Laxmi Bai Foundation,, v. DCIT, CC-13,,

ITA 3745/DEL/2005 | 1998-1999
Pronouncement Date: 30-09-2011 | Result: Partly Allowed

Appeal Details

RSA Number 374520114 RSA 2005
Assessee PAN AAAAL0348K
Bench Delhi
Appeal Number ITA 3745/DEL/2005
Duration Of Justice 6 year(s) 8 day(s)
Appellant Laxmi Bai Foundation,,
Respondent DCIT, CC-13,,
Appeal Type Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date 30-09-2011
Appeal Filed By Assessee
Order Result Partly Allowed
Bench Allotted C
Tribunal Order Date 30-09-2011
Date Of Final Hearing 26-08-2011
Next Hearing Date 26-08-2011
Assessment Year 1998-1999
Appeal Filed On 22-09-2005
Judgment Text
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH `C: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI C.L.SETHI JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI K.G. BANSAL ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T. A. NOS.3745 & 4352/DEL/2005 ASSESSMENT YEARS : 1998-99 & 1999-2000 M/S. LAXMI BAI FOUNDATION DY. COMMISSIONER OF INC OME-TAX C/O CONVENT OF RANI JHANSI VS. CENTRAL CIRCLE-13 NEW DELHI. SECTOR-8 R.K. PURAM NEW DELHI. PAN: AAAAL0348K I.T. A. NO.3960/DEL/2005 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 1998-99 ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX M/S. LAXMI BAI FOUNDATION CENTRAL CIRCLE-13 NEW DELHI. VS. C/O CONVENT OF R ANI JHANSI SECTOR-8 R.K. PURAM NEW DELHI. (APPELLANTS) (RESPONDENTS) ASSESSEE BY: SHRI P.C. PARWAL FCA. DEPARTMENT BY: SHRI H.L. DIHANA CIT-DR. O R D E R PER C.L. SETHI JUDICIAL MEMBER: IN THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 1998-99 BOTH THE ASSESSEE AS WELL THE REVENUE ARE IN APPEAL AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 05.07.2005 PA SSED BY THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS) IN THE MATTER OF AN ASSESSMENT MADE 2 BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER UNDER SEC. 143(3) OF THE I NCOME-TAX ACT 1961 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 1998-99. 2. IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 1999-2000 THE ONLY APPEAL IS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 20.9.2005 PASSED BY THE LEARNED CIT(A) IN THE MATTER OF AN ASSESSMENT MADE UNDER SEC. 143(3) OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT 1961 (THE ACT) FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 1999-2000. 3. WE SHALL FIRST TAKE UP THE APPEALS PERTAINING T O THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 1998-99. ITA NO.3745/DEL/2005 A.Y. 1998-99 (BY THE ASSESSE E) 4. GROUND NO.1 & 1.1 RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IS AGAI NST CIT(A)S ORDER IN CONFIRMING THE AOS ACTION IN DENYING EXEMPTION U/S 10(22) OF THE ACT AND THUS IN HOLDING THAT SURPLUS OF RS.8 99 343/- AS P ER INCOME & EXPENDITURE ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE SOCIETY WAS LIABLE TO TAX. 5. THE ASSESSEE IS A REGISTERED SOCIETY UNDER THE S OCIETIES REGISTRATION ACT WITH EFFECT FROM 23.07.1977. THE MAIN OBJECT O F THE SOCIETY IS TO PROVIDE NURSERY KINDERGARTEN AND SCHOOL EDUCATION AND TO MAINTAIN THE SCHOOL BOARDING HOUSES CULTURAL CENTERS LIBRARY AND READING ROOMS ETC. THE ASSESSEE FILED ITS RETURN OF INCOME DECLARING INCOM E AT RS. NIL ON 28.03.2000 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. THE A SSESSEE CLAIMED ITS INCOME AS EXEMPTED UNDER SEC. 10(22) OF THE ACT. T HE BLOCK ASSESSMENT 3 WAS ALSO MADE IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE FOR THE B LOCK PERIOD FROM ASSESSMENT YEARS 1989-90 TO 1999-2000 (TILL 15.01.1 999). IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AT PAGES 2 TO 14 THE AO HAS GIVEN CERTAIN OBSERVATIONS ABOUT THE VARIOUS FACTORS AND ANOMALIES FOUND DURIN G THE SEARCH PROCEEDINGS INITIATED AGAINST ONE SHRI V.K. BHATNAGAR. THE AO HAS ALSO DISCUSSED ABOUT THE VARIOUS ACTIVITIES OF THE ASSESSEE IN THE LIGHT OF WHICH IT WAS HELD BY THE AO THAT SCHOOL RUN BY THE SOCIETY WERE RUN FOR PROF IT AND THEREFORE EXEMPTION UNDER SEC. 10(22) OF THE ACT WAS NOT AVAI LABLE TO THE ASSESSEE. IT WAS OBSERVED BY THE AO THAT IN THE COURSE OF SEARCH IT WAS FOUND THAT THE FUNDS OF THE SOCIETY WERE NOT USED SOLELY FOR THE P URPOSE OF EDUCATION AND THE DONATIONS WERE RECEIVED FROM STUDENTS WITHOUT G IVING THE RECEIPTS. THE AO ALSO OBSERVED THAT VARIOUS EXPENSES CLAIMED IN T HE INCOME & EXPENDITURE ACCOUNT COULD NOT BE PROVED BY THE SUPP ORTING EVIDENCES. IT WAS ALSO OBSERVED BY THE AO THAT THERE WAS DIVERSIO N OF FUNDS OF THE SOCIETY FOR PERSONAL PURPOSES AND THE SOCIETY WAS THUS RUN WITH PROFIT MOTIVE. HE THEREFORE REJECTED THE ASSESSEES CLAIM OF EXEMPTI ON UNDER SEC. 10(22) AND BROUGHT THE SURPLUS OF RS.1 99 343/- AS PER INCOME & EXPENDITURE ACCOUNT TO TAX. 6. ON AN APPEAL THE LEARNED CIT(A) CONFIRMED THE A OS ACTION FOR THE VARIOUS REASONS GIVEN BY THE AO. THE LEARNED CIT(A ) FURTHER OBSERVED THAT 4 THE FUNDS OF THE SOCIETY WERE NOT USED SOLELY FOR T HE PURPOSE OF EDUCATION BUT WERE DIVERTED FOR PERSONAL PURPOSES. THE LEARN ED CIT(A) ALSO OBSERVED THAT THE SOCIETY WAS RUN WITH PROFIT MOTIVE AND ITS EXPENSES WERE NOT VERIFIABLE. THE LEARNED CIT(A) ALSO OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE USED TO RECEIVE DONATIONS FROM THE STUDENTS WITHOUT GIVING RECEIPTS. THE CIT(A) THEREFORE CONFIRMED THE AOS ACTION. 7. NOW THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 8. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND HAVE GONE THR OUGH THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. 9. THE ASSESSMENT YEAR INVOLVED IS ASSESSMENT YEAR 1998-99 WHEN SEC. 10(22) WAS IN FORCE. SEC. 10(22) HAS BEEN OMI TTED FROM THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 1999-2000 AND A NEW SEC. 10(23C) WAS INSERTED IN THE INCOME-TAX ACT. THEREFORE IN THIS CASE WE ARE CONCERNED ABOUT THE ASSESSEES CLAIM OF EXEMPTION UNDER SEC. 10(22) OF THE ACT. SIMILAR CL AIM OF THE ASSESSEE IN OTHER YEARS WHILE FRAMING BLOCK ASSESSMENT FOR THE BLOCK PERIOD FROM ASSESSMENT YEARS 1989-90 TO 1999-2000 (TILL 15.01.1 999) WAS DISALLOWED BY THE AO AND FURTHER CONFIRMED BY THE LEARNED CIT( A) FOR THE SAME REASONS AS GIVEN IN THE PRESENT REGULAR ASSESSMENT FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 1998-99. THE ISSUE WITH REGARD TO THE ASSESSEES CLAIM OF EX EMPTION UNDER SEC. 10(22) OF THE ACT FOR THE BLOCK ASSESSMENT COVERING VARIOU S PERIODS HAS BEEN 5 RESTORED BACK TO THE FILE OF THE AO WITH CERTAIN FI NDINGS AND OBSERVATIONS AFTER FOLLOWING THE TRIBUNALS DECISIONS IN THE CAS ES OF OTHER SOCIETIES BELONGING TO THE SAME GROUP NAMELY NAV MANAV SANST HAN VIRENDRA BHATNAGAR SANSTHAN RAJINDER NAGAR EDUCATION SOCIET Y & ST. VASWANI EDUCATION SOCIETY. WE THEREFORE RESTORE THIS ISS UE BACK TO THE FILE OF THE AO FOR HIS FRESH CONSIDERATION IN THE LIGHT OF THE OBSERVATIONS AND FINDINGS GIVEN IN THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL PASSED IN THE AB OVE REFERRED FOUR CASES WHICH HAVE BEEN FOLLOWED IN THE BLOCK ASSESSMENT OF THE PRESENT ASSESSEE. THE AO SHALL PROVIDE REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF BEIN G HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE SHALL PRODUCE ALL THE DETAILS BEFORE T HE AO IN THE LIGHT OF THE TRIBUNALS ORDER AND IN SUPPORT OF ASSESSEES CLAIM OF EXEMPTION UNDER SEC. 10(22) OF THE ACT. AT THIS STAGE IT IS ALSO PERTI NENT TO NOTE THAT IN THE COURSE OF HEARING OF THIS APPEAL THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS POINTED OUT THAT THE TRIBUNAL IN THE ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR AS SESSMENT YEAR 2000-01 HAS ALLOWED EXEMPTION UNDER SEC. 10(23C)(IIIAD) IN ITA NO.629/JP/2007. THE AO SHALL ALSO LOOK INTO THIS ASPECT OF THE MATT ER ABOUT THE TRIBUNALS ORDER ALLOWING THE ASSESSEES CLAIM OF EXEMPTION UN DER SEC. 10(23C)(IIIAD) IN THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2000-01 FOR THE PURPOSE OF D ECIDING THE ASSESSEES CLAIM OF EXEMPTION UNDER SEC. 10(22) IN THIS ASSESS MENT YEAR 1998-99. WE DIRECT ACCORDINGLY. 6 10. GROUND NO.2 RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE CIT(A)S ORDER IN CONFIRMING THE DISALLOWANCE OF RS.4 00 755 /- ON ACCOUNT OF DEPRECIATION ON BUILDING AT VIRENDRA GRAM. 11. IT WAS OBSERVED BY THE AO THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS CLAIMED DEPRECIATION ON VARIOUS ASSETS OWNED AND USED BY SCHOOLS. THE A SSESSEE HAS ALSO CLAIMED DEPRECIATION ON THE INVESTMENT MADE AT THE VIRENDRA GRAM. IT WAS FOUND BY THE AO THAT DEPRECIATION AMOUNTING TO RS.2 CRORES W ERE CLAIMED ON THE COMPLEXES AT VIRENDRA GRAM DURING THE BLOCK PERIOD OUT OF WHICH DEPRECIATION CLAIMED FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 1998-9 9 RELATING TO THE ASSESSEE WOULD COME TO RS.4 LAKHS. FOR THE REASONS GIVEN BY HIM IN THE BLOCK ASSESSMENT THE AO HAS DISALLOWED THE DEPRECI ATION ON THE VIRENDRA GRAM BUILDING AS CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE. 12. ON AN APPEAL THE LEARNED CIT(A) CONFIRMED THE AOS ACTION BY HOLDING THAT THE TWO CONDITIONS NECESSARY FOR GRANT OF DEPRECIATION I.E. THE OWNERSHIP OF THE ASSETS AND USER THEREOF WERE NOT SATISFIED IN THE PRESENT CASE. 13. HENCE THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 14. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND HAVE CAREFUL LY GONE THROUGH THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. THE IDENTICAL DIS ALLOWANCE OF DEPRECIATION ON BUILDING AT VIRENDRA GRAM WAS MADE BY THE AO IN THE BLOCK ASSESSMENT. 7 IN THE APPEAL ARISING FROM THE BLOCK ASSESSMENT WE HAVE DECIDED THIS ISSUE IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE AFTER FOLLOWING THE TRIBU NALS ORDER PASSED IN OTHER CASES BELONGING TO THE SAME GROUP. THEREFORE IN T HE LIGHT OF OUR ORDER OF EVEN NUMBER PASSED IN THE BLOCK ASSESSMENT [(IT(SS) A. NO.33/DEL/2005 WITH IT(SS) A.NO.80/DEL/2005) AFTER FOLLOWING THE TRIBUNALS ORDERS PASSED IN OTHER CASES BELONGING TO THE SAME GROUP WE DECI DE THIS ISSUE IN FAVOUR OF ASSESSEE AND DIRECT THE AO TO ALLOW DEPRECIATION ON BUILDING AT VIRENDRA GRAM AFTER ASCERTAINING THE VALUE THEREOF AND RATE OF DEPRECIATION THEREUPON. WE HOLD ACCORDINGLY. 15. GROUND NO.3 IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE CIT(A)S OR DER IN CONFIRMING THE DISALLOWANCE OF RS.2 25 000/- ON ACCOUNT OF CONTRIB UTION MADE FOR VASANT KUNJ BUILDING. THE CONTRIBUTION MADE TO VASANT KUN J BUILDING WAS DISALLOWED BY THE AO FOR THE REASON THAT THERE WAS NO JUSTIFICATION ON THE PART OF THE ASSESSEE TO CONTRIBUTE THE SUM OF RS.2 25 000/- FOR VASANT KUNJ BUILDING. THE LEARNED CIT(A) CONFIRMED THE AOS AC TION BY OBSERVING THAT THERE AS NO OBLIGATION ON THE PART OF THE ASSESSEE SOCIETY TO MAKE THE CONTRIBUTION AND NO ASSET BELONGING TO THE ASSESSEE HAD COME INTO EXISTENCE BY WAY OF THIS CONTRIBUTION. 16. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD. IDENTICAL CLAIM OF CONTRIBUTION TO VASANT KUNJ BUIL DING WAS ALSO DISALLOWED 8 BY THE AO IN THE BLOCK ASSESSMENT WHERE THE SAME WA S DIRECTED TO BE ALLOWED BY THE TRIBUNAL VIDE ORDER OF EVEN DATE AFT ER FOLLOWING THE DECISIONS OF THE TRIBUNAL IN OTHER CASES BELONGING TO THE SAM E GROUP NAMELY NAV MANAV SANSTHAN & VIRENDRA BHATNAGAR SANSTHAN. IN T HE LIGHT OF OUR ORDER PASSED IN THE BLOCK ASSESSMENT AND IN THE LIGHT OF THE TRIBUNALS ORDER PASSED IN THE OTHER CASES OF THE SAME GROUP WE ALLOW THIS GROUND RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE AND DIRECT THE AO TO ALLOW DEDUCTION ON AC COUNT OF CONTRIBUTION MADE TO THE VASANT KUNJ BUILDING. 17. LAST GROUND RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IS AGAINST T HE CHARGING OF INTEREST UNDER SEC. 234A 234B AND 234C WHICH IS CONSEQUENT IAL IN NATURE AND THE AO IS HEREBY DIRECTED TO RECALCULATE THE INTEREST O N THE FINALLY ASSESSED INCOME IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE IF ANY. ITA NO.3960/DEL/2005 ASSESSMENT YEAR 1998-99 (BY THE REVENUE): 18. NOW WE SHALL COME TO THE APPEAL FILED BY THE RE VENUE FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 1998-99. 19. THE ONLY GROUND RAISED BY THE REVENUE IS DIRECT ED AGAINST THE LEARNED CIT(A)S ORDER IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS.5 50 000/- MADE ON ACCOUNT OF BOGUS EXPENSES UNDER VARIOUS HEADS OF EXPENSES. 20. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS DISCUSSED THE VARIOUS EXPENSES CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE AT PAGES 12 TO 18 OF HIS ORDER. THE A O HAS POINTED OUT THAT 9 VARIOUS EXPENSES CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE UNDER VARI OUS HEADS WERE NOT VERIFIABLE. HE FURTHER STATED THAT THE VOUCHERS WE RE NOT SERIALLY NUMBERED AND THERE WAS NO SEAL DESIGNATION NAMES OF THE PE RSONS ALLOWING THE PAYMENT. HE FURTHER STATED THAT THERE WAS NO MENTI ON OF NAME ADDRESS OF PERSON RECEIVING THE PAYMENT. HE THEREFORE DISAL LOWED LUMP SUM AMOUNT OF RS.5 50 000/- ON ACCOUNT OF BOGUS EXPENSES UNDER THE FOLLOWING HEADS:- I) EDUCATION IMPROVEMENT RS.25000.00 II) TPT. & MISC. EXPS. RS.350000.00 III) PROFESSIONAL EXP. RS. 75000.00 IV) DIESEL & PETROL & REPAIRS & MAINT.(VEHICLE) RS. 20000.00 V) REPAIR & MAINTENANCE (BUILDING) RS. 20000.00 VI) GARDENING & PLANTATION RS. 25000.00 VII) STUDENT WELFARE & STAFF WELFARE RS. 25000.00 VIII) REPAIRS & MAINT (ELECTRICAL) RS. 10000.00 TOTAL RS.550000.00 21. ON AN APPEAL THE LEARNED CIT(A) DELETED THE AD DITION BY OBSERVING AND HOLDING AS UNDER:- 5.5 I HAVE GONE THROUGH THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AND ALSO CONSIDERED THE ORAL AND WRITTEN SUBMISSION MADE BY THE LD. AR. THE SEARCH OPERATION IN THE APPLICANT CASE WAS CARR IED OUT BY THE DEPARTMENT ON 15.01.1999. THEREFORE THE PREVIO US YEAR RELEVANT TO THE ASST. YEAR 1998-99 IS COMPRISED IN THE BLOCK PERIOD. IN THE BLOCK ASSESSMENT VARIOUS DISALLOWANC ES HAVE BEEN MADE BY AO UNDER THE SAME HEADS UNDER WHICH F URTHER DISALLOWANCES HAVE BEEN MADE BY THE AO IN THE IMPUG NED ASSESSMENT ORDER. IN THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION D ISALLOWANCE HAVE BEEN MADE BY AO FOR RS.550000.00 OUT OF VARIOU S EXPENSES AS DETAILED ABOVE. IN BLOCK ASSESSMENT DI SALLOWANCE OF RS.3300 000.00 WAS MADE BY THE AO ON ACCOUNT OF BOGUS EXPENSES UNDER THE VARIOUS HEADS OF EXPENSES AND I HAVE CONFIRMED ADDITION OF RS.1361765.00 OUT OF TOTAL BO GUS 10 EXPENSES IN BLOCK APPELLATE ORDER AND THEREFORE I D O NOT FIND ANY JUSTIFICATION FOR ANY SEPARATE DISALLOWANCE OUT OF THE ABOVE EXPENSES DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. MOST OF PAYMENTS ARE BY CHEQUES AS BOGUS EXPENSES ALREADY S TAND DISALLOWED AS DISCUSSED ABOVE THEREFORE ABOVE ADD ITION OF RS.550000.00 MADE BY AO IS DELETED. 22. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND CAREFULLY GO NE THROUGH THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. IN THIS CASE THE LEARNE D CIT(A) HAS DELETED THE ADDITION OF RS.5 50 000/- FOR THE REASON THAT HE HA S ALREADY CONFIRMED THE ADDITION OF RS.13 61 765/- IN THE BLOCK ASSESSMENT. HOWEVER THE AFORESAID ADDITION OF RS.13 61 765/- IN THE BLOCK ASSESSMENT HAS BEEN DELETED BY US IN AN APPEAL ARISING FROM THE BLOCK ASSESSMENT ORDER. IN THAT ORDER WE HAVE MENTIONED THAT THE DISALLOWANCE OF RS.3 50 000/- OU T OF THE TRANSPORT AND MISCELLANEOUS EXPENSES SHALL BE CONSIDERED IN THE R EGULAR ASSESSMENT FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 1998-99. IT IS NOT IN DISPUTE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD MADE CERTAIN PAYMENT IN CASH TOWARDS TRANSPORT AND MISCE LLANEOUS EXPENSES. THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO MADE CERTAIN PAYMENTS WITHOUT PRO PER VOUCHERS. THEREFORE IN THE LIGHT OF THE VARIOUS DISCREPANCIE S POINTED OUT BY THE AO WE CONFIRM THE ADDITION TO THE EXTENT OF RS.2 00 00 0/- OUT OF VARIOUS EXPENSES UNDER VARIOUS HEADS IN THIS REGULAR ASSESS MENT. THUS THE ADDITION OF RS.5 50 000/- MADE BY THE AO IS REDUCED TO RS.2 00 000/-. IN THE BLOCK ASSESSMENT THESE ADDITIONS WERE DELETED FOR WANT O F SEIZED MATERIAL FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH INDICATING THAT EXPENSE S CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE 11 WERE BOGUS IN NATURE. HOWEVER IN THIS REGULAR ASS ESSMENT THESE EXPENSES CAN BE EXAMINED FROM THE POINT OF VIEW THAT WHETHER THEY HAVE BEEN ACTUALLY INCURRED FOR THE PURPOSE OF IMPARTING EDUCATION BEI NG THE OBJECT OF THE ASSESSEE SOCIETY OR NOT. THUS THIS GROUND RAISED BY THE REVENUE IS PARTLY ALLOWED. 23. IN THE RESULT THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE IS PARTLY ALLOWED. ITA NO.4352/DEL/2005 - A.Y. 1999-2000 (BY THE ASS ESSEE): 24. GROUND NO.1 IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE CIT(A)S OR DER IN CONFIRMING THE ACTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN DENYING EXEMPTIO N UNDER SEC. 10(23C)(IIIAD) OF THE ACT TO THE ASSESSEE. 25. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES. THE ISSUE WITH REGARD TO THE CLAIM OF EXEMPTION UNDER SEC. 10(22) APPLICABLE UPTO THE ASS ESSMENT YEAR 1998-99 HAS BEEN DECIDED BY US IN THE BLOCK ASSESSMENT VIDE ORDER OF EVEN DATE IN IT(SS) A. NOS.33 & 80/DEL/2005 AS WELL AS IN THE R EGULAR ASSESSMENT FOR A.Y. 1998-99 HEREINABOVE. THE MATTER HAS BEEN REST ORED BACK TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO DECIDE THE ISSUE IN THE LIGHT OF THE VARIOUS OBSERVATIONS AND FINDINGS GIVEN BY THE TRIBUNAL IN THE IDENTICAL CASES BELONGING TO THE SAME GROUP. WE THEREFORE RESTORE THIS MATTER BAC K TO THE FILE OF THE AO FOR HIS FRESH ADJUDICATION IN THE LIGHT OF THE TRIBUNAL S ORDER IN THE ASSESSEES 12 OWN CASE WHERE THE TRIBUNALS ORDER PASSED IN OTHE R CASES BELONGING TO THE SAME GROUP AS MENTIONED ABOVE WERE FOLLOWED. 26. NEXT GROUND IS WITH REGARD TO THE DISALLOWANCE OF RS.4 36 186/- ON ACCOUNT OF DEPRECIATION ON BUILDING AT VIRENDRA GRA M. 27. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. THIS ISSUE IS DECIDED IN THE LIGHT OF OUR DECISION GIVEN IN THE REGULAR ASSESSMENT FOR A.Y. 1998-99 AS WELL AS IN THE BLOCK ASSESSMENT VIDE OUR ORDER OF EVEN DATE IN IT(SS) A.NOS.33 & 80/DEL/2005 . IN THE LIGHT OF THOSE DECISIONS THE AO IS HEREBY DIRECTED TO ALLOW DEPRE CIATION IN THE BUILDING AT VIRENDRA GRAM. 28. NEXT GROUND IS WITH REGARD TO THE DISALLOWANCE OF RS.5 00 000/- OUT OF TRANSPORT REFRESHMENT AND OTHER EXPENSES. 29. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND HAVE CAREFUL LY GONE THROUGH THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. THE DISALLOWANCE IN THIS ACCOUNT IN THE BLOCK ASSESSMENT HAS BEEN DELETED BY US VIDE OUR OR DER OF EVEN DATE IN IT(SS) A. NOS.33 & 80/DEL/2005 . HOWEVER IN THE R EGULAR ASSESSMENT IN THE LIGHT OF OUR ORDER PERTAINING TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 1998-99 WE SUSTAIN THE ADDITION OF RS.2 00 000/- AS AGAINST RS.5 50 00 0/- MADE BY THE AO. 30. NEXT GROUND IS WITH REGARD TO THE DISALLOWANCE OF RS.1 00 000/- ON ACCOUNT OF CONTRIBUTION FOR VASANT KUNJ BUILDING. 13 31. IN THE LIGHT OF OUR ORDER IN THE REGULAR ASSESS MENT FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 1998-99 AND IN THE BLOCK ASSESSMENT FOR THE BL OCK PERIOD 1989-90 TO 1999-2000 (UPTO 15.01.1999) THIS GROUND RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED AND THE AO IS DIRECTED TO ALLOW DEDUCTION ON ACCOUN T OF CONTRIBUTION FOR VASANT KUNJ BUILDING. 32. THE NEXT GROUND IS WITH REGARD TO CHARGING OF I NTEREST UNDER SEC.234A 234B & 234C OF THE ACT WHICH IS CONSEQUENTIAL IN N ATURE AND THE AO IS HEREBY DIRECTED TO RECOMPUTE THE INTEREST CHARGEABL E IF ANY IN THE FINALLY ASSESSED INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE AS PER LAW. 33. IN THE RESULT THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS PARTLY ALLOWED IN THE MANNER AS INDICATED ABOVE. 34. TO SUM UP THE APPEALS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE FO R ASSESSMENT YEARS 1998-99 AND 1999-2000 ARE PARTLY ALLOWED IN THE MAN NER AS INDICATED ABOVE AND THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE FOR THE ASSESSM ENT YEAR 1998-99 IS PARTLY ALLOWED. 35. THIS DECISION IS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT O N 30 TH SEPTEMBER 2011. SD/- SD/- (K.G. BANSAL) (C.L. SETHI) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED: 30 TH SEPTEMBER 2011. 14 ITA NO.3745 3960 & 4352/DEL/2005 COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO:- 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR BY ORDER *MG DEPUTY REGISTRAR ITAT.