAZI FDAR)ACTI NG CHI EF JUSTI CE 25. 07. 2016Amodh Whet her speaki ng/ r easonedYes/ NoWhet her r epor t abl eYes/ No ( DEEPAK SI BAL)JUDGE