The Commissioner Of Income Tax-I, Chandigarh v. M/S Simla Catholic Diocese Society, Chandigarh

ITA No. 864 of 2008 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ITA No. 864 of 2008 (O&M) Date of Decision: 9.5.2016 The Commissioner of Income Tax-I, Chandigarh ....Appellant. Versus M/s Simla Catholic Diocese Society, Chandigarh ...Respondent. 1.Whether the Reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?the judgment? 2.To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3.Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? CORAM:-HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL.HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE RAJ RAHUL GARG. PRESENT: Mr. Denesh Goyal, Advocate for the appellant. AJAY KUMAR MITTAL, J. 1.This appeal has been preferred by the revenue underSection 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”) against theorder dated 26.6.2008 (Annexure A-3) passed by the Income TaxAppellate Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench “B”, Chandigarh (hereinafterreferred to as “the Tribunal”) in ITA No. 471/CHANDI/2008, for theassessment year 2002-03, claiming the following substantial questionsof law:- i)Whether in the facts and circumstances of thecase, the Hon'ble ITAT is right in law in holdingthat the assessee is entitled for exemptioncase, the Hon'ble ITAT is right in law in holdingthat the assessee is entitled for exemption under Section 11(1)(a) of the Income Tax Act,1961?1961? ii)Whether in the facts and circumstances of thecase, the Hon'ble ITAT is right in law in holdingthat trust means faith and not status in thecontext of the assessee?case, the Hon'ble ITAT is right in law in holdingthat trust means faith and not status in thecontext of the assessee? 2.Briefly stated, the facts necessary for adjudication of theinstant appeal as narrated therein may be noticed. The assessee filedits return of income for the assessment year 2002-03 on 31.3.2005declaring the income at 'nil' in the status of charitable trust claimingrefund of ` 1,88,003/- on account of Tax Deducted at Source (TDS).Since the return was belated and there being a refund, the assesseeapplied for condonation of delay in filing the return under Section 119(2)(b) of the Act before the Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, whodirected the Assessing Officer to treat the return of the assessee for theassessment year 2002-03 as a valid return and consider its claim forrefund as per the Act. The Assessing Officer vide order dated21.11.2007 (Annexure A-1) treated the assessee as an institution andnot a trust and assessed the income of the assessee at ` 73,74,140/-plus agricultural income of ` 3,71,955/- rate purposes while disallowingthe exemption under Section 11(1)(a) of the Act. Feeling aggrieved, theassessee filed an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals) [for brevity “the CIT(A)”]. The CIT(A) vide order dated27.3.2008 (Annexure A-2) allowed the appeal and held that theassessee was entitled to exemption under Section 11(1)(a) of the Actrelying upon the judgment dated 29.1.2008 passed by the Tribunal in thecase of the assessee for the assessment year 2003-04. Against the ITA No. 864 of 2008 order, Annexure A-2, the revenue filed an appeal before the Tribunal.The Tribunal vide order dated 26.6.2008 (Annexure A-3) upheld theorder of the CIT(A) and dismissed the appeal. Hence, the presentappeal by the revenue. 3.We have heard learned counsel for the appellant-revenue.4.The matter is no longer res integra. This Court in the caseof the assessee for the assessment year 2003-04 in ITA No. 566 of2008 (Commissioner of Income Tax-I, Chandigarh v. M/s ShimlaChandigarh Diocese Society, Catholic Church, Sector 19-A,Chandigarh) decided on 19.8.2009 adjudicated both the questions, asnoticed above, against the revenue and dismissed the appeal. Further,the Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 21049 of 2010 filed against theorder dated 19.8.2009, was dismissed by the Apex Court vide orderdated 01.08.2011. 3.We have heard learned counsel for the appellant-revenue.4.The matter is no longer res integra. This Court in the caseof the assessee for the assessment year 2003-04 in ITA No. 566 of2008 (Commissioner of Income Tax-I, Chandigarh v. M/s ShimlaChandigarh Diocese Society, Catholic Church, Sector 19-A,Chandigarh) decided on 19.8.2009 adjudicated both the questions, asnoticed above, against the revenue and dismissed the appeal. Further,the Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 21049 of 2010 filed against theorder dated 19.8.2009, was dismissed by the Apex Court vide orderdated 01.08.2011. 5.In view of the above, the substantial questions of law areanswered accordingly. The appeal stands dismissed. (AJAY KUMAR MITTAL) JUDGE May 9, 2016gbs (RAJ RAHUL GARG)JUDGE