ITO, Hisar v. M/s Sanathan Dharam Shiksha Samiti, Haryana

ITA 3266/DEL/2011 | 2005-2006
Pronouncement Date: 30-03-2012 | Result: Allowed

Appeal Details

RSA Number 326620114 RSA 2011
Assessee PAN AAAAS3486M
Bench Delhi
Appeal Number ITA 3266/DEL/2011
Duration Of Justice 9 month(s) 13 day(s)
Appellant ITO, Hisar
Respondent M/s Sanathan Dharam Shiksha Samiti, Haryana
Appeal Type Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date 30-03-2012
Appeal Filed By Department
Order Result Allowed
Bench Allotted G
Tribunal Order Date 30-03-2012
Date Of Final Hearing 14-03-2012
Next Hearing Date 14-03-2012
Assessment Year 2005-2006
Appeal Filed On 17-06-2011
Judgment Text
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI G BENC H BEFORE SMT. DIVA SINGH JM & SHRI A.N. PAHUJA AM ITA NO.3266 TO 3269/DEL/2011 AYS: 2005-06 TO 2008-09 INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-4 HISAR V/S . M/S SANSTHAN DHARAM SHIKSHA SAMITI BHAGAT SINGH ROAD HANSI DISTRICT HISAR [PAN : AAAAS 3486 M] (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY SHRI S.K. JAIN AR REVENUE BY SMT. S. MOHANTY DR DATE OF HEARING 21-03-2012 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 30-03-2012 O R D E R A.N.PAHUJA:- THESE FOUR APPEALS FILED ON 17.06.2011 BY THE REVEN UE AGAINST A COMMON ORDER DATED 07-04-2011 OF THE LEARNED CIT(A) -ROHTAK FOR THE AYS 2005- 06 TO 2008-09 RAISE THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS:- I.T.A. NOS.3266 & 3268/D/2011[AYS 2005-06 & 2007-08 ] 1. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN ALLOWING CARRY FORWARD OF LOSSES/EXCESS APPLICATION OF INCOME FOR SET OFF IN THE SUBSEQUENT YEARS WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE FACT THAT THE ORIGINAL RETURN OF INCOME FILED BY THE ASSESSEE WAS LATE. 2. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN ALLOWING CARRY FORWARD OF LOSSES/EXCESS APPLICATION OF INCOME FOR SET OFF IN THE SUBSEQUENT YEARS WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE FACT THAT NO CLAIM WAS I.T.A. NOS.3266 TO3269/DEL./2011 2 MADE IN THE RETURN ORIGINALLY FILED BY THE ASSESSEE. 3. THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD OR AMEND THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL BEFORE THE APPEAL IS HEARD AND DISPOSED OFF. I.T.A. NOS..3267& 3269/D/2011[AYS 2006-07 & 2008-09 ] 1. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN ALLOWING CARRY FORWARD LOSSES/EXCESS APPLICATION OF INCOME FOR SET OFF IN THE SUBSEQUENT YEARS WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE FACT THAT NO CLAIM WAS MADE IN THE ORIGINAL RETURN OF INCOME. 2. THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD OR AMEND THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL BEFORE THE APPEAL IS HEARD AND DISPOSED OFF. 2. ADVERTING FIRST TO GROUND NOS.1 AND 2 IN THE APP EALS FOR THE AYS 2005-06 AND 2007-08 AND GROUND NO.1 IN THE APPEALS FOR THE AYS 2006-07 & 2008-09 FACTS IN BRIEF AS PER RELEVANT ORDERS FOR THE AY S 2005-06 TO 2008-09 ARE THAT RETURNS DECLARING NIL INCOME FILED BY THE ASSESSEE RUNNING EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTIONS AT HANSI WERE PROCESSED U/S 143(1) OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT 1961 (HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS THE ACT). THE ASSESSEE ENCLOSED THE FOLLOWING COMPUTATION OF INCOME WITH THE ORIGINAL RETURNS FO R THE AFORESAID FOUR ASSESSMENT YEARS BEFORE US : ASSESSMENT YEAR INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES[IN ` ] EXEMPTION U/S 10(23C)(IIIAD) [IN ` ] TAXABLE INCOME 2005-06 8 91 014 8 91 014 NIL 2006-07 23 78 641 23 78 641 NIL 2007-08 INTEREST+OTHER RECEIPTS= 3202635 LESS-EXPENSES 524129 NET=2678506 2678506 NIL 2008-09 INTEREST+OTHER 3799367 NIL I.T.A. NOS.3266 TO3269/DEL./2011 3 RECEIPTS=13714962 LESS-EXPENSES 8229444 LESS-CAPITAL EXPENDITURE- 1686151 NET=37 99367 2.1 SUBSEQUENTLY THE ASSESSING OFFICER (A.O. IN SHORT) NOTICED ON PERUSAL OF RECORDS FOR THE AY 2005-06 THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD SH OWN TOTAL RECEIPTS OF ` `1 00 80 467/-AND PROFIT OF ` `10 69 852/-. AFTER EXCLUDING THE DEPRECIATION OF ` ` 14 23 309/- OUT OF TOTAL APPLICATION OF INCOME NE T PROFIT OF ` ` 24 93 161 I.E. 24.98% OF THE RECEIPTS WAS WORKED OUT. SINCE THE A PPLICATION OF THE INCOME AFTER EXCLUDING DEPRECIATION WAS BELOW THE LIMIT PRESCRIB ED UNDER CLAUSE (A) OF THIRD PROVISO TO SECTION 10(23C) OF THE ACT WHILE THE APP LICATION OF THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE CCIT PANCHKULA WAS REJECTED VIDE ORDER DATED 2 3.03.2009 AND THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED EXCESSIVE RELIEF THE AO AFTER RE CORDING REASONS IN WRITING REOPENED THE ASSESSMENT U/S 147 OF THE ACT WITH TH E ISSUE OF A NOTICE U/S 148 OF THE ACT ON 21 ST JULY 2009 FOR THE AY2005-06. IN RESPONSE THE AS SESSEE FILED RETURN DECLARING NIL INCOME ON 10.09.2009 AND ENCLO SED THE FOLLOWING COMPUTATION OF INCOME: [IN ` ] GROSS RECEIPTS `92 22 118/- REVENUE EXPENDITURE `90 10 615/- DEPRECIATION AS PER INCOME & EXP. A/C. `14 23 310/- REVENUE EXPENSES `75 87 305/- WITHOUT DEPRECIATION. I.T.A. NOS.3266 TO3269/DEL./2011 4 CAPITAL EXPENDITURE `14 74 692/- 1 04 85 307/- EXCESSIVE APPLICATION OF INCOME 26 46 580/- 2.2 SINCE THE ASSESSEE HAD BEEN ALLOWED REGISTRATI ON U/S 12A(A) OF THE ACT VIDE ORDER DATED 28 TH SEPTEMBER 1993 WHILE ON A WRIT PETITION FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE REJECTION OF THEIR CLAIM FOR E XEMPTION U/S 10(23C)(IIIAD) OF THE ACT BY THE CCIT THE HONBLE PUNJAB & HARYANA H IGH COURT VIDE THEIR ORDER DATED 29 TH JANUARY 2010 IN CWP NO.8258/2009 QUASHED THE ORDE R OF CCIT THE AO ACCEPTED THE INCOME RETURNED BY THE ASSESSEE I N THE AY 2005-06. 3. SIMILARLY IN THE AY 2006-07 ASSESSMENT WAS INITIALLY COMPLETED U/S 143(1) OF THE ACT ON 30.3.2007 IN PURSUANCE TO RETURN DECL ARING NIL INCOME FILED ON 30.3.2007. SUBSEQUENTLY THE AO NOTICED ON PERUSAL OF RECORDS THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD SHOWN TOTAL RECEIPTS OF ` `1 23 02 125/-AND PROFIT OF ` `22 87 074/- .AFTER EXCLUDING THE DEPRECIATION OF ` ` 9 41 134/- OUT OF TOTAL APPLICATION OF INCOME NET PROFIT OF ` ` 3 2 28 207 I.E. 26.24% OF THE RECEIPTS WAS WORKED OUT . SINCE THE APPLICATION OF THE INCOME AFTER EXCLUDING DEPRECIAT ION WAS BELOW THE LIMIT PRESCRIBED UNDER CLAUSE (A) OF THIRD PROVISO TO SEC TION 10(23C) OF THE ACT WHILE THE APPLICATION OF THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE CCIT PA NCHKULA WAS REJECTED VIDE ORDER DATED 23.03.2009 AND THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED EXC ESSIVE RELIEF THE AO AFTER RECORDING REASONS IN WRITING REOPENED THE ASSESSME NT U/S 147 OF THE ACT WITH THE ISSUE OF A NOTICE U/S 148 OF THE ACT ON 21 ST JULY 2009. IN RESPONSE THE ASSESSEE FILED RETURN DECLARING NIL INCOME ON 10.09 .2009 AND ENCLOSED THE FOLLOWING COMPUTATION OF INCOME: [IN ` ] GROSS RECEIPTS `123 02 125/- REVENUE EXPENDITURE `100 15 051/- DEPRECIATION AS PER INCOME I.T.A. NOS.3266 TO3269/DEL./2011 5 & EXP. A/C. `9 41 134/- REVENUE EXPENSES `90 73 917/- WITHOUT DEPRECIATION. CAPITAL EXPENDITURE `38 40 614/- 1 38 55 665/- EXCESSIVE APPLICATION OF INCOME 33 98 860/- . 3.1 SINCE THE ASSESSEE HAD BEEN ALLOWED REGISTRA TION U/S 12A(A) OF THE ACT VIDE ORDER DATED 28 TH SEPTEMBER 1993 WHILE ON A WRIT PETITION FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE REJECTION OF THEIR CLAIM FOR E XEMPTION U/S 10(23C)(IIIAD) OF THE ACT BY THE CCIT THE HONBLE PUNJAB & HARYANA H IGH COURT VIDE THEIR ORDER DATED 29 TH JANUARY 2010 IN CWP NO.8258/2009 QUASHED THE ORDE R OF CCIT THE AO ACCEPTED THE INCOME RETURNED BY THE ASSESSEE I N THE AY 2006-07 ALSO. 4. IN THE AY 2007-08 ASSESSMENT WAS INITIALLY COM PLETED U/S 143(1) OF THE ACT ON 21.8.2008 IN PURSUANCE TO RETURN DECLARING N IL INCOME FILED ON 31.3.2008. SUBSEQUENTLY THE AO NOTICED ON PERUSAL OF RECORDS THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD SHOWN TOTAL RECEIPTS OF ` `32 02 634/-AND PROFIT OF ` `26 78 506/- . THUS NET PROFIT OF ` `26 78 506/- I.E. 83.63% OF THE RECEIPTS WAS WORKED OUT. SINCE THE APPLICATION OF THE INCOME WAS BELOW THE LIMIT PRESC RIBED UNDER CLAUSE (A) OF THIRD PROVISO TO SECTION 10(23C) OF THE ACT WHILE THE APP LICATION OF THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE CCIT PANCHKULA WAS REJECTED VIDE ORDER DATED 2 3.03.2009 AND THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED EXCESSIVE RELIEF THE AO AFTER RE CORDING REASONS IN WRITING REOPENED THE ASSESSMENT U/S 147 OF THE ACT WITH TH E ISSUE OF A NOTICE U/S 148 OF THE ACT ON 21 ST JULY 2009. IN RESPONSE THE ASSESSEE FILED RETURN DECLARING NIL INCOME ON 10.09.2009 AND ENCLOSED THE FOLLOWING CO MPUTATION OF INCOME: I.T.A. NOS.3266 TO3269/DEL./2011 6 [IN ` ] INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES GROSS RECEIPTS 1 13 19 105 INCOME BEFORE APPLICATION OF INCOME 1 13 19 105 LESS: 15% SET APART OR ACCUMULATED U/S 11(1)(A) (-) 1697866 INCOME REQUIRED TO BE APPLIED AS PER SECTION 11(1)( A) 96 21 239 @85% OF `11319105 LESS APPLICATION OF INCOME REVENUE EXPENDITURE U/S 11(1)(B ) 86 40 599 CAPITAL EXPENDITURE U/S 11(1)(B) 5 08 366 LOSS C/F OF ASSTT. YEAR 2005-06 26 46 50 7 LOSS C/F OF ASSTT.YEAR 2006-07 33 98 860 1 51 94 332 GROSS TOTAL INCOME NIL 4.1 HOWEVER THE AO REJECTED CLAIM FOR SET OF F OF EXCESS APPLICATION OF INCOME WORKED OUT IN THE COMPUTATION OF INCOME ENCL OSED WITH THE RETURNS FILED IN RESPONSE TO NOTICE U/S 148 OF THE ACT FOR THE AY S 2005-06 & 2006-07 AND BROUGHT TO TAX AN AMOUNT OF ` `4 72 274/- 5. IN THE ASSESSMENT FOR THE AY 2008-09 THE ASS ESSEE SUBMITTED FOLLOWING COMPUTATION OF INCOME IN THE RETURN: [IN ` ] GROSS RECEIPTS `137 14 962/- REVENUE EXPENDITURE `82 29 444/- DEPRECIATION AS PER INCOME & EXP. A/C. `7 31 421/- I.T.A. NOS.3266 TO3269/DEL./2011 7 REVENUE EXPENSES `74 98 023/- WITHOUT DEPRECIATION. CAPITAL EXPENDITURE `16 86 151/- THE ASSESSEE DID NOT CLAIM ANY SETOFF OF EXCESSIVE APPLICATION IN THE PRECEDING YEARS IN THE AFORESAID COMPUTATION. HOWEVER DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS SUCH A CLAIM WAS MADE. BUT THE AO BRO UGHT TO TAX AN AMOUNT OF ` `17 42 1123/- WHILE REJECTING THE CLAIM FOR SET OFF OF EXCESS APPLICATION OF INCOME WORKED OUT IN THE COMPUTATION OF INCOME ENCLOSED WI TH THE RETURNS FILED IN RESPONSE TO NOTICE U/S 148 OF THE ACT FOR THE AYS 2 005-06 & 2006-07 . 6. ON APPEAL THE LD. CIT(A) IGNORING THE FACT TH AT ASSESSMENTS FOR THE AYS 2005-06 TO 2007-08 WERE COMPLETED IN PROCEEDING S U/S 147/148 OF THE ACT ALLOWED THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE IN HIS COMMON OR DER IN THE FOLLOWING TERMS: 5. THE ABOVE ACTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS CONTESTED IN MULTIPLE GROUNDS OF APPEAL. WITH REGA RD TO THE APPEALS FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2005-06 AND 2006-07 THE APPELLANT IS AGGRIEVED AGAINST THE ASSESSMENT ORDERS IN SO MUCH AS THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT WORKED OUT THE LOSS/DEFICIT DUE TO EXCESSIVE APPLICATION OF INCOME DEPRIVING THE APPELLANT TO CLAIM THE CARRY FORWARD AND SET OFF IN THE SUBSEQUENT YEARS. THE AR SUBMITTED THAT THIS ACTIO N OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS APPEALABLE IN VIEW OF T HE RATIOS OF CIT VS. ASHOKA ENGINEERING CO. 194 ITR 645 (SUPREME COURT) AND BIHAR STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD VS. CIT 101 ITR 740 (PATNA). 5.1 THE AR RELIED UPON THE CASE LAW OF DIT VS. RAGHUVANSHI CHARITABLE TRUST (2010)36(1) ITCL 622 (DEL) WHEREIN IT WAS HELD THAT DETERMINATION OF INC OME U/S 11 TO 13 OF THE ACT IS A SEPARATE CODE AND DOES NOT CONTAIN SUCH PROVISIONS AS CONTAINED IN CHAPTER VI OF THE ACT REGARDING LOSSES U/SS 70 TO 74 OF THE ACT FOR THE REASON THAT INCOME OF A CHARITABLE INSTITUT ION HAS TO BE COMPUTED IN A COMMERCIAL MANNER AS LAID OUT IN CIT VS. INSTITUTE OF BANKING PERSONNEL SELECTION 264 ITR 110 (BOM). THE AR CONTESTED IN THIS REGARD THAT BELATED RETURN (ONLY FOR THE I.T.A. NOS.3266 TO3269/DEL./2011 8 ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07) DOES NOT DISENTITLE THE APPELLANT TO CLAIM THE CARRY FORWARD OF LOSS/EXCESS APPLICATION OF INCOME SINCE THE PROVISIONS OF SECTI ON 70 TO 74 ARE NOT APPLICABLE IN THE CASE OF CHARITAB LE INSTITUTIONS GOVERNED BY SECTIONS 11 TO 13 OF THE A CT. 5.2 I HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE ISSUE AND THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BY THE AR. IT IS AN ESTABLISHED LEGAL PROPOSITION THAT SECTIONS 11 TO 13 OF THE ACT ARE A SEPARATE CODE FOR THE CHARITABLE INSTITUTIONS. I N VIEW OF THE LEGAL POSITION PRONOUNCED BY HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF DIT VS. RATHUVANSHI CHARITABLE TRUST (SUPRA) THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS DIRECTED TO ALLOW CARRY FORWARD OF LOSSES/EXCESS APPLICATION OF INCOME FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2005 - 06 AND 2006-07 FOR SET OFF IN THE SUBSEQUENT YEARS AND THEREFORE THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL ARE ALLOWED. 6. WITH REGARD TO THE APPEALS FOR ASSESSMENT YEARS 2007-08 AND 2008-09 THE APPELLANT CONTESTED THE ACTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN NOT ALLOWING SET OFF OF CARRY FORWARD LOSSES. THE AR CONTESTED IN T HIS REGARD THAT IT WAS DECIDED IN A HOST OF CASE LAWS T HAT EXCESS APPLICATION OF INCOME OF EARLIER YEARS CAN B E CLAIMED AS APPLICATION OF INCOME IN THE SUBSEQUENT YEARS. THE AR RELIED UPON THE CASE LAWS OF DIT VS. RAGHUVANSHI CHARITABLE TRUST (SUPRA) GOVINDU NAICKER ESTATE VS. ADIT AND ANOTHER 248 ITR 368 (MAD) CIT VS. MATRISEVA TRUST 242 ITR 20 (MAD) AND DAWAT INSTITUTE OF DAWOODI BOHRA COMMUNITY VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER 116 TTJ 673 (MUMBAI) IN THIS REGARD. 6.1 I HAVE CONSIDERED THE ISSUE AND THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BY THE AR. THE CASE LAWS RELIED UPON BY THE AR ARE ON ALL FOURS WITH THE FACTS OF T HE APPELLANT. WITH REGARD TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008 - 09 THOUGH THE SET OFF HAS NOT BEEN MADE IN THE RET URN OF INCOME PER SE IT WAS CLAIMED DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND THEREFORE ALLOWABLE. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE T HE ASSESSING OFFICER IS DIRECTED TO ALLOW SET OFF OF C ARRY FORWARD LOSSES/EXCESS APPLICATION OF INCOME FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2007-08 AND 2008-09 AND THEREFORE THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL ARE ALLOWED. I.T.A. NOS.3266 TO3269/DEL./2011 9 7. THE REVENUE IS NOW IN APPEAL BEFORE US AGAINST THE AFORESAID FINDINGS OF THE LD.CIT(A). THE LD. DR WHILE CARRYI NG US THROUGH THE IMPUGNED ORDER CONTENDED THAT THE ORIGINAL RETURN HAVING BEE N FILED BEYOND THE TIME STIPULATED U/S 139(1) OF THE ACT THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT ENTITLED TO CLAIM CARRY FORWARD LOSSES AND SET UP OFF EXCESSIVE APPLICATION OF INCOME IN SUBSEQUENT YEARS. IN THIS CONNECTION LEARNED DR RELIED UPON THE DECISION IN KOPPIND PVT. LTD. VS. CIT 207 ITR 228(CAL.) AND ACIT VS. DYNAVIS ION LTD. 88 ITD 213 (CHENNAI). 8. ON THE OTHER HAND THE LD. AR ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE WHILE SUBMITTING RECONCILIATION OF INCOME COMPUTED IN ORI GINAL RETURN VIS-A-VIS IN THE RETURN FILED IN RESPONSE TO NOTICE U/S 148 OF THE A CT RELIED UPON DECISIONS IN DIT VS. RAGHUVANSHI CHARITABLE TRUST 197 TAXMAN 170; CI T VS. MAHASABHA GURUKUL VIDYAPEETH HARYANA 326 ITR 25 (P&H); DY. CIT VS. LA B INDIA INSTRUMENTS (P) LTD. 93-ITD-120 (PUNE); VAM ORGANIC CHEMICALS LTD. VS. DY. CIT (2006) 30-IT REP-10 (ITAT DELHI) AND DAWAT INSTITUTE OF DAWOODI BOHRA COMMUNITY VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER 116-TTJ-(MUMBAI)-673.TO A QUERY BY THE BENCH THE LD. AR DID NOT REPLY AS TO HOW A BENEFIT WHICH WAS NEVER CLAIMED IN THE ORIGINAL RETURNS CAN BE CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE IN PROCEEDINGS U/S 1 48 OF THE ACT ESPECIALLY WHEN THE PROCEEDINGS U/S 147/148 OF THE ACT ARE FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE REVENUE.. 9. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND GONE THROUGH THE FACTS OF THE CASE. INDISPUTABLY THE ASSESSEE TRUST IS RUNNING SCHOOLS AT HANSI AND CLAIMED EXEMPTION U/S 10(23C)(IIIAD) OF THE ACT. ON REJECTI ON OF THEIR APPLICATION FOR EXEMPTION U/S 10(23C)(VI) OF THE ACT FOR THE AYS 20 05-06 TO 2008-09 THE ASSESSEE APPROACHED HONBLE PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH C OURT BY WAY OF WRIT. HONBLE HIGH COURT VIDE THEIR ORDER DATED 29.01.201 0 IN CWP NO.8258 QUASHED THE ORDER DATED 23.03.2009 OF THE CCIT DECLINING T O ALLOW EXEMPTION U/S 10(23C) OF THE ACT. THE LD. AR EXPLAINED BEFORE US THAT THE EFFECT TO THE AFORESAID ORDER OF THE HONBLE HIGH COURT IS YET TO BE GIVEN BY THE CONCERNED AUTHORITIES. HOWEVER THE ISSUE OF EXEMPTION U/S 10(23C)(IIIAD) OF THE ACT IS NOT BEFORE US NOR THE LD. AR ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE PLACED BEFORE US COPY OF THE AFORESAID ORDER I.T.A. NOS.3266 TO3269/DEL./2011 10 OF THE CCIT OR OF THE HONBLE HIGH COURT. IN ANY CA SE THE ASSESSEE MAY SEEK APPROPRIATE RELIEF FROM THE CONCERNED AUTHORITIES I N ACCORDANCE WITH LAW.. MEANWHILE SINCE THE APPLICANT TRUST WAS REGISTERED U/S 12A OF THE ACT THEY MADE AN ALTERNATIVE CLAIM BEFORE THE AO FOR EXEMPTI ON U/S 11 & 12 OF THE ACT IN THE RETURNS FILED U/S 148 OF THE ACT FOR THE AYS 2005-06 TO 2007-08 AND CONSEQUENTLY SOUGHT THAT THE LOSS OR EXCESSIVE APP LICATION OF INCOME BE DETERMINED AND CARRIED FORWARD FOR SET OFF IN SUBS EQUENT YEARS THE PROVISIONS OF THE ACT REGARDING CARRY FORWARD AND SET OFF OF BUSI NESS LOSSES BEING NOT APPLICABLE IN THE CASE OF ASSESSEE CLAIMING EXEMPT ION U/S 11 & 12 OF THE ACT. WE ARE NOT DISPUTING THE PROPOSITION THAT A TRUST CAN BE ALLOWED TO CARRY FORWARD DEFICIT OF CURRENT YEAR AND SEEK SET OFF OF THE SAM E AGAINST INCOME OF SUBSEQUENT YEARS AND SUCH AN ADJUSTMENT OF DEFICIT OF CURRENT YEAR AGAINST INCOME OF SUBSEQUENT YEAR WOULD AMOUNT TO APPLICATION OF INCO ME OF TRUST FOR CHARITABLE PURPOSES IN SUBSEQUENT YEAR WITHIN MEANING OF SECTI ON 11(1)(A)OF THE ACT AS HELD IN RAGHUVANSHI CHARITABLE TRUST & ORS(SUPRA). BUT IN THE INSTANT CASE BEFORE US CAN SUCH DETERMINATION OF LOSS OR EXCE SS APPLICATION OF INCOME OR ITS CARRY FORWARD AND SET OFF IS POSSIBLE IN PROCEEDIN GS U/S 148 OF THE ACT NEEDS TO BE EXAMINED ESPECIALLY WHEN IN THE ORIGINAL RETURN S FILED BY THE ASSESSEE NO SUCH CLAIM WAS EVER MADE. IN NUTSHELL THE ONLY ISS UE FOR OUR CONSIDERATION IS AS TO WHETHER CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE FOR DETERMINATIO N CARRY FORWARD AND SET OFF OF EXCESSIVE APPLICATION OF INCOME IN THE RETURNS FILE D IN RESPONSE TO NOTICE U/S 148 OF THE ACT FOR THE AYS 2005-06 TO 2007-08 CAN BE A LLOWED IN THE ASSESSMENT FOR THE AYS 2005-06 TO 2008-09. ADMITTEDLY IN THE ORI GINAL RETURNS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR THE AYS 2005-06 TO 2007-08 NO SUCH CL AIM WAS EVER MADE. IT IS WELL SETTLED THAT PROCEEDINGS U/S 148 OF THE ACT AR E FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE REVENUE AND NOT FOR CLAIMING RELIEF BY THE ASSESSEE WHICH RELIEF WAS NEVER CLAIMED IN THE ORIGINAL RETURNS FOR THE AY 2005-06 & 2006-07. IND ISPUTABLY THE ASSESSMENTS IN THE PRESENT CASE FOR THE AYS 2005-06 TO 2007-08 WER E MADE BY THE AO IN THE PROCEEDINGS UNDER SECTION 147 OF THE ACT INITIATED BY ISSUE OF NOTICE UNDER SECTION 148 OF THE ACT. THE ISSUE OF VALIDITY OF PR OCEEDINGS U/S 147 OF THE ACT WAS NEVER RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE EITHER BEFORE THE AO/ LD. CIT(A) OR EVEN BEFORE US. I.T.A. NOS.3266 TO3269/DEL./2011 11 THE QUESTION THAT ARISES FOR CONSIDERATION IS WHETH ER IN SUCH PROCEEDINGS INITIATED FOR THE PURPOSE OF ASSESSMENT OF ESCAPED INCOME THE ASSESSEE IS ENTITLED TO CLAIM DETERMINATION OF LOSS OR EXCESSI VE APPLICATION OF INCOME IN THE AYS 2005-06 & 2006-07 TO ENABLE IT TO CARRY FORWARD THE SAME TO BE SET OFF AGAINST THE INCOME OF SUBSEQUENT YEARS 2007-08 & 20 08-09 TO THE DETRIMENT OF THE REVENUE. THE AO MADE THE ASSESSMENT IN PROCEEDI NGS UNDER SECTION 147 OF THE ACT INITIATED WITH A VIEW TO ASSESSING INCOME W HICH HAD ESCAPED ASSESSMENT AND HAVING NOT FOUND ANY ESCAPED INCOME ACCEPTED T HE RETURNED INCOME IN THE AYS 2005-06 & 2006-07. . HE HOWEVER DID NOT ACCEP T THE CLAIM FOR DETERMINATION OF EXCESSIVE APPLICATION OF INCOME IN THESE TWO ASSESSMENT YEARS THE ASSESSMENT HAVING BEEN MADE IN PROCEEDINGS INIT IATED UNDER SECTION 147 OF THE ACT FOR ASSESSING THE ESCAPED INCOME NOR ACCEP TED THE CLAIM OF CARRY FORWARD OF THE SAME AND SET OFF OF THE SAID EXCESSI VE APPLICATION IN THE AYS 2007-08 & 2008-09. HOWEVER THE LD. CIT(A) ACCEPTE D THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE IGNORING THE FACT ASSESSMENTS FOR THE AYS 2005-06 TO 2007-08 WERE COMPLETED U/S 143(3) READ WITH SEC. 147 OF THE ACT . THE REAL CONTROVERSY THEREFORE IS ABOUT THE SCOPE AND AMBIT OF THE POWE R OF THE INCOME-TAX OFFICER IN PROCEEDINGS INITIATED UNDER SECTION 147 OF THE ACT FOR ASSESSMENT OF INCOME WHICH HAS ESCAPED ASSESSMENT. 9.1. SECTION 147 OF THE ACT EMPOWERS THE AO TO ASSESS INCOME WHICH ESCAPED ASSESSMENT IN THE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEAR. IT IS APPLICABLE ONLY TO A CASE WHERE THE AO HAS REASON TO BELIEVE THAT THE IN COME OF THE ASSESSEE HAS ESCAPED ASSESSMENT. THE POWER UNDER THIS SECTION CA N ALSO BE EXERCISED IN CASES WHERE EXCESSIVE LOSS OR DEPRECIATION ALLOWANC E HAS BEEN COMPUTED. IN THE INSTANT CASE RE-ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS WERE IN ITIATED BY THE AO FOR THE AYS 2005-06 TO 2007-08 BY ISSUE OF NOTICE UNDER SECTION 148 OF THE ACT BECAUSE HE WAS SATISFIED THAT THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE FOR T HESE YEARS HAD ESCAPED ASSESSMENT. THE ASSESSEE NEVER DISPUTED THE REASONS RECODED BY THE AO OR VALIDITY OF THE PROCEEDINGS INITIATED U/S 147 OF TH E ACT BEFORE ANY OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES OR EVEN BEFORE US. IN SUCH A CASE IF AT ANY STAGE OF THE PROCEEDINGS I.T.A. NOS.3266 TO3269/DEL./2011 12 THE AO FINDS THAT INCOME CHARGEABLE TO TAX HAS NOT ESCAPED ASSESSMENT HE IS FREE NOT TO TAKE FURTHER ACTION PURSUANT TO THE NOT ICE UNDER SECTION 148 OF THE ACT AND DROP THE PROCEEDINGS . HE IS NOT BOUND TO CONCL UDE THE PROCEEDINGS AND MAKE ASSESSMENT TO THE DETRIMENT OF THE REVENUE. IF PURSUANT TO NOTICE UNDER SECTION 148 OF THE ACT THE ASSESSEE SUBMITS A LOSS RETURN AND THE AO IS SATISFIED THAT THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE DURING TH E RELEVANT YEAR WAS REALLY NEGATIVE AS CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE IN HIS RETURN HE IS ENTITLED TO CLOSE THE PROCEEDINGS. HE CANNOT COMPLETE THE ASSESSMENT TO D ETERMINE THE LOSS OR EXCESSIVE APPLICATION OF INCOME THEREBY GIVING THE ASSESSEE A RIGHT TO CLAIM SET OFF OF THE LOSS IN SUBSEQUENT YEARS TO THE DETRIMEN T OF THE REVENUE . SUCH AN ACT WILL BE CONTRARY TO THE OBJECT SCOPE AND AMBIT OF SECTION 147 OF THE ACT. PROCEEDINGS UNDER SECTION 147 BEING FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE REVENUE AND NOT THE ASSESSEE THE ASSESSEE CANNOT BE PERMITTED TO TAKE ADVANTAGE OF THE REASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS AND SEEK RELIEF WHICH IN THE ABSENCE OF THE PROCEEDINGS FOR ASSESSMENT OF ESCAPED INCOME HE C OULD NOT HAVE CLAIMED . INCOME FOR THE PURPOSE OF ASSESSMENT UNDER SECTION 147 OF THE ACT CANNOT BE A NEGATIVE FIGURE. SIMILARLY IN CASE OF REASSESSMENT OF INCOME ALREADY ASSESSED THE INCOME CANNOT BE REDUCED BEYOND THE INCOME ORIG INALLY ASSESSED NOR THE LOSS ORIGINALLY DETERMINED CAN BE RE-DETERMINED AT A HIGHER FIGURE. 9.2. THE OBJECT SCOPE AND AMBIT OF SECTION 147 OF THE ACT IS NOW WELL SETTLED BY THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN CI T V SUN ENGINEERING WORKS P. LTD [1992] 198 ITR 297. THE HONBLE SUPREME CO URT ALSO CONSIDERED THE OBSERVATIONS IN THEIR EARLIER DECISION IN V. JAGANM OHAN RAO V CIT/EPT [1970] 75 ITR 373 AND MADE IT CLEAR THAT ITS EARLIER JUDGMENT IN V. JAGANMOHAN RAO'S CASE CANNOT BE READ TO IMPLY AS LAYING DOWN THAT IN THE REASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS VALIDLY INITIATED THE ASSESSEE CAN SEEK REOPENING OF THE WHOLE ASSESSMENT AND CLAIM CREDIT IN RESPECT OF ITEMS FINALLY CONCLUDED IN THE ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT. THE ASSESSEE CANNOT CLAIM RE-COMPUTATION OF THE INCOME OR REDOING OF AN ASSESSMENT AND BE ALLOWED A CLAIM WHICH HE EITHER F AILED TO MAKE OR WHICH WAS I.T.A. NOS.3266 TO3269/DEL./2011 13 OTHERWISE REJECTED AT THE TIME OF ORIGINAL ASSESSME NT WHICH HAS SINCE ACQUIRED FINALITY. THE SUPREME COURT THEREFORE HELD AS UN DER; AS A RESULT OF THE AFORESAID DISCUSSION WE FI ND THAT IN PROCEEDINGS UNDER SECTION 147 OF THE ACT THE INCOME-TAX OFFICER MAY BRING TO CHARGE ITEMS OF INCOME WHICH HAD ESCAPED ASSESSMENT OTHER THAN OR I N ADDITION TO THAT ITEM OR ITEMS WHICH HAVE LED TO THE ISSUANCE OF THE NOTICE UNDER SECTION 148 AND WHERE REASSESSMENT IS MADE UNDER SECTION 147 IN RESPECT O F INCOME WHICH HAS ESCAPED TAX THE INCOME-TAX OFFICER'S JURISDICTION IS CONFINED TO ONLY SUCH INCOME WHICH HAS ESCAPED TAX OR HAS BEEN UNDERASSESSED AND DOES NOT EXTEND TO REVISING REOPENING OR RECONSIDERING THE WHOLE ASSE SSMENT OR PERMITTING THE ASSESSEE TO REAGITATE QUESTIONS WHICH HAD BEEN DECI DED IN THE ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. IT IS ONLY THE UNDERASSESSM ENT WHICH IS SET ASIDE AND NOT THE ENTIRE ASSESSMENT WHEN REASSESSMENT PROCEED INGS ARE INITIATED. THE INCOME-TAX OFFICER CANNOT MAKE AN ORDER OF REASSESS MENT INCONSISTENT WITH THE ORIGINAL ORDER OF ASSESSMENT IN RESPECT OF MATTERS WHICH ARE NOT THE SUBJECT MATTER OF PROCEEDINGS UNDER SECTION 147. AN ASSESSE E CANNOT RESIST VALIDLY INITIATED REASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS UNDER THIS SECTI ON MERELY BY SHOWING THAT OTHER INCOME WHICH HAD BEEN ASSESSED ORIGINALLY WAS AT TOO HIGH A FIGURE EXCEPT IN CASES UNDER SECTION 152(2). THE WORDS ' SUCH INC OME ' IN SECTION 147 CLEARLY REFER TO THE INCOME WHICH IS CHARGEABLE TO TAX BUT HAS ' ESCAPED ASSESSMENT ' AND THE INCOME-TAX OFFICER'S JURISDICTION UNDER THE SECTION IS CONFINED ONLY TO SUCH INCOME WHICH HAS ESCAPED ASSESSMENT. IT DOES N OT EXTEND TO RECONSIDERING GENERALLY THE CONCLUDED EARLIER ASSESSMENT. CLAIMS WHICH HAVE BEEN DISALLOWED IN THE ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT PROCEEDING CANNOT BE PER MITTED TO BE REAGITATED ON THE ASSESSMENT BEING REOPENED FOR BRINGING TO TAX C ERTAIN INCOME WHICH HAD ESCAPED ASSESSMENT BECAUSE THE CONTROVERSY ON REASS ESSMENT IS CONFINED TO MATTERS WHICH ARE RELEVANT ONLY IN RESPECT OF THE I NCOME WHICH HAD NOT BEEN BROUGHT TO TAX DURING THE COURSE OF THE ORIGINAL AS SESSMENT. A MATTER NOT AGITATED IN THE CONCLUDED ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS AL SO CANNOT BE PERMITTED TO BE AGITATED IN THE REASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS UNLESS REL ATABLE TO THE ITEM SOUGHT TO BE TAXED AS ' ESCAPED INCOME '. INDEED IN THE REAS SESSMENT PROCEEDINGS FOR BRINGING TO TAX ITEMS WHICH HAD ESCAPED ASSESSMENT IT WOULD BE OPEN TO AN ASSESSEE TO PUT FORWARD CLAIMS FOR DEDUCTION OF ANY EXPENDITURE IN RESPECT OF THAT INCOME OR THE NON-TAXABILITY OF THE ITEMS AT ALL. K EEPING IN VIEW THE OBJECT AND PURPOSE OF THE PROCEEDINGS UNDER SECTION 147 OF THE ACT WHICH ARE FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE REVENUE AND NOT AN ASSESSEE AN ASSESSEE CAN NOT BE PERMITTED TO CONVERT THE REASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS AS HIS APPEAL OR REVISION IN DISGUISE AND SEEK RELIEF IN RESPECT OF ITEMS EARLIER REJECTED OR CLAIM RELIEF IN RESPECT OF ITEMS NOT CLAIMED IN THE ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS UNLESS RELATABLE TO ESCAPED INCOME ' AND REAGITATE THE CONCLUDED MATTERS. EVEN IN CASES WHERE THE CLAIMS OF THE ASSESSEE DURING THE COURSE OF REASSESSMENT P ROCEEDINGS RELATING TO THE ESCAPED ASSESSMENT ARE ACCEPTED STILL THE ALLOWANC E OF SUCH CLAIMS HAS TO BE LIMITED TO THE EXTENT TO WHICH THEY REDUCE THE INCO ME TO THAT ORIGINALLY ASSESSED. I.T.A. NOS.3266 TO3269/DEL./2011 14 THE INCOME FOR PURPOSES OF ' REASSESSMENT ' CANNOT BE REDUCED BEYOND THE INCOME ORIGINALLY ASSESSED. IT WOULD BE SEEN THAT WHEREAS IN THE CASE OF ANGLO- FRENCH TEXTILE CO. LTD.'S CASE [1953] 23 ITR 82 (SC) THE QUESTION AS TO THE RIGHTS OF AN ASSESSEE TO CLAIM 'REDOING' 'REVISING' OR 'RECOMPUTING' THE ENTIRE I NCOME DURING THE REASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS WAS LEFT OPEN THAT QUESTION DID NOT CO ME UP FOR CONSIDERATION IN THE CASE OF H. R. SRI RAMULU [1977] 39 STC 177 (SC) OR H. M. ESUFALI'S CASE [1973] 90 ITR 271 (SC) OR EVEN IN V. JAGANMOHAN RAO'S CASE [1970] 75 ITR 373 (SC). SOME OF THE HIGH COURTS THEREFORE FELL IN ERROR I N READING THOSE JUDGMENTS DIVORCED FROM THE CONTEXT IN WHICH THE PRECISE QUES TIONS CAME UP FOR CONSIDERATION IN THOSE CASES AND TO HOLD THAT THE ASSESSEE COULD ' REAGITATE ' THE CONCLUDED ISSUES AND CLAIM RELIEF IN RESPECT OF ITEMS FINALLY CONCLUDED IN THE ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS DURING THE REASSES SMENT PROCEEDINGS UNCONNECTED WITH THE ESCAPEMENT OF INCOME. WE CANNO T THEREFORE APPROVE THE BROAD PROPOSITION LAID DOWN IN THAT REGARD IN DEPUT Y COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL TAXES V. INDIAN REFRIGERATION INDUSTRIES P. LTD. [1980] 46 STC 264 (MAD) CIT V. RAMSEVAK PAUL [1977] 110 ITR 527 (CAL) CIT V. ASSAM OIL CO. LTD. [1982] 133 ITR 204 (CAL) CIT V. STANDARD MOTOR PRODUCTS OF INDIA LTD . [1983]142 ITR 877 (MAD) CIT V. RANGNATH BANGUR [19 84] 149 ITR 487 (RAJ) STATE BANK OF HYDERABAD V. CIT [1988] 171 ITR 232 (AP) AND CIT V. INDIAN RARE EARTH LTD. [1990] 181 ITR 22 (BOM) [FB]. KEEPING IN VIEW THE ABOVE PRINCIPLES WE MAY NOW TU RN OUR ATTENTION TO THE QUESTION FORMULATED BY THE HIGH COURT AS NOTICED IN THE EARLIER PART OF THE JUDGMENT. THE TRIBUNAL RIGHTLY FOUND THAT THE LOSS WHICH THE ASSESSEE WANTED TO BE SET OFF AGAINST THE ' ESCAPED INCOME ' COULD NOT BE ALLOWED TO BE SO SET OFF BECAUSE IN THE ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS NO ' SET OFF ' WAS CLAIMED OR PERMITTED AND THE ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT HAD ACQUIRED FINALITY WHEN THE APPEAL AGAINST THE ORDER OF ASSESSMENT FAILED BEFORE THE APPELLATE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER AND THE ASSESSEE TOOK NO FURTHER STEPS TO AGITATE THE ISSUE . THE TRIBUNAL WAS ALSO RIGHT IN CONCLUDING THAT THE ITEMS WHICH THE ASSESSEE WANTED TO BE TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT IN THE PROCEEDINGS UNDER SECTION 147 OF THE ACT WERE U NCONNECTED WITH THE ESCAPEMENT OF INCOME. THE HIGH COURT CLEARLY FELL I N ERROR IN HOLDING OTHERWISE. SINCE THE ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT HAD BEEN CONCLUDED FI NALLY AGAINST THE ASSESSEE IT WAS NOT PERMISSIBLE FOR THE ASSESSEE IN THE REAS SESSMENT PROCEEDINGS TO SEEK A REVIEW/REVISION OF THE CONCLUDED ASSESSMENT FOR T HE PURPOSE OF COMPUTATION OF THE ESCAPED INCOME. THE HIGH COURT CLEARLY FELL IN ERROR IN PERMITTING THE ASSESSEE TO REAGITATE IN THE REASSESSMENT PROCEEDI NGS UNDER SECTION 147(A) OF THE ACT THE FINALLY CONCLUDED ASSESSMENT PROCEEDIN GS AND TO GRANT TO HIM RELIEF IN RESPECT OF ITEMS NOT ONLY EARLIER REJECTED BUT ALSO UNCONNECTED WITH THE ESCAPEMENT OF INCOME BY ASSUMING AS IF THE ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT HAD NOT BEEN CONCLUDED OR WAS STILL OPEN I.T.A. NOS.3266 TO3269/DEL./2011 15 THEREFORE OUR ANSWER TO THE QUESTION FORMULATED BY THE HIGH COURT AND NOTICED IN THE EARLIER PART OF THIS JUDGMENT IS THAT IN TH E REASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS IT IS NOT OPEN TO AN ASSESSEE TO SEEK A REVIEW OF THE CON CLUDED ITEM UNCONNECTED WITH THE ESCAPEMENT OF INCOME FOR THE PURPOSE OF C OMPUTATION OF THE ESCAPED INCOME. 9.3 . THE AFORESAID DECISION WAS FOLLOWED BY THE H ONBLE APEX COURT IN CHETTINAD CORPORATION PVT. LTD. VS. CIT 200 ITR 320 (SC). SUBSEQUENTLY HONBLE CALCUTTA HIGH COURT IN CIT VS. KESHORAM INDUSTRIES 271 ITR 353(CAL.) RELYING ON THE AFORESAID DECISION DENIED DEDUCTION U/S 80G OF THE ACT IN THE REASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS WHICH WAS NOT CLAIMED IN THE ORIGINAL RETURN. IT IS CLEAR FROM THE ABOVE DECISION OF THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT THAT PR OCEEDINGS UNDER SECTION 147 OF THE ACT ARE FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE REVENUE A ND NOT OF THE ASSESSEE AND THE ASSESSEE CANNOT BE PERMITTED TO CONVERT THE REASSES SMENT PROCEEDINGS TO HIS ADVANTAGE. THE ASSESSEE CANNOT CLAIM THAT ASSESSMEN T SHOULD BE COMPLETED AND LOSS/EXCESSIVE APPLICATION OF INCOME SHOULD BE DETERMINED TO ENABLE HIM TO CLAIM THE BENEFIT OF CARRY FORWARD AND SET OFF AGAI NST THE INCOME OF SUBSEQUENT YEARS. 9.4. IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING WE HAVE NO HESITAT ION IN VACATING THE FINDINGS OF THE LD. CIT(A) AND RESTORING THE ASSESSMENT ORDERS OF THE AO. THEREFORE GROUND NOS. 1 & 2 IN THE APPEALS FOR THE AY 2005-06 & 2007 -08 AND GROUND NO.1 IN THE APPEALS FOR THE AY 2006-07 & 2008-09 ARE ALLOWED. 10. NO OTHER SUBMISSION OR ARGUMENT WAS MADE BEF ORE US. 11. NO ADDITIONAL GROUND HAVING BEEN RAISED BEFORE US IN TERMS OF RESIDUARY GROUND NO. 3 IN THE APPEALS FOR THE AYS 2 005-06 AND 2007-08 AND GROUND NO.2 IN THE APPEALS FOR THE AYS 2006-07 AND 2008-09 ACCORDINGLY ALL THESE GROUNDS ARE DISMISSED. I.T.A. NOS.3266 TO3269/DEL./2011 16 12. IN THE RESULT THESE FOUR APPEALS ARE ALLOWED. SD/- SD/- (DIVA SINGH) (A.N. PAHUJA) (JUDICIAL MEMBER) (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO :- 1. M/S SANSTHAN DHARAM SHIKSHA SAMITI BHAGAT SINGH ROAD HANSI DISTT.HISAR. 2. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-4 HISAR. 3. CIT CONCERNED 4. CIT(A)- ROHTAK 5. DR ITAT G BENCH NEW DELHI 6. GUARD FILE. TRUE COPY BY ORDER DEPUTY / ASSTT.REGISTRAR ITAT DELHI ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT