High CourtDivision BenchMiscellaneous Application disposed of.

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions) v. Ahmedabad Urban Development Authority

Case / Petition Number:Civil Appeal No. 21762 of 2017; Miscellaneous Application No. 1849 of 2022
Neutral Citation:[2022] 8 S.C.R. 581

Case Details & Bench

Court
High Court
Hon'ble Judges
  • Uday Umesh Lalit
  • S. Ravindra Bhhat
  • Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha
Judgment Date
2022-11-03
Court Decision / Holding
Miscellaneous Application disposed of. No further clarification is necessary or called for.
Final Disposition
Miscellaneous Application disposed of.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

  • Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions)

Respondents

  • Ahmedabad Urban Development Authority

Case Synopsis & Summary

This Supreme Court decision concerns a Miscellaneous Application filed by the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions) seeking clarification of the Court’s earlier judgment dated 19 October 2022 in Civil Appeal No. 21762 of 2017 and connected appeals. The 2022 judgment interpreted Section 2(15) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, in relation to charitable trusts that engage in activities for general public utility, and summarized its conclusions for a range of trusts and organizations. In Para 253, the Court classified conclusions (A–E) as final for the issues decided for the assessment years before it, while Para 253(F) remitted certain matters to the Assessing Officer for examination and orders. Para 253(G) was conclusive against private trusts, and Para 254 set out the operative directions. The Revenue contends Para 254 should enable redoing past assessments and year-by-year evaluation of future eligibility, applying the law as declared by the judgment. The Court explained that the conclusions intended finality for decided issues and that “future” application would apply to assessment years not previously decided, with no further clarification necessary. The Miscellaneous Application is disposed of in this context, without further directions.

Provisions of Law Cited

Income Tax Act, 1961, s. 2(15)

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

Revenue sought a clarification of the Supreme Court’s judgment dated 19 October 2022 (CA No. 21762 of 2017), asking para 254 to enable re-opening and redoing past assessments and to examine annual eligibility for future years by applying the declared law to each assessment year. It contended that para 253(H) and para 254 precluded only certain aspects, and that wherever the Revenue’s appeals were decided against it, those conclusions should be treated as final, while the reference to future application referred to years not finally decided. The Revenue urged a year-by-year application of the law to ensure consistency and justice across similarly situated cases.

Contentions of Respondents

The document does not provide explicit detailing of the respondents’ arguments. The material focuses on the Revenue’s contentions and the Court’s interpretation; as such, the respondents’ specific submissions are not stated in the text provided. The Court notes the conclusions and clarifications sought, but does not set forth respondents’ counter-arguments in the excerpt supplied.

Diagnostic Tool

Beta

Does this judgment govern your specific facts?

Don't risk relying on a distinguishable precedent. Enter your facts or proposition below. We will test it against Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions) v. Ahmedabad Urban Development Authority and instantly map out authorities that support, challenge, or govern your position.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

581 [2022] 8 S.C.R. 581 ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS) A v. AHMEDABAD URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION NO. 1849 OF 2022 B ## IN (Civil Appeal No. 21762 of 2017) NOVEMBER 03, 2022 ## **[UDAY UMESH LALIT, CJI, S. RAVINDRA BHAT AND PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA, JJ.]** C _Income Tax Act, 1961: s.2(15) – Revenue sought clarification of the judgment dated 19.10.2022 – The said judgment considered the interpretation of s.2(15) in relation to charitable trusts which engage in activities that further objects of general public utility – It_ D _was urged on behalf of the revenue, that in Para 253 H and in Para 254, it was precluded from examining the facts and assessing the concerned assessment years, in relation to the assessees in these appeals – Held: A plain reading of the conclusions recorded in Para 253 (A)(B)(C) (D) and (E) would disclose that this court_ E _consciously recorded its findings, with the intent of finally deciding the issues, for various organizations- in relation to the assessment years in question, whereas in Para 253 (F), the court remitted the matter for examination and orders by the assessing officer – Similarly, the conclusion in Para 253 G, was conclusive with respect to the claim of private trusts; the appeals were dismissed – Reference_ F _to application of the law declared by this court’s judgment, therefore, has to be understood in the context, which is that they apply for the assessment years in question, which were before this court and were decided; wherever the appeals were decided against the revenue, they are to be treated as final – However, reference to future_ G _application is to be decided by the concerned authorities by applying the law declared by judgment having regard to the facts of each assessment year._ G CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Miscellaneous Application No.1849 of 2022. In Civil Appeal No.21762 of 2017. H 581 582 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2022] 8 S.C.R. A From the Judgment and Order dated 19.10.2022 in C.A. No.21762 of 2017 of the Supreme Court of India. N. Venkataraman, ASG, Rupesh Kumar, Ms. Gargi Khanna, Ms. Alka Aggarwal, V. Chandrashekara Bharathi, Ms. Amrita, Raj Bahadur Yadav, Jasmeet Singh, Saif Ali, Pushpendra S. Bhadoriya, Divjot Singh B Bhatia, Ms. Rusheet Saluja, Ms. Mamta Chakraborty, Mrs. Anil Katiyar, Rishabh Sancheti, K. Paarivendhan, Ms. Deepanwita Priyanka, Advs. for the appearing parties. The Order of the Court was passed by ## **S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J.** C 1. By this application, the revenue seeks a clarification of the judgment dated 19.10.2022, delivered by this court, in CA 21762/2017 and connected appeals. The clarification sought is that para 254 of the judgment should be such as to _“enable the Revenue to redo the assessments in accordance with the above judgments for the past_ D _and examine the eligibility on a yearly basis for the future and thus render justice.”_ 2. This court, by the judgment in question, had considered and pronounced upon the interpretation of Section 2 (15) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, in relation to charitable trusts which engage in activities that E further objects of general public utility. The activities and cases of various kinds of charities, trusts and organizations, including statutory corporations and bodies, regulatory bodies, non- statutory regulatory bodies, trade organizations and bodies, sports bodies and organizations, trusts, etc were considered by the court, and dealt with in the judgment. Para 253 recorded F the court’s summary of conclusions in relation to each such trust, charity or organization. 3. It was urged on behalf of the revenue, that the clarification it seeks is necessary, because in Para 253 H and in Para 254, it has been precluded from examining the facts and assessing the concerned assessment years, in relation to the assesses in these appeals. It was G urged that the conclusions recorded in the judgment and those in the said two paragraphs, preclude it from dealing with the assessments of parties before this court and, furthermore, the dismissal of the revenue’s appeals will preclude an examination of the merits for these assesses in future, as well. H 583 ASSTT. COMMNR. OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS) v. AHMEDABAD URBAN DEV. AUTHORITY [S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J.] 4. A plain reading of the conclusions recorded in Para 253 (A)(B)(C) (D) and (E) would disclose that this court consciously recorded its findings, with the intent of finally deciding the issues, for various organizations- in relation to the assessment years in question, - whereas in Para 253 (F), the court remitted the matter for examination and orders by the assessing officer. Similarly, the conclusion in Para 253 G, was conclusive with respect to the claim of private trusts; the appeals were dismissed. These conclusions are accurately reflected in the final, operative directions in Para 254. In Para 254 (i) to (iv), the conclusions recorded are against the revenue. However, in Para 254 (v), (vi), (vii) and (vii), the conclusions, are in favour of the revenue. A B C 5. The reference to application of the law declared by this court’s judgment, therefore, has to be understood in the context, which is that they apply for the assessment years in question, which were before this court and were decided;wherever the appeals were decided against the revenue, they are to be treated as final. However, the reference to _future_ application has to be understood in this context, which is that for the D assessment years which this court was not called upon to decide, the concerned authorities will apply the law declared in the judgment, having regard to the facts of each such assessment year. In view of this discussion, no further clarification is necessary or called for. 6. The application M.A. No. 1849 of 2022 is disposed of in the above terms. E Devika Gujral (Assisted by : Shevali Monga, LCRA) Miscellaneous Application disposed of. F G H