Home › Tax Laws › Hotel Centre Point v. ITO (2019) 182 DTR 297 / 201 TTJ 913 (Gau.)(Trib.)

Hotel Centre Point v. ITO (2019) 182 DTR 297 / 201 TTJ 913 (Gau.)(Trib.)

S. 10(26) : Exemption to member of a Scheduled Tribe-Allowability-Individual vis-a-vis partnership firm-Since partnership firm is not a member of a scheduled tribe-Such firm not entitled to exemption under S. 10(26)-but its partners are eligible for the same. [Art. 366, General Clauses Act, 1897, S. 13]

Dismissing Assessee’s appeal the Tribunal held that:

  • The specified member of a scheduled tribe only is covered under Art. 366 of the Constitution of India for enjoying the benefit of exemption of income. Hence, the benefit of exemption is available only to a member of Schedule tribe (ie individual not partnership firm of such individuals). In such a situation, benefit of doubt in relation to an exemption provision in tax laws goes in favour of the Revenue and not to the taxpayer.

Further, the Income-tax Act being a special legislation and complete code in itself, provisions of S. 13 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 (containing masculine and singular expression in central regulations to be inter-changeable as famine gender, plural expression, etc), are of no avail. (C A No. 3327 of 2007, dt. 30th July, 2018,  Raghunath Rai Bareza vs. PNB (2007) 135 Company Cases 163 (SC), CIT v. B.R. Constructions (199) 202 ITR 222 (AP) [FB]  (AY. 2013-14 to 2015-16)