Appeal delay condoned: Tax exemption granted for charitable activities under Income Tax Act

The delay in filing and re-filing appeals was condoned based on reasons provided. The question of law revolved around the entitlement to exemption under Sections 11 and 12 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Tribunal found the respondent/assessee's activities charitable and within the scope of the Act, citing a previous decision in the respondent/assessee's favor for a different assessment year. Consequently, no substantial question of law arose, leading to the closure of the appeals.

---

---

Issues involved:
The issues involved in this judgment are the condonation of delay in filing and re-filing appeals, and the question of law regarding the entitlement to exemption under Sections 11 and 12 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

Condonation of delay:
The applications were moved on behalf of the appellant/revenue seeking condonation of delay in filing and re-filing the appeals due to a delay of 37 days in filing and 205 days in re-filing. The delay was condoned based on the reasons given in the applications, and the applications were disposed of.

Question of law - Exemption under Sections 11 and 12:
The appeals concerned Assessment Year (AY) 2013-14 and AY 2014-15, where the appellant/revenue sought to challenge the order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. The question of law revolved around whether the respondent/assessee was entitled to exemption under Sections 11 and 12 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
In the context of the proviso appended to Section 2(15), it was highlighted that advancement of any other object of general public utility shall not be considered a charitable purpose if it involves activities related to trade, commerce, or business for a fee or consideration. The Tribunal found that the respondent/assessee's activities were charitable in nature and fell within the scope of Section 2(15) of the Act.
The Tribunal's previous decision in the respondent/assessee's own case for AY 2009-10 supported this finding, where it was noted that the respondent/assessee, an important constituent of the Central Government, was not engaged in trade, commerce, or business primarily.
Therefore, it was concluded that no substantial question of law arose for consideration in the appeals, and the appeals were closed accordingly.

---