DCIT, Pune v. Dr. B.V,Rao Institute of Poultry Management & Technology, Pune

ITA 1488/PUN/2012 | 2006-2007
Pronouncement Date: 30-04-2014 | Result: Dismissed

Appeal Details

RSA Number 148824514 RSA 2012
Assessee PAN AAATD0820F
Bench Pune
Appeal Number ITA 1488/PUN/2012
Duration Of Justice 1 year(s) 9 month(s) 24 day(s)
Appellant DCIT, Pune
Respondent Dr. B.V,Rao Institute of Poultry Management & Technology, Pune
Appeal Type Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date 30-04-2014
Appeal Filed By Department
Order Result Dismissed
Bench Allotted B
Tribunal Order Date 30-04-2014
Date Of Final Hearing 23-04-2014
Next Hearing Date 23-04-2014
Assessment Year 2006-2007
Appeal Filed On 06-07-2012
Judgment Text
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH B PUNE BEFORE SHRI R.S. PADVEKAR JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI R.K. PANDA ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 1488/PN/2012 (ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07) DY.CIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2) PUNE .. APPELLANT VS. DR.B.V. RAO INSTITUTE OF POULTRY MANAGEMENT & TECHNOLOGY A/P : TILEKARWADI PO : URALIKANCHAN DIST : PUNE .. RESPONDENT PAN NO.AAATD0820F ASSESSEE BY : SHRI NIKHIL PATHAK REVENUE BY : SHRI S.P. WALIMBE DATE OF HEARING : 23-04-2014 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 30-04-2014 ORDER PER R.K. PANDA AM : THIS APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE IS DIRECTED AGAINS T THE ORDER DATED 19-12-2011 OF THE CIT(A)-I PUNE RELATING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07. 2. FACTS OF THE CASE IN BRIEF ARE THAT THE ASSESS EE IS A CHARITABLE TRUST REGISTERED U/S.12A OF THE INCOME TAX ACT VID E NO.3866 DATED 21- 01-1985. THE TRUST IS ALSO REGISTERED WITH THE CHA RITY COMMISSIONER PUNE VIDE NO.F/2811/PUNE DT. 12-02-1985. THE TRUST IS ALSO REGISTERED WITH THE REGISTRAR OF CO-OP SOCIETIES VIDE REGISTRA TION NO.MAH/1707/84/PUNE DT. 10-10-1984. THE TRUST IS CARRYING ON THE POULTRY FARM AND POULTRY RELATED ACTIVITIES TO IMPA RT THE PRACTICAL TRAINING TO THE STUDENTS. THE ASSESSEE FILED ITS RETURN OF INCOME DECLARING NIL 2 INCOME ON 11-10-2006. WHILE PROCESSING THE RETURN OF INCOME FOR THE IMPUGNED YEAR THE ASSESSING OFFICER NOTICED THAT T HE ASSESSEE SOCIETYS MAIN SOURCE OF INCOME WAS FROM SALE OF EGGS CHICKE N ETC. HE THEREFORE ISSUED NOTICE U/S.148 TO THE ASSESSEE. 2.1 DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS THE ASSESSEE FILED THE VARIOUS DETAILS AS CALLED FOR BY THE ASSESSING OFFI CER FROM TIME TO TIME. FROM THE VARIOUS DETAILS FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE THE ASSESSING OFFICER OBSERVED THAT IT IS RUNNING POULTRY FARM IN THE GAR B OF INSTITUTION. BASICALLY IT IS BEING RUN AS BUSINESS CONCERN WITH PROFIT MOTIVE. THEREFORE THE BASIC OBJECT TO RUN EDUCATIONAL INST ITUTION FOR WHICH THE ASSESSEE CAME INTO EXISTENCE IS NO MORE PRIMARY OF THE ASSESSEE. THUS THERE IS NO ELEMENT OF CHARITY IN THE ACTIVITIES CA RRIED OUT BY THE ASSESSEE. ACCORDING TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER THE INCOME AND EXPENDITURE ACCOUNT REVEALED THAT THE ASSESSEES MAIN SOURCE OF INCOME WAS FROM SALE OF EGGS BROILERS CULLS MANURE ETC. FURTHER THE AS SESSEE IS CHARGING TUITION FEE HOSTEL FEE EXAM FEE ETC. WHICH RESULT INTO CO NSIDERABLE PROFIT. THEREFORE HE WAS OF THE OPINION THAT THE ASSESSEE RECEIVED FEE IN LIEU OF SERVICES RENDERED BY IT. THEREFORE HE WAS OF THE OPINION THAT THIS INCOME CANNOT BE SAID AS INCOME FROM PROPERTY HELD UNDER THE TRUST. HE ACCORDINGLY HELD THAT THE FEES/RECEIPTS DID NOT AMO UNT TO VOLUNTARY CONTRIBUTIONS AND THE ASSESSEE IS DOING BUSINESS/RU NNING POULTRY FARM IN THE GARB OF EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTION. 2.2 THE ASSESSING OFFICER REFERRED TO THE PROVISION S OF SECTION 2(15) WHICH GIVES AN INCLUSIVE DEFINITION OF CHARITABLE PURPOSE ACCORDING TO WHICH CHARITABLE PURPOSE INCLUDES RELIEF OF THE P OOR EDUCATION MEDICAL RELIEF AND THE ADVANCEMENT OF ANY OTHER OBJ ECT OF GENERAL PUBLIC 3 UTILITY. ACCORDING TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER WHILE IMPARTING EDUCATION SOME RELIEF MUST BE PROVIDED TO THE POOR AND THE NE EDY BY WAY OF CHEAPER EDUCATION AND SUBSIDIZED EDUCATION. ACCORD ING TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER IF THE STUDENTS ARE MADE TO PAY MORE THAN W HAT IS TO BE SPENT ON THEM FOR IMPARTING EDUCATION THEN THERE IS NO RELIE F PROVIDED TO THE NEEDY AND THE POOR. IN SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES THE EDU CATION IS MERELY A BUSINESS ACTIVITY TO EARN PROFIT. FURTHER ACCORDIN G TO HIM FEE FROM THE STUDENTS DOES NOT AMOUNT TO VOLUNTARY CONTRIBUTION. THERE IS COMPLETE ABSENCE OF ELEMENT OF VOLUNTARY. KEEPING THIS IN MIND AND REJECTING THE VARIOUS EXPLANATIONS GIVEN BY THE ASSESSEE THE ASSESSING OFFICER CONCLUDED THAT THE ASSESSEE IS BASICALLY DOING BUSI NESS IN THE GARB OF EDUCATION TO EARN PROFIT AND SUCH PROFIT IS TAXABLE UNDER THE INCOME-TAX ACT. RELYING ON THE DECISION OF HONBLE SUPREME CO URT IN THE CASE OF SAFDARJANG ENCLAVE EDUCATION SOCIETY REPORTED IN (1 992) 3 SCC 390 THE ASSESSING OFFICER CONCLUDED THAT THE POULTRY FARM R UN BY THE ASSESSEE IS NOTHING BUT BUSINESS. HE ACCORDINGLY DENIED THE BE NEFIT OF SECTION 11 AND TREATED THE ASSESSEE AS BUSINESS ENTITY AND DET ERMINED THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE AT RS.1 19 40 814/-. 3. IN APPEAL THE LD.CIT(A) BASED ON THE ARGUMENTS ADVANCED BY THE ASSESSEE HELD THAT THE ASSESSEE IS ENTITLED FOR EXE MPTION U/S.11 OF THE I.T. ACT. THE RELEVANT OBSERVATION OF THE LD.CIT(A) FRO M PARA 4.7.1 TO 4.7.3 READ AS UNDER : 4.7.1. I HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE FACTS OF THE CASE INCL UDING THE ARGUMENTS OF THE APPELLANT AND THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN RESPECT OF GROUNDS UNDER CONSIDERATION. SINCE THE MAJOR ISSUE RELATES TO DENIAL OF EXEMPTION U/S.11 MAINLY ON THE GROUND THAT THE POULT RY FARMING ACTIVITY OF THE APPELLANT IS OF THE NATURE OF BUSINESS IT IS CO NSIDERED NECESSARY TO FIRST SEE THE RELEVANT SECTIONS I.E. SEC. 2(15) OF THE I .T. ACT SEC. 11(1) AND SEC. 11 (4) AND SEC. 11 (4A). THESE ARE QUOTED BELOW : 4 'SECTION 2(15) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT 1961 READS AS U NDER : '2(15) 'CHARITABLE PURPOSE' INCLUDES RELIEF OF THE PO OR EDUCATION MEDICAL RELIEF AND THE ADVANCEMENT OF ANY OTHER OBJECT OF GENERAL PUBLIC UTILITY.' RELEVANT EXTRACTS OF SECTION 11(1) (A) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT 1961 ARE REPRODUCED BELOW: '11. (I) SUBJECT TO THE PROVISIONS OF SECTIONS 60 TO 63 THE FOLLOWING INCOME SHALL NOT BE INCLUDED IN THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE PREVIOUS YEAR OF THE PERSON IN RECEIPT OF THE INCOME -- (A) INCOME DERIVED FROM PROPERTY HELD UNDER TRUST WHOLLY FOR CHARITABLE OR RELIGIOUS PURPOSES TO THE EXTENT TO WH ICH SUCH INCOME IS APPLIED TO SUCH PURPOSES IN INDIA; AND WHERE ANY SUCH INCOME IS ACCUMULATED OR SET APART FOR APPLICATION TO SUCH PURP OSES IN INDIA TO THE EXTENT TO WHICH THE INCOME SO ACCUMULATED OR SET APAR T IS NOT IN EXCESS OF FIFTEEN PER CENT OF THE INCOME FROM SUCH PROPERTY. (B) X X X X (C) X X X X (D) X X X X SECTION 11(4) AND 11 (4A) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT 19 61 READ AS UNDER : '11. (4) FOR THE PURPOSES OF THIS SECTION 'PROPERTY HE LD UNDER TRUST' INCLUDES A BUSINESS UNDERTAKING SO HELD AND WHERE A CLAIM IS MADE THAT THE INCOME OF ANY SUCH UNDERTAKING SHALL NO T BE INCLUDED IN THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE PERSONS IN RECEIPT THEREOF T HE ASSESSING OFFICER SHALL HAVE POWER TO DETERMINE THE INCOME OF SUCH UND ERTAKING IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF THIS ACT RELATING TO ASSESSMENT; AND WHERE ANY INCOME SO DETERMINED IS IN EXCESS OF THE INCO ME AS SHOWN IN THE ACCOUNTS OF THE UNDERTAKING SUCH EXCESS SHALL BE DE EMED TO BE APPLIED TO PURPOSES OTHER THAN CHARITABLE OR RELIGIOU S PURPOSES. '(4A) SUB-SECTION (1) OR SUB-SECTION (2) OR SUB-SECTION (3) OR SUB-SECTION (3A) SHALL NOT APPLY IN RELATION TO ANY INCOME OF A TRUST OR AN INSTITUTION BEING PROFITS AND GAINS OF BUSINESS UNLESS THE BUSINESS IS INCIDEN TAL TO THE ATTAINMENT OF THE OBJECTIVES OF THE TRUST OR AS THE C ASE MAY BE INSTITUTION AND SEPARATE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT ARE MAINTAI NED BY SUCH TRUST OR INSTITUTI ON IN RESPECT OF SUCH BUSINESS. ' 4.7.2. THERE IS NO DISPUTE TO THE FACT THAT THE APPE LLANT TRUST WAS REGISTERED AS A SOCIETY SINCE 10.10.1984. IT HAS BEEN FO RMED FOR THE PURPOSES ALREADY DESCRIBED IN PARA 4.2 OF THIS ORDER W HICH ARE PRIMARILY TO RUN A POULTRY MANAGEMENT AND RESEARCH INSTITUTE. IT IS REGISTERED WITH CHARITY COMMISSIONER PUNE SINCE 12.2.1985 AND WITH THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX PUNE U/S 12AA SINCE 21.1.1985. THE APP ELLANT HAS ALSO CONTENDED THAT THE TRUST DEED HAS BEEN APPROVED BY TH E CHARITY COMMISSIONER AND THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (WHILE GRANTING REGISTRATION U/S 12A) AND THE PURPOSES FOR WHICH THE TR UST WAS CREATED WERE HELD TO BE OF CHARITABLE NATURE. AS PER THE ARGUMENTS OF THE AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE MADE DURING APPEAL THE ASSESSI NG OFFICER HAS NOT BROUGHT ON RECORD ANY INSTANCE EXCEPT FOR THE EX TENT OF POULTRY FARM BY WHICH IT COULD BE SAID THAT THE APPELLANT HAS NOT FOLLOWED THE TERMS OF THE DEED. IT HAS ALSO BEEN STATED THAT THIS TRUST HAS A LWAYS BEEN HELD TO BE ENGAGED IN ACTIVITIES OF CHARITABLE NATURE INCLU DING IN THE ASSESSMENTS EARLIER COMPLETED AFTER SCRUTINY U/S 143(3) OF THE I. T. ACT. ON CAREFUL CONSIDERATION OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IT IS NOTED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS REOPENED THIS ASSESSME NT U/S 148 5 OF THE I.T. ACT. THERE IS NOT MUCH OF DISCUSSION IN RE SPECT OF THE CAUSE OF REOPENING PRESUMABLY BECAUSE NO OBJECTION WAS TAKEN B Y THE APPELLANT FOR THIS ACTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. SINCE THE APPELLANT HAS RAISED A SEPARATE GROUND OF APPEAL FOR THIS ISSUE THIS IS NOT D ISCUSSED IN DETAIL AT THIS POINT OF TIME. HOWEVER IT IS ONLY REITERATED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER APPARENTLY REOPENED THE CASE U/S. 148 AS HE FO RMED HIS BELIEF THAT THE EXEMPTION WAS NOT AVAILABLE TO THE APPELLANT FRO M THE MATERIALS AVAILABLE WITH HIM. SINCE NOT MUCH DISCUSSION IS AVAIL ABLE IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER ON THE FORMATION OF SUCH BELIEF IT IS P RESUMED THAT THE REASONS FOR WHICH THE EXEMPTION HAS BEEN DENIED APPAR ENTLY WAS THE CAUSE OF REOPENING OF THIS ASSESSMENT. FURTHERMORE IT SE EMS THAT THE APPELLANT DID NOT TAKE OBJECTION ALSO AS THIS ASSESSMENT WAS COMPLETED U/S 143(1). THE ASSESSING OFFICER AFTER RECOGNIZING THE FACTS THAT THE APPELLANT IS REGISTERED WITH CHARITY COMMISSIONER AND U /S . 12A WITH THE INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT AND THAT IT IS CARRYING ON THE POULTRY FARM AND POULTRY RELATED ACTIVITIES TO IMPART THE PRACTICAL T RAINING TO THE STUDENTS (PARA 3 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER) HAS SET THE TONE OF HI S BELIEF THAT THE APPELLANT TRUST IS PRIMARILY CARRYING OUT THE ACTIVIT Y OF POULTRY FARMING AND POULTRY RELATED ACTIVITIES TO IMPART PRACTICAL T RAINING. IN OTHER WORDS THE EMPHASIS OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS BEEN THAT THE PRIMARY ACTIVITY OF THE TRUST IS TO BE CARRY OUT THE ACTIVITY OF POULTRY FARMING AND THE TRAINING ETC. IS SUBSIDIARY OR INCIDENTAL. THE ASSESSING OFFICER ALSO ASKED ABOUT THE APPROVAL OBTAINED U/S 10(23C)(VI) OF THE IT. ACT AND IT WAS INFORMED THAT DR. B.V. RAO INSTITUTE OF POULTRY M ANAGEMENT AND TECHNOLOGY IS A CHARITABLE TRUST REGISTERED U/S 12A OF I.T. ACT SET UP TO IMPART SOUND THEORETICAL AND COMPREHENSIVE PRACTICAL TRAINING IN POULTRY MANAGEMENT BASED ON SCIENTIFIC AND ADVANCED TECHNOLOG Y TO THE EXISTING AND PROSPECTIVE POULTRY FARMER ENTREPRENEURS PROFES SIONALS TECHNOCRATS ETC. AND IT IS ALSO REGISTERED WITH THE CHA RITY COMMISSIONER. THE APPELLANT ALSO INFORMED IN RESPONSE TO THE ABOVE Q UERY THAT AS A PART OF THE ABOVE OBJECTIVE I.E. TO IMPART PRACTICAL TRA INING TO THE STUDENTS ENROLLED FOR THE VARIOUS COURSES RELATING TO POULTRY M ANAGEMENT THE INSTITUTE HAS A FULL-FLEDGED POULTRY FARMING UNIT LOC ATED IN THE CAMPUS TO CATER TO THE NEED OF THE STUDENTS TO HAVE HANDS ON PRA CTICAL EXPERIENCE ON THE VARIOUS ASPECT OF THE POULTRY FARMING. THE INCOME GENERATED FROM THIS FARMING UNIT WAS CLAIMED TO HAVE BEEN SHOWN IN TH E ACCOUNTS OF THE TRUST AND THEREFORE IT WAS CLAIMED THAT THE ACTIVITY OF THE POULTRY FARMING IS INCIDENTAL TO THE ATTAINMENT OF THE MAIN OBJECTIV ES OF THE TRUST. IT WAS ALSO CLAIMED THAT THE APPELLANT HAS FULFILLED THE LEG AL REQUIREMENT AS PROVIDED IN SEC. 11(4A) OF THE IT. ACT TO MAINTAIN SE PARATE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS FORTIES ACTIVITY. ON THE ISSUE OF REGISTRATION U/S. 10(23C) IT WAS STATED THAT THE APPELLANT HAS MADE AN APPLICATION WIT H THE CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME AND THE SAME IS IN THE PROCESS. IT WAS ALSO CLAIMED THAT THE SAID APPLICATION WAS ONLY MADE AS A M ATTER OF ABUNDANT PRECAUTION BECAUSE THE APPELLANT OTHERWISE IS ALREADY REGISTERED U/S. 12A AND IS ELIGIBLE FOR EXEMPTION U/S.11 OF THE INCOM E TAX ACT. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE THE APPELLANT CLAIMED BEFORE THE ASSESSING O FFICER THE EXEMPTION SHOULD BE ALLOWED IN THIS YEAR AS HAS BEEN DO NE IN EARLIER ASSESSMENT YEARS. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS FURTHER DISCUSSED AFTER CONSIDERING THE AFORESAID SUBMISSIONS OF THE APPELLANT TH AT HE IS NOT SATISFIED WITH THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE APPELLANT AS THE DET AILS FURNISHED CLEARLY SHOW THAT THE MAIN ACTIVITY OF THE TRUST IS CA RRYING OUT THE BUSINESS OF POULTRY FARMING WHOSE INCOME IS CLAIMED AS EXEMPT IN THE GARB OF INCOME OF AN INSTITUTION REGISTERED U/S 12A. THE MAIN CAUSE OF THIS PROPOSITION APPARENTLY WAS HIS INFERENCE DUE TO TH E PROFIT EARNED FROM THIS ACTIVITY AS PER THE INCOME AND EXPENDITURE ACCOUNT FILED BEFORE HIM. THUS BY HOLDING THAT THE ACTIVITY OF RUNNING THE ED UCATIONAL INSTITUTION IS NOT THE MAIN OBJECTIVE THE ASSESSING OFF ICER CONCLUDED THAT THE EXEMPTION CANNOT BE GRANTED. THE ASSESSING OFFICE R FOR ARRIVING AT THIS CONCLUSION HAS REFERRED TO THE INCOME & EXPENDITU RE ACCOUNT TO HOLD 6 THAT THE MAIN SOURCE OF THE INCOME OF THE APPELLANT IS FROM THE SALE OF EGGS BROILERS CULLS MANURE ETC. AS COMPARED TO THE R ECEIPTS FROM TUITION FEE HOSTEL FEE EXAM FEE ETC. THE ASSESSING OFFICER ALSO REFERRED TO SEC. 2(15) TO SAY THAT A NOMINAL FEE CONCESSION GIVEN TO STUDENTS WILL NOT RENDER THE APPELLANT TO BE INVOLVED IN CHARITABLE P URPOSES. IT WAS CONCLUDED ON THAT BASIS THAT THE MAIN AND DOMINANT OB JECTIVE HAS BEEN TO EARN PROFIT FROM POULTRY FARMS. FOR THIS PURPOSE IT WAS ALSO STATED THAT THE INSTITUTION IS NOT EXISTING SOLELY FOR EDUCATI ONAL PURPOSES. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS ALSO OPINED THAT EXEMPTION CAN ONLY BE GRANTED IF IT COULD BE SEEN THAT THE INSTITUTIONS ARE INVOLVED IN CH ARITABLE ACTIVITIES FOR THE NEEDY AND THE POOR. BY REFERRING TO THE PROVISI ONS CONTAINED IN SEC. 2(15) THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS ALSO STATED THAT EDUCATION WITH RELIEF TO POOR CAN ONLY CONSTITUTE CHARITABLE PURPOSE. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS ALSO COMMENTED THAT THE EDUCATION WITHOUT GRANTING R ELIEF TO POOR IS A BUSINESS ACTIVITY. CONSIDERING THE TOTALITY OF THE FACTS SO DISCUSSED THE ASSESSING OFFICER CONTENDED THAT THE POULTRY FARM RUN B Y THE APPELLANT IS NOTHING BUT BUSINESS IN THE GARB OF AN INSTITUTION AND HENCE EXEMPTION U/S 11 CANNOT BE ALLOWED. AS AGAINST THIS THE APPELLA NT HAS MADE EXTENSIVE AND ELABORATE SUBMISSIONS AND HAS ALSO FILED A D ETAILED PAPER BOOK CONTAINING SUPPORTING EVIDENCES. THE RELEVANT PO RTION OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AND -THE' SUBMISSIONS OF THE APPELLANT HAV E ALREADY BEEN QUOTED ABOVE FOR READY AND DETAILED REFERENCE AND IT CAN BE SEEN IF REQUIRED. IT HAS BEEN CLAIMED BY THE AUTHORISED REPR ESENTATIVE THAT THE DEFINITION OF CHARITABLE PURPOSES GIVEN IN SEC. 2(15) OF THE IT. ACT IS AN INCLUSIVE DEFINITION AND THE ITEMS SPECIFICALLY MENTIO NED AS OF CHARITABLE PURPOSES ARE (I) RELIEF OF THE POOR (IL) EDUCATION (III) MEDICAL RELIEF AND (IV) ADVANCEMENT OF ANY OTHER OBJECT OF GENERAL PUB LIC UTILITY. IT WAS POINTED OUT THAT THE WORD 'EDUCATION' HAS NOT BEEN Q UALIFIED BY ANY OTHER WORD AND THEREFORE EDUCATION IN ITSELF GENERALLY HA S TO BE TREATED AS OF CHARITABLE PURPOSES IF IT FULFILLS ALL THE OTHER COND ITIONS LAID IN THE ACT FOR GETTING THE EXEMPTION U/S 11 OF THE IT. ACT. ON THE DIFFERENT ISSUES RAISED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER IT WAS CON TENDED THAT SEPARATE BOOKS ARE MAINTAINED FOR TRAINING POULTRY F ARM AND RESEARCH. TO EMPHASIS THE NEED OF HAVING A FULL-FLEDGED POULTRY FARM OF REASONABLE SIZE ALONG WITH ALLIED ACTIVITIES IT WAS CLAIMED THAT THE COURSES GENERALLY RUN BY THE INSTITUTION REQUIRES EMPHASIS ON HANDS ON EXP OSURE ALONG WITH THEORETICAL KNOWLEDGE AND THE TRAINEES SPEND APP ROXIMATELY 75% OF THEIR TIME ON FARM/ LABORATORIES IN 25% IN CLASS RO OMS FOR THEORETICAL INPUTS. IT WAS ALSO EMPHASIZED THAT THIS INSTITUTE IS THE ONLY INSTITUTE OF ITS KIND IN THE ASIA OFFERING SUCH PRACTICAL ORIENTED TRAINING AND MORE THAN 6000 STUDENTS FROM INDIA AND ABROAD HAVE BEEN TR AINED SO FAR. POST TRAINING-AT IPMT THE TRAINEES TAKE UP POSITIONS OF RESP ONSIBILITY AT POULTRY FARMS OF LARGER CAPACITIES AND THEREFORE UNL ESS THEY ARE EXPOSED TO THE ACTUAL MANAGEMENT OF LARGE POULTRY FARMS REQ UIREMENT OF FARM OPERATIONS VACCINATION DEBEAKING ETC. THE TRAINEE S WILL NOT GET PROPER PLACEMENT. IT HAS BEEN CLAIMED THAT THE APPELLANT I N ADDITION TO THIS ALSO CARRIES OUT OTHER SMALL TRAININGS FOR RURAL EMPLOYMENT OF YOUTH OF FINANCIALLY WEAKER SECTIONS AND AFTER COMPLETION OF T HESE TRAININGS EITHER THEY GET THE JOB OR CARRY OUT THEIR OWN SMALL ENTERP RISE IN THEIR PLACES. THE APPELLANT ALSO HAS GIVEN THE DETAILS IN RESPECT O F FACILITIES MAINTAINED WHICH ARE CLAIMED TO BE OF HIGH STANDARD SO THAT THE TRAINEES ARE FULLY EQUIPPED WITH THE KNOWLEDGE AND THE KNOWHOW AND ARE RANKED PROPERLY. THE APPELLANT HAS ALSO GIVEN THE FEE STRUCTU RE FOR THE DIFFERENT COURSES AND IT HAS BEEN CLAIMED THAT THE SAME IS VERY VE RY SMALL CONSIDERING THE FACILITIES AND MATERIALS PROVIDED. IN THAT VIEW OF THE MATTER THE CLAIM HAS BEEN MADE THAT THE FEES CHARGED ARE QUITE CONCESSIONAL. THE APPELLANT HAS ALSO SUBMITTED LIST OF NU MEROUS NATIONAL AND INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATIONS/ DEPARTMENTS OF REPUT E WHO HAVE RECOGNIZED THIS INSTITUTION FOR RESEARCH PROGRAMMES ET C. ETC. THE CLAIM HAS BEEN MADE THAT THE SURPLUS GENERATED FROM THE POUL TRY FARMING 7 WHICH IS INCIDENTAL TO THE MAIN OBJECTIVE OF IMPARTI NG EDUCATION AND WHICH IS ALSO RUN BY THE STAFF AND THE STUDENTS IN THE RATIO OF 10 : 1 IS USED FOR IMPROVING THE INFRASTRUCTURE OF THE INSTITUTE . THE APPELLANT HAS ALSO CLAIMED THAT THE POULTRY FARM IS INCIDENTAL TO T HE MAIN OBJECTIVE OF THE TRUST AND THE CONDITIONS SPECIFIED IN SEC. 11 (4A) OF MAINTAINING A SEPARATE BOOKS HAVE BEEN ADHERED TO. IN THIS CONTEXT IT HAS BEEN CONTENDED THAT THE WORD 'PROPERTY' USED IN SEC. 11 H AS BEEN JUDICIALLY GIVEN WIDEST MEANING AND BUSINESS RUN FOR THE PURPOSE OF MAIN OBJECTIVE HAS TO BE TREATED TO BE FALLING IN THAT DEFINITION. THE APPELLANT HAS RELIED FOR THE SAME TO THE CIRCULAR NO 621 REPORTED IN 19 5 ITR 154 TO CONTEND THAT THE AMENDMENT BROUGHT BY FINANCE ACT 1991 IN SEC. 10(23C) AND SEC.11(4A) HAS PERMITTED A TRUST OR AN INSTITUTION TO C ARRY ON BUSINESS ACTIVITY IF THE BUSINESS ACTIVITIES ARE INCIDENTAL TO THE ATTAINMENT OF ITS OBJECTIVE. IT IS CLAIMED THAT THE CIRCULAR HAS DECLA RED THAT THE TRUST WILL NOT LOSE EXEMPTION IF THE ABOVE CONDITIONS ARE FULFIL LED. FOR SIMILAR CLAIM CIRCULAR NO. 642 HAS ALSO BEEN RELIED. ALL THE EXTRAC TS OF THESE CIRCULARS ARE AVAILABLE IN THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE APPELLANT QUOTE D ABOVE. THEREAFTER THE APPELLANT HAS EXPLAINED VARIOUS ACTIVI TIES WHICH HAVE BEEN CARRIED OUT BY APPELLANT TRUST TO HOLD THAT THE VIEW OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS NOT CORRECT. THE APPELLANT HAS ALSO RELIED ON CERTAIN JUDGMENTS TO CONTEND THAT THE QUANTUM AND THE EXTENT OF THE B USINESS ACTIVITY IS NOT IMPORTANT. IN RESPECT OF THE BUSINESS CARRIED OUT THE IMPORTANCE IS ONLY ON THE FACT WHETHER THE BUSINESS IS INCIDENTAL TO THE MAIN OBJECTIVE OF THE TRUST OR NOT AND IF SO THEN WHETHER SEPARATE BOOKS ARE MAINTAINED OR NOT AND THE SURPLUS GENERATED IF ANY ARE USED FOR THE PUR POSE OF THE TRUST AS PROVIDED IN INCOME TAX ACT OR NOT. 4.7.3. ON CAREFUL CONSIDERATION OF RIVAL SUBMISSIONS I FIND THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT BEEN ABLE TO APPRECIATE THE LA W AND THE FACTS PROPERLY. THERE IS NO FINDING THAT THE APPELLANT TRUST IS NOT EN GAGED IN THE FIELD OF EDUCATION TRAINING AND RESEARCH. THE A PPELLANT HAS PRODUCED AMPLE EVIDENCES IN THEIR SUBMISSIONS AND PAPER BOOK TO ESTABLISH THAT THE TRUST IS GENUINELY INVOLVED IN THESE ACTIVITIES. WI THOUT THIS IT IS NOT POSSIBLE TO RECEIVE RECOGNITIONS FROM VARIOUS STATE GOV ERNMENTS GOVT. OF INDIA AND OTHER INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATIONS LIKE FAO NABARD DSIR ETC. ONLY BECAUSE THE RECEIPTS ARE MORE FROM THE POULTRY A CTIVITY IT IS INCORRECT TO CONCLUDE THAT THE PRE-DOMINANT PURPOSE OF THE ACTIVITY IS NOT EDUCATION IN POULTRY MANAGEMENT. REQUIREMENT OF PO ULTRY FARM FOR THE PURPOSE OF IMPARTING THE EDUCATION HAS NOT BEEN DENIE D BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ALSO. HIS ONLY OBJECTION APPARENTLY IS ON THE SIZE OF THE POULTRY FARM. THE APPELLANT HAS DEMONSTRATED PROPERLY THAT THE LARG E SIZE OF POULTRY FARMS HAS HELPED THE INSTITUTE AND ITS TRAINEE S TO GET PROPER TRAINING AND HIGHER RATING IN THE JOB MARKET AS THEY ARE CONSIDERED TO BE WELL EQUIPPED IN MANAGING LARGE SIZE POULTRY FARMS. I N ANY CASE NOBODY CAN DENY THAT AN EXPOSURE OF WORKING IN A LARGE SIZE FARM WILL NOT BENEFIT STUDENTS-TO-GET HANDS ON INPUTS. THEREFORE THE EMPHASIS OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON THIS FACTS LOOKS ERRONEOUS. THEREFORE I AM NOT IN AGREEMENT TO THE FINDING OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT THE RUNNING OF THE POULTRY FARM IS NOT INCIDENTAL TO THE MAIN OBJECTIVE OF IMPARTING TRAINING / EDUCATION. THE APPELLANT HAS FURTHER FORTIFIED THI S FINDING BY PLACING ON RECORD THE FACT THAT THE RATIO OF STUDENT TO THE EMP LOYEES OF THE TRUST WHO ARE ENGAGED IN THE MANAGEMENT OF THE TRUST ON AN AV ERAGE BASIS IS 10 : 1. ONCE IT IS HELD THAT THIS ACTIVITY IS INCIDENTAL TO TH E MAIN /OBJECTIVE OF THE TRUST IT IS NOT DIFFICULT TO SEE THAT THERE IS NO OBJ ECTION THAT THE APPELLANT HAS NOT MAINTAINED SEPARATE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS OR HAS NOT APPLIED THE RECEIPTS OR THE SURPLUS FOR THE OBJECTIVE OF THE TRUST AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF THE INCOME TAX ACT AND THEREFORE EXEMPTION WILL HAVE TO BE ALLOWED. OTHER DISCUSSIONS MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT EDUCA TION PER SE IS NOT OF CHARITABLE PURPOSES AND THAT THE APPELLANT IS E NGAGED IN THE ACTIVITY OF MAKING MONEY WHITE RUNNING THE INSTITUTI ON ARE WITHOUT ANY 8 SUBSTANCE OR BASIS. EDUCATION PER SE HAS BEEN HELD TO BE OF THE PURPOSE OF CHARITY IF IT COMPLIES TO ALL OTHER CONDITIONS PR ESCRIBED IN JAW. EDUCATION CANNOT BE A CHARITABLE ACTIVITY ONLY IF T HE SAME IS PROVIDED FREE OF COST OR AT SUBSIDIZED RATE. THE LAW LAID U/S 2(15) DOES NOT SEEM TO SAY SO. IN FACT THE APPELLANT IN THIS RESPECT HAS ALSO DEMON STRATED BY SUBMITTING DETAILS IN RESPECT OF FEES CHARGED BY IT FOR DIFFERENT COURSES AND THE FACILITIES PROVIDED THAT THE EDUCATION IS IN DEED SUBSTANTIALLY SUBSIDIZED. THE APPELLANT FIRM HAS UNDISPUTEDLY CREATED FACILITIE S OF HIGH STANDARD (AS COULD BE SEEN FROM THE DOCUMENTS PLACED ON RECORD) BY UTILIZING THE SURPLUS GENERATED OVER THE YEARS ALONG WITH DONATIONS ETC. THERE IS NO FACT FOUND BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT ANY MONEY HAS BEEN- DIVERTED FOR OTHER THAN THE OBJECTIVE OF THE TRUST O R ANY OF THE PROVISIONS CONTAINED IN SEC 13 OF THE IT. ACT HAS BEEN VIOLATED AND THEREFORE THERE IS NO OTHER MATERIAL ON THE RECORD ON THE STRENGTH OF WHICH EXEMPTION CAN BE DENIED. FOR THE AFORESAID DISCUSSIONS GROUNDS NO. 2 3 AND 4 ARE ALLOWED. 4. AGGRIEVED WITH SUCH ORDER OF THE CIT(A) THE REVE NUE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US WITH THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS : 1. THE LD.CIT(A) ERRED BY HOLDING THAT ASSESSEE IS ENTI TLED FOR EXEMPTION U/S.11 OF INCOME TAX ACT 1961. 2. (I) WHETHER ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES O F THE CASE AND IN LAW THE LD.CIT(A) WAS JUSTIFIED IN HOLDING THA T THE ASSESSEE IS ENTITLED FOR EXEMPTION U/S.11 WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE FACT THAT THE POULTRY BUSINESS OF THE ASSESSEE IS THE PRIMARY OBJEC TIVE AND HENCE NOT INCIDENTAL TO EDUCATION? (II) THE LD.CIT(A) SHOULD HAVE CONSIDERED THE FACT TH AT THE RECEIPTS FROM POULTRY BUSINESS ARE MORE THAN RS.3 CRORES AS AGAINST RECEIPTS FROM EDUCATION OF ABOUT RS.20 LAKHS WH ICH PROVES THAT THE MAIN ACTIVITY OF THE ASSESSEE IS CARRYING ON T HE BUSINESS ACTIVITY IN POULTRY PRODUCTS AND THIS ACTIVITY IS NOT INCIDENTAL TO THE ACTIVITY OF IMPARTING TRAINING. (III) THE LD.CIT(A) SHOULD HAVE APPRECIATED THE FACT THAT ASSESSEE IS NOT ENTITLED TO EXEMPTION U/S.11 AS POULTRY BU SINESS IS NOT INCIDENTAL TO THE ATTAINMENT OF THE OBJECTIVE O F ASSESSEE SOCIETY AND HENCE VIOLATION OF SEC.11(4A) OF THE INCO ME TAX ACT 1961. 3. THE APPELLANT PRAYS THAT THE ORDER OF THE LD.CIT( A) BE VACATED AND THAT THE AOS ORDER BE RESTORED. 5. THE LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE HEAVILY RELI ED ON THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 6. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE ON THE OTHER HA ND HEAVILY RELIED ON THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) . REFERRING TO PAGES 12 TO 14 OF THE ORDER OF THE LD.CIT(A) HE DREW THE ATTENTION OF THE BENCH OF THE VARIOUS COURSES 9 OFFERED BY THE ASSESSEE AND THE FEES CHARGED FROM T HE STUDENTS. HE SUBMITTED THAT THE ABOVE FEES INCLUDES TUITION FEES LODGING BOARDING UNIFORM/FARM DRESS ALUMNI MEMBERSHIP FEE AND STUDY MATERIAL. THEREFORE IT CANNOT BE SAID THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS CHARGING HIGHER FEES. HE SUBMITTED THAT DUE TO THE STANDARD OF ITS EDUCAT ION THE ASSESSEE HAS RECEIVED RECOGNITION FROM VARIOUS STATE GOVERNMENTS GOVT. OF INDIA AND INTERNATIONAL ORGANISATIONS LIKE FAO NABARD DSIR ETC. 6.1 REFERRING TO THE DECISION OF HONBLE BOMBAY HIG H COURT IN THE CASE OF VANITA VISHRAM TRUST VS. CCIT REPORTED IN 3 27 ITR 121 HE SUBMITTED THAT THE HONBLE HIGH COURT IN THE SAID D ECISION HAS HELD THAT WHEN THE SURPLUS FROM INVESTMENT ACTIVITY IS APPLIE D FOR EDUCATIONAL PURPOSE AND WHEN THE PRIMARY OBJECTS OF THE TRUST I S TO PROVIDE EDUCATION FOR WOMEN BENEFIT OF EXEMPTION U/S.10(23C) WAS VAL ID. REFERRING TO THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN THE CA SE OF TOLANI EDUCATION SOCIETY VS. DDIT (EXEMPTIONS) AND OTHERS REPORTED IN 351 ITR 184 HE SUBMITTED THAT THE HONBLE HIGH COURT IN THE SAID DECISION HAS HELD THAT WHEN THE SOLE AND DOMINANT NATURE OF THE ACTIVITY WAS EDUCATION AND THE ASSESSEE EXISTED SOLELY FOR THE P URPOSE OF IMPARTING EDUCATION THE INCIDENTAL SURPLUS WHICH WAS GENERAT ED AND WHICH HAD RESULTED IN ADDITIONS TO THE FIXED ASSETS TOWARDS U PGRADING THE FACILITIES OF THE COLLEGE INCLUDING FOR THE PURCHASE OF LIBRAR Y BOOKS AND THE IMPROVEMENT OF INFRASTRUCTURE THE ASSESSEE WAS ENT ITLED TO EXEMPTION U/S.10(23C)(VI). REFERRING TO THE DECISION OF THE MUMBAI BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF DDIT (EXEMPTIONS) VS. SAMUD RA INSTITUTE OF MARITIME STUDIES TRUST VIDE ITA NO.5760/MUM/2010 OR DER DATED 30-11- 2011 HE SUBMITTED THAT UNDER SOMEWHAT IDENTICAL CIR CUMSTANCES THE 10 ASSESSING OFFICER HAD DENIED THE EXEMPTION U/S.11 O N THE GROUND THAT THE VARIOUS COURSES WHICH ARE NOT APPROVED AND RECO GNISED BY THE DG SHIPPING ARE CONDUCTED BY THE ASSESSEE AS PRIVATE C OACHING CLASSES AND SUCH COURSE BY NO STRETCH OF REASONING AND IMAGINAT ION CAN BE OF THE CHARACTER OF CHARITABLE PURPOSES AS PROVIDED UNDER SECTION 2(15) OF THE I.T. ACT. FURTHER THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN THE SA ID DECISION HAS HELD THAT THE ACTIVITIES OF THE ASSESSEE IN CONNECTION WITH T HE CONDUCTING OF COMMERCIAL COURSES ARE CLEARLY BUSINESS ACTIVITIES WITHIN THE MEANING OF SECTION 2(13) OF THE I.T. ACT. IN APPEAL THE LD.CI T(A) ALLOWED THE CLAIM OF BENEFIT U/S.11 AND ON FURTHER APPEAL THE TRIBUNA L RELYING ON VARIOUS DECISIONS HAS UPHELD THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) AND DI SMISSED THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE. 6.2 THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE FURTHER SUBMIT TED THAT DURING A.YRS. 2004-05 AND 2005-06 THE ASSESSING OFFICER HA S PASSED ORDERS U/S.143(3) AND ALLOWED THE CLAIM OF BENEFIT OF PROV ISIONS OF SECTION 11. NO REMEDIAL MEASURES HAVE BEEN TAKEN BY THE REVENUE EITHER U/S.147 OR U/S.263 OF THE I.T. ACT. EVEN FOR SUBSEQUENT YEARS THE CLAIM OF BENEFIT OF SECTION 11 HAS NOT BEEN DISTURBED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ALTHOUGH NO SCRUTINY ASSESSMENT HAS TAKEN PLACE AND ORDERS HAVE BEEN PASSED U/S.143(1). THEREFORE IN VIEW OF THE RULE OF CONS ISTENCY ALONE THE CLAIM OF BENEFIT OF SECTION 11 HAS TO BE ALLOWED. HE ACC ORDINGLY SUBMITTED THAT THE ORDER OF THE LD.CIT(A) BEING IN CONSONANCE WITH LAW SHOULD BE UPHELD. 7. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL ARGUMENTS MADE BY B OTH THE SIDES PERUSED THE ORDERS OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND THE CIT(A) AND THE PAPER BOOK FILED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE. WE HAV E ALSO CONSIDERED THE 11 VARIOUS DECISIONS CITED BEFORE US. WE FIND THE AS SESSING OFFICER IN HIS ORDER PASSED U/S.143(3) ON 07-11-2006 FOR A.Y. 2004 -05 WHILE ACCEPTING THE RETURNED INCOME DECLARED AT NIL HAS OBSERVED AS UNDER : THE ASSESSEE IS A CHARITABLE TRUST REGISTERED U/S.12A OF T HE ACT VIDE NO.3866 DATED 21-01-1985. THE TRUST IS ALSO REGISTERED WITH THE CHARITY COMMISSIONER PUNE VIDE NO.F/2811/PUNE DT. 12-02-1985 . THE TRUST IS ALSO REGISTERED WITH THE REGISTRAR OF CO-OP SOCIETIES V IDE REGISTRATION NO.MAH/1707/84/PUNE DT.10-10-1984. THE TRUST IS ENGA GED IN IMPARTING TRAINING IN POULTRY MANAGEMENT AS WELL AS B USINESS OF POULTRY FARMING HENCE IT IS CONDUCTING A NUMBER OF COURSES R ELATING TO POULTRY FARMING HATCHERIES ETC. AND CARRYING OUT THE ACTIVI TIES OF RESEARCH IN POULTRY SCIENCE AND ALLIED ACTIVITIES AND TO PROMOTE EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH DEVELOPMENT IN RESPECT THEREWITH. 7.1 WE FIND SIMILAR VIEW HAS BEEN TAKEN BY THE ASSE SSING OFFICER FOR A.Y. 2005-06 IN THE ORDER PASSED U/S.143(3) ON 30-0 8-2007. THE SUBMISSION OF THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE THAT THESE ORDERS HAVE NOT BEEN DISTURBED EITHER BY REOPENING THE ASSESSMENTS U/S.147 OR BY TAKING ACTION U/S.263 COULD NOT BE CONTROVERTED BY THE LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE. THE SUBMISSION OF THE LD. COUNSEL F OR THE ASSESSEE THAT IN SUBSEQUENT YEARS ALSO THE RETURNS FILED WERE ACC EPTED BY THE REVENUE ALTHOUGH U/S.143(1) COULD NOT BE CONTROVERTED BY TH E LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE . 7.2 IT IS AN UNDISPUTED FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE TRUS T HAS BEEN GRANTED REGISTRATION U/S.12A(A) OF THE I.T. ACT AS PER THE ORDER OF THE CIT PUNE VIDE HIS ORDER DATED 21-01-1985 AND THE SAME IS CON TINUING AND HAS NOT BEEN CANCELLED OR WITHDRAWN. FURTHER IT IS NOT TH E CASE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT THE ASSESSEE TRUST IS NOT ENGAGED IN T HE FIELD OF EDUCATION TRAINING AND RESEARCH. MERELY BECAUSE THE RECEIPTS ARE MORE FROM THE POULTRY ACTIVITY THE SAME IN OUR OPINION CANNOT BE A GROUND TO CONCLUDE THAT THE DOMINANT PURPOSE OF THE ACTIVITY IS NOT ED UCATION IN POULTRY 12 MANAGEMENT. THE FINDING GIVEN BY THE LD.CIT(A) THA T THE ASSESSEE HAS CREATED FACILITIES OF HIGH STANDARD BY UTILISING SU RPLUS GENERATED OVER THE YEARS ALONG WITH DONATIONS ETC. AND THAT NO MONEY HAS BEEN DIVERTED FOR PURPOSES OTHER THAN THE OBJECTIVE OF THE TRUST OR T HAT PROVISIONS CONTAINED IN SECTION 13 OF THE I.T. ACT HAVE NOT BEEN VIOLATE D COULD NOT BE CONTROVERTED BY THE LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE . 7.3 IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE AND IN VIEW OF THE DETAILE D REASONING GIVEN BY THE LD.CIT(A) WE FIND NO INFIRMITY IN HIS ORDER HOLDING THAT THE ASSESSEE IS ENTITLED FOR EXEMPTION U/S.11 OF THE I. T. ACT. ACCORDINGLY WE UPHOLD THE SAME AND THE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE RE VENUE ARE DISMISSED. 8. IN THE RESULT THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE I S DISMISSED. PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 30-04-2014. SD/- SD/- (R.S.PADVEKAR) (R.K. PANDA) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER PUNE DATED: 30 TH APRIL 2014 SATISH COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. ASSESSEE 2. DEPARTMENT 3. CIT(A)-I PUNE 4 CIT-I PUNE 5. THE D.R B PUNE BENCH 6. GUARD FILE BY ORDER // TRUE COPY // SENIOR PRIVATE SECRETARY ITAT PUNE BENCHES PUNE