Ita/713/2009 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax v. Islamic Academy Of Education

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATHRD THIS THE 2 DAY OF AUGUST, 2015) PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINEET SARAN AND| THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE B.MANOHAR- ITA NO. 713 / 2009 BETWEHR 1THER COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CR BUILDING, ATTAVARA| MANGALORE, 2.THER ASST. COMMR. OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE, C R BUILDING ATTAVARA, MANGALORE .. APPELLANTS. (BY SRI K V ARAVIND & EISANMATHI, ADV.) AND ISLAMIC ACADEMY OF BEDUCATION ®NITHYANANDA NAGAR, DERALAKATTE MANGALORE, RESPONDENT (BY SRI S.PARTHASARATHI, SMI. JINITA CHATTERJI & |SRI V.K.-GURUNATHAN, ADVs.) THIS ITA IS FILED UNDER SKC.260-A OF INCOME TAX.ACT 1961, ARISING OUT OF ORDER DATED: 12.6.2009 IN ITA1397/BANG/2008 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2004-05 PRAYING|TO ALLOW THER APPEAL AND SET ASIDE THK ORDER PASSED BY THE ITAT, BANGALORE, CONFIRMING THE ORDER OF THEAPPBRILLATEB COMMISSIONER AND CONFIRM THR ORDPASSED BY THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,|CENTRAL CIRCLE — I, BANGALORE. THISITACOMING.ONFORHERARINGTHISVINFFT SARANJ.DELIVERED THER FOLLOWING: DAY, | JUDGMENT Heard Sri K.V.Aravind, learned counsel for the appellants|and Sri S.Parthasarthi, learned counsel for the respondent andperused the record. 2 _This appeal has beenADMITTEDon the followingquestions of law: ooWhether the Appellate Authorities werecorrect in holding that the assessee was to be treated in thestatus of lrust as the assessee had been granted registrationunaer Section 12AA ofthe Act without appreciating that theassessee has contravened theprovisions ofSection 11(d) r.w.s.s13(d)(t) and 13(2)(b) of the Act and therefore not exemptedu/s.11 of the Act and should be treated as AOP as held bythe Assessing Officeré Whether the Appellate Authorities werecorrect in holding that a sum ofRs.5,03,07,928/- treated asthe income of the assessee as unaccounted donations, profit onsale of asset and other items after allowing depreciation andexpenditure after deducting admitted income worked out toRs.62,16,710/- by the Assessing Officer was lable to be setaside? 4Learned counsel for the parties have jointlysubmitted that the first question involved in this appeal is covered by the decision of this Court in the case ofCommissioner of Income Tax -vs- M/s Islamic Academy ofEducation in ITA No.805/2008 decided on 09.09.2014. AAccordingly, for the reasons given in the aforesaidjudgement, the first question of law is decided in favour of theassessee and against the revenue. 5As regards the second question, what we find is that the figures given in the question are not correct and the matterinvolves an amount of Rs.5,02,29,802/- only, that is, to the extent.of unaccounted donations for the year in question. 6.Learned counsel for the parties do not dispute thefact that the second question has been decided by the Tribunalwithout considering the facts of the case on hand but the samehas been done basing it on some other order adjudicatingcancellation of registration under Section 12A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘the Act’). Learned counsel for the partiesthus submits that the second question of law raised in this appealmay be remanded back to the Tribunal for fresh adjudication afterhearing it as de novo. As such, without expressing any opinionwith regard to question No.2, it is directed that the Tribunal shallreconsider the said issue and pass fresh orders in accordance withlaw without being influenced by the order passed with regard toorant of registration under Section 12A of the Act. ‘The appeal standsdisposed of. Sd/- |JUDGESd/-JUDGE TL