Commissioner of Income Tax vs Krishna Tent House

Jawahar Lal Gupta, J.—The Tribunal has referred the following question for the opinion of this Court :

Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was justified in law in holding that the assessee was entitled to claim exemption of its income u/s 11 of the income tax Act, 1961 ?

This question has been raised by the revenue in respect of the assessment years 1976-77, 1978-79 and 1980-81.

The assessee is a charitable trust. It is running a tent house at Bhiwani. The receipts on account of hire of tent, shamiana and crockery, etc., were claimed to be exempt u/s 11 of the income tax Act, 1961 (''the Act'') . The claim was disallowed by the Assessing Officer. On appeal by the assessee, the AAC held that the income of the trust was exempt u/s 11. Reliance for this view was placed on the decision of their Lordships of the Supreme Court in the case of Additional Commissioner of Income Tax, Gujarat Vs. Surat Art Silk Cloth Manufacturers Association, .

Aggrieved by the order of the appellate authority, the revenue filed an appeal before the Tribunal. The order of the appellate authority having been affirmed, the revenue''s application for reference was accepted by the Tribunal. Hence, the present reference.

We have heard Mr. Sawhney. He contends that the income derived by the assessee was not being utilised for any charitable purpose. Thus, exemption u/s 11 could not have been granted.

A perusal of the order of assessment shows that the exemption has been denied to the assessee only on the ground that a charitable trust could not run a business. This view was not accepted by the appellate authority as well as the Tribunal. The view taken by the two authorities is in conformity with the rule laid down by their Lordships of the Supreme Court in the case of Surat Art Silk Cloth Mfrs. Association (supra) . Thus, we find no infirmity in the order passed by the Tribunal. Nothing has been pointed out to show that the contention as now sought to be raised was ever canvassed before the Tribunal. Resultantly, the question is answered in favour of the assessee and against the revenue. Since no one has put in appearance on behalf of the assessee, there would be no order as to costs.