M/s Marshall School Society, Dehradun v. ACIT, Dehradun

ITA 1717/DEL/2010 | 1999-2000
Pronouncement Date: 25-03-2011 | Result: Dismissed

Appeal Details

RSA Number 171720114 RSA 2010
Assessee PAN AAAAM0478R
Bench Delhi
Appeal Number ITA 1717/DEL/2010
Duration Of Justice 11 month(s) 9 day(s)
Appellant M/s Marshall School Society, Dehradun
Respondent ACIT, Dehradun
Appeal Type Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date 25-03-2011
Appeal Filed By Assessee
Order Result Dismissed
Bench Allotted E
Tribunal Order Date 25-03-2011
Date Of Final Hearing 17-03-2011
Next Hearing Date 17-03-2011
Assessment Year 1999-2000
Appeal Filed On 16-04-2010
Judgment Text
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (DELHI BENCH E : NEW DELHI) BEFORE SHRI RAJPAL YADAV JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI B.C. MEENA ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NOS.1717 TO 1720/DEL./2010 (ASSESSMENT YEARS : 1999-00 2000-01 2004-05 & 200 5-06) ITA NO.3210/DEL./2010 (ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2002-03) M/S. MARSHALL SCHOOL SOCIETY VS. ACIT CIRCLE 2 C/O M/S. MALIK & COMPANY DEHRADUN. 305 THAPAR NAGAR MEERUT. (PAN : AAAAM0478R) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : SHRI H.G. MALIK ADVOCATE REVENUE BY : SHRI PEEYUSH SONKAR SENIOR DR ORDER PER B.C. MEENA ACCOUNTANT MEMBER : ITA NOS.1717 TO 1720/DEL/2010 AND ITA NO.3210/DEL/2 010 ARE FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER OF CIT (APPEALS)-I DEHR ADUN DATED 30.12.2010 AND 18.3.2010 RESPECTIVELY. SOME OF THE GROUNDS OF APP EAL TAKEN IN THESE APPEALS ARE COMMON THEREFORE THE APPEALS ARE DISPOSED OFF BY THIS COMMON ORDER. 2. THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL IN ITA NOS.1717 TO 1719/DE L/2010 AND ITA NO.3210/DEL/2010 ARE SIMILARLY WORDED EXCEPT THE DI FFERENCE IN THE AMOUNT. FOR THE SAKE OF BREVITY WE REPRODUCE THE GROUNDS OF AP PEAL IN ITA NO.1717/DEL/2010 AS UNDER :- ITA NOS.1717 TO 1720/DEL./2010 2 1. A) THAT THE APPELLANT IN THE INCOME-TAX RETURN MADE TRUE AND CORRECT DISCLOSURE OF ALL PRIMARY FACTS NECESSARY F OR THE ASSESSMENT WHILE CLAIMING EXEMPTION OF INCOME UNDER THE RELEVANT PROVISION OF IT ACT. B) ON FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AN D IN LAW THERE BEING NO FAILURE OR OMISSION ON PART OF THE A PPELLANT ASSESSEE TO DISCLOSE ALL PRIMARY FACTS NECESSARY FO R ASSESSMENT THE INITIATION OF PROCEEDINGS U/S 147 R EAD WITH SEC. 148 OF LT. ACT AFTER THE EXPIRY OF STATUTORY P ERIOD OF JOUR YEARS FROM THE END OF ASSESSMENT YEAR WAS ILLEGAL VOID WITHOUT JURISDICTION AND BARRED BY LIMITATION. C) THE ASSESSMENT FRAMED VIDE ORDER DATED 05.12.07 U/S 143(3) OF IT. ACT AND SUSTAINED BY LD. CIT(A) VIDE APPELLATE ORDER DATED 30.12.2009 DESERVE TO BE QUASHED AND AN NULLED BEING ILLEGAL VOID WITHOUT JURISDICTION AND BARRE D BY LIMITATION. 2. THAT THE APPELLANT'S SOCIETY WAS RUNNING AN EDUC ATIONAL INSTITUTION WHICH WAS THE ONLY ACTIVITY CARRIED ON BY THE APPELLANT. THE SURPLUS ARISING TO THE SOCIETY WAS E XEMPT AND NOT CHARGEABLE TO TAX UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF SEC. 10(23C) OF IT. ACT. ON FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE C ASE AND IN LAW THE EXEMPTION AS CLAIMED WAS ADMISSIBLE. THE R EJECTION AND DISALLOWANCE OF EXEMPTION SUSTAINED BY LD. CIT( A) DESERVE TO BE QUASHED AND ANNULLED BEING ILLEGAL E RRONEOUS AND WITHOUT JURISDICTION. 3. A) THE OBJECTS FOR WHICH THE SOCIETY WAS FORMED ARE INCORPORATED IN MEMORANDUM OF ASSOCIATION WHICH SH OWS THAT THE SOCIETY WAS ESTABLISHED TO OWN AND MANAGE ONE OR MORE EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTION. THE SOCIETY HAS BEEN GRANTED REGISTRATION CERTIFICATE BY REGISTRAR OF SOCIETY U TTARANCHAL AND ALSO NO OBJECTION CERTIFICATE WAS ISSUED BY STA TE EDUCATION DEPARTMENT. THE SOCIETY IS ALSO AFFILIATE D WITH ICSE BOARD NEW DELHI. THE DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE FUL LY ESTABLISHED THAT THE SOCIETY WAS FORMED FOR THE EXC LUSIVE PURPOSE OF ESTABLISHING AN EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTION. THE SURPLUS DERIVED BY THE SOCIETY HAS BEEN UTILIZED FOR ATTAIN MENT OF THE OBJECTS OF THE SOCIETY AND IN ACQUISITION OF ASSET FOR THE PURPOSE OF RUNNING THE EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTION. ITA NOS.1717 TO 1720/DEL./2010 3 B) ON FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AN D IN LAW THE EXEMPTION UNDER SEC. 10(23C) WAS ADMISSIBLE AND DESERVES TO BE ALLOWED. 4. THAT THE SUM OF RS.7 84 128/- DID NOT INVOLVE EL EMENT OF INCOME AND WAS NOT LIABLE FOR INCLUSION AS TAXABLE INCOME. ADDITION OF RS.7 84 1281- MADE BY A.O. AND SUSTAINE D BY LD. CIT(A) DESERVES TO BE DELETED BEING VOID WITHOUT J URISDICTION AND UNWARRANTED ON FACTS AND IN LAW. 5. THAT THE COMPUTATION OF TAXABLE INCOME OF RS.29 80 853/- AS PER ASSESSMENT ORDER AND THE TAX LIABILITY THEREON INCLUDING INTEREST U/S 234B(3) DESERVES TO BE QUASHED AND CAN CELLED BEING ILLEGAL VOID WITHOUT JURISDICTION AND UNTEN ABLE ON FACTS AND IN LAW. THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL TAKEN IN ITA NO.1720/DEL/2010 ARE SIMILAR TO THE AFORESAID GROUNDS NO.2 TO 5 BUT THE SAME ARE MARKED AS SL.NOS .1 TO 4 IN THE SAID APPEAL. 3. BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT SOCIETY IS REGI STERED WITH REGISTRAR OF SOCIETIES W.E.F. 21.2.1980. IT HAS BEEN REVALIDATE D ON 5.3.2004 FOR FIVE YEARS (PAGE 4 OF THE PAPER BOOK). THE ASSESSEE IS A SOCIETY RU NNING A SCHOOL IN THE NAME AND STYLE OF MARSHALL SCHOOL AT DEHRADUN. THE ASSESSEE SOCIETY HAS BEEN GRANTED REGISTRATION U/S 12A WITH EFFECT FROM 8.2.2007 VIDE ORDER OF CIT(A) DEHRADUN DATED 22.5.2009 (COPY OF ORDER AT PAGE 52 OF PAPER BOOK). THE SCHOOL OF THE ASSESSEE IS AFFILIATED TO COUNCIL FOR THE INDIAN SC HOOL CERTIFICATE EXAMINATIONS (COPY OF CERTIFICATE AT PAGE 7 OF PAPER BOOK). THE ASSESSEE HAS MADE AN APPLICATION (PAGE 8 TO 11 OF PAPER BOOK) TO THE CENTRAL BOARD O F DIRECT TAXES THROUGH THE COMMISSION OF INCOME-TAX FOR GRANTING EXEMPTION U/S 10(23C)(VI) AND (VIA) FOR THE YEAR 1998-99 (RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEAR 1999-00) ONW ARDS. THIS APPLICATION OF ASSESSEE WAS REJECTED FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 1999 -00 TO 2001-02 VIDE ORDER DATED 26.2.2007 (COPY OF ORDER AT PAGE 12 TO 14 OF PAPER BOOK). THE ASSESSEE SOCIETY WAS ITA NOS.1717 TO 1720/DEL./2010 4 NOT REGISTERED U/S 12AA PRIOR TO 8.2.2007. THE AGG REGATE ANNUAL RECEIPTS WERE EXCEEDING RS.1 CRORE IN ALL THE RELEVANT YEARS (F.Y . 1998-99 1999-00 2001-02 2003-04 & 2004-05). 4. IN THE GROUND NOS.1(A) (B) AND (C) THE ASSESSE E HAS CHALLENGED THE REOPENING PROCEEDINGS U/S 147 READ WITH SECTION 148 ON ACCOUN T OF THAT THE REOPENING HAVE BEEN DONE AFTER FOUR YEARS FROM THE END OF THE ASSE SSMENT YEAR WHILE THE ASSESSEE HAS DISCLOSED ALL PRIMARY FACTS NECESSARY FOR ASSES SMENT. THERE WAS NO VIOLATION OR OMISSION ON THE PART OF THE ASSESSEE THEREFORE RE OPENING IS NOT VALID. LEARNED AR PLEADED TO QUASH THE ORDER OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW . LEARNED DR RELIED ON THE ORDER OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. 5. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE SIDES AND AFTER HEARING W E HOLD THAT THE ORIGINAL RETURN OF INCOME WAS FILED ON 30.11.1999 FOR THE AS SESSMENT YEAR 1999-00. IN THIS RETURN THE INCOME WAS DECLARED AT NIL AND EXEMPTIO N U/S 10(23C) OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT 1961 WAS CLAIMED AT RS.21 96 725/-. AT THE TI ME OF FILING RETURN THE ASSESSEES APPLICATION U/S 10(23C)(VI) WAS PENDING. BASICALLY THE CLAIM OF EXEMPTION WAS NOT AS PER THE LAW. THE APPLICATION MADE BY THE ASSESS EE FOR GRANTING APPROVAL U/S 10(23C)(VI) WAS REJECTED ON 26.2.2007. THESE FACTS HAVE BEEN RECORDED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN THE REASONS RECORDED FOR REOPE NING WHICH READ AS UNDER :- 09.03.2007 THE ASSESSEE MARSHALL SCHOOL SOCIETY D EHRADUN HAD FILED AN APPLICATION DATED 18.03.1999 FOR APPROVAL UNDER SEC. 10(23C)(VI) OF THE IT ACT 1961 FOR A.YR S 1999-2000 TO 2001-02 BEFORE THE CBDT NEW DELHI. THE CBDT NEW DELHI VIDE ITS ORDER DATED 26.02.2007 HAS RECEIVED THE ABOVE APPLICATION OF THE ASSESSEE DENYING THE APPROVAL UNDER SEC. 10(23)(VI) OF THE I T ACT 1961 FOR A.YRS. 1999-2000 TO 2001-02 STATING ITA NOS.1717 TO 1720/DEL./2010 5 THEREIN THAT IT IS A CASE OF DIVERSION OF FUNDS OF SOCIETY FOR THE PERSONAL USE BY THE FOUNDERS AND PRESIDENT OF THE SOCIETY. ACCORDINGLY IT CANNOT BE SAID THAT TH E APPLICANT SOCIETY IS SOLELY EXISTING FOR EDUCATIONA L PURPOSE AND NOT FOR THE PURPOSE OF PROFIT. THE ASSESSEE SOCIETY HAS CLAIMED EXEMPTION OF RS.21 96 725/- UNDER SEC. (23C)(VI) OF IT ACT 1961 FOR A Y 1999-2000. IN VIEW OF ABOVE REJECTION OF APPLICATION FOR APPROVAL UNDER SEC. 10(23)(VI) OF T HE IT ACT 1961 THE AMOUNT OF RS.2196725/- CLAIMED AS EXEMPT UNDER SEC. 10(23C)(VI) IS TO BE TAXED. THEREFORE I HAVE REASON TO BELIEVE THAT THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE HAS ESCAPED ASSESSMENT TO THE TUNE OF RS.21 96 725/-. THE CASE IS PROPOSED TO BE REOPENED AS PER EXPLANATION 2(B) OF SECTION 147 OF THE IT ACT 1961. FURTHER IT IS STATED THAT THE PROVISION OF S ECTION 150(2) DO NOT STAND IN THE WAY OF INITIATION OF PROCEEDINGS UNDER SEC. 147 AS THE TIME LIMIT FOR REOPENING OF THE CASE APPLICABLE AT THE TIME FOR TH E A.Y. 1999-2000 WAS 10 YEARS. THE CASE WAS PROCESSED UNDER SEC. 143(1)(A) OF I.T. ACT. THE PROPOSAL TO REOPEN THE CASE UNDER SEC. 147 OF T HE IT ACT IS SENT TO THE JCIT RANGE-2 DEHRADUN. ACIT 19.03.2007 APPROVAL TO ISSUE NOTICE UNDER SEC. 148 OF THE IT ACT RECEIVED FROM THE JCIT RANGE-2 DEHRADUN VIDE LETT ER F .NO. JCTT/DDN/148/2006-07/3340 DATED 19.03.2007 WHICH IS PLACED ON FILE. THUS ASSESSEE MADE A CLAIM OF EXEMPTION U/S 10(23C ) IN RETURN FOR WHICH IT WAS NOT ENTITLED ON THAT DAY. ASSESSEE HAD NOT DISCLOS ED FULLY AND TRULY ALL MATERIAL FACTS NECESSARY FOR ASSESSMENT. THE REASONS RECORDED CLE ARLY ESTABLISH THAT THERE WAS SUFFICIENT REASON FOR OPENING THE REASSESSMENT PROC EEDINGS AND NECESSARY APPROVAL OF APPROPRIATE AUTHORITIES HAD BEEN OBTAINED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER BEFORE ISSUING THE NOTICE U/S 148. THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT OBTAINED THE REGISTRATION U/S 12AA. THE ITA NOS.1717 TO 1720/DEL./2010 6 APPROVAL FOR EXEMPTION U/S 10(23C) OF INCOME-TAX AC T WAS NECESSARY AS THE AGGREGATE ANNUAL RECEIPTS WERE MORE THAN RS.1 CRORE . THE APPLICATION FOR EXEMPTION U/S 10(23C) WAS REJECTED BY THE APPROPRIA TE AUTHORITIES. IN SUCH A SITUATION THERE WAS SUFFICIENT REASONS FOR ASSESSI NG OFFICER TO INITIATE THE REOPENING PROCEEDINGS WHICH HE HAS RIGHTLY DONE AND WE SUSTAI N THE ORDER OF CIT (A) ON THIS ISSUE AND DISMISS GROUND NO.1(A) (B) & (C). 6. IN THE GROUND NO.2 THE ASSESSEE HAS CLAIMED THA T THE SURPLUS ARISING TO THE SOCIETY WAS EXEMPT AND NOT CHARGEABLE TO TAX UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION (10(23C) OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT AND ITS CLAIM THAT S UCH EXEMPTION IS ADMISSIBLE AND PRAYED TO QUASH THE ORDERS OF AUTHORITIES BELOW. I N GROUND NO.3 IT HAS BEEN CLAIMED THAT THE ASSESSEE DESERVES TO EXEMPTION U/S 10(23C) AS THE ASSESSEE SOCIETY WAS REGISTERED WITH THE REGISTRAR OF SOCIETY UTTARANCH AL AND NO OBJECTION HAS BEEN ISSUED BY STATE EDUCATION DEPARTMENT AND THE SOCIET Y IS ALSO AFFILIATED WITH THE ICSE BOARD NEW DELHI. 7. AFTER HEARING BOTH THE SIDES ON THIS ISSUE WE H OLD THAT THE ASSESSEE IS A REGISTERED SOCIETY WITH REGISTRAR OF SOCIETIES UTT ARANCHAL. THE ASSESSEE IS RUNNING A SCHOOL. ASSESSEE HAVE GOT NO OBJECTION CERTIFICA TE ISSUED BY THE STATE EDUCATION DEPARTMENT. THE SCHOOL RUN BY THE SOCIETY IS AFFIL IATED WITH THE ICSE BOARD NEW DELHI. HOWEVER FOR CLAIMING EXEMPTION U/S 10(23C) CERTAIN NECESSARY CONDITIONS ARE REQUIRED TO BE FULFILLED. THE RELEVANT CLAUSE OF SECTION 10(23C) READ AS UNDER : 10. IN COMPUTING THE TOTAL INCOME OF A PREVIOUS Y EAR OF ANY PERSON ANY INCOME FALLING WITHIN ANY OF THE FOLLOWING CLAU SES SHALL NOT BE INCLUDED .. ITA NOS.1717 TO 1720/DEL./2010 7 (23C) ANY INCOME RECEIVED BY ANY PERSON ON BEHALF O F .. (IIIAB) ANY UNIVERSITY OR OTHER EDUCATIONAL INSTITU TION EXISTING SOLELY FOR EDUCATIONAL PURPOSES AND NOT FOR PURPOSES OF PR OFIT AND WHICH IS WHOLLY OR SUBSTANTIALLY FINANCED BY THE GOVERNMENT; OR .. (IIIAD) ANY UNIVERSITY OR OTHER EDUCATIONAL INSTITU TION EXISTING SOLELY FOR EDUCATIONAL PURPOSES AND NOT FOR PURPOSES OF PR OFIT IF THE AGGREGATE ANNUAL RECEIPTS OF SUCH UNIVERSITY OR EDU CATIONAL INSTITUTION DO NOT EXCEED THE AMOUNT OF ANNUAL RECEIPTS AS MAY BE PRESCRIBED; OR .. (VI) ANY UNIVERSITY OR OTHER EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTIO N EXISTING SOLELY FOR EDUCATIONAL PURPOSES AND NOT FOR PURPOSES OF PR OFIT OTHER THAN THOSE MENTIONED IN SUB-CLAUSE (IIIAB) OR SUB-CLAUSE (IIIAD) AND WHICH MAY BE APPROVED BY THE PRESCRIBED AUTHORITY. THE RELEVANT RULES READ AS UNDER :- 2BC AMOUNT OF ANNUAL RECEIPTS FOR THE PURPOSES OF SUB- CLAUSES (IIIAD) AND (IIIAE) OF CLAUSE (23C) OF SECT ION 10. (1) FOR THE PURPOSES OF SUB-CLAUSE (IIIAD) OF CLAUS E (23C) OF SECTION 10 THE AMOUNT OF ANNUAL RECEIPTS ON OR AFTER THE 1 ST DAY OF APRIL 1998 OF ANY UNIVERSITY OR OTHER EDUCATIONAL INSTIT UTION EXISTING SOLELY FOR EDUCATIONAL PURPOSES AND NOT FOR PURPOSES OF PR OFIT SHALL BE ONE CRORE RUPEES. (2) FOR THE PURPOSES OF SUB-CLAUSE (IIIAE) OF CLAUS E (23C) OF SECTION 10 THE AMOUNT OF ANNUAL RECEIPTS ON OR AFTER THE 1 ST DAY OF APRIL 1998 OF ANY HOSPITAL OR OTHER INSTITUTION FOR THE RECEPTION AND TREATMENT OF PERSONS SUFFERING FROM ILLNESS OR MENT AL DEFECTIVENESS OR FOR THE RECEPTION AND TREATMENT OF PERSONS DURING C ONVALESCENCE OR OF PERSONS REQUIRING MEDICAL ATTENTION OR REHABILITATI ON EXISTING SOLELY FOR PHILANTHROPIC PURPOSES AND NOT FOR PURPOSES OF PROFIT SHALL BE ONE CRORE RUPEES.] 2C. GUIDELINES FOR APPROVAL UNDER SUB-CLAUSES (IV) AND (V) OF CLAUSE (23C) OF SECTION 10. (1) THE PRESCRIBED AUTHORITY UNDER SUB-CLAUSES (IV) AND (V) OF CLAUSE (23C) OF SECTION 10 SHALL BE THE CHIEF COMMI SSIONER OR DIRECTOR GENERAL TO WHOM THE APPLICATION SHALL BE MADE AS PROVIDED IN SUB-RULE (2). ITA NOS.1717 TO 1720/DEL./2010 8 (2) THE APPLICATION TO BE FURNISHED UNDER SUB-CLAUS ES (IV) AND (V) OF CLAUSE (23C) OF SECTION 10 BY A FUND TRUST OR I NSTITUTION SHALL BE IN FORM NO.56. EXPLANATION.FOR THE PURPOSES OF THIS RULE CHIEF COMMISSIONER OR DIRECTOR GENERAL MEANS THE CHIEF COMMISSIONER OR D IRECTOR GENERAL WHOM THE CENTRAL BOARD OF DIRECT TAXES MAY AUTHORI SE TO ACT AS PRESCRIBED AUTHORITY FOR THE PURPOSES OF SUB-CLAUSE (IV) OR SUB-CLAUSE (V) OF CLAUSE (23C) OF SECTION 10 IN RELATION TO AN Y FUND OR TRUST OR INSTITUTION.] 2CA. GUIDELINES FOR APPROVAL UNDER SUB-CLAUSES (VI) AND (VIA) OF CLAUSE (23C) OF SECTION 10. (1) THE PRESCRIBED AUTHORITY UNDER SUB-CLAUSES (VI) AND (VIA) OF CLAUSE (23C) OF SECTION 10 SHALL BE THE CHIEF COMMISSIONER OR DIRECTOR GENERAL TO WHOM THE APPLICATION SHALL BE MADE AS P ROVIDED IN SUB- RULE (2). (1A) THE PRESCRIBED AUTHORITY UNDER SUB-CLAUSES (VI ) AND (VIA) OF CLAUSE (23C) OF SECTION 10 SHALL BE THE CENTRAL BOA RD OF DIRECT TAXES CONSTITUTED UNDER THE CENTRAL BOARDS OF REVENUE ACT 1963 (54 OF 1963) FOR APPLICATIONS RECEIVED PRIOR TO 3RD DAY OF APRIL 2001: [PROVIDED THAT IN CASE OF APPLICATIONS RECEIVED PRI OR TO 3RD DAY OF APRIL 2001 WHERE NO ORDER HAS BEEN PASSED GRANTING APPROVAL OR REJECTING THE APPLICATION AS ON 31ST DAY OF MAY 20 07 THE PRESCRIBED AUTHORITY UNDER SUB-CLAUSES (VI) AND (VIA) OF CLAUS E (23C) OF SECTION 10 SHALL BE THE CHIEF COMMISSIONER OR DIRECTOR GENE RAL.] (2) AN APPLICATION FOR APPROVAL SHALL BE MADE IN FO RM NO.56D BY ANY UNIVERSITY OR OTHER EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTION OR ANY HOSPITAL OR OTHER MEDICAL INSTITUTION REFERRED TO IN SUB-CLAUSE (VI) OR SUB-CLAUSE (VIA) OF CLAUSE (23C) OF SECTION 10. SECTION 10(23C)(VI) R.W. RULES PROVIDE THAT WHEN AG GREGATE ANNUAL RECEIPTS OF EDUCATION INSTITUTION IS MORE THAN RS.1 CRORE THEN NECESSARY APPROVAL IS REQUIRED FROM PRESCRIBED AUTHORITY FOR CLAIMING EXEMPTION. ADMITTEDLY THE AGGREGATE ANNUAL RECEIPTS ARE MORE THAN RS.1 CRORE IN ALL THE YEARS. THE ASSESSEE HAS MADE THE APPLICATION FOR THE APPROVAL WITH PRESCRIBED AUTHOR ITY AND THE SAME HAS BEEN ITA NOS.1717 TO 1720/DEL./2010 9 REJECTED. IN VIEW OF THESE THE ASSESSEE IS NOT EN TITLED TO CLAIM EXEMPTION U/S 10(23C). THEREFORE WE DISMISS GROUND NOS.2 & 3(A) (B) OF THE ASSESSEES APPEALS. 8. IN THE GROUND NO.4 THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE ISSUE REGARDING THE TAXABILITY OF THE AMOUNT TAKEN TO THE BUILDING FUND ACCOUNT. AFTER HEARING BOTH THE SIDES ON THE ISSUE WE FIND THAT THE ASSESSEE IS REGISTERED SOCIETY U/S 12AA FOR THE RELEVANT PERIOD. NEITHER ENTITLED FOR EXEMPTION U/S 11 OF T HE INCOME-TAX ACT NOR U/S 10(23C) OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT. FURTHER THE ACT AND RULE PR OVIDES FOR AGGREGATE ANNUAL RECEIPTS WHICH ARE MORE THAN RS.1 CRORE. IN VIEW O F THIS MATTER THE RECEIPTS DIRECTLY TAKEN TO THE BUILDING FUND ACCOUNT CONSTITUTE THE T AXABLE SURPLUS OF THE SOCIETY. SINCE THIS IS SURPLUS WHICH IS TAXABLE WE UPHOLD TH E ORDER OF THE CIT (A) ON THIS ISSUE. 9. GROUND NO.5 IS REGARDING THE LEVY OF INTEREST U/ S 234B(3). ON THIS AFTER HEARING BOTH THE SIDES WE FINDING THAT LEVYING THE INTEREST IS MANDATORY AND IS CONSEQUENTLY AS A RESULT OF ASSESSMENT. AS THE CIT (A) HAS DIRECTED TO CHECK THE COMPUTATION OF INTEREST TO WORK OUT THE CORRECT TAX LIABILITY WE DO NOT INCLINE TO INTERFERE WITH THE ORDER OF CIT (A) ON THIS ISSUE. 10. IN THE RESULT ALL THE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE ARE DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON THIS 25 TH DAY OF MARCH 2011. SD/- SD/- (RAJPAL YADAV) (B.C. MEENA) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED THE 25 TH DAY OF MARCH 2011 TS ITA NOS.1717 TO 1720/DEL./2010 10 COPY FORWARDED TO: 1.APPELLANT 2.RESPONDENT 3.CIT 4.CIT (A)-I DEHRADUN. 5.CIT(ITAT) NEW DELHI. AR ITAT NEW DELHI.