High Court Of Delhi
Director Of Income Tax (Exemption) vs. Bharat Kalyan Pratishthan
Asst. Year 1991-92
D.K. Jain & Ms. Sharda Aggarwal, JJ.
IT Appeal No. 125 of 2002
19th July, 2002
R.D. Jolly with Ms. Rashmi Chopra, for the Appellant : None, for the Respondent
D.K. JAIN, J. :
CM 48/02 Allowed subject to just exceptions : ITA 125/02
This is an appeal under s. 260A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short âthe Actâ) against the order of the Income- tax Appellate Tribunal (for short âthe Tribunalâ) dt 19th Oct., 2001 in ITA No. 7156/Del/1994, pertaining to asst. yr. 1991-92.
The main ground on which the assessee had been denied exemption under s. 11 of the Act was that the assessee- trust had allegedly made donations to an association which was involved in unlawful activities and had been declared to be so by the Central Government. While dealing with the said objection by the Department, the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) [for short CIT (A)] and the Tribunal have noticed that the stand of the AO is not correct inasmuch as the notification declaring the association concerned as unlawful has been quashed by the Tribunal. This fact has not been controverted in the appeal.
It is contended by Mr. R.D. Jolly, learned counsel for the Revenue, that the trust had also failed to produce the donors, as directed by the AO and, therefore, having failed to establish the identity of the donors, the AO was justified in refusing exemption under s. 11 of the Act. On this aspect, the CIT(A) has noticed that the trust has been granted exemption under ss. 11 and 12 of the Act for the last several years, when similar donations were received by it and during the relevant previous year also it had carried out only charitable activities. The CIT(A) has recorded a categorical finding that the trust has furnished all details required by the AO and having done so it was not for the trust to produce the donors before the AO, as desired by him. The said finding of the CIT(A) has been confirmed by the Tribunal.
Having perused the orders of both the appellate authorities, we are unable to read any perversity therein warranting interference. The findings recorded by the Tribunal are pure findings of fact and no question of law, much less a substantial question of law, arises therefrom.
The appeal is accordingly dismissed.
[Citation : 257 ITR 609]