TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (10) TMI 1052
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d for scrutiny under CASS. Statutory notice(s) u/s 143(2) and 142(1) of the Act along with questionnaire were accordingly issued and served upon the assessee, in response to which the assessee furnished requisite information/details. On verification thereof, the Ld. Assessing Officer ("AO") found that the assessee is engaged in religious activities which going through the objects of the trust. Further, from perusal of financials and assessment orders of earlier years, the Ld. AO found that the assessee was following practice of giving its property on lease to specified persons u/s 13(3) of the Act. Accordingly, benefit of exemption u/s 11 and 12 was denied to the assessee in earlier AYs for violation of provisions of section 13 of the Act. The Ld. AO, therefore, issued a show cause notice seeking an explanation from the assessee as to why the benefit of exemption may not be disallowed and income may not be assessed as an AOP if violation of the provisions of section 13(1)(c)(ii) and section 13(2)(b) of the Act exists in AY 2017-18 under consideration. The assessee filed its reply to the said show cause notice and contended that the Ld. CIT(A) vide order dated 28.07.2017 for AY 2013....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....06-1970, use of any trust property directly or indirectly for the benefit of any person referred to in sub section 3 of section 13 is clearly violative of the provisions of section 13(1)(c) (ii) of the I.T. Act, 1961. Further, as per mandate of sec 13(2)(b), if any land, building or other property of the trust or institution is/or continues to be, made available for the use of any person referred to in sub-section 3 of sec 13, for any period during the previous year without charging adequate rent or other compensation, then it can be concluded that the income of the trust shall be deemed to have been applied for the benefit of persons referred in sec 13(3) of the act. Accordingly, for the period of AY under consideration, assessee has clearly violated provisions of sec 13(1)(c) r.w.s. 13(2)(b) of the act. Due to this reasoning and clear mandate of provision of law, it can be safely concluded that the assessee trust does not qualify for the benefit of exemption granted by section 11 and 12 of the I.T. Act. 1961 as assessee trust has violated mandate of sec 13(1)(c) and hence, benefit of exemption u/s 11 & 12 for AY under consideration is hereby denied to the assessee trust and asses....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....hya. * to facilitate the scholars of vedic and religious and also invite them for lectures/ educational seminars of the aforesaid themes for the students community During the course of assessment proceedings, on perusal of financials and assessment orders of earlier years, it was found that Ld. AO observed that appellant was following practice of the giving its property (3 Shops) on lease to specified persons u/s 13(3) of the act. Accordingly, benefit of exemptions u/s 11 & 12 was denied to the appellant in earlier AYs for violation of provisions of section 13 of the act. The same practice continued during the year under consideration as well thus the exemptions u/s 11 & 12 was denied and the appellant was assessed as AOP. The impugned issue of eligibility of exemption u/s 11 and 12 is a legacy issue in case of the appellant since AY 2010-11. In past years all the appellate authorize had granted relief to appellant. The impugned litigation had travelled to Hon'ble High Court as well wherein Hon'ble Bombay High court had held that no substantial question of law arises for adjudication and accordingly revenue's appeal was dismissed vide order dated 5th AUGU....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f dispute are 3 shops on ground floor of the building. From the perusal of English translation of Trust Deed the details of the property in possession of the author of the trust at the time of execution of Trust Deed is not discernible. Under such circumstances, we are of considered opinion that this issue needs a re-visit to the Assessing Officer. Representative of both the sides concur on the point that the part of property referred to in the Trust Deed has to be clearly identified. The Assessing Officer is directed to ascertain the part of property which was in the possession of author of the trust at the time of execution of the trust in the year 1930, qua which mandate has been given for the exclusive use by the author of the trust and his legal heirs. In case the shops under question are part of the property which was in possession of the author of the trust deed at the time of execution, then the assessee clearly falls within the exception as mentioned in proviso to section 13(1)(c)(ii) of the Act. In view of the above, the Ld. AO was directed to ascertain whether the alleged shops were part of same property which was in possession of the author of the trust deed at....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t trust only. Thus, the finding of Ld. AO is held to be incorrect. The alleged Shops are very well part of the same property in substance though the form might have changed. In view of the above, I am of the considerate opinion that the appellant is not found to be in breach of second condition as contested by Hon'ble ITAT "i.e. the benefit to be granted to the assessee or the person referred to in sub- section (3) in application or uses of the property or income of trust is concerned, the use or application of the property should be in compliance of the mandatory terms of the trust." On perusal of Trust deed, it observed that the trustee was entitled to use the alleged property as per trust deed without payment of any rental but despite that the appellant has paid certain rental to appellant. Thus there is no benefit being flown to the person specified u/s 13 as alleged by the Ld. AO. Therefore, the disallowance u/s 11 and 12 as carried out by the Ld. AO is found to be incorrect and the appellant is eligible to be assessed as Trust and not as AOP. Accordingly, Ground 1 and 2 of the appeal are allowed. 4. Dissatisfied, the Revenue is in appeal before t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....'s own case in ITA No. 1552/PUN/2024 (supra) and find that ground Nos. 1 and 3 raised by the Revenue are covered in favour of the assessee by the said decision. Undisputedly, the assessee is a charitable trust duly registered u/s 12A of the Act. The Ld. AO completed the assessment u/s 143(3) denying the exemption claimed u/s 11 and 12 of the Act by invoking the provisions of section 13(1)(c) of the Act and treated the assessee as an AOP. On appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) allowed the claim of the assessee for the reasons reproduced in the preceding paragraphs. It has been brought to our attention that the Ld. CIT(Exemption) vide his order dated 30.06.2024 passed u/s 12AB(4) of the Act cancelled the registration u/s 12A against which the assessee filed an appeal before the Co-ordinate Bench of the Pune Tribunal in ITA No. 1552/PUN/2024 (supra). It is on account of this order of cancellation of registration that the Revenue has preferred the present appeal. We find that the Co-ordinate Bench of the Pune Tribunal vide order dated 29.04.2025 in ITA No. 1552/PUN/2024 (supra) decided the impugned issue pertaining to the cancellation of the registration by the Ld. CIT(Exemption) in favour of the a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ifferent view cannot be taken. In our opinion, adopting a different view inconsistent to the one taken in earlier years on the same set of facts would be merely a change of opinion, especially when a particular view has been taken right since inception to date spanning several years. For the above proposition, we rely on the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Radhasoami Satsang vs. CIT (1992) 193 ITR 321 (SC) wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed as under: "16. We are aware of the fact that strictly speaking res judicata does not apply to Income tax proceedings. Again, each assessment year being a unit, what is decided in one year may not apply in the following year but where a fundamental aspect permeating through the different assessment years has been found as a fact one way or the other and parties have allowed that position to be sustained by not challenging the order, it would not be at all appropriate to allow the position to be changed in subsequent year". ..... Parties are not permitted to begin fresh litigation because of new views they may entertain of the law of the case, or new versions which they present as to ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....by the decision of the Co-ordinate Bench the Pune Tribunal in assessee's own case for AY 2010-11 vide order dated 28.06.2017 in ITA No. 223/PUN/2014 which has been duly considered by the Ld. CIT(A) in his appellate order, the relevant portion of which is extracted above in para 3 of this order. On further appeal, the Hon'ble Bombay High Court has dismissed the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No. 683 of 2018 holding that no substantial question of law arises as the issue is covered by the judgement of Hon'ble High Court in the case of CIT(E), Pune Vs. Audyogik Shikshan Mandal (2019) 101 taxmann.com 247. 9. It would thus be seen that the Ld. CIT(A) has given cogent reasons with facts available on the records and legal backing to negate the observations and findings of the Ld. AO. The issue involved in the present appeal is no longer re-integra. Identical facts were examined in the past year as well and the judicial consensus is that the assessee is eligible to be assessed as trust and consequently claim of exemption u/s 11 and 12 of the Act. In this view of the matter and respectfully following the decisions (supra) and in the absence of any contrary material brought on recor....