Nethra Jyothi Trust, CHENNAI V. DCIT, Coimbatore

ITA 1045/CHNY/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 127 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 5977 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 5 month(s) 29 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 27-10-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Appeal Filed On: 28-04-2017
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: S VIJAYAPRABHA
• Assessee Lawyers: R VIJAYARAGHAVAN
• Keywords: Business income; Depreciation; Charitable institution; Capital expenditure
• Section: 12AA; 32; 11

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL D BENCH, CHENNAI . . . , . !'# ! , % !& BEFORE SHRI N.R.S. GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ./ ITA NOS.533, 1045 & 1046/MDS/2017 ( )( / ASSESSMENT YEARS : 2010-11, 2011-12 & 2012-13 M/S NETHRA JYOTHI TRUST, C/O M/S SUBBARAYA AIYAR PADMANABHAN & RAMAMANI ADVOCATES, NEW NO.75 (OLD NO.105), WINDSOR TOWERS, DR. RADHAKRISHNAN SALAI, MYLAPORE, CHENNAI - 600 004. PAN : AAATN 2170 L V. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS), COIMBATORE. (+,/ APPELLANT) (-.+,/ RESPONDENT) +, / 0 / APPELLANT BY : SH. R. VIJAYARAGHAVAN, ADVOCATE -.+, / 0 / RESPONDENT BY : MS. S. VIJAYAPRABHA, JCIT 1 / 2% / DATE OF HEARING : 20.09.2017 3') / 2% / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 27.10.2017 / O R D E R PER N.R.S. GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER: ALL THE THREE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE ARE DIRECT ED AGAINST THE RESPECTIVE ORDERS OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) -2, COIMBATORE, FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2010-11, 2 011-12 AND 2012-13. SINCE COMMON ISSUES ARISE FOR CONSIDERATI ON IN THESE 2 I.T.A. NOS.533, 1045 & 1046/MDS/17 APPEALS, WE HEARD THESE APPEALS TOGETHER AND DISPOS ING OF THE SAME BY THIS COMMON ORDER. 2. THE FIRST ISSUE ARISES FOR CONSIDERATION IS DISA LLOWANCE OF DEPRECIATION. 3. SH. R. VIJAYARAGHAVAN, THE LD.COUNSEL FOR THE AS SESSEE, SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER DISALLOWED THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE ON THE GROUND THAT THE COST OF ASSET WAS A LLOWED AS APPLICATION OF INCOME. THE LD.COUNSEL FURTHER SUBM ITTED THAT THE INCOME OF THE TRUST HAS TO BE COMPUTED IN A COMMERC IAL MANNER, THEREFORE, DEPRECIATION IS ONE OF THE ITEMS TO BE A LLOWED WHILE THE INCOME WAS COMPUTED COMMERCIALLY. HENCE, BOTH THE AUTHORITIES BELOW ARE NOT JUSTIFIED IN DISALLOWING THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE. 4. ON THE CONTRARY, MS. S. VIJAYAPRABHA, THE LD. DE PARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE, SUBMITTED THAT THE COMPUTATION OF I NCOME OF THE TRUST WAS GOVERNED BY THE PROVISIONS OF SECTIONS 11 TO 13 OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961 (IN SHORT 'THE ACT'). ACCORDI NG TO THE LD. D.R., IT IS A SELF-CONTAINED CODE, THEREFORE, THE INCOME OF THE TRUST HAS TO BE COMPUTED UNDER SECTIONS 11 TO 13 OF THE ACT. TH E LD. D.R. FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT INCOME-TAX ACT PROVIDES FOR DEPRECIATION 3 I.T.A. NOS.533, 1045 & 1046/MDS/17 UNDER SECTION 32 OF THE ACT IN RESPECT OF THE ASSET WHICH IS USED FOR BUSINESS OR PROFESSION. WHILE COMPUTING INCOME FRO M BUSINESS OR PROFESSION, THE COST OF THE ASSET AT THE TIME OF AC QUISITION IS NOT ALLOWED SINCE INVESTMENT IN THE ASSET IS CONSIDERED TO BE A CAPITAL EXPENDITURE. HOWEVER, ACCORDING TO THE LD. D.R., W HILE COMPUTING INCOME OF THE TRUST, THE COST OF ASSET WAS ALLOWED AS APPLICATION OF INCOME UNDER SECTION 11 OF THE ACT. MOREOVER, A TR UST WHICH IS CLAIMING AS CHARITABLE TRUST CANNOT CLAIM THAT THEY ARE DOING BUSINESS, THEREFORE, ELIGIBLE FOR DEPRECIATION UNDE R SECTION 32 OF THE ACT ALSO. ACCORDING TO THE LD. D.R., THE MOMENT TH E ASSESSEE CLAIMS DEPRECIATION UNDER SECTION 32 OF THE ACT, IT HAS TO BE CONSIDERED AS IF THE ASSESSEE IS DOING BUSINESS ACT IVITY AND THE BENEFIT UNDER SECTION 11 OF THE ACT IS NOT AVAILABL E TO SUCH ASSESSEES. MOREOVER, DEPRECIATION IS A NOTIONAL DE DUCTION. IT IS NOT A CASH EXPENDITURE. IN OTHER WORDS, ACCORDING TO T HE LD. D.R., DEPRECIATION IS NOT AN OUTGOING. THE NOTIONAL ALLO WANCE OF DEPRECIATION ALWAYS REMAINS WITH TRUST ITSELF, HENC E, SUCH DEPRECIATION NOTIONALLY COMPUTED CANNOT BE DEDUCTED FOR THE PURPOSE OF COMPUTING THE TRUST INCOME. ACCORDING T O THE LD. D.R., SUCH NOTIONAL ALLOWANCE OF DEPRECIATION CANNOT BE A LLOWED WHILE COMPUTING THE INCOME OF THE TRUST, THEREFORE, THE A SSESSING OFFICER 4 I.T.A. NOS.533, 1045 & 1046/MDS/17 BY PLACING RELIANCE ON THE JUDGMENT OF KERALA HIGH COURT AND CBDT CLARIFICATION, HAS DISALLOWED THE CLAIM OF THE ASSE SSEE WHICH WAS RIGHTLY CONFIRMED. 5. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS ON EITH ER SIDE AND PERUSED THE RELEVANT MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. THE CLAIM OF DEPRECIATION IN RESPECT OF ASSET WHICH IS USED IN C HARITABLE ACTIVITY WAS EXAMINED BY THIS TRIBUNAL IN MUSIC ACADEMY MADR AS V. DDIT(E) IN I.T.A. NO. 1098/MDS/2015 DATED 22/4/2016 . IN FACT, THIS TRIBUNAL HAS OBSERVED AS FOLLOWS:- 9. INCOME-TAX ACT PROVIDES FOR PROCEDURE AND METHOD FOR COMPUTING INCOME UNDER DIFFERENT HEADS. DEPREC IATION IS PROVIDED UNDER SECTION 32 OF THE ACT WHEN COMPUTIN G INCOME UNDER THE HEAD INCOME FROM BUSINESS OR PROFESSION. IN RESPECT OF OTHER HEADS, NO DEPRECI ATION IS PROVIDED UNDER THE SCHEME OF THE ACT. THE INCOME O F THE TRUST IS EXEMPTED ON APPLICATION AND ACCUMULATION AS PROVIDED UNDER THE ACT. IF ANY VIOLATION, THE INCO ME OF THE TRUST IS LIABLE FOR TAXATION, IN SUCH A CASE, IF THE INCOME IS ASSESSED AS INCOME FROM BUSINESS OR PROFESSION, THE ASSESSEE MAY BE ELIGIBLE FOR DEPRECIATION. THE ASS ESSEE IS CERTAINLY NOT ENTITLED FOR DEPRECIATION, WHEN THE I NCOME WAS EXEMPTED ON APPLICATION OR ACCUMULATION AS PROVIDED UNDER THE SCHEME OF THE ACT. THE CHARITABLE INSTITUTION UNDER THE SCHEME OF INCOME-TAX ACT IS ON A DIFFERENT FOOTING. THE ENTIRE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE-TRUST FROM THE PROPER TY HELD UNDER TRUST DO NOT FORM PART OF TOTAL INCOME UNDER SECTION 11 OF THE ACT PROVIDED THE SAME IS APPLIED FOR CHAR ITABLE OBJECT. SECTION 11 OF THE ACT ALSO PROVIDES FOR AC CUMULATION OF 15% OF INCOME FOR FUTURE APPLICATION FOR THE OBJE CT OF THE TRUST. THEREFORE, THE BUSINESS AND CHARITABLE INSTITUTION ARE TWO DIFFERENT CATEGORIES IN THE SCH EME OF 5 I.T.A. NOS.533, 1045 & 1046/MDS/17 INCOME-TAX ACT. THIS TRIBUNAL IS OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT THE CUSTOMARY WAY OF COMPUTING INCOME OR THE COMMERCIAL PRINCIPLE OF COMPUTING INCOME CANNOT OVE RRIDE THE SPECIFIC PROVISION OF INCOME-TAX ACT. THE INCOM E-TAX ACT DOES NOT PROVIDE FOR ALLOWING DEPRECIATION OTHE R THAN THE ASSET WHICH WAS USED FOR BUSINESS OR PROFESSION . THERE IS NO OTHER PROVISION IN THE INCOME-TAX ACT OTHER TH AN SECTION 32 OF THE ACT FOR ALLOWING DEPRECIATION. THE REFORE, THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE DEPRECIATION HAS TO BE ALLOWED ON COMMERCIAL PRINCIPLE OR CUSTOMARY PRINCI PLE OF COMPUTATION OF INCOME IS CONTRARY TO THE SPECIFIC P ROVISION, NAMELY, SECTION 32 OF THE ACT. 10. THE NEXT QUESTION ARISES FOR CONSIDERATION IS WH EN THERE IS A CONFLICT BETWEEN CUSTOMARY PRACTICE, COM MERCIAL PRINCIPLE AND PROVISIONS OF SECTION 32, WHICH ONE WIL L PREVAIL? THE OBVIOUS ANSWER TO THIS QUESTION IS TH E STATUTORY PROVISION, NAMELY, SECTION 32 OF THE ACT WI LL PREVAIL OVER THE CUSTOMARY PRACTICE AND COMMERCIAL PRINCIPLE. THEREFORE, EVEN ON CUSTOMARY PRACTICE O R COMMERCIAL PRINCIPLE WHEREBY THE ASSESSEE CLAIMS DEPRECIATION WHILE COMPUTING THE INCOME, SECTION 32 O F THE ACT IS A SPECIFIC PROVISION UNDER INCOME-TAX ACT, WH ICH IS CONTRARY TO COMMERCIAL PRINCIPLE OR CUSTOMARY PRACT ICE. THEREFORE, THIS TRIBUNAL IS OF THE CONSIDERED OPINI ON THAT SECTION 32 WILL PREVAIL OVER THE CUSTOMARY PRACTICE O R COMMERCIAL PRINCIPLE. HENCE, THE ASSESSEE IS NOT E LIGIBLE FOR DEPRECIATION IN RESPECT OF BUILDING, PLANT, MACHINE RY, ETC. WHICH ARE NOT USED FOR THE PURPOSE OF BUSINESS OR PROFESSION. 11. EVEN ASSUMING FOR ARGUMENT SAKE THAT THE ASSES SEE WAS DOING BUSINESS, THEN THE ASSESSEE IS NOT ELIGIB LE FOR EXEMPTION UNDER SECTION 11 OF THE ACT AND AS RIGHTLY SUBMITTED BY THE LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE, T HE REGISTRATION UNDER SECTION 12AA OF THE ACT HAS TO BE CANCELLED UNDER SECTION 12AA(3) OF THE ACT. MOREOVER , THE ASSESSEE WILL NOT BE ELIGIBLE FOR EXEMPTION UNDER SE CTION 11 OF THE ACT IF IT IS CARRYING ON ANY BUSINESS ACTIVI TY. 6 I.T.A. NOS.533, 1045 & 1046/MDS/17 THEREFORE, THIS TRIBUNAL IS OF THE CONSIDERED OPINI ON THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT ELIGIBLE FOR DEPRECIATION. 12. AS RIGHTLY SUBMITTED BY THE LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE, IN VIEW OF SECTION 11(4) & (4A) OF TH E ACT, IF THE PROPERTY HELD UNDER TRUST IS A BUSINESS UNDE RTAKING, THEN THE INCOME OF THE BUSINESS UNDERTAKING, WHICH WAS SO HELD AS PROPERTY HELD UNDER TRUST, HAS TO BE COMPUT ED BY APPLYING THE PROVISIONS OF INCOME-TAX ACT UNDER CHAP TER IV. WHILE COMPUTING INCOME OF THE BUSINESS UNDERTA KING, ALL EXPENDITURE, INCLUDING DEPRECIATION, HAS TO BE A LLOWED AND THE INCOME OF SUCH BUSINESS UNDERTAKING WHICH W AS HELD UNDER TRUST HAS TO BE ALLOWED AS EXEMPTION UNDE R SECTION 11 ON APPLICATION AND ACCUMULATION. IN THI S CASE, AS RIGHTLY SUBMITTED BY THE LD. D.R., NO BUSINESS UNDE RTAKING WAS HELD UNDER TRUST AS PROVIDED UNDER SECTION 11(4) & (4A) OF THE ACT. THE ASSESSEE IS CLAIMING DEPRECIAT ION IN RESPECT OF ASSET WHICH WAS USED AS TOOL FOR CARRYIN G OUT CHARITABLE OBJECT OF THE INSTITUTION. WHEN THE ASS ET WAS USED AS TOOL FOR CARRYING OUT THE OBJECT OF THE CHA RITABLE INSTITUTION, SUCH ACTIVITY CANNOT BE CONSTRUED AS A BUSINESS OR PROFESSION OF THE ASSESSEE. THEREFORE, SECTION 32 OF THE ACT IS NOT APPLICABLE IN THIS CASE. 6. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, THE ASSESSEE IS NOT ELIGIB LE FOR DEPRECIATION WHEN THE COST OF ASSET WAS ALLOWED AS APPLICATION OF INCOME. 7. THE NEXT GROUND OF APPEAL IS WITH REGARD TO INCO ME FROM LEASING OF MEDICAL EQUIPMENTS. 8. SH. R. VIJAYARAGHAVAN, THE LD.COUNSEL FOR THE AS SESSEE, SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE LEASED OUT SOME OF THE MEDICAL 7 I.T.A. NOS.533, 1045 & 1046/MDS/17 EQUIPMENTS TO ANOTHER HOSPITAL. ACCORDING TO THE L D. COUNSEL, THE MEDICAL EQUIPMENTS PURCHASED BY THE ASSESSEE WERE U SED FOR TWO TO THREE YEARS. SUBSEQUENTLY, WHENEVER THE EQUIPME NTS WERE NOT REQUIRED FOR THE ASSESSEE, INSTEAD OF KEEPING IDLE, THAT WERE LEASED OUT TO A HOSPITAL WHICH IS DOING SIMILAR MEDICAL SE RVICE TO THE SOCIETY. ACCORDING TO THE LD. COUNSEL, THE LEASE A MOUNT RECEIVED FROM THE HOSPITAL WAS APPLIED FOR CHARITABLE ACTIVI TY BY THE ASSESSEE. ACCORDING TO THE LD. COUNSEL, THE ASSESSEE IS DOING CHARITABLE ACTIVITY, CARRYING ON MEDICAL RELIEF TO THE POOR AN D NEEDY. THE MACHINES LEASED OUT WERE ACQUIRED BY THE ASSESSEE F OR PROVIDING MEDICAL RELIEF TO THE POOR AND NEEDY. THE EQUIPMEN TS WERE NOT PROCURED FOR THE PURPOSE OF DOING LEASING BUSINESS. ACCORDING TO THE LD. COUNSEL, THE IDLE MACHINES WERE LEASED OUT AND THE INCOME FROM LEASE WAS UTILIZED FOR CHARITABLE ACTIVITY. H OWEVER, THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOUND THAT LEASING OF MEDICAL EQU IPMENTS WOULD COME UNDER THE ACTIVITY OF ADVANCEMENT OF ANY OTHER OBJECT OF PUBLIC UTILITY, THEREFORE, THE ASSESSEE IS NOT A CHARITAB LE INSTITUTION WITHIN THE MEANING OF SECTION 2(15) OF THE ACT. 9. THE LD.COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE FURTHER SUBMITTE D THAT THE ASSESSEE IS REGISTERED AS CHARITABLE INSTITUTION PR OVIDING MEDICAL 8 I.T.A. NOS.533, 1045 & 1046/MDS/17 RELIEF TO THE POOR. MERELY BECAUSE THE MEDICAL EQU IPMENTS WHICH ARE SURPLUS OR IDLE WERE LEASED OUT AND THE LEASE A MOUNT WAS UTILISED FOR CHARITABLE ACTIVITY, IT DOES NOT MEAN THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS CARRYING ON ANY COMMERCIAL ACTIVITY AND IT HAS TO BE CLASSIFIED AS ADVANCEMENT OF ANY OTHER OBJECT OF PUBLIC UTILI TY. THE ASSESSEE CONTINUES TO BE A CHARITABLE INSTITUTION PROVIDING MEDICAL RELIEF TO THE POOR AND NEEDY. THEREFORE, ACCORDING TO THE LD. CO UNSEL, LETTING OF MEDICAL EQUIPMENTS IN THE COURSE OF CARRYING ON CHA RITABLE ACTIVITIES HAS TO BE TREATED AS CHARITABLE ACTIVITY FOR THE PU RPOSE OF PROVIDING MEDICAL RELIEF TO THE POOR, HENCE, BOTH THE AUTHORI TIES BELOW ARE NOT JUSTIFIED IN DENYING EXEMPTION UNDER SECTION 11 OF THE ACT. 10. ON THE CONTRARY, MS. S. VIJAYAPRABHA, THE LD. D EPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE, SUBMITTED THAT NO DOUBT, THE ASSESS EE WAS REGISTERED UNDER SECTION 12AA OF THE ACT AS A CHARI TABLE INSTITUTION PROVIDING MEDICAL RELIEF TO THE POOR. HOWEVER, ACC ORDING TO THE LD. D.R., IN THE COURSE OF ITS ACTIVITY, THE ASSESSEE-T RUST LEASED OUT SOME MACHINES TO ANOTHER HOSPITAL IN WHICH THE ASSE SSEE-TRUSTEE IS A DIRECTOR. THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT EXPLAIN BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER HOW THE LEASING OF EQUIPMENTS IS INCIDENTAL TO THE OBJECT OF THE TRUST WHICH PROVIDES MEDICAL RELIEF TO THE POOR . ACCORDING TO THE 9 I.T.A. NOS.533, 1045 & 1046/MDS/17 LD. D.R., LEASING OF MEDICAL EQUIPMENTS OF A TRUST TO ANOTHER HOSPITAL AMOUNTS TO BUSINESS ACTIVITY, THEREFORE, I T HAS TO BE NECESSARILY CONSIDERED AS ADVANCEMENT OF ANY OTHER OBJECT OF PUBLIC UTILITY. SINCE THE LEASE AMOUNT EXCEEDED ` 25,000/- AS PROVIDED UNDER SECTION 2(15) OF THE ACT, ACCORDING TO THE LD. D.R., THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOUND THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NO T ELIGIBLE FOR EXEMPTION UNDER SECTION 11 OF THE ACT. REFERRING T O THE ORDER OF THE CIT(APPEALS), THE LD. D.R. SUBMITTED THAT IN RESPEC T OF CHARITABLE ACTIVITY NAMELY PROVIDING MEDICAL RELIEF TO THE POO R, THE ASSESSEE WAS GRANTED EXEMPTION. WHAT WAS DISALLOWED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS IN RESPECT OF LEASE AMOUNT WHICH WAS TAX ED AS BUSINESS INCOME. THEREFORE, ACCORDING TO THE LD. D.R., THE CIT(APPEALS) HAS RIGHTLY CONFIRMED THE SAME. 11. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS ON EIT HER SIDE AND PERUSED THE RELEVANT MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. THE ASSESSEE- TRUST IS ADMITTEDLY REGISTERED AS CHARITABLE INSTIT UTION UNDER SECTION 12AA OF THE ACT. THE ASSESSEE-TRUST IS PROVIDING M EDICAL RELIEF TO THE POOR. IN ORDER TO CARRY OUT ITS OBJECT OF PROV IDING MEDICAL RELIEF TO THE POOR, THE ASSESSEE-TRUST PROCURED CERTAIN MEDIC AL EQUIPMENTS. AFTER USING THE SAME FOR 2-3 YEARS, THE UNUSED EQUI PMENTS, WHICH 10 I.T.A. NOS.533, 1045 & 1046/MDS/17 ARE KEPT IDLE, WERE LEASED OUT TO ANOTHER HOSPITAL IN WHICH THE TRUSTEE IS A DIRECTOR. THE QUESTION NOW ARISES FOR CONSIDERATION IS WHEN THE ASSESSEE-TRUST LEASED OUT THE MEDICAL EQUI PMENTS, WHICH WERE KEPT IDLE, AND RECEIVED LEASE RENTALS, WHETHER THE ACTIVITY OF THE ASSESSEE WOULD AMOUNT TO ADVANCEMENT OF OBJECT OF GENERAL PUBLIC UTILITY? THIS TRIBUNAL IS OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT WHEN THE ASSESSEE-TRUST INSTEAD OF KEEPING MEDICAL EQUIP MENTS IDLE, LEASED OUT THE SAME AND UTILISED THE LEASE AMOUNT F OR CHARITABLE ACTIVITY, IT CANNOT BE SAID THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS C ARRYING ON BUSINESS ACTIVITY. THEREFORE, IT CANNOT BE SAID TH AT THE ACTIVITY OF THE ASSESSEE AMOUNTS TO ADVANCEMENT OF ANY OTHER OBJECT OF PUBLIC UTILITY. 12. THE MATTER WOULD STAND DIFFERENTLY IN CASE THE LEASE RENTAL WAS NOT USED FOR CHARITABLE ACTIVITY IN PROVIDING M EDICAL RELIEF TO THE POOR. IN THIS CASE, THE LEASE AMOUNT WAS AGAIN APP LIED BACK FOR PROVIDING MEDICAL RELIEF TO THE POOR. THEREFORE, T HIS TRIBUNAL IS OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT LEASING OF MEDICAL EQUI PMENTS IN THE COURSE OF CARRYING ON CHARITABLE ACTIVITY IS INCIDE NTAL TO THE MAIN ACTIVITY OF PROVIDING MEDICAL RELIEF TO THE POOR. HENCE, THIS TRIBUNAL IS UNABLE TO UPHOLD THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES B ELOW. ACCORDINGLY, 11 I.T.A. NOS.533, 1045 & 1046/MDS/17 THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW ARE SET ASIDE A ND THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS DIRECTED TO ALLOW EXEMPTION UNDER SECTIO N 11 OF THE ACT OF THE INCOME WHICH IS APPLIED FOR CHARITABLE ACTIVITY . 13. IN THE RESULT, ALL THE THREE APPEALS OF THE ASS ESSEE ARE PARTLY ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON 27 TH OCTOBER, 2017 AT CHENNAI. SD/- SD/- (. !'# ! ) ( . . . ) (A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY) (N.R.S. GANESAN) % / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER /JUDICIAL MEMBER /CHENNAI, 5 /DATED, THE 27 TH OCTOBER, 2017. KRI. / -267 87)2 /COPY TO: 1. +, /APPELLANT 2. -.+, /RESPONDENT 3. 1 92 () /CIT(A)-2, COIMBATORE 4. CIT, EXEMPTIONS, CHENNAI 5. 7: -2 /DR 6. ( ; /GF.