For Full Access To All Latest Judgments on Income Tax
Click Here To Subscribe Now
Take a tour of our Income-Tax Library

the Assessing Officer noted that, since its inception, the assessee had constructed 1,76,830 dwelling units, including 23,364 slum clearance and IntegratedHousingScheme Units, 49,083 Economically Weaker Section Units, 55,656 Lower Income Group Units, 42,191 Middle Income Group Units, and 6,271 High Income Group Units. The Assessing Officer was of the view that “houses constructed by theGujaratHousingBoard are sold to all types of income groups, including the high net worth individuals and large chunk of middle income group”. The Assessing Officer was of the view that such an activity pursued by the assessee cannot be treated as a charitable activity. whether the assessee has for its object the advancement of any other object of general public utility is a question of fact. If such assessee is engaged in any activity in the nature of trade, commerce or business or renders any service in relation to trade, commerce or business, it would not be entitled to claim that its object is charitable purpose. In such a case, the object of general public utility will be only a mask or a device to hide the true purpose which is trade, commerce or business or the rendering of any service in relation to trade, commerce or business. Each case would, therefore, be decided on its own facts and no generalization is possible. Assessees, who claim that their object is charitable purpose within the meaning of section 2(15), would be well advised to eschew any activity which is in the nature of trade, commerce or business or therendering of any service in relation to any trade, commerce or business. In view of the above discussions, as also bearing in mind entirety of the case, we deem it fit and proper to hold that the authorities below were in error in invoking proviso to Section 2(15) and declining the benefit of Section 11 to the assessee. We see no point in remitting the matter to the file of the Assessing Officer for examination de novo, in the light of the above legal position- as was the decision of the coordinate bench in immediately preceding assessment year, since all the related facts are on record and, unlike in the immediately preceding assessment year, it is not a case of ex parte best judgment assessment order. Such an exercise will unnecessarily delay the matter reaching finality. In any case, no specific points, on which further examination is required, were pointed out to us. The grievances of the assessee are thus upheld and the Assessing Officer is directed to allow the benefits of exemption under section 11 to the assessee. The assessee gets the relief accordingly.

Shanti Prime Publication Pvt. Ltd.

Section 2(15), 11, 12AA, 13 of Income Tax Act, 1961—Exemption u/s 11, 12—Charitable activity—In the instant case, AO was of the view that “houses constructed by the Gujarat Housing Board are sold to all types of income groups, including the high net worth individuals and large chunk of middle income group”. The Assessing Officer was of the view that such an activity pursued by the assessee cannot be treated as a charitable activity.

Held that—There is no dispute that the objects of the Trust are covered by the objects of general public utility and the registration granted to the assessee trust is still valid. Clearly, therefore, pursing these valid objects of general public utility through lawful statutory schemes cannot be considered as business activity, and, as a corollary thereto, exemption under section 11(2) cannot be declined by invoking proviso to Section 2(15) which can only come into play in the event of the assessee pursuing the activities in the nature of trade, commerce or business or services thereto.

We deem it fit and proper to hold that the authorities below were in error in invoking proviso to Section 2(15) and declining the benefit of Section 11 to the assessee. We see no point in remitting the matter to the file of the Assessing Officer for examination de novo, in the light of the above legal position-as was the decision of the coordinate bench in immediately preceding assessment year, since all the related facts are on record and, unlike in the immediately preceding assessment year, it is not a case of ex parte best judgment assessment order. Such an exercise will unnecessarily delay the matter reaching finality. In any case, no specific points, on which further examination is required, were pointed out to us. The grievances of the assessee are thus upheld and the Assessing Officer is directed to allow the benefits of exemption under section 11 to the assessee. The assessee gets the relief accordingly.[GUJARAT HOUSING BOARD (GHB) VERSUS DCIT (EXEMPTION) CIRCLE-1, AHMEDABAD] [2018] [7] [ITCD Online] [50] [ITAT AHMEDABAD]