Addl. CIT, Ghaziabad v. M/s. Naincy Convent Educational & Social Welfare Society, Ghaziabad

ITA 5339/DEL/2012 | 2007-2008
Pronouncement Date: 31-07-2013 | Result: Dismissed

Appeal Details

RSA Number 533920114 RSA 2012
Assessee PAN AAATN5566E
Bench Delhi
Appeal Number ITA 5339/DEL/2012
Duration Of Justice 9 month(s) 13 day(s)
Appellant Addl. CIT, Ghaziabad
Respondent M/s. Naincy Convent Educational & Social Welfare Society, Ghaziabad
Appeal Type Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date 31-07-2013
Appeal Filed By Department
Order Result Dismissed
Bench Allotted E
Tribunal Order Date 31-07-2013
Date Of Final Hearing 24-07-2013
Next Hearing Date 24-07-2013
Assessment Year 2007-2008
Appeal Filed On 18-10-2012
Judgment Text
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (DELHI BENCH E: NEW DELHI) BEFORE SHRI RAJPAL YADAV JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI T. S. KAPOOR ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NOS.5339 & 515/DEL/ 2012 (ASSESSMENT YEARS :2007-08 & 2008-09) ADDL. CIT VS. NAINCY CONVENT EDUCATIONAL & SOCIAL WELFARE RANGE-1 SOCIETY CGO COMPLEX-1 25 NAVYUG MARKET GHAZIABAD. GHAZIABAD. PAN: AAATN5566E (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) CO. NO. 455/DEL/2012 IN ITA NO.5339 /DEL/ 2012 (ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2007-08) NAINCY CONVENT EDUCATIONAL & SOCIAL WELFARE VS. ADD L. CIT SOCIETY RANGE-1 25 NAVYUG MARKET CGO COMPLEX-1 GHAZIABAD. GHAZIABAD. PAN: AAATN5566E (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : SHRI ASHOK GANDHI ADV. REVENUE BY : SHRI SAMEER SHARMA SR.DR. ORDER PER T. S. KAPOOR AM: THESE ARE TWO APPEALS FILED BY THE REVENUE AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-GHAZIABAD DATED 18.01.2011 & 1 6.11.2012 RESPECTIVELY. THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED CROSS OBEJECTIONS TO ITA NO. 5339. GROUNDS OF APPEAL TAKEN BY REVENUE IN BOTH YEARS ARE AS UNDER: ITA NOS. 5339 & 515 /DEL/2012 & CO.NO.455/ DEL/ 2012 2 GROUNDS FOR ITA NO. 5339 (A. Y- 2007-08) 1 THAT THE LD. CIT (A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FA CTS IN HOLDING THAT THE BUSINESS INCOME EARNED BY THE ASSESSEE FROM HONEY B EE AND PLANTATION BUSINESS ARE EXEMPT ON THE BASIS THAT THE SAME HAVE BEEN UTI LIZED FOR RUNNING DEAF AND DUMB SCHOOL ESPECIALLY IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES WHEN IN THE REMAND REPORT IT HAS BEEN CLEARLY ESTABLISHED THAT THE RUNNING OF THIS S CHOOL IS NOT BASED ON THE PROFIT OF THE HONEY BEE AND PLANTATION BUSINESS. 2. THE LD. CIT (A) HAS ERRED IN ALLOWING THE EXEMPT ION U/S 11 WHEN THE ASSESSEE HAS ASKED FOR THE SAME U/S 10(23) (IIIAD) OF THE I. T. ACT IN THE RETURN FILED BY IT. SINCE THE RECEIPTS OF THE ASSESSEE AS ABOVE ONE CRORE AND THE SAME ARE FROM EDUCATIONAL OBJECT NO OTHER INCOME/ RECEIPTS SHOULD BE TREATED AS EXEMPT. GROUNDS FOR ITA NO. 515 (A. Y- 2008-09) 1. THAT LD. CIT (A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN HOLDING THAT THE BUSINESS INCOME EARNED BY THE ASSESSEE FROM HONEY BEE AND PL ANTATION BUSINESS ARE EXEMPT ON THE BASIS THAT THE SAME HAVE BE UTILIZED FOR RUN NING DEAF AND DUMB SCHOOL ESPECIALLY IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES IT HAS BEEN CLEARL Y ESTABLISHED THAT THE RUNNING OF THIS SCHOOL IS NOT BASED ON THE PROFIT OF THE HONEY BEE AND PLANTATION BUSINESS. 2. THE LD. CIT (A) HAS ERRED IN ALLOWING THE EXEMPT ION U/S 11 WHEN THE ASSESSEE HAS ASKED FOR THE SAME U/S 10(23) (IIIAD) OF THE I. T. ACT IN THE RETURN FILED BY IT. SINCE THE RECEIPTS O F THE ASSESSEE AS ABOVE ARE ONE CRORE AND THE SAME ARE FROM EDUCATIONAL OBJ ECT NO OTHER INCOME/ RECEIPTS SHOULD BE TREATED AS EXEMPT. 3. THAT LD. CIT (A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS I N DELETING THE ADDITION MADE BY DISALLOWING THE EXPENSES AS THE AS SESSEE FAILED TO PRODUCE THE EVIDENCES IN SUPPORT OF ITS CLAIM. LD. CIT (A) HAS HELD THAT THE ABOVE ADDITIONS WERE MADE ON THE BASIS OF CONJECTURE AND SURMISES WITHOUT PROPER VERIFICATION AND REASONING WHICH IT TOTALLY INCORRECT. 4. THAT CIT (A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN CO NSIDERING THAT FOR A.Y-2005-06 AND A. Y- 2006-07 EXEMPTION U/S 11 & 12 OF THE THEN I. T. ACT WERE ALLOWED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICE R. THE ASSESSMENT ITA NOS. 5339 & 515 /DEL/2012 & CO.NO.455/ DEL/ 2012 3 ORDER PASSED FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION CLEAR LY STATES THAT WHY THE ASSESSEE SOCIETY IS NOT ELIGIBLE FOR EXEMPTION U/S 11 & 12 OF THE I. T. ACT. 5. THEREFORE THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT (A) BE CANCE LLED AND THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON THE ABOVE MENTION ED ISSUES MAY BE RESTORED. 6. THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO MODIFY/ AMEND OR A DD ANY ONE OR MORE GROUNDS OF APPEAL. GROUNDS FOR CO NO. 455 (A. Y- 2007-08) 1. THAT IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE OF THE CATEGORICAL F INDING RECORDED BY THE CIT (A) GHAZIABAD IN HIS ORDER IN APPEAL NU MBER 150/2009- 10/ GZB DATED 18.01.2011 TO GRANT EXEMPTION TO THE SOCIETY U/S 11 OF THE ACT THE APPELLANT IS UNJUSTIFIED TO RAISE OBJE CTION ON THE POINT OF CLAIMING EXEMPTION BY THE RESPONDENT U/S 10(23C) (I IIAD) OF THE ACT. INADVERTENT MENTION OF WRONG SECTION IN THE COMPUTA TION SHEET DOES NOT TAKE AWAY THE LEGAL RIGHT OF THE RESPONDENT SOC IETY TO CLAIM EXEMPTION UNDER APPROPRIATE PROVISIONS OF THE ACT. 2. THAT THE APPEAL HAS FILED BY THE APPELLANT WHICH IS LATE BY 562 DAYS AS NOTIFIED AT NO.11 OF THE DEFECT NOTICE AND AS SUCH THE SAME DOES NOT DESERVE TO BE ADMITTED FOR ADJUSTMENT ON M ERIT. 2. THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESS EE IS A SOCIETY REGISTERED UNDER SOCIETIES REGISTRATION ACT WHICH WAS ESTABLISHED F OR ESTABLISHMENT OF AN EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTE SOLELY FOR EDUCATIONAL PURPOS ES. THE INCOME EARNED BY ASSESSEE WAS CLAIMED TO BE EXEMPT U/S 10(23) (IIIAD ) OF THE I. T. ACT. DURING ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS THE ASSESSING OFFICER OBSERV ED THAT ASSESSEE HAD MADE CERTAIN INVESTMENTS IN THE BUSINESS OF HONEY PRODUC TION UNDER THE NAME AND STYLE ITA NOS. 5339 & 515 /DEL/2012 & CO.NO.455/ DEL/ 2012 4 NAINCY HONEY AND SIMILARLY IT WAS OBSERVED THAT ASS ESSEE HAD MADE INVESTMENT INTO NAINCY PLANTATIONS AND FURTHER IN B.SC NURSING AND HOTEL MANAGEMENT. THEREFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER HELD THAT THE OBJE CT OF SOCIETY WAS TO RUN NON PROFITABLE EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTION AND NOT TO EARN PROFIT THROUGH PURELY BUSINESS ACTIVITIES AND FURTHER HELD THAT HONEY BEE BUSINESS AND PLANTATION BUSINESS VIOLATED THE VERY OBJECTS OF THE SOCIETY. HE FURTHER HELD TH AT THE ASSESSEE HAD TAKEN SECURED LOANS FROM NAINITAL BANK AND HAD DEBITED INTEREST T O THE INCOME AND EXPENDITURE OF SCHOOL BUT THE UTILIZATION OF THIS LOAN CANNOT BE R ULED OUT IN THE BUSINESS ACTIVITIES OF THE SOCIETY WHICH WAS AGAIN AGAINST THE OBJECTS OF THE SOCIETY AND THUS MAKING THE ASSESSEE INELIGIBLE FOR EXEMPTION U/S 10(23C) ( IIIAD) OF THE ACT. 3. SIMILAR VIEWS WERE EXPRESSED BY ASSESSING OFFICE R IN RESPECT OF EXPENSES DEBITED IN THE INCOME AND EXPENDITURE ACCOUNT OF SC HOOL FOR WHICH HE APPREHENDED THAT PART OF EXPENSES MAY BE BELONGING TO THE BUSIN ESS ACTIVITIES OF THE ASSESSEE. THEREFORE IN VIEW OF ALL FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES HE HELD THAT ASSESSEE WAS NOT ELIGIBLE FOR EXEMPTION U/S 10(23C) (IIIAD) OF THE A CT AND ACCORDINGLY THE INCOME OF THE SOCIETY. 4. DISSATISFIED WITH THE ORDER THE ASSESSEE FILED APPEALS BEFORE LD. CIT (A) AND SUBMITTED AS UNDER: THAT SOCIETY IS ENGAGED IN RUNNING A SCHOOL AND BE SIDES IT WAS ENGAGED IN THE WORK OF EXTRACTING HONEY AND TREE PL ANTATION SO AS TO DERIVE FUNDS TO SUBSIDIES THE EXPENSES INCURRED ON THE RUNNING OF THE SPECIAL CLASSES FOR DISABLED CHILDREN. ITA NOS. 5339 & 515 /DEL/2012 & CO.NO.455/ DEL/ 2012 5 THAT THE SOCIETY HAD EXTENDED ALL INFRASTRUCTURE AN D FINANCIAL HELP TO MARGINAL AND SMALL FORMERS WHO CANNOT SET UP THEIR OWN PROCESSING PLANT FOR HONEY PRODUCTION AND ACTIVITIE S WERE UNDERTAKEN TO HELP THE FARMERS. THAT GOVT. OF UTTARAKHAND HAS TAKEN UP THE PROMOTIO N OF GROWING HERBS AND OTHER ALLIED PLANTATION AND SOCIETY TOOK UP THIS PROJECT WHICH HELPED IN PROVIDING JOB TO THE LOCAL VILLAGER S AND ALSO HELPED GOVT. WITH ITS PLANS TO MAKE UTTARAKHAND A HERBAL STATE. BOTH THESES ACTIVITIES ARE UNDERTAKEN BY SOCIETY WI THOUT ANY MOTIVE FOR PROFIT AND WITH THE SOLE AIM TO PROVIDE JOB AV ENUES TO THE VILLAGERS AND TO HELP GROW BETTER CROP AND TO MAKE THEM FINAN CIALLY SOUND. THAT THE MEMORANDUM AND ARTICLE OF ASSOCIATION OF T HE SOCIETY PROVIDE FOR ACTIVITIES OF EXTRACTING HONEY TREE PLANTATION AND HERBAL PLANTATION AS THE MAIN OBJECTS OF THE SOCIETY WITH THE SOLE AI M TO PROVIDE JOB TO THE LOCAL VILLAGERS AND THUS THE APPELLANT DID NOT ACT AGAINST THE OBJECTIVES OF SOCIETY AS PROVIDED AND AUTHORIZED UN DER THE MEMORANDUM OF ASSOCIATION. THAT EXCEPT FOR THE REASON OF SHOWING INCOME FROM H ONEY EXTRACTION AND TREE PLANTATION THE ASSESSING OFFICER DID NOT GIVE ANY REASON FOR REFUSING EXEMPTION FOR THE SOCIETY NOR HE PROVED TH AT SOCIETY DEFIED THE PROVISIONS CONTAINED IN SECTION 11 TO 13 OF THE ACT. THAT THESE ACTIVITIES EXISTED EVEN IN EARLIER YEAR S WHEREIN THE ASSESSMENT WERE ALSO COMPLETED U/S 143(3) AND EXEMP TION IN THOSE YEAR WAS NOT DENIED U/S 10(23C) (IIIAD). THAT SECTION 11 SPEAKS ABOUT THE INCOME FROM PROPER TY HELD FOR CHARITABLE PURPOSES AND IS ALLOWED TO BE EXEMPT TO THE EXTENT TO WHICH SUCH INCOME IS APPLIED TO CHARITABLE PURPOSES. THAT SECTION 11 SPEAKS OF TWO THINGS FIRST THE INC OME SHOULD BE DERIVED FROM PROPERTY HELD UNDER TRUST AND SUCH INC OME SHOULD BE APPLIED FOR CHARITABLE PURPOSES AND THE INCOME ACCU MULATED IF ANY SHOULD NOT EXCEED 15% OF THE TOTAL RECEIPTS. ITA NOS. 5339 & 515 /DEL/2012 & CO.NO.455/ DEL/ 2012 6 THAT SOCIETY WAS REGISTERED U/S 12AA BY THE COMMISS IONER OF INCOME TAX MEERUT VIDE CERTIFICATE NUMBER 47 DATED 06.06.2 000 AND WAS ALSO ELIGIBLE FOR EXEMPTION U/S 80G VIDE CERTIFICATE OF EXEMPTION DATED 15.04.2004. 5. THE LD. CIT (A) AFTER GOING THROUGH THE SUBMISSI ONS DELETED THE ADDITIONS MADE BY ASSESSING OFFICER. 6. AGGRIEVED THE REVENUE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. A T THE OUTSET THE LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE POINTED OUT THAT THERE WAS A DELAY IN FILING THE APPEAL IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08 AND SUBMITTED THA T CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING THE APPEAL WAS FILED ON 15.10.2012 AND IT WAS ARGUED THAT DUE TO EXCEPTIONAL CIRCUMSTANCES THE APPEAL COULD NOT BE F ILED WITHIN 60 DAYS AND THEREFORE IT WAS REQUESTED THAT DELAY BE CONDONED. THE ASSESSEE HAS IN ITS GROUNDS OF CROSS OBJECTION VIDE GROUND NO.2 HAS RAI SED GROUND FOR DELAY IN FILING OF APPEAL. HOWEVER HE DID NOT PRESS FOR THE SAME AND NEITHER HE WAS AGAINST THE CONDONATION OF DELAY. THEREFORE IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE WE CONDONE THE DELAY IN FILING OF THE APPEAL AND PROCE EDED TO HEAR THE APPEALS ON MERITS. AT THE OUTSET THE LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPR ESENTATIVE READING FROM ASSESSMENT ORDER SUBMITTED THAT ACTIVITIES OF HONEY PRODUCTION AND PLANTATION WERE NOT EXAMINED BY ASSESSING OFFICER A ND HE DISALLOWED THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE U/S 10(23C) (IIIAD) AND LD. C IT (A) IN STEAD OF ADJUDICATING ON THE TAXABILITY OF ASSESSEE U/S 10(2 3C) (IIIAD) ALLOWED RELIEF TO THE ASSESSEE BY RELYING UPON SECTION 11. HE FURTHER ARGUED THAT THE ASSESSEE ITA NOS. 5339 & 515 /DEL/2012 & CO.NO.455/ DEL/ 2012 7 WAS ENGAGED INTO BUSINESS ACTIVITIES WHEREAS THE P ROVISIONS OF SECTION 10(23C) (IIIAD) CLEARLY STATES THAT THE INSTITUTION SHOULD BE SOLELY FAR EDUCATIONAL PURPOSES. 7. THE LD. AR ON THE OTHER HAND INVITED OUR ATTENTIO N TO PAPER BOOK PAGES 16 TO 18 AND 19 TO 21 WHEREIN COPIES OF ASSES SMENT ORDER FOR ASSESSMENT YEARS 2005-06 AND 2006-07 WAS PLACED AND ON THE BASIS OF THESE ASSESSMENT ORDERS HE ARGUED THAT ASSESSEE CARRIED S AME ACTIVITIES IN EARLIER YEARS ALSO AND NO DISALLOWANCE WAS MADE IN EARLIER YEARS. SINCE THERE WAS NO CHANGE IN FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE APPEALS UNDER CONSIDERATION THE ASSESSING OFFICER SHOULD NOT HAVE DISALLOWED THE CL AIM OF THE ASSESSEE. HE FURTHER ARGUED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD WRONGLY CLAIME D EXEMPTION U/S 10 (23C) (IIIAD) WHICH WAS CLAIMED WRONGLY IN EARLIER YEAR ALSO AND ASSESSING OFFICER AFTER GOING INTO THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCE S OF THE CASE HAD ALLOWED EXEMPTION U/S 11. IT WAS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT ASS ESSEE WAS ENGAGED IN IMPARTING FREE EDUCATION TO DEAF AND DUMB STUDENTS AND HONEY PRODUCTION ACTIVITIES AND PLANTATION ACTIVITIES WERE UNDER TAK EN TO GIVE EMPLOYMENT TO VILLAGERS AND TO EARN INCOME FOR THE BENEFIT OF SCH OOL WHICH WAS ENGAGED IN IMPARTING EDUCATION TO CHILDREN. IN VIEW OF THE ABO VE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES IT WAS ARGUED THAT ASSESSEE WAS ENGAG ED IN CHARITABLE ACTIVITIES IN THE FORM IMPARTING EDUCATION TO CHILD REN AND EVEN THE INCOME ITA NOS. 5339 & 515 /DEL/2012 & CO.NO.455/ DEL/ 2012 8 FROM PLANTATION AND HONEY PRODUCTION ACTIVITIES WAS ALSO UTILIZED FOR THE PURPOSE OF IMPARTING EDUCATION AND ASSESSING OFFICE R HAS NOT GIVEN ANY NEGATIVE FINDINGS IN THIS REGARD. 8. IN HIS REJOINDER THE LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENT ATIVE SUBMITTED THAT ASSESSEEE ITSELF HAD CLAIMED DEDUCTION U/S 10(23C) (IIIAD) INSTEAD OF U/S 11. 9. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL PARTIES AND HAVE GONE TH ROUGH THE MATERIAL PLACED ON RECORD. WE FIND THAT ASSESSEE SOCIETY IS A REGISTERED SOCIETY UNDER THE SOCIETIES REGISTRATION ACT AND HAS BEEN REGISTE RED U/S 12AA BY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX MEERUT VIDE CERTIFICATE DATED 06.06.2000 AND FURTHER THE ASSESSEE IS ELIGIBLE FOR EXEMPTION U/S 80G WHICH ORIGINALLY WAS UP TO 31.03.2007 AND WHICH WAS SUBSEQUENTLY RENEWED . THE ASSESSEE HAD MADE INVESTMENTS IN HONEY EXTRACTION AND TREE PLANT ATION BUSINESS. HOWEVER IT HAS BEEN UTILIZING THE PROFIT EARNED FROM IT FOR ACHIEVEMENT OF ITS OBJECTS THAT IS IMPARTING OF EDUCATION. FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08 THE ASSESSEE HAD EARNED A NET SURPLUS OF RS.56 59 106/- INCLUDIN G RS.679933 AND RS.1 91 860/- FROM HONEY PRODUCTION AND PLANTATION ACTIVITIES RESPECTIVELY AS IS APPARENT FROM PAPER BOOK PAGE 24. DURING THIS YE AR THE ASSESSEE MADE AN ADDITION OF RS.5 04 56 676/- TO ITS FIXED ASSETS A S IS APPARENT FROM PAPER BOOK PAGE 26. THE UTILIZATION OF INCOME IS TOWARDS PURCHASE OF FIXED ASSETS TO BE USED FOR THE SCHOOL CHILDREN WHICH IS A CHARI TABLE ACTIVITY AND THE ITA NOS. 5339 & 515 /DEL/2012 & CO.NO.455/ DEL/ 2012 9 AMOUNT OF UTILIZATION IS MUCH MORE THAN THE SURPLUS EARNED BY ASSESSEE. DURING THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09 THE ASSESSEE INC URRED LOSSES FROM ITS ACTIVITIES OF NAINCY HONEY NAINCY PLANTATION NAIN CY INSTITUTE OF MANAGEMENT AND NAINLY COLLEGE OF NURSING. HOWEVER IT STILL MANAGED TO EARN A NET PROFIT OF RS.4 88 568/- AS IS APPARENT F ROM PAPER BOOK PAGE 40 WHICH IT UTILIZED IN MAKING ADDITIONS TO THE FIXED ASSETS TO THE TUNE OF RS.75 39 059/- WHICH IS APPARENT FROM PAPER BOOK PA GE 46. THOUGH IN THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09 THE ASSESSEE EARNED NEGATIV E INCOME FROM THE INSTITUTE OF MANAGEMENT NURSING COLLEGE HONEY PRO DUCTION AND PLANTATION ACTIVITIES YET THE FACT REMAINS THAT THE ASSESSEE U TILIZED THE NET SURPLUS FOR THE PURPOSE OF IMPARTING EDUCATION TO CHILDREN. IF WE A DD BACK THE LOSSES INCURRED ON THESE ACTIVITIES THE NET SURPLUS WILL COME OUT TO BE RS.76 10 210/- OUT OF WHICH IT HAS ALREADY UTILIZED AN AMOUNT OF RS.75 39 059/- TOWARDS PURCHASE OF FIXED ASSETS FOR SCHOOL WHICH ITSELF IS A CHARITABLE ACTIVITY AND THE AMOUNT REPRESENTS 99.06 % WHICH IS ABOVE 85% LIMIT AS CONTEMPLATED BY SECTION 11 OF THE ACT. 10. MOREOVER WE FIND FROM THE ASSESSMENT ORDERS FO R ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06 AND 2006-07 THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD CARRIED O UT SIMILAR ACTIVITIES THE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT ORDERS ARE PLACED AT PAPER BOOK PAGES 16 TO 21 AND ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT MADE ANY DISALLOWANCE AND RATHER HAD ALLOWED ITA NOS. 5339 & 515 /DEL/2012 & CO.NO.455/ DEL/ 2012 10 EXEMPTION U/S 11 DESPITE THE FACT THAT ASSESSEE HAD CLAIMED EXEMPTION U/S 10 (23C) (IIIAD) OF THE ACT. THEREFORE FACTS AND CIRC UMSTANCES IN THESE TWO YEARS ARE ALSO SAME. THEREFORE IN VIEW OF THE CONT INUITY ALSO THE CARRYING OF THESE ACTIVITIES CAN NOT BE HELD TO BE AGAINST THE OBJECTS OF SOCIETY AS THESE ARE PART OF MAIN OBJECTS OF SOCIETY. 11. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE CIRCUMSTANCES WE DO NOT SEE ANY INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER OF CIT (A). 12. AS REGARDS CROSS OBJECTION FILED BY ASSESSEE W E HAVE ALREADY CONDONED THE DELAY IN FILING APPEAL BY REVENUE. THE REFORE GROUND NO. 2 OF CROSS OBJECTIONS IS DISMISSED. IN GROUND NO.1 THE A SSESSEE HAS RAISED A CROSS OBJECTION REGARDING OBJECTION OF REVENUE THAT INITIALLY THE CLAIM WAS MADE U/S 10 (23C) (IIIAD) AND THEREFORE LD. CIT ( A) WAS NOT JUSTIFIED TO GRANT EXEMPTION U/S 11. SINCE WE HAVE ALREADY DECI DED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE THE CROSS OBJECTION TAKEN BY ASSESSEE BEC OME IN FRUCTUOUS AND HENCE DISMISSED IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE APPEALS FILED BY REVENUE AN D CROSS OBJECTIONS FILED BY ASSESSEE ARE DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON 31 ST /07/ 2013. SD/- SD/- (RAJPAL YADAV) (T. S. KAPOOR) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NOS. 5339 & 515 /DEL/2012 & CO.NO.455/ DEL/ 2012 11 DATED THE 31 ST DAY OF JULY 2013 S.SINHA COPY FORWARDED TO 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT (A) 5. CIT(ITAT) NEW DELHI. AR ITA NEW DELHI.