Itta/252/2019 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax(Exemptitions) v. Nalgonda Diocese Society

[ [337e ]] IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANAAT HYDERABAD THURSDAY, THE SIXTEENTH DAY OF NOVEMBERTWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE Ii PRESENTII ITHE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P. SAM KOSHY AND I THE HoN'BLE sRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI l.T.T.A.Nos: 252and 268 of 2019 l.T.T.A.No.252 ot 2019 lncome Tax Tribunal Appeal Under Section 2604 of the lncome Tax Act, 1961'arising out of the order of the lncome-Tax Appellate Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench ' A Hyderabad,'in ITA No. 509/Hyd/2009, for assessment Year 2005-06 dated 03-0'l-2012 preferred against the Order of the Commissioner of lncome Tax, (APPEALS)-lV, Hyderabad, Appeal No.0506/ADIT (E)-ll/ClT (A)-lV/2007-08, dated 30-01-2009/lpreferred against lthe Order of the Deputy Director of lncome Tax (E), Hyderabad;lPAN/GIR No. [pi/tuANl ]189R, dated 28-12-2007.Between: The Commissioner of lncome Tax(Exemptions), Hyderabad ...Appellant AND Nalgonda Diocese Society, RP Road, Nalgonda. (PAN. AAAANTlsgR) ...Respondent Counsel for the Appellant: SRI A. RADHA KRISHNA (Sr SC For lT DEPT) Counsel for the Respondent: Mr. RAGHU RAM, Counsel appe'aring on behatf ofMT. K. VASANTH KUMAR l.T.T.A.No.268 of 2019 lncome Tax Tribunal Appeal Under Section 2604 of the lncome Tax Act, 196.1arising out of the order of the lncome-Tax Appellate Tribunal. Hyclerabad Bench [,A ][,]Hyderabad,! in lrA No. 298lHydl2oo9, for assessment year 2005-06 dated 03-01-20'12 preferred against the order of the commissioner of lncome Tax, (AppEALS)-lV, Hyderabad, Appeal No.019O/DD|T (E)-il/CtT (A)-tV/2007-08, dated 2B-11-2OOBprefened against the order of the Deputy Director of lncome Tax (Exemptions)-ll,Hyderabad PAN/clR No. , dated 28-12-07. Between: The Commissioner of lncome Tax(Exemptions), ANO[il]llilWarangal Dioc'ese Society, FathimaNagar, Warangal(PAN.nanawoozool)t' The Commissioner of lncome Tax(Exemptions), Hyderabad. ...Appellant ...Respondent Counsel for the Appellant: SRI A. RADHA KRTSHNA (Sr SC For tT OEPT) Counsel for the Respondent: Mr. RAGHU RAM, Counsel appearing on behalfofMT. K. VASANTH KUMAR The Court delivered the following: COMMON JUDGMENT iiIII:tIIl THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHY AND THB HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI I.T.T.A.Nos.252 and 268 of 2019 COMMON JUDGNIENT. (per Hon'ble Sri Justice P.SAM KOSHY) Heard Mr.A.Radha Krishan, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the appellant and Mr.Raghu Ram, learned counsel appearing onbehalf of Mr.K.Vasanth Kumar, learned counsel for the respondent.Perused the material on record. 2. These are the two appeals arising out of the common decision rendered by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (for short ITAT),Hyderabad Bench 'A', Hyderabad,tnLT.A.No.298,&Iyd/2009 aodI.T.A.No.509/Hyd12009, decided on 03.01 .2012. The Assessment YearHyderabad Bench 'A', Hyderabad,tnLT.A.No.298,&Iyd/2009 aodI.T.A.No.509/Hyd12009, decided on 03.01 .2012. The Assessment Yearinvolved in these two appeals are 2005-06 ih respect of the same theassessee in two different districts i.e., Warangal and Nalgondaassessee in two different districts i.e., Warangal and Nalgonda 3. I.T.T.A.No.252 of 2019 assails the order in I.T.A.No.509/Hyd/2009 and I.T.T.A.No.268 of 2019 assails the order in I. T. A.No. 2 9 8/Hy dl 2009 4. The learned Tribunal [white ][deciding ][the ][said ][tu'o ][appeals ][have]rejected the appeal [filed ][by ][the ][Revenue ][where the ][challt:nge was ][to ][the]order passed by [the ]CIT [(A) ][dated ][28.1 ][l ]['2008' ][wherein ][the]Commissioner [Appeats had ][quashed ][the order ][passcd ][b1 ][the Assigning]Officer on 28.12.2007, [refusing ][to ][grant benefit ][under ][Section ] [of]Income Tax Act [(for ][short ]['the ][Act'). ][The Comrnissioner Appeals ][held]that the assessee [would ][be ][allowed ][to ][have ][the exemption ][under ][Section]I I of the Act. 3. I.T.T.A.No.252 of 2019 assails the order in I.T.A.No.509/Hyd/2009 and I.T.T.A.No.268 of 2019 assails the order in I. T. A.No. 2 9 8/Hy dl 2009 4. The learned Tribunal [white ][deciding ][the ][said ][tu'o ][appeals ][have]rejected the appeal [filed ][by ][the ][Revenue ][where the ][challt:nge was ][to ][the]order passed by [the ]CIT [(A) ][dated ][28.1 ][l ]['2008' ][wherein ][the]Commissioner [Appeats had ][quashed ][the order ][passcd ][b1 ][the Assigning]Officer on 28.12.2007, [refusing ][to ][grant benefit ][under ][Section ] [of]Income Tax Act [(for ][short ]['the ][Act'). ][The Comrnissioner Appeals ][held]that the assessee [would ][be ][allowed ][to ][have ][the exemption ][under ][Section]I I of the Act. 5. Leamed counsel [for ][the ][appeltant ][assailing the ][two ][orders ][i'e', ][the]order passed by the [commissioner ][Appeals ][and ][which ][ha,. ][been ][affirmed]by the Tribunal [referred ][to ][a ][decision ][of ][the ][Hon'ble ][Supreme ][Court ][in]the case of State of [Kerala ][vs. ] [Shanti ][Varma ][Jainr' ][Learned]counsel for the [appellant ][contended ][that the ][TribunaI ][as ][also ][the]Commissioner [Appeals have ][wrongly ][interpreted ][the ][finclings ][given ][by]the Hon'ble Supreme [Court ][in ][the ][said ][case.] 6. Upon due [consideration ][of ][the ][order ][passed ][by ][the ][Commissioner]which [stood affirmed ][by ][the ][Tribunal, ][we ][find ][that ][the]Appeals, Commissioner Appeals [extensively ][dealt ][with ][the ][rnuch ][of ][the]' [231 ] [787] \.. \ contentions that the Revenue [has raised ][in ][these ][present appeals ][and ][have]after elaborate discussion [relied ][upon ][various decisions ][of ][the ][High]Courts of the Country, deating [with ]the [said ][issue ][and ][have ][also]discussed the [judgment ]of the MP Shanti [Varma ]Jain supra, [relied ][upon]by the Revenue also. We are also of the [considered ][opinion that ][the]judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of MP ShantiVarma Jain, were under an entirely different context and statute [where]the issue was the exemption of payment of tax on the Agriculture [income]under Section 4 of the Kerala Agriculture lncome [Tax ][Act, ][1950, ][where]the statute provided that the exemption would be available only in theevent if the income of the trust would be applied for charitable [purpose]within the state. Such was not the case or issue in the present two appealsand we are of the considered opinion that the Tribunal as also [the]Commissioner Appeals have rightly considered the issue and decided [in]favour of the assessee 7. Accordingly, we do not find any strong case made out calling foran interference with the impugned orders nor do we find any substantialquestion of law made out in these two appeals. Thus, these two appealsfail and are accordingly rejected 8As a sequel, miscellaneous [applications pending ][if ][rLny, ][shall ][stand] closed SDI B.S.CHIRANJEEVIJOINT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To,1. The lncome-Tax Appellate Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench [' ]A Hyderabad1. The lncome-Tax Appellate Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench [' ]A Hyderabad 2. The Commissioner of lncome Tax, [(APPEALS)-IV, ]Hyderabad. 3. The Deputy Director of lncome Tax [(Exemptions)-ll, ]Hyderabad. a. The Deputf Director of lncome Tax [(E), ]Hyderabad. 5. one CC to SRI A. RADHA KRISHNA [(Sr ][SC For ][lT ][DEPT) ] 6. One CC to Mr. K. VASANTH KUMAR, Advocate 7. Two CD Copies Kam" kr$ iII+I HIGH COURT:IPSK, J &NTR, J i DATED:1611112023 COMMON JUDGMENTil lTTA.Nos.252 and 268 of 2O1g iTHESE TWO APPEALSARE REJECTED -aa:::...1E [STATS:]oj''/v-)1? [0i[ ][2[?3],Lo.a'l\--t .\_'::[/!:: ][r)n ][t ]['!.,]