Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Ahmedabad
Dharampur Uthan Vahini,, Navsari vs Department Of Income Tax on 16 December, 2010
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
AHMEDABAD BENCH "D"
Before Shri MUKUL Kr. SHRAWAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER and
Shri N.S. SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
Date of hearing : 16.12.2010 drafted on: 16.12.2010
ITA No.2811/AHD/2008
Assessment Year : 2005-06
Dy.Commissioner of Vs. Dharampur Uthan Vahini
Income Tax (DHRUVA) Vrindavan
Navsari Circle Campus
Navsari Vansda, Di.Navsari
PAN/GIR No. : AATD 4290 P
(APPELLANT) .. (RESPONDENT)
Appellant by : Shri U.B. Mishra, Sr. D.R.
Respondent by: Shri Kamlesh Bhatt, A.R.
ORDER
PER SHRI MUKUL Kr. SHRAWAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER :
This is an appeal at the behest of the Revenue which has emanated from the order of Learned CIT(Appeals)-Valsad dated 17/04/2008 passed for Assessment Year 2005-06 on the following grounds:-
1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the aggregate additions of Rs.11,41,582/-
made by the AO on account of different of interest received by the trust from the beneficiaries and paid to the NABARD, as the trust is not providing free services or cost to cost service to the beneficiaries. Besides, the surplus on sale of materials viz. fertilizers, equipment etc. thought the said business activities were out of preview of object of the trust.
2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) ought to have upheld the addition made by the AO.
ITA No.2811/Ahd/2008Dy.CIT vs. Dharampur Uthan Vahini Asst.Year - 2005-06 -2-
2. At the outset, it has been informed that on identical facts and circumstances in assessee's own case for Assessment Year 2004-05 an appeal of the Revenue has already been dismissed by the ITAT "B" Bench Ahmedabad bearing ITA No.600/Ahd/2008 (for Assessment Year 2004-05) vide order dated 04/06/2010. In that appeal, the grounds of the Revenue were as under:-
"1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the aggregate additions of Rs.3570570/- made by the AO on account of different of interest received by the trust from the beneficiaries and paid to the NABARD, as the trust is not providing free services or cost to cost services to the beneficiaries. Besides, the surplus on sale of materials viz, fertilizers, equipment etc. though the said business activities were out of preview of object of the trust.
2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) ought to have upheld the addition made by the A. O."
2.1. On the basis of above reproduction of the grounds, it is apparent that the issue was identical before the Respected Co-ordinate Bench which was dealt with as follows:-
"7. On consideration of the rival submissions, we do not find it to be a fit case for interference with the order of the learned CIT(A). It is undisputed fact that the assessee is a public charitable trust registered under the provisions of section 12A of the IT Act carrying out various objects inclusive of object of rural development. The assessee claimed that since the objects of the assessee trust being rural development, the same falls within the purview of section 2(15) of the IT Act which defines meaning of advancement of any other objects of general public utility which partakes the character of charitable trust. The assessee ITA No.2811/Ahd/2008 Dy.CIT vs. Dharampur Uthan Vahini Asst.Year - 2005-06 -3- filed table of income and application of income before the learned CIT(A) for the assessment year under consideration which proved that the assessee met with the conditions stipulated in section 11 of the IT Act. Beneficiaries of the assessee trust are farmers of tribal area and the activities of the assessee trust are carried out for attainment of the objectives of the trust. Nothing is pointed out if there was diversion of any income to any person prohibited under the law. The assessee filed financial statement before the learned CIT(A) to show that the trust has provided fertilizers to the poor farmers even at free of cost. The learned CIT(A) on consideration of the materials before him and the decisions cited before him was satisfied with the objects of the assessee trust and its activities which are falling within the purview of advancement of any other object of general public utility as defined u/s 2(15) of the IT Act. We may also note here that definition of advancement of any other object of general public utility was expanded by adding the proviso to section 2(15) of the IT Act with effect from 01- 04-2009 which is not applicable to the assessment year under appeal. The learned CIT(A) on consideration of the material on record specifically held that the assessee has complied with the provisions of section 11 of the IT Act, therefore, the assessee cannot be denied the benefit u/s 11 of the IT Act. Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Bharat Kalyan Pratisthan Vs Director of Income-tax (Exemption) 299 ITR 406 held "Held, allowing the appeal, that the trust deed required the trust to utilize its funds for charitable purposes which were medical relief, education and relief to the poor. In the application for accumulation the assessee had specified these three objects. It was not required for the assessee to be more specific with regard to the utilisation of the funds. The assessee was entitled to accumulate the income for the objects of the trust. Incidental income or accumulation of income for the objects of trust cannot deny benefit of section 11 of the IT Act to assessee. The learned DR has not produced any ITA No.2811/Ahd/2008 Dy.CIT vs. Dharampur Uthan Vahini Asst.Year - 2005-06 -4- evidence or material before us to contradict the findings of the learned CIT(A). In the absence of any contrary material on record, we do not find it to be a fit case for interference. We accordingly, confirm the findings of the learned CIT(A) and dismiss the appeal of the Revenue."
3. Once a Co-ordinate Bench has taken a view in favour of the assessee by rejecting Revenue's appeal in the past, therefore, we have no reason to take any other view but to follow the view already taken in assessee's own case for Assessment Year 2004-05. Consequently, for this year as well Revenue's grounds are hereby dismissed.
4. In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed.
Order signed, dated and pronounced in the Court on 23/ 12 /2010.
Sd/- Sd/-
( N.S. SAINI ) ( MUKUL Kr. SHRAWAT )
ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER
Ahmedabad; Dated 23 / 12 /2010
T.C. NAIR, Sr. PS
Copy of the Order forwarded to :
1. The Assessee. 2. The Department.
3. The CIT Concerned. 4. The ld. CIT(Appeals)-Valsad
5. The DR, Ahmedabad Bench. 6. The Guard File.
BY ORDER,
स×याǒपत ूित //True Copy//
(Dy./Asstt.Registrar), ITAT, Ahmedabad
ITA No.2811/Ahd/2008
Dy.CIT vs. Dharampur Uthan Vahini
Asst.Year - 2005-06
-5-
1. Date of dictation.......................20.12.2010
2. Date on which the typed draft is placed before the Dictating Member 20.12.2010.................. Other Member.....................
3. Date on which the approved draft comes to the Sr.P.S./P.S.................
4. Date on which the fair order is placed before the Dictating Member for pronouncement......
5. Date on which the fair order comes back to the Sr.P.S./P.S......23/12/10
6. Date on which the file goes to the Bench Clerk.................. 23/12/10
7. Date on which the file goes to the Head Clerk..................................
8. The date on which the file goes to the Assistant Registrar for signature on the order..........................
9. Date of Despatch of the Order..................