RAJASTHAN CRICKET ASSOCIATION Vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The writ petition is directed against the order dt. 3rd Sept., 2013 (Ann. 5), whereby the attachment order dt. 29th Aug., 2013 has been vacated and the IT Department is going to make recovery of the tax demand from the petitioner. An interim prayer has been made for staying recovery of the tax demand till the pendency of the appeal before the Tribunal. Though the matter is listed for deciding the stay petition seeking interim relief but arguments would suffice decision of the writ petition itself. Therefore, the matter is heard finally. Contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that petitioner filed appeal against the order passed by the respondents withdrawing the exemption granted to it and since presently, the Tribunal is not functioning for want of quorum, it has approached this Court for appropriate interim relief. Additionally, his argument is that rectification application filed by the petitioner is pending before the AO, which is sought on the ground that petitioner is entitled to depreciation claim, which has already been granted to it in respect of the asst. yrs. 2008-09 and 2009-10 by the CIT. Yet, the ITO while framing fresh assessment order in the subsequent order, has not given any benefit of that year to the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that Circular No. 530 : , issued by the CBDT dt. 6th March, 1989 [(1989) 76 CTR (St) 102] under s. 220(6) of the IT Act, 1961 (for short, the "Act of 1961") has provided that if in respect of previous assessment year, any interpretation of law has been taken by the appellate authority, the demand in that respect for the subsequent year shall be liable to be stayed by the AO if the issues are covered by such interpretation in respect of the previous year. The AO shall exercise its jurisdiction thereabout under s. 220(6) of the Act of 1961.

(2.) Contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that on one hand the ITO is not deciding the rectification application and on the other, the respondents are pressing for recovery and not even staying recovery of that part of the demand, which is covered by the interpretation taken by the CIT allowing benefit of depreciation to the petitioner in respect of the previous years.

(3.) Learned counsel for the respondents has opposed the writ petition and argued that the exemption was withdrawn because Rajasthan Cricket Association cannot by any stretch of imagination be considered as a charitable institution, hence it was not entitled to any exemption. In any case, this issue has to be decided by the Tribunal. It is argued that similar writ petition was filed in respect of the previous asst. yrs. 2008-09 and 2009-10, being S.B. Civil Writ Petn. No. 872 of 2012 even when the appeal was pending before the Tribunal and at that time, the Tribunal was functioning. The Tribunal has remanded the matter to the CIT, which again rejected claim for exemption. Now, the appeal there against is pending before the Tribunal. Learned counsel for the respondents has contended that the order of the CIT on the question of depreciation for previous years may have been appealed against by the IT Department before the Tribunal and therefore, on that ground also, the petitioner may not be entitled to any benefit.