ADIT(E), New Delhi v. Hans Raj Smarak Society, New Delhi

ITA 1213/DEL/2011 | 2007-2008
Pronouncement Date: 30-09-2011 | Result: Dismissed

Appeal Details

RSA Number 121320114 RSA 2011
Assessee PAN AAATH0351B
Bench Delhi
Appeal Number ITA 1213/DEL/2011
Duration Of Justice 6 month(s) 22 day(s)
Appellant ADIT(E), New Delhi
Respondent Hans Raj Smarak Society, New Delhi
Appeal Type Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date 30-09-2011
Appeal Filed By Department
Order Result Dismissed
Bench Allotted C
Tribunal Order Date 30-09-2011
Date Of Final Hearing 12-09-2011
Next Hearing Date 12-09-2011
Assessment Year 2007-2008
Appeal Filed On 08-03-2011
Judgment Text
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (DELHI BENCH C NEW DELHI) BEFORE SHRI C.L. SETHI JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI K.G. BANSAL ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. NO.882/DEL/2011 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2007-08 HANS RAJ SAMARAK SOCIETY ASST T. DIRECTOR OF INCOME-TAX J-5/2 KRISHNA NAGAR VS. ( EXEMPTIONS) TRUST CIRCLE-II DELHI-51. LAXMI NAGAR DELHI. PAN- AAATH0351B ITA NO. 1213(DEL)/2011 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2007-08 ASSTT. DIRECTOR OF INCOME-TAX HAN S RAJ SAMARAK SOCIETY (E) LAXMI NAGAR DELHI. VS. J5/ 2 KRISHNA NAGAR DELHI. AND C.O. NO. 1 02(DEL)/2011 (ARISING OUT OF I.T.A. NO.1213/DEL/2011) ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2007-08 HANS RAJ SAMARAK SOCIETY ASST T. DIRECTOR OF INCOME-TAX J-5/2 KRISHNA NAGAR VS. ( EXEMPTIONS) LAXMI NAGAR DELHI-51. DELHI. (APPLICANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : MRS. VIBHA MAHAJAN SETH ADVO CATE SHRI M.K. MAHAJAN FCA RESPONDENT BY : SHRI SALIL MISHRA SR. DR CONTD. PAGE 2 ITA NOS.882 & 1213(DEL)/2011 & C.O. NO. 102(DEL)/2011 2 DATE OF HEARING: 12- 09-2011 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 30-09-2011 ORDER PER K.G. BANSAL: AM THE ASSESSEE-SOCIETY HAD FILED ITS RETURN ON 24.10.2007 DECLARING NIL INCOME. IT WAS PICKED UP FOR SCRUTINY BY ISS UING NOTICE U/S 143(2) ON 01.09.2008. IT WAS FOUND THAT THE ASSESSEE-SOCI ETY HAD BEEN REGISTERED U/S 12A(A) ON 20.04.1968 AND IT HAD ALSO BEEN GRA NTED APPROVAL U/S 80G ON 08.03.2007 FOR THE PERIOD 01.09.2006 TO 31.03.2009 . THE SOCIETY IS RUNNING HANS RAJ MIDDLE SCHOOL AT KRISHNA NAGAR AND HANS RAJ SAMARAK SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL AT DILSHAD GARDEN DELHI. THE AO MADE TWO ADDITIONS OF RS. 19 25 047/- AND RS. 3 37 841/- IN RESPECT OF DONATIONS CONSIDERED AS UNEXPLAINED CREDITS U/S 68 OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT 1961 (THE ACT FOR SHORT). FURTHER HE DENIED THE BENEFIT OF ACCUMULATION OF INCOME U/S 11(2) AND DEDUCTION IN RESPECT OF APPLICATION OF INCOME BY W AY OF CAPITAL EXPENDITURE. THUS THE TOTAL INCOME WAS COMPUTED AT RS. 31 56 990/-. 1.1 IN RESPECT OF ADDITION OF RS. 19 25 047/- IT H AS BEEN MENTIONED IN THE ASSESSMENT THAT A SUM OF RS. 20 39 547/- WAS CR EDITED TO THE BUILDING FUND ACCOUNT. THE ASSESSEE FILED CONFIRMATION LET TERS COVERING THE AMOUNT OF RS. 1 14 500/-. IN RESPECT OF THE BALANCE AMO UNT THE ASSESSEE ITA NOS.882 & 1213(DEL)/2011 & C.O. NO. 102(DEL)/2011 3 EXPRESSED INABILITY TO COLLECT LETTERS OF CONFIRMA TIONS FROM THE DONORS. THIS SHOWS THAT IT DOES NOT MAINTAIN RECORD OF THE D ONOR. CASH VOUCHERS COULD NOT BE PRODUCED IN SUPPORT OF THE CREDIT MADE IN T HE BOOKS BY WAY OF CASH DONATIONS. THUS OUT OF TOTAL DONATIONS OF RS.20 3 9 547/- THE AMOUNT OF RS. 19 25 047/- WAS CONSIDERED AS ANONYMOUS D ONATION LIABLE TO BE TAXED U/S 115BBC OF THE ACT. 1.2 IN RESPECT OF THE AMOUNT OF RS. 3 37 841/- IT WAS FOUND THAT THE AMOUNT RECEIVED AS DONATION AS PER RECEIPT BOOK WAS NOT ENTERED IN INCOME AND EXPENDITURE ACCOUNT. THE DISCREPANCY WERE ATTRIBUTED TO A COMPUTER SNAG. AN AFFIDAVIT FROM THE ACCOUNTANT WAS FILED IN THIS BEHALF. THE AO REJECTED THE AFFIDAVIT ON THE GROUND THAT IT HAS NOT BEEN SWORN BY THE PRESIDENT OR THE SECRETARY OF THE SOCIETY. TH EREFORE THE AFORESAID SUM HAS BEEN TREATED AS UNDISCLOSED INCOME. 1.3 COMING TO THE CLAIM OF ACCUMULATION OF INCOME U /S 11(2) IT IS MENTIONED THAT A COPY OF UNDATED RESOLUTION WAS FILED TO THE EFFECT THAT THE SOCIETY HAS DECIDED TO EXERCISE ITS OPTION TO SPEND THE AMOUNT IN SUBSEQUENT YEARS. THE RESOLUTION HAS BEEN HELD TO BE VAGUE IN CONTENT. IT IS FURTHER MENTIONED THAT FORM NO. 10 REQUIRED TO BE SUBMITTED FOR AVAILING ITA NOS.882 & 1213(DEL)/2011 & C.O. NO. 102(DEL)/2011 4 THE BENEFIT OF SECTION 11(2) HAS NOT BEEN FILED. THEREFORE THE CLAIM HAS BEEN REJECTED. 1.4 LASTLY IN RESPECT OF DENIAL OF CAPITAL EXPEN DITURE OF RS. 14 53 112/- IT HAS BEEN MENTIONED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS CLAI MED THE DEDUCTION IN RESPECT OF DONATIONS WHICH HAVE NOT BEEN PROVED AND WHICH ARE ANONYMOUS IN CHARACTER. THEREFORE THE DEDUCTION HAS BEEN DENIED. 2. AGGRIEVED BY THIS ORDER THE ASSESSEE FILED APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT(APPEALS)-XII NEW DELHI WHICH WAS DISPOSED OF F ON 14.12.2010. THE APPEAL WAS PARTLY ALLOWED. WE WILL COME TO THE CO NTENTS OF THIS ORDER AT APPROPRIATE PLACE. 3. AGGRIEVED BY THIS ORDER THE ASSESSEE HAS TAKEN UP THREE SUBSTANTIVE GROUNDS IN THE APPEAL. THE REVENUE IN ITS CROSS APPEAL HAS ASSAILED THE FINDING OF THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) IN RESPECT OF GR ANT OF DEDUCTION U/S 11(1) HOLDING THAT PURCHASE OF CAPITAL ASSET AMOUNTS TO APPLICATION OF INCOME U/S 11(1). THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO FILED A CROSS OB JECTION SUPPORTING THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) IN REGARD TO HIS FINDINGS ON PURCHASE OF CAPITAL ASSET. ITA NOS.882 & 1213(DEL)/2011 & C.O. NO. 102(DEL)/2011 5 3.1 WE START WITH THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE AT THE FIRST INSTANCE. ITA NO. 882(DEL)/2011 4. GROUND NO. 3 IS THAT THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN H OLDING THAT THE SUM OF RS. 19 25 047/- IS THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE LIAB LE TO BE TAXED U/S 115BBC OF THE ACT. THIS MATTER HAS BEEN DISCUSSED IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER IN VARIOUS SUB-PARAGRAPHS OF PARAGRAPH NO. 6 D EALING WITH THIRD AND FOURTH GROUNDS BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A). IT IS MEN TIONED THAT THE AO OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT MAINTAINED EVID ENCE REGARDING THE IDENTITY OF THE DONOR THEREFORE THE PROVISION CON TAINED IN SECTION 115BBC IS APPLICABLE. IT IS FURTHER OBSERVED THAT THE DONATIONS HAVE BEEN RECORDED IN A MANNER TO SHOW THAT THESE HAVE BEEN R ECEIVED FROM DIFFERENT DONORS AND FROM DIFFERENT PARTS OF INDIA. HOWEVER THE RECEIPTS WERE ISSUED FROM ONE BOOK. THEREFORE IT HAS BEEN H ELD THAT THE DONATIONS ARE BOGUS. IN THIS CONNECTION A COPY OF RECEIPT PAY MENT ACCOUNT WAS REQUIRED TO BE FILED. THE SAME COULD NOT BE FILED BEFORE THE AO ON ACCOUNT OF VIRUS IN THE COMPUTER. THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT SUBMIT EVIDENCE REGARDING IDENTITY OF DONORS ALSO. THE POSITION CONTINUES TO BE THE SAME IN THE ITA NOS.882 & 1213(DEL)/2011 & C.O. NO. 102(DEL)/2011 6 APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS. THEREFORE IT HAS BEEN H ELD THAT THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 115BBC ARE APPLICABLE. 4.1 BEFORE US THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE REFERRED TO PAGE NO. 118 OF THE PAPER BOOK WHICH SHOWS THE EXCESS OF INC OME OVER EXPENDITURE AT ABOUT RS. 6.98 LAKH. THE ACCOUNT DOES NOT SHO W CREDIT OF ANY DONATION. THEREAFTER SHE REFERRED TO PAGE NOS. 93 TO 112 WHICH SHOW DONATIONS AGGREGATING TO RS. 7 97 100/- FROM 219 PARTIES RECEIVED IN THIS YEAR. SHE ALSO REFERRED TO PAGE NOS. 57 AND 58 OF THE PA PER BOOK AN AFFIDAVIT OF SHRI RAJIV GUPTA THE ACCOUNTANT OF THE ASSESS EE-SOCIETY. IT IS INTER-ALIA DEPOSED THAT DONATIONS TOTALING TO RS. 20 39 547/- WERE RECEIVED BY THE SOCIETY IN CASH AS WELL AS BY CHEQUE AND THE SAME WERE RECORDED IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT. THE RECEIPT ISSUED FOR DONATIONS SHOW THE NAME AND ADDRESS OF THE DONOR. THESE DETAILS ARE ENTERED IN THE COMPUTER ALSO. SURVEY WAS CONDUCTED AT THE PREMISES OF THE SOCIETY ON 30.01.2008. A PRINT-OUT OF BUILDING FUND DONATI ON WAS TAKEN OUT SHOWING RECEIPT OF DONATIONS AGGREGATING TO RS. 9 0 3 700/- FROM 258 PERSONS. THEREAFTER THE COMPUTER DEVELOPED SNAG ON ACCOUNT OF VIRUS. THE DATA WAS SOUGHT TO BE RETRIEVED WITH THE HELP OF AN EXPERT AND THREE LISTS OF DONATIONS OF RS. 3 23 341/- RS.9 19 106/- AND R S.7 97 100/- AGGREGATING ITA NOS.882 & 1213(DEL)/2011 & C.O. NO. 102(DEL)/2011 7 TO RS. 20 39 547/- COULD BE PRINTED. THESE WERE SUBMITTED TO THE AO. WHILE GOING THROUGH THE LIST OF DONATION AMOUNTI NG TO RS. 9 03 700/- OBTAINED FROM THE AO IT WAS FOUND THAT THERE W ERE CERTAIN DISCREPANCIES. THUS IT HAS BEEN DEPOSED THAT THE LIST OF DONATI ONS SUBMITTED TO THE SURVEY TEAM ON 30.01.2008 IS CORRECT AND THE LIST SUBMIT TED IN THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT IS NOT CORRECT IN RESPECT OF RECEIPT N OS. 904 TO1000 BECAUSE THE DATA GOT CORRUPTED DUE TO VIRUS. IT IS AFFIRMED THAT ALL THE DONATIONS RECEIVED IN THIS YEAR BY WAY OF CHEQUE OR IN CASH HAVE BEEN RECORDED IN THE BOOKS. ON THE BASIS OF THIS DEPOSITION THE CA SE OF THE LD. COUNSEL IS THAT ALL DONATIONS INCLUDING THE ONE RECEIVED UNDER B UILDING FUND HAVE BEEN CORRECTLY ACCOUNTED FOR ALTHOUGH THERE MAY BE SOME ERROR IN THE COMPUTER DATA. THESE ARE ALL NORMAL DONATIONS AND NONE OF THEM IS TOWARDS THE CORPUS FUND. THE DONATIONS HAVE BEEN USED TOWARDS THE OBJECTS OF THE SOCIETY WHICH ARE EDUCATIONAL AND MEDICAL IN NAT URE. THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT ABLE TO SECURE CONFIRMATION FROM ALL THE PAR TIES BUT DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS CONFIRMATIONS COVERING AN AMOUNT OF RS. 8 90 000/- (RS. 7 76 400/- AND RS. 1 14 500/-) WE RE FILED BEFORE THE RECEIPT OF THE NOTICE AND AFTER THE RECEIPT OF THE NOTICE RESPECTIVELY. IT IS ARGUED THAT THE DONATIONS ARE NOT ANONYMOUS AS NAME AND ADDRESS HAVE BEEN MAINTAINED WHICH CAN BE SEEN FROM THE DONATION R ECEIPTS WHICH ARE IN ITA NOS.882 & 1213(DEL)/2011 & C.O. NO. 102(DEL)/2011 8 POSSESSION OF THE REVENUE. THEREFORE THE PROVIS ION CONTAINED IN SECTION 115BBC IS NOT APPLICABLE AS THE CASE IS COVERED IN THE EXCEPTION PROVIDED IN SECTION115BBC(2)(B). 4.2 IN REPLY THE LD. DR SUBMITTED THAT THE AO HAS MADE A TOTAL ADDITION OF RS. 19 25 047/- IN RESPECT OF ANONYMOU S DONATION. HE HAS HELD THAT THIS AMOUNT IS LIABLE TO BE TAXED U/S 11 5BBC. THE PROVISION CONTAINED IN SECTION 115BBC IS APPLICABLE TO TH E FACTS OF THE CASE AS ENQUIRIES MADE BY THE AO DO NOT LEAD TO ESTABLISH MENT OF THE IDENTITY OF THE DONOR. WHILE DECIDING THIS ISSUE THE PROVIS ION CONTAINED IN SECTION 13(7) HAS ALSO TO BE TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT NAMELY THAT THE PROVISIONS CONTAINED IN SECTION 11 OR 12 SHALL NOT BE APPLI CABLE SO AS TO EXCLUDE ANONYMOUS DONATIONS FROM THE TOTAL INCOME. THUS AS THIS PROVISION IS APPLICABLE THE DEDUCTION CANNOT BE GRANTED UND ER THE AFORESAID PROVISION. 4.3 WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE FACTS OF THE CASE AND SUBMISSIONS MADE BEFORE US. THE AO HAS MADE ADDITION OF RS. 19 25 047/- AND IT HAS BEEN MENTIONED THAT A SUM OF RS. 20 39 547/- WAS I NTRODUCED IN THE BALANCE- SHEET BY CREDITING THE AMOUNT TO THE BUILDING FUND . THE INCOME HAS BEEN ITA NOS.882 & 1213(DEL)/2011 & C.O. NO. 102(DEL)/2011 9 OFFERED FOR TAXATION AS RECEIPT IN THE COMPUTATI ON. THE PROVISIONS CONTAINED IN SECTION 68 ARE APPLICABLE AS THE A SSESSEE HAS NOT FURNISHED CONFIRMATION TO ESTABLISH IDENTITY AND GENUINEN ESS OF THE TRANSACTIONS. NOTICES WERE ISSUED IN THE COURSE OF HEARING AN D CONFIRMATIONS WERE RECEIVED FROM 10 DONORS COVERING AN AMOUNT OF RS . 1 14 500/-. THE BALANCE AMOUNT OF RS. 19 25 047/- HAS BEEN TAXED U/S 115BBC. THE QUESTION BEFORE US IS-WHETHER THE DONATIONS ARE ANONYMOUS DONATIONS AS UNDERSTOOD IN THE AFORESAID PROVISION? 4.4 SUB-SECTION (1) OF THE AFORESAID PROVISION PR OVIDES THAT WHERE THE INCOME OF AN INSTITUTION ETC. REFERRED TO IN SECT ION 11 INCLUDES INCOME BY WAY OF ANONYMOUS DONATION THE INCOME-TAX PAYABLE BY IT SHALL BE AGGREGATE OF-(I) 30% OF THE ANONYMOUS DONATION AN D (II) THE INCOME-TAX PAYABLE ON THE TOTAL INCOME AS REDUCED BY ANONYMO US DONATION. SUB- SECTION (2) EXCLUDES WHOLLY RELIGIOUS INSTITUTION S FROM THE PURVIEW OF THE AFORESAID PROVISION. IT FURTHER EXCLUDES WHOLL Y RELIGIOUS AND CHARITABLE INSTITUTIONS FROM THE PURVIEW OF THE AFORESAID PROVISION IF THE ANONYMOUS DONATION IS MADE WITH THE SPECIFIC DIRECTION THAT SUCH DONATION IS FOR PURPOSES OTHER THAN FOR ANY UNIVERSITY EDUCATION AL INSTITUTION HOSPITAL OR MEDICAL INSTITUTION. IT IS CLEAR THAT THIS PROV ISION EXCLUDES RELIGIOUS ITA NOS.882 & 1213(DEL)/2011 & C.O. NO. 102(DEL)/2011 10 INSTITUTION AND INSTITUTION WHOSE OBJECTS ARE WHO LLY RELIGIOUS AND CHARITABLE. SUB-SECTION (3) DEFINES THE EXPRESSIO N ANONYMOUS DONATION IN AN EXHAUSTIVE MANNER TO BE A CASE WHERE THE INS TITUTION ETC. DOES NOT MAINTAIN RECORD OF IDENTITY INDICATING THE NAM E AND ADDRESS OF THE PERSON MAKING THE CONTRIBUTION. NO FURTHER PARTICULARS R EMAINED TO BE MAINTAINED HAVE BEEN PRESCRIBED UNDER THIS SUB-SECTION. THE LEARNED DR HAS RELIED ON THE BOARD CIRCULAR NO. 14 (2007) 288 ITR (ST.) 9 TITLED AS FINANCE ACT 2006-EXPLANATORY NOTES ON PROVISIONS RELATING TO DIRECT TAXES:. PARAGRAPH NO. 25(2) IS IMPORTANT IN THIS RESPECT. IT IS ME NTIONED THAT WITH A VIEW TO PREVENT CHANNELISATION OF UNACCOUNTED MONEY BY WAY OF ANONYMOUS DONATION A NEW PROVISION HAS BEEN INSERTED TO TAX ANONYMOUS DONATIONS IN RESPECT OF A WHOLLY CHARITABLE INSTITUTION E TC. @ 30%. HOWEVER ANONYMOUS DONATION MADE TO WHOLLY CHARITABLE AND RE LIGIOUS INSTITUTIONS ETC. SHALL BE TAXED ONLY IF IT IS FOR ANY UNIVE RSITY EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTION HOSPITAL OR MEDICAL INSTITUTION. ANONYMOUS DONATI ONS TO WHOLLY RELIGIOUS TRUST WILL NOT BE TAXED. IN PARAGRAPH NO. 25.3 A REFERENCE IS MADE TO THE DEFINITION OF THE EXPRESSION ANONYMOUS DONATION AS THE CONTRIBUTION IN RESPECT OF WHICH RECORD OF IDENTITY IS NOT MAINTAI NED INDICATING THE NAME AND ADDRESS OF THE PERSON. AT THIS JUNCTURE WE MAY ALSO REFER TO THE PROVISION CONTAINED IN SECTION 13(7). IT EXCLUD ES THE APPLICABILITY OF THE ITA NOS.882 & 1213(DEL)/2011 & C.O. NO. 102(DEL)/2011 11 PROVISION CONTAINED IN SECTIONS 11 AND 12 IN RESPE CT OF ANONYMOUS DONATIONS. ON CONSIDERATION OF VARIOUS PROVISION S APPLICABLE TO THE ISSUE AT HAND WE FIND THAT THE DEFINITION OF THE EXPRE SSION ANONYMOUS DONATION REQUIRES PROPER INTERPRETATION. THIS EXPRESSION HAS BEEN DEFINED IN AN EXHAUSTIVE MANNER AND THEREFORE NO OTHER WORD CAN BE READ IN SECTION 115BBC(3) OTHER THAN THE WORDS FINDI NG PLACE THEREIN. THE DEFINITION IS THAT IT MEANS A VOLUNTARY CONTRIBUTI ON REFERRED TO IN SECTION 2(24)(IIA) WHERE A PERSON RECEIVING SUCH CON TRIBUTION DOES NOT MAINTAIN A RECORD OF THE IDENTITY INDICATING THE NAME AN D ADDRESS OF THE CONTRIBUTOR AND SUCH OTHER PARTICULARS AS MAY BE PRESCRIBED. NO OTHER PARTICULAR HAS BEEN PRESCRIBED UNDER THIS PROVISION. THEREFOR E THE RECEIVER HAS THE OBLIGATION TO MAINTAIN THE IDENTITY INDICATING THE NAME AND ADDRESS ONLY AND NOTHING MORE. THE LD. COUNSEL HAS CLEARLY B ROUGHT OUT THAT BOTH THE DETAILS ARE MENTIONED IN THE DONATION RECEIPTS. T HESE RECEIPTS ARE STILL IN THE CUSTODY OF THE DEPARTMENT AS THE RECEIPT B OOKS WERE IMPOUNDED IN THE COURSE OF SURVEY. THIS FACT HAS NOT BEEN REBUTTE D BY THE LD. DR. THE AO HAS TAXED THE AMOUNT BY MENTIONING THAT CONFIRMATIO N LETTERS FROM THE DONORS HAVE NOT BEEN FILED. SUCH CONFIRMATIONS A RE NOT REQUIRED TO BE FILED FOR COMING TO THE CONCLUSION AS TO WHETHER THE DO NATION WAS ANONYMOUS OR NOT. THEREFORE THE CASE OF THE REVENUE REGARDING TAXATION OF THIS AMOUNT ITA NOS.882 & 1213(DEL)/2011 & C.O. NO. 102(DEL)/2011 12 UNDER SUB-SECTION (2) FAILS ON THIS GROUND ITSELF . FURTHER THE ASSESSEE HAD SHOWN THE AMOUNT UNDER THE BUILDING FUND BUT AT THE TIME OF FILING THE RETURN THIS AMOUNT WAS ADDED TO THE INCOME. IN T HE CASE OF DIRECTOR OF INCOME-TAX (EXEMPTIONS) VS. KESHAV SOCIAL & CHARIT ABLE FOUNDATION (2005) 278 ITR 152 (DEL) IT HAS BEEN HELD THA T SECTION 68 HAS NO APPLICATION BECAUSE THE ASSESSEE HAD DISCLOSED THE DONATION OF RS. 18 24 000/- AS ITS INCOME AND IT CANNOT BE DISPUTE D THAT ALL RECEIPTS OTHER THAN CORPUS DONATION WOULD BE THE INCOME IN THE HANDS OF THE N ASSESSEE. THERE WAS THEREFORE FULL DISCLOSURE OF INCOME A ND ITS APPLICATION FOR CHARITABLE PURPOSES. IN VIEW OF THIS DECISION THE PROVISIONS CONTAINED IN SECTION 68 CANNOT BE INVOKED AS THE AMOUNT HAS ALREADY BEEN DISCLOSED AS INCOME. FOLLOWING THIS DECISION IT IS HELD T HAT THE AMOUNT OF RS. 19 25 047/- WAS TAXABLE AS INCOME IN THE HANDS O F THE ASSESSEE. 5. GROUND NO. 2 IS THAT THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN U PHOLDING THE ADDITION OF RS. 3 37 841/- AS UNEXPLAINED CASH CREDIT U/S 68 OF THE ACT. IT IS MENTIONED BY THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) THAT THE DONATI ON RECEIPT BOOK WHICH WAS IMPOUNDED IN THE COURSE OF SURVEY U/S 133A S HOWS THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD BEEN COLLECTING FUNDS SOME OF WHICH WERE NOT ACCOUNTED FOR IN THE REGULAR BOOKS OF ACCOUNT. THE EXPLANATION IS THA T THIS HAPPENED BECAUSE ITA NOS.882 & 1213(DEL)/2011 & C.O. NO. 102(DEL)/2011 13 OF SNAG IN THE COMPUTER. SINCE THESE ENTRIES HAV E NOT BEEN REFLECTED IN INCOME AND EXPENDITURE ACCOUNT THE AMOUNT IS INC LUDIBLE IN THE TOTAL INCOME. 5.1 BEFORE US THE LD. COUNSEL SUBMITTED THAT THE A FORESAID AMOUNT CONSISTS OF TWO SUMS OF RS. 88 841/- AND RS. 2 49 000/-. THE AMOUNT OF RS. 88 841/- WAS ENTERED IN THE BALANCE-SHEET AS BUI LDING FUND IN THE OVERALL SUM OF ABOUT RS. 20.39 LAKH. THE ASSESSEE HAS ALREADY ADDED BACK THE AFORESAID SUM TO THE TOTAL INCOME IN THE COMPUTATI ON. THIS LEAVES WITH THE BALANCE OF RS. 2 49 000/-. THE DETAILS OF THE DON ATIONS OF RS. 20 39 547/- HAVE BEEN PLACED IN THE PAPER BOOK ON PAGE NOS. 129 TO 136. 30 ITEMS AGGREGATING TO RS. 88 841/- HAVE BEEN SEPARATELY M ARKED AND SERIAL NUMBERED. SINCE THE WHOLE OF THE AMOUNT OF RS. 20 39 547/- HAS BEEN INCLUDED IN THE TOTAL INCOME NO FURTHER ADDITION OF RS. 88 841/- CAN BE MADE. THE OTHER AMOUNT OF RS. 2 49 000/- REMAINS TO BE INCLUDED BECAUSE OF THE FACT THAT COMPUTER DATA WAS CORRUPTED. T HIS FACT IS SUPPORTED BY THE AFFIDAVIT OF THE ACCOUNTANT OF THE ASSESSEE-SOC IETY. THIS AFFIDAVIT HAS ALREADY BEEN NOTED EARLIER. IT IS INTER-ALIA M ENTIONED THAT THE LIST OF DONATIONS SUBMITTED TO THE SURVEY PARTY ON 30.01. 2008 IS CORRECT AND THE LIST OF DONATIONS SUBMITTED TO THE AO IS NOT CORR ECT TO THE EXTENT OF RECEIPT ITA NOS.882 & 1213(DEL)/2011 & C.O. NO. 102(DEL)/2011 14 NOS. 904 TO 1000. THIS HAS HAPPENED DUE TO VIRUS IN THE COMPUTER. IN REPLY THE LD. DR REPEATED THE FACTS AND SUBMIT TED THAT THE AMOUNT OF RS. 3 37 841/- IS NOT REFLECTED IN INCOME AND EXPENDI TURE ACCOUNT. 5.2 WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE FACTS OF THE CASE AN D SUBMISSIONS MADE BEFORE US. ON PERUSAL OF RECORD IT IS FOUND TH AT THE ASSESSEE HAS ADDED A SUM OF RS. 20 39 547/- TO THE TOTAL INCOME REPRE SENTING DONATIONS TOWARDS BUILDING FUND. THIS CONSISTS OF DONATIONS OF RS. 19.25 LAKH TAKEN BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO BE COVERED U/S 115BBC. THE REFORE THE SUBMISSION OF THE LD. COUNSEL THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS ALREADY OFFERED FOR TAXATION A SUM OF RS. 88 841/- FOR TAXATION IS CORRECT. ACCORDI NGLY ONLY A SUM OF RS. 2 49 000/- IS REQUIRED TO BE ADDED FURTHER TO THE TOTAL INCOME. WE MAY REITERATE THAT THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 68 AR E NOT APPLICABLE AT ALL IN SO FAR AS THE SUM OF RS. 88 841/- IS CONCERNED. TH E OTHER AMOUNT OF RS. 2 49 000/- ALSO DOES NOT LOSE THE CHARACTER OF DONATION AS THE DETAILS OF THE AMOUNT ARE CONTAINED IN THE RECEIPT BOOK IN T HE LIST SUPPLIED TO THE SURVEY PARTY. HOWEVER THIS AMOUNT REMAINED TO BE INCLUDED IN THE TOTAL INCOME BECAUSE OF SUBSEQUENT MALFUNCTIONING OF T HE COMPUTER ON ACCOUNT OF VIRUS. THIS CANNOT CHANGE THE CHARACTER OF TH E RECEIPT. THEREFORE IN THE LIGHT OF THE DECISION OF HONBLE DELHI HIGH COUR T IN THE CASE OF KESHAV ITA NOS.882 & 1213(DEL)/2011 & C.O. NO. 102(DEL)/2011 15 SOCIAL & CHARITABLE FOUNDATION (SUPRA) IT IS HEL D THAT BOTH THESE AMOUNTS ARE INCOME FROM PROPERTY HELD FOR CHARITABLE PURPO SE. IT MAY BE MENTIONED HERE THAT THE AFORESAID DECISION OF HONBLE DELH I HIGH COURT HAS BEEN FOLLOWED IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE BY THE C BENCH OF DELHI TRIBUNAL IN APPEALS FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07. FOLLOWING THIS DECISION IT IS HELD THAT A SUM OF RS. 2 49 000/- IS INCLUDIBLE IN THE TOTAL INCOME ON ACCOUNT OF DONATION. THUS THIS GROUND IS PARTLY ALLOWED. 6. GROUND NO. 4 IS THAT THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) ERRE D IN NOT CONSIDERING THE ADDITIONAL GROUND REGARDING ACCUMULATION OF INCOME OF RS. 11 44 605/- U/S 11(2) OF THE ACT. THE AO HAS DENIED THIS B ENEFIT ON THE GROUND THAT FORM NO. 10 HAS NOT BEEN FILED AND THE UNDATED RE SOLUTION IS VAGUE. THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) HAS NOT DECIDED THIS GROUND ALTHOUGH AN ADDITIONAL GROUND WAS STATEDLY TAKEN BEFORE HIM IN THIS MATTER. IN ABSENCE OF ANY DECISION FROM HIM IT IS TAKEN THAT THE GROUND HAS BEEN D ECIDED AGAINST THE ASSESSEE. 6.1 THE LD. COUNSEL DREW OUR ATTENTION TO PAGE NO. 114 OF THE PAPER BOOK WHICH IS THE UNDATED RESOLUTION SIGNED BY THE PRESIDENT AND THE SECRETARY. IT WAS DECIDED TO EXERCISE OPTION TO SPEND THE BALANCE AMOUNT ITA NOS.882 & 1213(DEL)/2011 & C.O. NO. 102(DEL)/2011 16 OF INCOME REMAINING UNSPENT BEYOND THE PERMISSIBLE LIMIT OF 15% U/S 11(2) OF THE ACT FOR THE YEAR ENDED ON 31.03.2007 IN THE SUBSEQUENT YEAR. IT WAS FURTHER RESOLVED THAT SUCH UNSPENT AMOUNT SHALL BE UTILIZED IN SUBSEQUENT YEARS AS PROVIDED IN THE INCOME-TAX ACT FOR ATT AINMENT OF OBJECTS OF THE SOCIETY. FURTHER SHE DREW OUR ATTENTION TO PAG E NO. 116 OF THE PAPER BOOK WHICH IS THE ANNEXURE TO THE AUDIT REPORT. IN COLUMN NO. 2 REGARDING WHETHER THE TRUST HAS EXERCISED THE OPTION U/S 11(1) [SHOULD BE READ AS 11(2)] AND IF SO THE DETAILS OF THE AMOUNT OF INCO ME DEEMED TO HAVE BEEN APPLIED TO CHARITABLE OR RELIGIOUS PURPOSES IN INDIA DURING THE YEAR A SUM OF RS. 11 46 605/- IS MENTIONED. SHE ALSO FIL ED THE PRESCRIBED FORM NO. 10 DATED 26.08.2011 BEFORE US FOR ACCUMULATI ON OF THE UNSPENT INCOME FOR THE ATTAINMENT OF OBJECTS OF THE SOCIETY FOR FIVE YEARS. IN THE COURSE OF HEARING HER ATTENTION WAS DRAWN TOWARDS THE DECI SION OF SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. NAGPUR HOTEL OWNERS ASSOCIA TION (2001) 247 ITR 201. IT IS SUBMITTED THAT THE SOCIETY HAD PASSE D A RESOLUTION. THE DETAILS HAD BEEN FURNISHED IN THE AUDIT REPORT. AN ADDI TIONAL GROUND HAD ALSO BEEN TAKEN BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) ON 03.11.2010 IN THIS BEHALF. THEREFORE THE CONDITIONS CONTAINED IN SECTION 11(2) WERE SUBSTANTIALLY COMPLIED WITH EVEN BEFORE THE COMPLETION OF THE ASSESSMENT. THE DECISION IN THE CASE OF NAGPUR HOTEL OWNERS ASSOCIATION IS TO THE EFFECT THAT EVEN IF ITA NOS.882 & 1213(DEL)/2011 & C.O. NO. 102(DEL)/2011 17 THERE IS NO VALID LIMITATION PRESCRIBED UNDER T HE ACT AND THE RULES IT IS REASONABLE TO PRESUME THAT INTIMATION REQUIRED U /S 11 HAS TO BE FURNISHED BEFORE THE ASSESSING AUTHORITY TO COMPLETE THE ASSESSMENT BECAUSE SUCH REQUIREMENT IS MANDATORY AND WITHOUT SUCH PARTI CULARS THE ASSESSING AUTHORITY CANNOT ENTERTAIN THE CLAIM OF THE ASS ESSEE THEREFORE THE COMPLIANCE WILL HAVE TO BE AT ANY TIME BEFORE CO MPLETION OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. IT IS FURTHER MENTIONED THAT IT IS NECESSARY THAT THE AO MUST HAVE THIS INFORMATION AT THE TIME HE COMPLETES THE ASSESSMENT. IT IS ARGUED THAT THE JUDGMENT SPEAKS ABOUT THE INFORM ATION AND SUCH INFORMATION WAS THERE BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICE R. IF THERE IS ANY TECHNICAL DEFICIENCY THE TRIBUNAL MAY FILL TH E SAME IN VIEW OF FORM NO. 10 NOW FILED ON 26.08.2011. 6.2 IN REPLY THE LD. DR SUBMITTED THAT IT IS M ANDATORY TO FILE FORM NO. 10 BEFORE THE COMPLETION OF THE ASSESSMENT. THE FORM CONTAINS IMPORTANT DETAILS REGARDING THE AMOUNT TO BE ACCUMULATED THE PURPOSE OF ACCUMULATION AND THE PERIOD OF ACCUMULATION. ALL THESE DETAILS WERE NOT THERE BEFORE THE AO. FURTHER THE WORD INFORMAT ION USED BY THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT SUBSEQUENTLY REFERS TO INFORMATION IN STATUTORY FORM NO. 10 ITA NOS.882 & 1213(DEL)/2011 & C.O. NO. 102(DEL)/2011 18 PRESCRIBED UNDER RULE 17 AS CLEARLY MENTIONED I N EARLIER PART OF THE JUDGMENT. THIS HAS NOT BEEN DONE. 6.3 WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE FACTS OF THE CASE A ND SUBMISSIONS MADE BEFORE US. SECTION 11(2) PERMITS THE ACCUMULATI ON OF INCOME AT THE OPTION OF THE PERSON RECEIVING THE INCOME PROVIDED THAT -(A) A NOTICE IN WRITING IS GIVEN BY THE AO IN THE PRESCRIBED MANNER SPECIFYI NG THE AMOUNT OF INCOME SOUGHT TO BE ACCUMULATED THE PURPOSE FOR WHICH INCOME IS ACCUMULATED OR SET APART AND THE PERIOD FOR WHICH INCOME IS TO BE SO ACCUMULATED OR SET APART AND (B) THE MONEY SO ACCUMULATED OR SET APART IS INVESTED OR DEPOSITED IN THE FORMS OR MODES SPECIFIED IN SUB -SECTION (5). THIS PROVISION DOES NOT SPECIFY THE TIME LIMIT FOR SUBMITTING THE APPLICATION IN FORM NO. 10. THE CONTROVERSY ABOUT TIME LIMIT RE ACHED UP TO THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE AFORESAID CASE WHICH HELD A S UNDER:- IT IS ABUNDANTLY CLEAR FROM THE WORDINGS OF SUB-SE CTION (2) OF SECTION 11 THAT IT IS MANDATORY FOR THE PERSON CLAI MING THE BENEFIT OF SECTION 11 TO INTIMATE TO THE ASSESSING AUTHORITY THE PARTICULARS REQUIRED UNDER RULE 17 IN FORM NO.10 O F THE ACT. IF DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS THE ASSESSING OFF ICER DOES NOT HAVE THE NECESSARY INFORMATION QUESTION OF EXC LUDING SUCH INCOME FROM ASSESSMENT DOES NOT ARISE AT ALL. AS A MATTER OF FACT THIS BENEFIT OF EXCLUDING THIS PARTICULAR PAR T OF THE INCOME FROM THE NET OF TAXATION ARISES FROM SECTION 11 AND IS SUBJECTED TO THE CONDITIONS SPECIFIED THEREIN. THEREFORE IT IS NECESSARY THAT THE ASSESSING AUTHORITY MUST HAVE THIS INFORMA TION AT THE TIME HE COMPLETES THE ASSESSMENT. IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY SUCH ITA NOS.882 & 1213(DEL)/2011 & C.O. NO. 102(DEL)/2011 19 INFORMATION IT WILL NOT BE POSSIBLE FOR THE ASSESS ING AUTHORITY TO GIVE THE ASSESSEE THE BENEFIT OF SUCH EXCLUSION AND ONCE THE ASSESSMENT IS SO COMPLETED IN OUR OPINION IT WOUL D BE FUTILE TO FIND FAULT WITH THE ASSESSING AUTHORITY FOR HAVING INCLUDED SUCH INCOME IN THE ASSESSABLE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. TH EREFORE EVEN ASSUMING THAT THERE IS NO VALID LIMITATION PRE SCRIBED UNDER THE ACT AND THE RULES EVEN THEN IN OUR OPINION IT IS REASONABLE TO PRESUME THAT THE INTIMATION REQUIRED UNDER SECTI ON 11 HAS TO BE FURNISHED BEFORE THE ASSESSING AUTHORITY COMPLET ES THE CONCERNED ASSESSMENT BECAUSE SUCH REQUIREMENT IS MA NDATORY AND WITHOUT THE PARTICULARS OF THIS INCOME THE ASSE SSING AUTHORITY CANNOT ENTERTAIN THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSE E UNDER SECTION 11 OF THE ACT THEREFORE COMPLIANCE OF THE REQUIREMENT OF THE ACT WILL HAVE TO BE ANY TIME BEFORE THE ASSE SSMENT PROCEEDINGS. FURTHER ANY CLAIM FOR GIVING THE BENE FIT OF SECTION 11 ON THE BASIS OF INFORMATION SUPPLIED SUB SEQUENT TO THE COMPLETION OF ASSESSMENT WOULD MEAN THAT THE AS SESSMENT ORDER WILL HAVE TO BE REOPENED. IN OUR OPINION THE ACT DOES NOT CONTEMPLATE SUCH REOPENING OF THE ASSESSMENT. IN TH E CASE IN HAND IT IS EVIDENT FROM THE RECORDS OF THE CASE THE RESPONDENT DID NOT FURNISH THE REQUIRED INFORMATION TILL AFTER THE ASSESSMENTS FOR THE RELEVANT YEARS WERE COMPLETED. IN THE LIGHT OF THE ABOVE WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT THE STAND OF THE REVENUE THAT THE HIGH COURT ERRED IN ANSWERING THE FIRST QUESTION IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE IS CORRECT AND WE REVERSE THAT FINDING AND ANSWER THE SAID QUESTION IN THE N EGATIVE AND AGAINST THE ASSESSEE. IN VIEW OF OUR ANSWER TO THE FIRST QUESTION WE AGREE WITH MR. VERMA THAT IT IS NOT NECESSARY TO ANSWER THE SECOND QUESTION ON THE FACTS OF THIS CASE. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE FINDINGS OF OURS THE SECOND QUESTION REFERRED WILL NOT ARISE FOR CONSIDERATION. ACCORDINGLY THESE APPEALS ARE ALLOWE D. 6.4 FROM THE STATUTORY LANGUAGE READ WITH THIS DECISION IT BECOMES CLEAR THAT INTIMATION IN FORM NO. 10 UNDER RULE 17 SETTING OUT THE PRESCRIBED PARTICULARS HAS TO BE FURNISHED BEFORE THE COMPLETION OF THE ASSESSMENT BECAUSE IT IS NECESSARY THAT AO MUST HA VE THIS INFORMATION AT ITA NOS.882 & 1213(DEL)/2011 & C.O. NO. 102(DEL)/2011 20 THAT TIME SO AS TO ENABLE HIM TO COMPUTE THE TOTA L INCOME. IN ABSENCE OF SUCH INFORMATION HE WILL NOT BE IN A POSITION TO GRANT THE BENEFIT. ONCE THE ASSESSMENT IS COMPLETED IT WOULD BE FUTILE TO FIND FAULT WITH THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR HAVING INCLUDED SUCH INCOM E IN THE TOTAL INCOME. TO OUR MIND THE WORD INFORMATION USED IN THE JUDG MENT STANDS ALREADY QUALIFIED BY THE INFORMATION IN FORM NO. 10 UNDER RULE 17. IT IS STILL MORE CLEAR WHEN WE LOOK AT THE CONTENTS OF FORM NO. 1 0 WHICH CONTAINS STIPULATION REGARDING THE AMOUNT OF INCOME TO BE S ET APART THE PERIOD OF ACCUMULATION AND THE PURPOSE FOR WHICH THE INCOME IS ACCUMULATED OR SET APART. FILING OF THE FORM BEFORE ASSESSMENT IS N OT AN EMPTY FORMALITY BECAUSE IT IS NECESSARY TO TAKE INTO ACCOUNT ITS C ONTENTS FOR COMPUTING THE INCOME. IN A WAY IT BECOMES PART OF THE RETURN. THEREFORE ON THE FACTS WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE LOWER AUTHORITIES R IGHTLY REFUSED THE BENEFIT OF ACCUMULATION OF INCOME IN ABSENCE OF THE FILING OF FORM NO. 10 BEFORE COMPLETION OF ASSESSMENT. FILING OF THE FORM BEF ORE US DOES NOT CURE THE LETHAL INFIRMITY IN THE CLAIM. ACCORDINGLY GROUN D NO. 4 IS DISMISSED. ITA NO. 1213(DEL)/2011 7. WE NOW TURN TO THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE. THE SOLITARY GROUND IS THAT THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) ERRED IN ALLOWING DEDU CTION U/S 11(1) OF AN ITA NOS.882 & 1213(DEL)/2011 & C.O. NO. 102(DEL)/2011 21 AMOUNT OF RS. 14 53 112/- BEING THE EXPENDITURE INCURRED ON PURCHASE OF CAPITAL ASSETS. AS MENTIONED EARLIER THE DEDU CTION WAS NOT ALLOWED BY THE AO ON HIS FINDING THAT UNACCOUNTED MONEY BY WAY O F ANONYMOUS DONATION WAS USED FOR THE EXPENDITURE. IT WAS SUBMITTED BEFORE THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) THAT THE PURCHASE OF FIXED ASSETS I S AN APPLICATION OF INCOME THUS THE EXPENDITURE HAS TO BE DEDUCTED U/S 11 (1)(A). THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) CONSIDERED THE FACTS AND THE SUBMIS SIONS MADE BEFORE HIM. IT IS MENTIONED THAT THE TAXATION OF ANONYMOUS DO NATION AMOUNTING TO RS. 3 37 841/- AND RS. 19 45 812/- U/S 115BBC HAS NO BEARING IN THE MATTER AS THE TAX ON ANONYMOUS DONATION IS LEVIED SEPARA TELY. HOWEVER THE AMOUNT SPENT ON PURCHASE OF CAPITAL ASSETS HAS TO BE ALLOWED IN COMPUTING THE TOTAL INCOME AS APPLICATION OF INCOME. THEREFOR E THIS GROUND HAS BEEN DECIDED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE. 7.1 THE LD. DR SUBMITTED THAT THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) ERRED IN COMING TO THIS CONCLUSION IN AS MUCH AS HE DID NOT TAKE INT O ACCOUNT THE PROVISION CONTAINED IN SECTION 13(7). THIS PROVISION PROHI BITS DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 11(1)(A) IN RESPECT OF ANONYMOUS DONATIO NS. ON THE OTHER HAND THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE RELIED ON THE D ECISION OF THE LD. ITA NOS.882 & 1213(DEL)/2011 & C.O. NO. 102(DEL)/2011 22 CIT(APPEALS) AND THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BEFORE US REG ARDING THE ANONYMOUS DONATION. 7.2 WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE FACTS OF THE CASE AND SUBMISSIONS MADE BEFORE US. IT HAS ALREADY BEEN HELD BY US THAT TH E DONATIONS RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE NOT ANONYMOUS DONATIONS. THE DETAILS IN RESPECT OF THE NAME AND ADDRESS ARE AVAILABLE IN POSSESSION OF THE AO IN THE FORM OF DONATION RECEIPTS WHICH WERE IMPOUNDED IN THE COURSE OF SUR VEY. THE DISCREPANCY IN RESPECT OF THE AMOUNT OF RS. 2 49 000/- HAS OCCUR RED ON ACCOUNT OF COMPUTER MALFUNCTIONING BUT THE DETAILS AS ABOV E ARE AVAILABLE IN THE DONATION RECEIPTS. THEREFORE NO DONATION CAN BE SAID TO BE ANONYMOUS. WE HAVE ALSO NOT ACCEPTED THE CASE OF THE REVENUE THAT THE AMOUNTS ARE TAXABLE U/S 68 BY RELYING ON THE DECISION IN THE CASE OF KESHAV SOCIAL CHARITABLE FOUNDATION AND THE DECISION OF THE T RIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE ITSELF FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07. THESE FINDINGS DISPLACE THE FOUNDATION OF DISALLOWANCE MADE BY THE AO. ACCORD INGLY IT IS HELD THAT THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) RIGHTLY ALLOWED THE DEDUCT ION. ITA NOS.882 & 1213(DEL)/2011 & C.O. NO. 102(DEL)/2011 23 C.O. NO. 102(DEL)/2011 8. THE CROSS OBJECTION IS IN SUPPORT OF THE DECIS ION OF THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) IN RESPECT OF DEDUCTION OF RS. 14 53 1 12/- BEING EXPENDITURE ON PURCHASE OF CAPITAL ASSETS. THIS MATTER HAS ALR EADY BEEN DECIDED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE IN THE CROSS APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE (SUPRA). 9. IN THE RESULT: (I) THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS PARTLY ALLOWED; (II) THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED; AND (III) THE CROSS OBJECTION OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLO WED. SD/- SD/- (C.L. SETHI) (K.G.BANSAL) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SP SATIA COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO:- HANS RAJ SAMARAK SOCIETY NEW DELHI. ASSTT. DIT(E) TRUST CIRCLE-II DELHI. CIT(A) CIT THE DR ITAT NEW DELHI. ASSISTANT REGISTRAR.