Wp/21633/2023 Of M/S Sri Banashankari Temple v. The Income -Tax Officer (Exemption)

Digitallysigned byNARASIMHAMURTHYVANAMALALocation:HIGHCOURT OFKARNATAKA IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 6 DAY OF OCTOBER, 2023 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD -WRIT PETITION NO. 21633 OF 2023 (TIT) BETWEEN: M/S SRI BANASHANKARI TEMPLE NOTIFIED CHARITABLE INSTITUTION AND HINDU RELIGIOUS INSTITUTION, REP BY ITS EXECUTIVE OFFICER, SMT. LAKSHMI W/O P C VISHWESHWAR, AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS, NO.11. SARABANDAYAPALYA, KANAKAPURA ROAD, BENGALURU-560070 KARNATAKA. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. Y.H. VIJAYAKUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. MALLAHA RAO., ADVOCATE FOR MS. HITHA M, ADVOCATE ) AND: 1. THE INCOME -TAX OFFICER (EXEMPTION) EXEMPTIONS WARD 3 EXEMPTIONS WARD 3 UNITY BUILDING ANNEXE, MISSION ROAD, BENGALURU-560027 KARNATAKA. 2. THE PRINCIPAL CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS) OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS) 2503, E-2 BLOCK, PRATYAKSH KAR BHAWAN, CIVIC CENTRE, JLN MARG, MINTO ROAD, NEW DELHI-110002. 3. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER ASSESSMENT UNIT, INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT, MINISTRY OF FINANCE, INSIDE JAWAHARLAL NEHRU STADIUM, NORTH BLOCK, NEW DELHI-110001. 4. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS) UNITY BUILDING, ANNEX MISSION ROAD, BENGALURU – 560 027. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.M. DILIP., ADVOCATE) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 12.09.2023 VIDE REF NO. ITBA/COM/F/17/2023-24/1055995816(1) PASSED BY R-4 VIDE ANNX-L1; DIRECTING THE RESPONDENT AUTHORITIES TO REFRAIN FROM TAKING ANY FURTHER COERCIVE STEPS AGAINST THE ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED BY R-3 16.03.2023 VIDE REF NO ORDER NO. ITBA/AST/S/147/2022-23/1050854633(1) VIDE ANNX-E. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: ORDER The petitioner, a charitable religious institution notified under the provisions of the Karnataka Hindu Religious Institutions and Charitable Endowment Act, 1997, has impugned the fourth respondent’s order dated 12.09.2023, and the fourth respondent by the impugned order has rejected the petitioner’s application for stay and in the course of this order, the fourth respondent, after extracting the provisions of Section 10(23BBA) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, has concluded thus: “A reading of Section 10(23BBA) provides that only the statutory body monitoring the temples are exempt under the said section and not the temples. Hence, the Authorized Representative’s contention that the assessee is automatically exempt u/s. 10(23BBA) of the Act is not acceptable. Also, it is observed that assessee is neither registered u/s. 12A of the Act.” Sri Y. H. Vijayakumar, supported by Sri Malhar Rao, learned Additional Advocate General, submits that the petitioner’s appeal as against the assessment year 2018-19 is pending consideration in a statutory appeal and the findings as aforesaid could prejudice the petitioner’s right and he also submits that because the petitioner has deposited 20% of the demand with the Assessing Officer, the fourth respondent could not have rejected the application for stay. However, when Sri M. Dilip, the learned counsel for the respondents, places on record a copy of the Assessing Officer’s order dated 26.06.2023 stating that the petitioner’s application for stay has been reconsidered with the petitioner depositing 20% of the demand, Sri Y. H. Vijaykumar submits that the petition could be disposed of in the light of this Assessing Officer’s order dated 26.06.2023 observing that the petitioner shall not be prejudiced in the pending appeal by the fourth respondent’s observation as aforesaid. These submissions must be accepted in the circumstances of the case and are accepted and the petition disposed of in the light of the Assessing Officer’s order dated 26.06.2023 in ITBA/COM/F/17/2023-24/1053952891(1). The petition stands disposed of accordingly. Sd/- JUDGE SA ct:sr