Delhi High Court
Addl. Director Of Income Tax vs M.D. Memorial Charitable & ... on 29 November, 2001
Equivalent citations: (2002) 74 TTJ Del 595
ORDER
K.C. Singhal, J.M.
Since common issue is involved in both these appeals, the same are being disposed of by the common order for the sake of convenience. The only issue common to both the appeals relates to the levy of penalty under section 272A(2)(e) on account of late filing of the return.
2. The assessed is a charitable and educational society. The penalty proceedings were initiated under section 272A(2)(e) for the years under consideration on the ground that the assessed had not filed the return of income within the period specified under section 139(4A). The explanation of the assessed was that the only activity of the trust is running of the recognised school whose income is exempt under section 10(22) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. This explanation was not accepted by the assessing officer and accordingly penalty of Rs. 51,200 was imposed for assessment year 1992-93 and Rs. 14,700 for assessment year 1993-94.
2. The assessed is a charitable and educational society. The penalty proceedings were initiated under section 272A(2)(e) for the years under consideration on the ground that the assessed had not filed the return of income within the period specified under section 139(4A). The explanation of the assessed was that the only activity of the trust is running of the recognised school whose income is exempt under section 10(22) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. This explanation was not accepted by the assessing officer and accordingly penalty of Rs. 51,200 was imposed for assessment year 1992-93 and Rs. 14,700 for assessment year 1993-94.
3. The matter was carried before the Commissioner (Appeals), who has held that the assessed-trust is exempt under section 10(22) of the Income Tax Act considering the only activity of the assessed. Consequently, it was held that assessed was not required to file any return under section 139(4A). The penalties levied by assessing officer were, therefore, deleted by the Commissioner (Appeals). Aggrieved by the same, the revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal.
3. The matter was carried before the Commissioner (Appeals), who has held that the assessed-trust is exempt under section 10(22) of the Income Tax Act considering the only activity of the assessed. Consequently, it was held that assessed was not required to file any return under section 139(4A). The penalties levied by assessing officer were, therefore, deleted by the Commissioner (Appeals). Aggrieved by the same, the revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal.
4. After hearing both the parties, we do not find any error in the order of the Commissioner (Appeals). The learned Departmental Representative has not been able to place any material to controvert the finding of the Commissioner (Appeals) that the trust is exempt under section 10(22). Consequently, in our opinion, the Commissioner (Appeals) was justified in holding that assessed was not required to file the return under section 139(4A) and penalty could not be sustained. This view is also fortified by the decision of the Tribunal in the case of ITO v. St. Michaeals Education Foundation (1992) 43 ITD 656 (Del) wherein the penalty under section 271(1)(a) was deleted on the ground that the assessed was enjoying the benefit of section 10(22). Following the same, the orders of Commissioner (Appeals) are hereby upheld.
4. After hearing both the parties, we do not find any error in the order of the Commissioner (Appeals). The learned Departmental Representative has not been able to place any material to controvert the finding of the Commissioner (Appeals) that the trust is exempt under section 10(22). Consequently, in our opinion, the Commissioner (Appeals) was justified in holding that assessed was not required to file the return under section 139(4A) and penalty could not be sustained. This view is also fortified by the decision of the Tribunal in the case of ITO v. St. Michaeals Education Foundation (1992) 43 ITD 656 (Del) wherein the penalty under section 271(1)(a) was deleted on the ground that the assessed was enjoying the benefit of section 10(22). Following the same, the orders of Commissioner (Appeals) are hereby upheld.
5. In the result, appeals of the revenue are dismissed.
5. In the result, appeals of the revenue are dismissed.
