IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU ON THE 7TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI MALIMATH AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAMMAD NAWAZ INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.800 OF 2009 BETWEEN:
1. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, NO.55/1, SHILPASHREE, VIDYARANYA COMPLEX, VISHVESHWARANAGAR, MYSURU.
2. THE ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, RANGE-2, NO.55/1, SHILPASHREE, VIDYARANYA COMPLEX, VISHVESHWARANAGAR, MYSURU.
... APPELLANTS (BY SRI. JEEVAN J. NEERALGI, ADVOCATE) AND:
SRI. ADICHUNCHANAGIRI MAHASAMSTANA MUTT, NELAMANGALA TALUK, MANDYA DISTRICT.
... RESPONDENT (BY SRI. A. SHANKAR, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SRI. M. LAVA, ADVOCATE) THIS INCOME TAX APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 260-A OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE (1) FORMULATE THE SUBSTANTIAL QUESTIONS OF LAW STATED THEREIN;
(2) ALLOW THE APPEAL AND SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED BY THE INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.442/BANG/2009, DATED 24.07.2009, CONFIRMING THE ORDER OF THE APPELLATE COMMISSIONER AND CONFIRM THE ORDER PASSED BY THE ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, RANGE-2, BANGALORE.
THIS INCOME TAX APPEAL COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING THIS DAY, RAVI MALIMATH, J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
J U D G M E N T This appeal was admitted to consider the following substantial questions of law;
“i. Whether the Appellate Authorities were correct in not recording a finding for the current assessment year as to whether the assessee was running a charitable trust or not as held by the Apex Court in Aditanar Educational Institutions Vs. Addl. Commissioner of Income Tax 224 ITR 310, when the Assessing Officer had recorded a specific finding that the assessee was not running a charitable organization?
ii. Whether the Appellate Authorities were correct in not taking into consideration the finding recorded by the Assessing Officer that the donations received from parents/students being provided with professional seats was not voluntary contributions envisaged u/s. 11 & 12 of the Act, when the same was contrary to the judgment of the Apex Court in Islamic Academy of Education Vs. State of Karnataka, (2003) 6 SCC 697 and the Karnataka Capitation Fees Act?
iii. Whether the Appellate Authorities were correct in not taking into consideration the finding recorded by the Assessing Officer that the donations collected from ‘Mediation Centre Fund’ was contrary to sections 11(1)(a) and 11(1)(d) of the act and consequently recorded a perverse finding?”
2. Learned counsel submits that questions No.2 and 3 are covered by the judgment of this Court rendered on 08.03.2010 in the case of DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS) & ANOTHER VS. SRI. BELIMATHA MAHASAMSTHANA SOCIO CULTURAL & EDUCATIONAL TRUST reported in (2011) 336 ITR 694.
Following the aforesaid judgment, the substantial questions of law at Sl.No.2 and 3 are answered in favour of the Assessee and against the revenue.
3. In view of answering substantial questions of law Nos.2 and 3, question No.1 would not arise for consideration.
4. Accordingly, the appeal is disposed off.
Sd/- Sd/-
JUDGE JUDGE Snc*