Delhi High Court
Commissioner Of Income Tax ... vs Hamdrd National Foundation ... on 6 April, 2022
$~19 to 22
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
19
+ ITA 117/2021
COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS) DELHI
..... Appellant
Through: Mr.Abhishek Maratha, Sr. Standing
Counsel.
versus
HAMDRD NATIONAL FOUNDATION (INDIA) ..... Respondent
Through: Mr.Salil Aggarwal, Sr.Advocate with
Mr.Madhur Aggarwal and Mr.Uma
Shankar, Advocates.
20
+ ITA 156/2021
COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS) DELHI
..... Appellant
Through: Mr.Abhishek Maratha, Sr. Standing
Counsel.
versus
HAMDRD NATIONAL FOUNDATION (INDIA) ..... Respondent
Through: Mr.Salil Aggarwal, Sr.Advocate with
Mr.Madhur Aggarwal and Mr.Uma
Shankar, Advocates.
21
+ ITA 157/2021
COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS) DELHI
..... Appellant
Through: Mr.Abhishek Maratha, Sr. Standing
Counsel.
versus
HAMDARD NATIONAL FOUNDATION (INDIA) ..... Respondent
Through: Mr.Salil Aggarwal, Sr.Advocate with
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:KRISHNA BHOJ
Signing Date:07.04.2022 ITA No.117/2021 & connected matters Page 1 of 5
17:34:50
Mr.Madhur Aggarwal and Mr.Uma
Shankar, Advocates.
22
+ ITA 16/2022
COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS) DELHI
..... Appellant
Through: Mr.Abhishek Maratha, Sr. Standing
Counsel.
versus
HAMDARD NATIONAL FOUNDATION ..... Respondent
Through: Mr.Salil Aggarwal, Sr.Advocate with
Mr.Madhur Aggarwal and Mr.Uma
Shankar, Advocates.
% Date of Decision: 06th April, 2022
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH KUMAR SHARMA
JUDGMENT
MANMOHAN, J (Oral):
1. Present batch of appeals has been filed raising a common question of
law, namely, as to whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (for short 'Tribunal') was correct in
allowing the appeal of the assessee ignoring the fact that the assessee has
paid most of the scholarship amount to the students of a particular religious
community which is a clear violation of Section 13(1)(b) of the Income Tax
Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act').
2. The relevant portion of the impugned order passed by the Tribunal is
reproduced hereinbelow:-
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:KRISHNA BHOJ
17:34:50
"37. As far as the question of scholarship is concerned, in the
Assessment Year 2010-11 itself, the assessee had challenged
the same and the Ld. CIT(A) in his order dated 6/3/2014 held
that the benefit of scholarship to the poor and needy student
was not confined to the students of a particular community and
a perusal of the list submitted by the assessee shows that the
benefit is granted to the students from all the communities
without any discrimination. Such a finding of Ld. CIT(A) was
accepted by the Revenue and while preferring ITA No.
3403/Del/2014 in respect of the Assessment Year 2010-11, the
Revenue did not challenge this finding of the Ld. CIT(A).
38. When a similar question had arisen for the Assessment
Year 2011- 12 before the Ld. CIT(A), Ld. CIT(A) observed that
the facts are identical to the Assessment Year 2010-11 in
which a factual finding was given to the effect that the
scholarships were not restricted to a particular religious
community and there is no violation of the provisions of
section 13(1)(b) of the Act in this year also.
39. When a factual finding of Ld. CIT(A) was accepted for the
Assessment Year 2010-11, and such a finding was confirmed
by the Ld. CIT(A) on similar set of facts and circumstances for
the Assessment year 2011-12, we find every force in the
argument of the Ld. AR that it is not open for the Assessing
Officer to raise such an issue selectively for few years and
accept the findings of the first appellate authority for some
years. Further, Revenue failed to establish before us as to how
the findings of the Ld. CIT(A) on this factual aspect are
incorrect for this Assessment Year 2011-12 by placing the
material that was available before the Assessing Officer to
reach a conclusion that the provisions under section 13(1)(b)
of the Act are applicable to the facts of the case. In the
absence of any such collaborative piece of material, we find it
difficult to disturb the factual finding written by the Ld.
CIT(A). We, therefore, while confirming the findings of the Ld.
CIT(A), dismiss this ground of appeal."
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:KRISHNA BHOJ
17:34:50
3. Learned counsel for the appellant states that the Tribunal, while
passing the impugned order, overlooked the fact that the Assessing Officer
had found that the Respondent-assessee had given merit-cum-
scholarship/financial assistance to candidates predominantly belonging to a
particular religious community which is violative of Section 13(1)(b) of the
Act. He further states that the advertisement for educational scholarship was
published by the assessee in Urdu language and, that too, in one newspaper
only. According to him, this clearly indicates that the assessee wanted to
restrict the circulation of the scholarship advertisement as its intent was to
provide benefit to a particular religious community only.
4. However, upon perusal of the paperbook, this Court finds that both,
the Commissioner Income Tax (Appeal) and Tribunal, have given a
concurrent finding of fact that the benefit of scholarship to the poor and
needy students was not confined to students of a particular community and a
perusal of the list submitted by the assessee showed that the benefit had been
granted to students from all communities without any discrimination.
5. Moreover, just because advertisement was published in Urdu
language and that too in one newspaper, it cannot be presumed that it was
targeted at the students belonging to a particular community only. In fact, a
similar finding of CIT(A) in the assessment year 2010-11 was accepted by
the revenue and was not even challenged before the Tribunal.
6. Undoubtedly, the principle of res-judicata and estoppel are not
applicable in taxation matters. However, it has been held that a departure
from a finding during the past years would result in a contradictory finding
(Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Sridev Enterprises (1991) 192 ITR 165).
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:KRISHNA BHOJ
17:34:50
7. Consequently, this Court is of the view that consistency of approach
must be maintained. Accordingly, no substantial question of law arises in the
present batch of appeals and the same is dismissed.
MANMOHAN, J
DINESH KUMAR SHARMA, J
APRIL 6, 2022
TS
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:KRISHNA BHOJ
17:34:50
