DCIT, Yamunanagar v. M/s Mukand Lal College Society, Yamunanagar

ITA 212/CHANDI/2013 | 2009-2010
Pronouncement Date: 26-10-2016 | Result: Allowed

Appeal Details

RSA Number 21221514 RSA 2013
Assessee PAN AABTM0273E
Bench Chandigarh
Appeal Number ITA 212/CHANDI/2013
Duration Of Justice 3 year(s) 8 month(s)
Appellant DCIT, Yamunanagar
Respondent M/s Mukand Lal College Society, Yamunanagar
Appeal Type Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date 26-10-2016
Appeal Filed By Department
Order Result Allowed
Bench Allotted A
Tribunal Order Date 26-10-2016
Date Of Final Hearing 28-07-2016
Next Hearing Date 28-07-2016
Assessment Year 2009-2010
Appeal Filed On 26-02-2013
Judgment Text
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DIVISION BENCH CHANDIGARH BEFORE SHRI BHAVNESH SAINI JUDICIAL MEMBER AND MS. ANNAPURNA GUPTA ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO.212/CHD/2013 (ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2009-10) THE D.C.I.T. VS. M/S MUKAND LAL COLLEGE SOCIETY YAMUNA NAGAR CIRCLE YAMUNA NAGAR. YAMUNA NAGAR. PAN: AABTM0273E (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI RAVI SARANGAL CIT DR RESPONDENT BY : SHRI TEJ MOHAN SINGH DATE OF HEARING : 24.10.2016 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 26.10.2016 O R D E R PER ANNAPURNA GUPTA A.M . : THIS APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED BY THE REVENUE AGAIN ST THE ORDER OF LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) PANCHKULA DATED 19.12.2012. 2. THE ONLY ISSUE IN THE PRESENT APPEAL RELATES TO THE TREATMENT OF THE INVESTMENTS MADE BY THE ASSESS EE TRUST IN FDRS AS APPLICATION OF INCOME UNDER SECTIO N 11(1)(A) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT 1961 (IN SHORT THE ACT) 3. BRIEF FACTS RELATING TO THE CASE ARE THAT FOR T HE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT YEAR THE ASSESSEE FILED ITS RET URN OF INCOME DECLARING NIL INCOME AFTER CLAIMING ITS E NTIRE 2 INCOME EXEMPT UNDER SECTION 11 OF THE ACT. DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS THE ASSESSING OFF ICER NOTED THAT THE INCOME AND EXPENDITURE ANNEXED TO TH E RETURN OF INCOME REVEALED THAT AS AGAINST TOTAL REC EIPTS OF RS.5 74 71 228/- ONLY A SUM OF RS.3 79 56 632/- HAD BEEN SPENT TOWARDS ITS OBJECTS WHICH FORMED ONLY 66 % OF THE TOTAL RECEIPTS. THE ASSESSING OFFICER REJECTED THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE THAT INVESTMENTS MADE BY IT IN FDRS BE TREATED AS APPLICATION OF INCOME FOR THE P URPOSE OF SECTION 11(1)(A) OF THE ACT. THUS THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOUND THAT THE APPLICATION OF INCOME FOR CHARITABLE PURPOSE WAS SHORT OF THE MANDATORY LIMIT OF 85% OF THE TOTAL RECEIPTS BY RS.1 08 93 912/-. AFTER ALLOWING CREDIT FOR THE AMOUNT SPENT BY SETH JAI PARKASH MUKUND LAL MODEL SECONDARY SCHOOL AMOUNTING TO RS.13 58 270/- AS APPLICATION OF INCOME TOWARDS CHARITABLE PURPOSE T HE ASSESSING OFFICER MADE AN ADDITION OF THE BALANCE AMOUNTING TO RS.95 35 634/-. 4. AGGRIEVED BY THE SAME THE ASSESSEE CAME UP IN APPEAL BEFORE THE LEARNED CIT (APPEALS) WHO ALLOWE D THE ASSESSEES APPEAL HOLDING THE INVESTMENTS MADE BY T HE ASSESSEE DURING THE YEAR IN FDRS AS APPLICATION OF INCOME FOR THE PURPOSES OF SECTION 11(1)(A) OF THE ACT FO LLOWING THE ORDER OF THE I.T.A.T. CHANDIGARH BENCH IN THE CASE OF THE VED PARKASH MUKUND LAL EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY RADA UR VS. DCIT IN ITA NO.952/CHD/2011 DATED 25.1.2012. 3 5. AGGRIEVED BY THE SAME THE REVENUE HAS FILED TH E PRESENT APPEAL BEFORE US. 6. DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING BEFORE US IT WAS BROUGHT TO THE NOTICE OF THE BENCH THAT AN IDENTICA L ISSUE HAD BEEN DECIDED BY THE I.T.A.T. IN THE CASE OF S. D. PUBLIC SCHOOL YAMUNA NAGAR IN ITA NO.80/CHD/2015 DATED 4.11.2015 WHEREIN AFTER TAKING INTO CONSIDERA TION THE DECISION RENDERED IN THE CASE OF THE VED PARKA SH MUKUND LAL EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY RADAUR (SUPRA) THE I.T.A.T. HAD RESTORED THE ISSUE BACK TO THE FILE OF THE CIT (APPEALS) TO DETERMINE WHETHER THE PURPOSE OF MAKIN G THE INVESTMENT WAS CHARITABLE OR NOT AND WHETHER THE SA ME WAS INCORPORATED AS AN OBJECT OF THE ASSESSEE SOCIE TY IN ITS MEMORANDUM OF ASSOCIATION. THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE CONCEDED BEFORE US THAT THE ISSUE IN T HE PRESENT CASE WAS IDENTICAL TO THAT DECIDED BY THE I .T.A.T. IN THE CASE OF S.D. PUBLIC SCHOOL YAMUNA NAGAR (SU PRA) AND AGREED THAT THE FINDINGS IN THAT CASE SQUARELY APPLIED IN THE PRESENT CASE ALSO. 7. WE HAVE HEARD THE CONTENTIONS OF BOTH THE PARTIES PERUSED THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELO W AND HAVE GONE THROUGH THE ORDER OF THE I.T.A.T. IN THE CASE OF S.D. PUBLIC SCHOOL YAMUNA NAGAR (SUPRA). WE FIND THAT IN THE CASE OF S.D. PUBLIC SCHOOL YAMUNA NAGAR (S UPRA). 8. A PERUSAL OF THE AFORESTATED ORDER OF THE ITAT IN THE CASE OF S.D. PUBLIC SCHOOL YAMUNA NAGAR (SUPR A) REVEALS THAT THE ISSUE BEFORE THE BENCH IN THAT CA SE WAS 4 WHETHER INVESTMENT OF SURPLUS FUNDS IN FDRS PER SE COULD BE TREATED AS APPLICATION OF INCOME FOR THE P URPOSE OF SECTION 11(1)(A) OF THE ACT. THE I.T.A.T. WE F IND EXHAUSTIVELY DEALT WITH THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 1 1 OF THE ACT AND ALSO WITH THE MEANING OF THE TERM APPLICAT ION OF INCOME USED THEREIN AND HELD THAT FOR THE PURPOSE OF CLAIMING EXEMPTION UNDER SECTION 12 OF THE ACT THE INCOME OF THE TRUST SHOULD BE APPLIED FOR CHARITABLE PURPOSE (ITALICS SUPPLIED BY US) IN THE SAME YEAR OR IN SUCCEEDING YEARS. THEREAFTER IT DEALT WITH THE ASP ECT OF WHETHER INVESTMENT OF FUNDS AND FDRS COULD BE TREAT ED AS APPLICATION OF INCOME FOR CHARITABLE PURPOSE AND HE LD THAT FOR ARRIVING AT SUCH A CONCLUSION THERE HAD TO BE A NEXUS BETWEEN INVESTMENT MADE IN FDRS AND ACHIEVEMENT OF CHARITABLE OBJECTS OF THE ASSESSEE I.E. SOME CHARIT ABLE OBJECTS OF THE ASSESSEE TRUST SHOULD BE ACHIEVED BY MAKING SUCH INVESTMENT IN FDRS. THE HON'BLE BENCH HELD THAT MERE DEPOSIT OF SURPLUS FUNDS IN FDRS COU LD NOT BE TREATED AS APPLICATION BUT IF THE DEPOSIT IS MAD E FOR UTILIZING IN FUTURE FOR CHARITABLE PURPOSE IT WOULD AMOUNT TO APPLICATION FOR CHARITABLE PURPOSE SUBJECT TO FU LFILLMENT OF THE CONDITIONS SPECIFIED IN SECTION 11(2) OF THE ACT WHEREBY THE ASSESSEE HAS TO INFORM THE ASSESSING OF FICER OF ACCUMULATION OF HIS INCOME ALONGWITH PURPOSE FOR WHICH THE SUM IS BEING ACCUMULATED. THE BENCH THEREAFTER RULED OUT THE APPLICABILITY OF SECTION 1 1(2) OF THE ACT TO THE FACTS OF THE CASE SINCE NO SUCH CLAI M HAD BEEN MADE BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE RETURN OF INCOME F ILED OR 5 EVEN DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS AN D THEN THEREAFTER HELD THAT SINCE THERE WAS NO FINDIN G OF FACT REGARDING THE OBJECT OF THE TRUST/SOCIETY BEING INVESTMENTS IN FDRS THE ISSUE NEEDED TO BE RESTORE D BACK TO THE CIT (APPEALS) TO DETERMINE THE SAME. THE HO N'BLE BENCH REFERRED TO THE DECISION IN THE CASE OF THE V ED PARKASH MUKUND LAL EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY RADAUR (SUPR A) WHICH WAS RELIED UPON BY THE CIT (APPEALS) ALSO WHI LE GRANTING RELIEF TO THE ASSESSEE AND STATED THAT IN THAT CASE THERE WAS A SPECIFIC FINDING OF THE TRIBUNAL TO THE EFFECT THAT ONE OF THE OBJECTS OF THE ASSESSEE SOCI ETY WAS MAKING INVESTMENT IN FDRS. THUS THE CASE OF THE V ED PARKASH MUKUND LAL EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY RADAUR (SUPR A) WAS DISTINGUISHABLE ON THIS ASPECT AND THE MATTER W AS RESTORED TO THE CIT (APPEALS) TO DECIDE THE ISSUE I N THE LIGHT OF THE DECISION OF THE I.T.A.T. IN THE CASE O F THE VED PARKASH MUKUND LAL EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY RADAUR (SUPR A) AND FURTHER IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW. THE RELEVANT F INDINGS OF THE I.T.A.T. AT PARAS 6 TO 12 OF THE ORDER ARE R EPRODUCED HERE UNDER : 6. WE HAVE HEARD THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BY THE REPRESENTATIVE OF BOTH THE PARTIES AND HAVE PERUSED THE DOCUMENTS AND ORDER OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. THE UNDISPUTED FACTS IN THE PRESENT CASE ARE THAT THE GR OSS RECEIPTS OF THE ASSESSEE FROM ITS CHARITABLE ACTIVITIE S CARRIED OUT DURING THE IMPUGNED AY WAS RS. 330 95 888/-. THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED APPLICATION OF THIS INCOME U/S 11(1)AMOUNTING TO RS.2 19 66 769/- ON ACCOUNT OF EXPEN SES INCURRED ON CARRYING OUT ITS CHARITABLE ACTIVITIES A ND RS.24 49 751/- ON ACCOUNT OF ADDITION TO FIXED ASSETS DURING 6 THE YEAR WHICH AGAIN ARE NOT IN DISPUTE. THE ASSESS EE ALSO INVESTED A SUM OF RS. 1 20 00 000/- IN FIXED DEPOSITS WITH PNB AND CLAIMED THE SAME TO BE APPLICATION OF IN COME. THUS AFTER TAKING THE INVESTMENT IN FDR'S INTO CONSIDERATION THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED APPLICATION OF M ORE THAN 85% OF ITS INCOME IN CHARITABLE ACTIVITIES AND CLAI MED EXEMPTION U/S 11 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT 1961. IT IS ALSO A MATTER OF RECORD EVIDENT FROM THE AU DIT REPORT FILED IN FORM NO.10 BY THE ASSESSEE THAT NO AMOUNT HAD BEEN ACCUMULATED BY THE ASSESSEE AS PER SECTION 11 (2) OF THE ACT AND NEITHER HAD ANY AMOUNT BEEN INVESTED AS PER SECTION 11 (5) OF THE ACT. MEANING THEREBY THAT THE INVESTMENT IN FDR'S WAS NOT IN PURSUANCE TO THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 11 (2) READ WITH SECTION 11 (5) OF THE ACT AND NO CLAIM OF APPLICATION OF INCOME HAD BEEN MADE THERE UNDER BY T HE ASSESSEE. 7. THE ONLY QUESTION TO BE ANSWERED IN THE PRESENT A PPEAL IS WHETHER FOR THE PURPOSES OF SECTION 11(1)(A) INV ESTMENT IN FDR'S CAN BE TREATED AS APPLICATION OF INCOME ? FOR THE SAKE OF CLARITY THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 1 1(1)(A) EXPLANATION 2 TO SECTION 11(1) AND 11 (2) ARE BEING REPRODUCED HERE UNDER: SEC DON 1I (1) 'SUBJECT TO (HE PROVISIONS OF SECTIONS 60 TO 63 THE TO/LOWING INCOME SHALL NOT BE INCLUDED IN THE TOTAL INCOME OF TH E PREVIOUS YEAR OF THE PERSON IN RECEIPT OF THE INCOM E. (A) INCOME DERIVED FROM PROPERTY HELD UNDER TRUST WH OLLY FOR CHARITABLE OR RELIGIOUS PURPOSES TO THE EXTENT TO WHICH SUCH INCOME IS APPLIED TO SUCH PURPOSES IN INDIA AND WHERE ANY SUCH INCOME IS ACCUMULATED OR SET APART F OR APPLICATION OF SUCH PURPOSES IN INDIA TO THE EXTEN T TO WHICH THE INCOME SO ACCUMULATED OR SET APART IS NOT IN EXCESS OF FIFTEEN PER CENT OF THE INCOME FROM SUCH PROPERTY.' 7 (B) EXPLANATION 2 '(2) IF IN THE PREVIOUS YEAR THE INCOME APPLIED TO CHARITABLE OR RELIGIOUS PURPOSES IN INDIA FALLS SHORT OF EIGHTY FIVE PER CENT OF THE INCOME DERIVED DURING THAT YEAR FROM PR OPERTY HELD UNDER TRUST OR AS THE CASE MAY BE HELD UNDE R TRUST IN PART BY ANY AMOUNT- (I) FOR THE REASON THAT THE WHOLE OR ANY PART OF THE INCOME HAS NOT BEEN RECEIVED DURING THAT YEAR OR (II) (II) FOR ANY OTHER REASON (III) THEN- (A) IN THE CASE REFERRED TO IN SUB-CLAUSE (I) SO MUC H OF THE INCOME APPLIED TO SUCH PURPOSES IN INDIA DURING THE PERVIOUS YEAR IN WHICH THE INCOME IS RECEIVED OR DUR ING THE PREVIOUS YEAR IMMEDIATELY FOLLOWING AS DOES NOT EXCEED THE SAID AMOUNTS AND (B) IN THE CASE REFERRED TO IN SUB-CLAUSE (II) SO MU CH OF THE INCOME APPLIED TO SUCH PURPOSES IN INDIA DURING THE PREVIOUS YEAR IMMEDIATELY FOLLOWING THE PREVIOUS YEAR I N WHICH THE INCOME WAS DERIVED AS DOES NO! EXCEED THE SAID AMOUNT MAY OF THE OPTION OF THE PERSON IN REC EIPT OF THE INCOME (SUCH OPTION TO BE EXERCISED IN WRITING B EFORE THE EXPIRY O! THE TIME ALLOWED UNDER SUB-SECTION (I)***O F SECTION 139*** FOR FURNISHING THE RETURN OF INCOME) BE DEEMED TO BE INCOME APPLIED TO SUCH PURPOSES DURING THE PREVIOUS YEAR IN WHICH THE INCOME WAS DERIVED; AN D THE INCOME SO DEEMED TO HAVE BEEN APPLIED SHALL NOT BE TOKEN INTO ACCOUNT IN CALCULATING THE AMOUNT OF INCOM E APPLIED TO SUCH PURPOSES IN THE CASE REFERRED TO IN SUB- CLAUSE(I) DURING THE PREVIOUS YEAR IN WHICH THE INCO ME IS RECEIVED OR DURING THE PREVIOUS YEAR IMMEDIATELY FOLLOWING AS (HE CASE MAY BE AND IN THE CASE REFERRE D TO IN SUB-CLAUSE(II) DURING THE PREVIOUS YEAR IMMEDIATE LY FOLLOWING THE PREVIOUS YEAR IN WHICH THE INCOME WAS DERIVED.' 8 SECTION 11 (2) 'WHERE EIGHTY FIVE PER CENT OF THE INCOME REFERRED TO IN CLAUSE (A) OR CLAUSE (B) OF SUBSECTION (1) READ WITH THE EXPLANATION TO THAT SUB-SECTION IS NOT APPLIED OR IS N OT DEEMED TO HAVE BEEN APPLIED TO CHARITABLE OR RELIGIOUS PURPOSES IN INDIA DURING THE PREVIOUS YEAR BUT IS ACCUMULATED OR SET APART EITHER IN WHOLE OR IN PART FO R APPLICATION TO SUCH PURPOSES IN INDIA SUCH INCOME S O ACCUMULATED OR SET APART SHALL NOT BE INCLUDED IN THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE PREVIOUS YEAR OF THE PERSON IN RECEIP T OF THE INCOME PROVIDED THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS ARE COMPLIE D WITH NAMELY:- (A) SUCH PERSON SPECIFIES BY NOTICE IN WRITING GIVEN TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN THE PRESCRIBED MANNER THE PUR POSE FOR WHICH THE INCOME IS TO BE ACCUMULATED OR SET AP ART WHICH SHALL IN NO CASE EXCEED TEN YEARS: (B) THE MONEY SO ACCUMULATED OR SET APART IS INVEST ED OR DEPOSITED IN THE FORMS OR MODES SPECIFIED IN SUB-SEC TION (5).' IT IS EVIDENT FROM A BARE PERUSAL OF THE SECTION THA T FOR THE PURPOSE OF CLAIMING EXEMPTION U/S 11 OF THE ACT 85% O F THE INCOME FROM PROPERTY HELD UNDER TRUST FOR CHARITABLE OR RELIGION PURPOSES SHOULD BE 'APPLIED' TO 'SUCH' PURPOS ES MEANING CHARITABLE PURPOSES. THE SAME IS TO BE DONE IN THE SAME YEAR BUT WHERE AN ASSESSEE IS UNABLE TO APPLY S UCH INCOME A SAVING GRACE IS PROVIDED IN EXPLANATION 2 TO SECTION 11(1) (A) WHEREBY THE APPLICATION OF INCOME FOR CHARIT ABLE PURPOSES CAN BE POSTPONED BY INTIMATING THE AO IN WRITING OF THE SAME. SIMILARLY SECTION 11 (2) ALSO GIVES A FU RTHER PERIOD OF 5 YEARS FOR APPLICATION OF INCOME PROVIDED THE AS SESSEE ACCUMULATES IT FOR A SPECIFIC AND CHARITABLE PURPOSE INTIMATES THE SAME TO THE AO IN A SPECIFIED FORM AND IN VESTS IT IN MODES SPECIFIED U/S 11 (5). 9 THE COMMON THREAD RUNNING THROUGH SECTION 11 (L)(A) EXPLANATION (2) TO SECTION 11(1) AND IN SECTION 11(2 ) IS THAT THE INCOME OF THE TRUST MUST BE APPLIED FOR CHARITA BLE PURPOSES WHETHER IN THE SAME YEARS OR IN SUCCEEDING YEARS. ME ANING THEREBY IT MUST BE USED FOR CHARITABLE PURPOSES. THI S CONCLUSION IS LOGICAL ENOUGH CONSIDERING THAT EXEMPTIO N U/S 11 IS GRANTED TO CHARITABLE ORGANIZATIONS FOR CARRYIN G OUT CHARITABLE ACTIVITIES. THUS IT IS ONLY WHEN FUNDS OF SUCH ENTITIES ARE UTILIZED FOR CHARITABLE PURPOSES THE OBJECT OF TH E ENTITY WILL BE ACHIEVED WHICH IN TURN WOULD JUSTIFY THE EXEMPTIO N GRANTED BY STATUTE TO SUCH ENTITIES. 8. IN THE BACKDROP OF THE ABOVE FACTUAL AND LEGAL POSITION WE SHALL NOW PROCEED TO EXAMINE WHETHER INVESTMENT OF FUNDS OF THE ASSESSEE TRUST IN FDR'S COULD BE TREATED AS APPLICATION OF INCOME FOR CHARITABLE PURPO SE. FOR ARRIVING AT THIS CONCLUSION THERE HAS TO BE NEXUS B ETWEEN INVESTMENT IN FDRS AND ACHIEVEMENT OF THE CHARITABLE OBJECTS OF THE ASSESSEE MEANING THEREBY THAT BY VIRTUE OF M AKING THIS INVESTMENT SOME CHARITABLE OBJECTS OF THE ASS ESSEE SHOULD BE ACHIEVED. THE PURPOSE / INTENTION FOR WHICH THE IN VESTMENT IS MADE SHOULD BE TOWARDS FULFILLING THE CHARITABLE OB JECTS OF THE ASSESSEE. MERELY DEPOSIT OF SURPLUS FUNDS IN FDRS CANNOT BE TREATED AS APPLICATION OF FUNDS FOR THE PURPOSES O F CHARILY. BUT IF THE DEPOSIT IN FDRS IS MADE FOR USING THEM I N THE FUTURE FOR CHARITABLE PURPOSES THE SAME WILL AMOUNT TO APP LICATION FOR CHARITABLE PURPOSES SUBJECT TO THE CONDITION THA T THE SAME IS DONE IN CONFORMITY WITH THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 11 (2) OF THE ACT WHEREBY THE ASSESSEE HAS TO INFORM THE ASSE SSING OFFICER OF THIS ACCUMULATION OF INCOME ALONGWITH THE SPECIFIC PURPOSE ALSO FOR WHICH IT HAS BEEN ACCUMULATED AND UT ILIZE THE SAME IN FIVE YEARS. 9. IN THE PRESENT CASE WE FIND THAT THERE IS NO FIN DING BY THE AUTHORITIES BELOW REGARDING THE PURPOSE OF I NVESTMENTS IN THE FDRS. IF THE INVESTMENTS WERE MADE ONLY LO LAK E CARE OF THE SURPLUS FUNDS OF THE ASSESSEE IT WOULD NOT AMOUNT TO USING THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE FOR CHARITABLE PU RPOSES. 10 IF THE INVESTMENT WAS MADE TO SET ASIDE FUNDS FOR F UTURE USE FOR SPECIFIC PURPOSE OF THE TRUST THE SAME OUGHT T O HAVE BEEN DONE AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 11 (2) BY FILI NG FORM NO. 10B TO THE AO. WE FIND THAT THE ASSESSEE HA S DENIED ANY CLAIM OF APPLICATION OF INCOME U/S 11(2) OF THE ACT IN THE AUDIT REPORT SUBMITTED. THEREFORE THIS POSSIBILITY IS RULED OUT. 10. IN THE IMPUGNED CASE WE FIND THAT BOTH THE AO A ND THE LD. CIT(A) HAVE NOT EXAMINED THIS ASPECT. THERE IS NO FINDING IN THE ORDERS OF AUTHORITIES BELOW AS TO TH E PURPOSE OF MAKING THE INVESTMENT. EVEN IN THE CASE OF VED PRAK ASH MUKUND LAL EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY(SUPRA) RELIED UPON B Y THE LD. CIT(A) WHILE ALLOWING THE ASSESSES APPEAL THE HON 'BLE TRIBUNAL HAS TREATED THE INVESTMENT IN FDR'S AS APPLICATION ONLY ON ACCOUNT OF THE FACT THAT AS PER THE MEMORANDUM OF ASSOCIATION OF THE ASSESSEE SOCIETY THE OBJECTS OF THE ASSESSEE SOCIETY IN ADDITION TO RUNN ING EDUCATIONAL AND TECHNOLOGY INSTITUTE AS PER CLAUSE (VII ) WAS LO INVEST THE MONEY OF THE SOCIETY IN A MANNER AS PROVI DED U/S 11(5) OF THE ACT. IN OUR CONSIDERED OPINION THE EXAMINAT ION OF THIS ASPECT IS IMPORTANT FOR DETERMINING WHETHER T HE INVESTMENT IN FDR'S COULD BE TREATED AS APPLICATION FOR CHARITABLE PURPOSE. THE LD. CIT(A) WHILE ALLOWING THE ASSESSES CLAIM HAS NOT EXAMINED THE CASE ON THE TOUCHSTONES OF THE PARAMETER ON THE BASIS OF WHICH THE INVESTMENT IN FDR'S WAS TREATED AS APPLICATION IN THE CASE OF VED PRAKASH MUKUND LAL EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY( SUPRA). 11. IN VIEW OF THE SAME WE REMIT THE MATTER BACK TO THE FILE OF THE LD. CIT(A) TO DECIDE THE ISSUE AFRESH IN ACCO RDANCE WITH LAW AND AS PER THE RATIO LAID DOWN IN THE CASE OF VED PRAKASH MUKUND LAL EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY(SUPRA). NEED LESS 1O SAY THAT THE ASSESSEE MAY BE GIVEN ADEQUATE OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING AND IS FREE TO PRODUCE ALL EV IDENCES RELATING TO THE ISSUE ON WHICH IT WISHES TO PLACE REL IANCE. 12. IN THE RESULT APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS ALLOWED FO R STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 11 9. IN THE PRESENT CASE WE FIND THAT THE ISSUE BEFORE US IS IDENTICAL TO THAT IN S.D. PUBLIC SCHOO L (SUPRA). IN THE PRESENT CASE ALSO THE ISSUE RELATE S TO TREATMENT OF INVESTMENT IN FDRS AS APPLICATION OF I NCOME FOR THE PURPOSE OF SECTION 11(1)(A) OF THE ACT. TH E LEARNED CIT (APPEALS) IN THE PRESENT CASE HAS ALLOWED ASSES SEES APPEAL HOLDING THE INVESTMENT IN FDRS AS APPLICATIO N FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF THE I.T.A.T. CHANDIGARH BENCH IN THE CASE OF THE VED PARKASH MUKUND LAL EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY RADAUR (SUPRA). FURTHER WE FIND THAT IN THE PRESENT CASE ALSO AS IN THE CASE OF S.D. PUBLIC SC HOOL (SUPRA) THERE IS NO FINDING OF FACT REGARDING CHAR ITABLE OBJECTS OF THE ASSESSEE SOCIETY INCLUDING INVESTMEN T IN FDRS AS ONE OF ITS OBJECTS. ALSO IT IS NOT DENIED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT CLAIMED EXEMPTION UNDER SECTION 11 (2) R.W.S. 11(5) OF THE ACT. SINCE THE FACTS OF THE PR ESENT CASE ARE IDENTICAL TO THAT IN THE S.D. PUBLIC SCHOOL (SU PRA) THE DECISION RENDERED THEREIN SQUARELY APPLIES TO THE P RESENT CASE ALSO AND FOLLOWING WHICH WE RESTORE THE ISSUE OF TREATMENT OF INVESTMENT IN FDRS WHETHER WOULD AMOU NT TO APPLICATION OF INCOME OR NOT TO THE FILE OF THE CIT (APPEALS) TO DECIDE THE SAME AFRESH IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW AFTER TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION THE DECISION OF THE I.T.A.T. IN THE CASE OF VED PARKASH MUKAND LAL EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY IN ITA NO.952/CHD/2011 DATED 25.1.2012. WE MAY ADD THAT THE ASSESSEE BE GIVEN REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING AND BE ALLOWED TO 12 PRODUCE ALL EVIDENCES RELATING TO THE ISSUE ON WHIC H IT WISHES TO PLACE RELIANCE. 10. IN THE RESULT THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT. SD/- SD/- (BHAVNESH SAINI) (ANNAPURNA GUPTA) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED : 26 TH OCTOBER 2016 *RATI* COPY TO: 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CIT(A) 4. THE CIT 5. THE DR ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT CHANDIGARH