By these appeals, a challenge is made to the common order dt. 22nd Jan., 2014 passed by the Tribunal, Jaipur Bench, Jaipur for the asst. yrs. 2008-09 and 2009-10.
2 Learned counsel for appellant submits that benefit of s. 10(23BBA) of the IT Act, 1961 (for short 'the Act of 1961') was not available to the assessee as the Bade Mathureshji Temple Board created under s. 92 of the CPC, 1908 was not registered. In absence of the registration of the Board, exemption provided under s. 10(23BBA) of the Act of 1961 could not have been given. The learned Tribunal, however, applied s. 10 (23BBA) of the Act in ignorance of ss. 11 and 12 of the Act thus the impugned order passed by the Tribunal may be set aside. Since the issue raised by the appellant involves substantial question of law, hence, it may be framed and notices be issued to the assessee.
3. We have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel and perused the record.
4. It is a case where a Board for management of the temple was constituted by the District Judge under s. 92 of the CPC. The creation of the Board being under the Central Act of 1908 thus s. 10(23BBA) of the Act of 1961 applied. The Tribunal accordingly dismissed the appeal preferred by the Revenue while maintaining the order of the CIT(A). In our opinion, s. 10(23BBA) of the Act applies to a body or authority (whether or not a body corporate or corporation sole) established, constituted or appointed by or under any Central, State or Provincial Act which provides for administration of any public, religious or charitable trusts or endowments etc.
5. In the instant case, the Board was constituted by the District Judge under s. 92 CPC for administration of a public religious charitable trust. In view of above, we find that the Board was established under the Central Act, that too, for administration of a public religious charitable trust.
6. In view of above, s. 10(23BBA) of the Act of 1961 has rightly been applied by the Tribunal. Sec. 11 and 12 apply where a body or authority is not created in the manner given under s. 10(23BBA) of the Act but the case in hand is not covered by ss. 11 and 12 of the Act of 1961.
7. We find that the learned Tribunal has rightly decided the issue and the present appeal against the said order does not involve any substantial question of law so as to entertain it.
8. We further find that similar issue was considered by the Orissa High Court in the case of Shri Jagannath Temple Managing Committee vs. CIT & Ors (2008) 218 CTR (Ori) 568 : (2008) 10 DTR (Ori) 62. The judgment aforesaid has been referred by the Tribunal while dismissing the appeal preferred by the Revenue. The ratio propounded therein applies to the case.
9. In the light of aforesaid, we find no illegality in the order of the learned Tribunal. The appeal does not involve substantial question of law. The appeal is accordingly dismissed.