Appeal details
Counselvise Citation
[2020] 110 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 1875 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH)
Assessee PAN
Bench
Appeal Number
Duration Of Justice
1 year(s) 4 month(s) 3 day(s)
Appellant
Respondent
Appeal Type
Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date
03-12-2020
Appeal Filed By
Assessee
Order Result
Allowed
Bench Allotted
A
Assessment Year
2010-2011
Appeal Filed On
30-07-2019
Judgement Text
, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CHANDIGARH BE NCH A, CHANDIGARH (VIRTUAL COURT) . . , ! , ' #$ BEFORE: SHRI. N.K.SAINI, VP & SHRI , SANJAY GARG, J M ./ ITA NOS. 1069 TO 1071/CHD/2019 / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2010-11, 2014-15 & 2015-16 M/S HERITAGE EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY, H.N. 79, SECTOR 9, CHANDIGARH THE DCIT, CIRCLE-1(EXEMPTION), CHANDIGARH ./ PAN NO: AAATH2893Q / APPELLANT / RESPONDENT / ASSESSEE BY : SHRI SUDHIR SEHGAL, ADVOCATE / REVENUE BY : SHRI ARVIND SUDARSHAN, JCIT (SR. DR ) ! '# / DATE OF HEARING : 10/09/2020 $%&'# / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 03/12/2020 #% / ORDER PER BENCH: THESE THREE APPEALS BY THE ASSESSEE ARE DIRECTED AG AINST THE SEPARATE ORDERS EACH DATED 18.6.2019 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR S 2010-11, 2014-15 AND 2015-16 OF THE LD. CIT(A) 2, CHANDIGARH. SINCE THE ISSUES INVOLVED ARE COMMON AND THE APPEALS WERE HEARD TOGETHER SO THESE ARE BEING DISPOSED OFF BY THIS COMMON ORDER FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENC E AND BREVITY. 2. AT THE FIRST INSTANCE, WE WILL DEAL WITH ITA NO. 1069/CHD/2019 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010-11. FOLLOWING GROUNDS HAVE BE EN RAISED IN THIS APPEAL:- 2 ITA NOS 1069 TO 1071-CHD-2019- M/S HERITAGE EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY, CHANDIGARH 1. THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE REOPENING OF THE ALREADY CONCLUDED ASSESSMENT U/S 143(3) BY ISSUANCE OF NOTI CE U/S 147 AND WHICH AMOUNTS TO CHANGE OF OPINION , NOT PERMITTED BY THE VARIOUS JUDGMENTS OF THE APEX COURT. 2. THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS FAILED TO CONSIDER THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS ONLY RELIED UPON THE REPORT OF THE INVE STIGATION WING AND WHICH, REOPENING IS BAD IN LAW IN VIEW OF THE VARIOUS JUDG MENTS OF THE APEX COURT AND OF DIFFERENT HIGH COURTS. 3. THAT THERE WAS NO REASON TO BELIEVE AS PER REAS ONS RECORDED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND, THEREFORE, THE REOPENING IS BAD IN LAW. 4. NOTWITHSTANDING THE ABOVE SAID GROUNDS OF APPEA L, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN ADDING BACK A SUM OF RS. 54 LACS ON ACCOUN T OF DISALLOWANCE OF SALARY/HONORARIUM PAID TO THE QUALIFIED TRUSTEES U/ S 13 (L)(C) R.W. SECTION 13(3) AND 164(2) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961. 5. THAT THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER HAS FAILED TO AP PRECIATE THE JUDGMENT OF JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF IDICULA TR UST SOCIETY, FARIDABAD AS REPORTED IN 104 DTR 9. 6. THAT THE ADDITION HAVE BEEN MADE AGAINST THE FA CTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. 3. VIDE GROUND NOS. 1 TO 3 THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE LEGAL ISSUE CHALLENGING THE VALIDITY OF THE REOPENING WHILE GRO UND NOS. 4 & 5 RELATES TO THE ISSUE ON MERIT RELATING TO THE SUSTENANCE OF AD DITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON ACCOUNT OF DISALLOWANCE OF SAL ARY / HONORARIUM PAID TO THE TRUSTEES U/S 13(1)( C) READ WITH SECTIONS 13(3) AND 164(2) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (IN SHORT 'THE ACT'), FIRSTLY, WE SHA LL DEAL WITH THIS ISSUE. 4. THE FACTS RELATING TO THIS ISSUE IN BRIEF ARE TH AT THE ASSESSEE TRUST / SOCIETY IS REGISTERED UNDER SOCIETIES REGISTRATION ACT (XXI OF 1860) VIDE REGISTRATION NO.3119 OF 2001 DATED 5.1.2001. IT IS ALSO REGISTER ED U/S 12AA OF THE ACT WITH THE LD. CIT-1, CHANDIGARH VIDE REGISTRATION NO. CIT /CHD/TECH/02-03/4125 DATED 9.10.2002. THE ASSESSEE FILED RETURN OF INCO ME ON 6.8.2010 DECLARING NIL INCOME. THEREAFTER, THE CASE WAS REOPENED U/S 147 O F THE ACT AND THE NOTICE U/S 148 OF THE ACT WAS ISSUED TO THE ASSESSEE ON 28 .3.2017. SUBSEQUENTLY NOTICE U/S 142(1) OF THE ACT ALONG WITH QUESTIONNA IRE WAS ISSUED ON 19.6.2017. THE ASSESSEE FURNISHED VARIOUS DETAILS AND DOCUMENT S ALONG WITH BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS AND VOUCHERS WHICH WERE EXAMINED BY THE AS SESSING OFFICER ON TEST CHECK BASIS. DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT P ROCEEDINGS, THE ASSESSING 3 ITA NOS 1069 TO 1071-CHD-2019- M/S HERITAGE EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY, CHANDIGARH OFFICER NOTICED THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS PAYING SALARY / HONORARIUM TO S/SHRI ANUP SONI, AMIT KUMAR BANSAL AND MUKEH BANSAL @ RS. 18 LACS PER ANNUM EACH. THESE PERSONS WERE RELATED AS PER THE PROVISI ONS OF SECTION 13(3) OF THE ACT. THE ASSESSING OFFICER OBSERVED THAT DURING TH E ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2015-16, THE LOCAL ENQUIRIE S HAD BEEN MADE BY THE THEN ASSESSING OFFICER U/S 131 OF THE ACT AND IT WA S FOUND THAT THESE PAYMENTS WERE NOT GENUINE AND REASONABLE AND THEN I T WAS ASKED THAT THE PAYMENTS MADE TO SPECIFIC PERSONS UNDER SECTION13(3 ) OF THE ACT TOWARDS SALARY WERE EXCESSIVE AND NOT REASONABLE AND WERE I N VIOLATION OF PROVISIONS OF SECTION13(1)(C) OF THE ACT. SO, AS TO WHY THOSE PAYMENTS BE NOT DISALLOWED AND TAXED ON MAXIMUM MARGINAL RATE U/S 164(2) OF TH E I.T. ACT. 4.1 IN RESPONSE, THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED AS UNDER:- AS REGARDS TO QUERY REGARDING APPLICABILITY OF SECT ION 11(1) READ WITH SECTION 13(L)(C) OF THE ACT, WE WANT TO STATE THAT THE ASSE SSEE SOCIETY HAD PAID AN AMOUNT OF RS. 54,00,000/- AS SALARY/ HONORARIUM TO THE TRUSTEES FOR PROFESSIONAL AND EXPERT SERVICES PROVIDED BY SUCH PERSONS. NO DI RECT OR INDIRECT BENEFIT HAD BEEN GIVEN TO THEM AND ONLY SALARY HAD BEEN PAID TO THEM FOR SERVICES PROVIDED BY THEM ON WHICH SECTION 13(1)(C) OF THE A CT DOES NOT APPLY. SECTION 13(1)(C) HAS BEEN REPRODUCED BELOW: SECTION 13..... (C) IN THE CASE OF A TRUST FOR CHARITABLE OR RELIGI OUS PURPOSES OR A CHARITABLE OR RELIGIOUS INSTITUTION, ANY INCOME THEREOF - (I) IF SUCH TRUST OR INSTITUTION HAS BEEN CREATED OR ESTABLISHED AFTER THE COMMENCEMENT OF THIS ACT AND UNDER THE TERMS OF THE TRUST OR THE RULES GOVERNING THE INSTITUTION, ANY PART OF SUCH INCOME ENURES, OR (II) IF ANY PART OF SUCH INCOME OR ANY PROPERTY OF THE TRUST OR THE INSTITUTION (WHENEVER CREATED OR ESTABLISHED) IS DURING THE PRE VIOUS YEAR USED OR APPLIED, DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY FOR THE BENEFIT OF ANY PERSO N REFERRED TO IN SUB-SECTION (3) THE CONTENTION OF THE LEGISLATURE IS TO RESTRICT AN Y UNDUE BENEFIT WHICH WAS DERIVED BY ANY PERSONS (COVERED UNDER SECTION 13(3) OF THE ACT) MUST BE EXCLUDED FROM EXEMPTION PROVIDED IN SECTION 11 OF T HE ACT. SO THE THRUST OF THE COMPLETE SECTION IS BASICALLY LIES ON 'ANY DIRECT OR INDIRECT BENEFIT' ACT DOES NOT DEFINE THE WORD 'BENEFIT', BUT IT IS A GENERAL CLAUSE AND AS PER OXFORD DICTIONARY THE 'BENEFIT' MEANS 'AN ADVANTAGE OR PROFIT GAINED FROM SOMETHING' 4 ITA NOS 1069 TO 1071-CHD-2019- M/S HERITAGE EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY, CHANDIGARH SPECIFIED PERSONS MUST GOT SOME ADVANTAGE OR PROFIT TO ATTRACT SECTION 13 (3) OF ACT. BUT IN OUR CASE THE ASSESSEE HAD PAID HONORARI UM TO SUCH PERSONS AGAINST SERVICES RECEIVED, IT IS PURELY A NORMAL CONTRACT W ITHOUT ANY UNDUE BENEFIT/PROFIT OR ADVANTAGE TO SUCH PERSONS. IT IS HERITAGE EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY NOT SUCH SPECIFI ED PERSONS WHO IS BENEFITED FROM THIS CONTRACT, AS THE SPECIFIED PERSONS ARE PR OVIDING VARIOUS SPECIALIZED & EXPERT SERVICES TO TRUST AT CONCESSIONAL PRICE, (A COMPLETE DETAIL OF SERVICES OFFERED BY SUCH PERSONS ARE ATTACHED WITH THIS LETT ER_ IF SUCH SERVICES ARE AVAILED BY SOCIETY FROM OUTSIDE (THIRD PARTY), SOCI ETY HAS TO SHED MORE COST THAN CURRENT COST. SO NO BENEFIT (DIRECT OR INDIRECT) WA S TRANSFERRED TO SPECIFIED PERSONS BY SOCIETY. BENEFIT MUST BE A CASE WHERE THERE IS ONE WAY FLOW OF ADVANTAGES/PROFIT MEANS FROM TRUST TO SPECIFIED PERSONS. BUT IN OUR C ASE THE ASSESSEE TRUST HAD FULL VALUE ITS CONSIDERATION PAID IN SHAPE OF PROFESSION AL/SPECIALIZED EXPERTISE OF SUCH PERSONS. RELIANCE IS PLACED ON VARIOUS JUDICIAL PRONOUNCEMEN TS AS BELOW: CIT V BHARAT SEWA SANSTHAN (2013) 217 TAXMAN 337 (A LL): 'THEREFORE, THE TERM 'BENEFIT' WOULD COVER A CASE OF ONE WAY FLOW OF PRI VILEGE AND ADVANTAGE TO THE PERSONS OF PROHIBITED CATEGORY, OUR OF THE FUND S, PROPERTY OR INCOME OF THE TRUST' CIT VS. SHREERAM MEMORIAL FOUNDATION 269 ITR 35, TH E DELHI HIGH COURT HELD THAT AS THE TRUST HAD GIVEN LOAN WITHOUT ADEQUATE SECURI TY BUT THE LOAN WAS NOT LARGE AND INTEREST WAS ADEQUATE, EXEMPTION WAS GRAN TED. THE THE GUJARAT HIGH COURT IN CIT VS. SARLADEVI SARABHA I TRUST NO. 2 172 ITR 698 HAS HELD THAT WHERE A CHARITABLE TRUST DONATES AN AMOUN T TO THE CORPUS OF ANOTHER CHARITABLE TRUST, WHICH HAD BEEN CREATED BY THE SAM E GROUP OF PERSONS, 13 (2) (H) WOULD NOT APPLY. IN SHREE POONGALIA JAIN SHWETAMBER MANDIRVS. CIT 16 85 ITR 516 (RAJ), AMOUNTS WERE LENT TO A FIRM IN WHICH TRUSTEES WERE PARTNERS , THE FIRM HAD CREATED EQUITABLE MORTGAGE OF IMMOVABLE PROPERTIES BELONGIN G TO IT AND THE RATE OF INTEREST WAS EQUAL TO THAT CHARGED BY BANKS ON DEPO SITS. IT WAS HELD THAT WITHDRAWALS OF EXEMPTION WAS NOT JUSTIFIED. SO, IN THE LIGHT OF ABOVE SUBMI8SSION, WE HUMBLY WA NT TO STATE THAT THE HONORARIUM/SALARY PAID TO PERSONS COVERED U/S 13(3) OF THE INDIAN INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 DID NOT ATTRACT SECTION 13 (1) (C), HENCE ALLOWABLE EXPENSES. FURTHER IN CASE YOUR GOODSELF IS NOT SATISFIED WITH THE ABOVE SUBMISSION, WITHOUT SURRENDERING OUR RIGHT TO AVAIL ALL LEGAL REMEDIES IN CASE OF ANY ADDITION, WE WANT TO ARTICULATE PROVISO OF SECTION 164 (2) OF TH E INDIAN INCOME TAX ACT 1961 (REPRODUCED BELOW), WHICH SPEAKS TO TAX THE RELEVAN T PART (INCOME) AT MAXIMUM MARGINAL RATE, WITHOUT ATTRACTING ANY OTHER LIMB OF TRUST (EITHER EXEMPTION STATUS OR SURPLUS OF RECEIPT OVER INCOME) AS PER SECTION 164(2) OF THE ACT, IN THE CASE OF RELEVANT INCOME WHICH IS DERIVED FRO M PROPERTY HELD UNDER TRUST WHOLLY FOR CHARITABLE OR RELIGIOUS PURPOSES, OR WHI CH IS OF THE NATURE REFERRED TO IN SUB-CLAUSE (IIA) OF CLAUSE (24) OF SECTION 2, OR WHICH IS OF THE NATURE REFERRED TO IN 5 ITA NOS 1069 TO 1071-CHD-2019- M/S HERITAGE EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY, CHANDIGARH SUB-SECTION (4A) OF SECTION 11, TAX SHALL BE CHARGED ON SO MUCH OF THE RELEVANT INCOME AS IS NOT EXEMPT UNDER SECTION 11 OR SECTION 12, AS IF THE RELEVANT INCOME NOT SO EXEMPT WERE THE INCOME OF AN ASSOCIAT ION OF PERSONS: PROVIDED THAT IN A CASE WHERE THE WHOLE OR ANY PART OF THE RELEVANT INCOME IS NOT EXEMPT UNDER SECTION 11 OR SECTION 12 BY VIRTUE OF THE PROVISIONS CONTAINED IN CLAUSE (C) OF CLAUSE (D) OF SUB-SECTION (1) OF S ECTION 13, TAX SHALL BE CHARGED ON THE RELEVANT INCOME OR PART OF RELEVANT INCOME A T THE MAXIMUM MARGINAL RATE. RELIANCE IS ALSO PLACED ON2015 (9) TMI1447- S UPREME COURT: DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX CHENNAI VS. M/S. WORKING WOMENS FORUM: W HEREIN SPL WAS DISMISSED BY HON 'BLE S.C. AND STATES THE EXEMPTION TO BE GRANTED AS PROVIDED U/S 13 (1) (D) OR TOTAL DENIAL U/S 11- HELD THAT: H C ORDER CONFIRMED [2014 (8) TMI 681- MADRAS HIGH COURT} THE INCOME OTHER THAN DIVID END INCOME HAS TO BE TAXED ONLY TO THE EXTENT TO WHICH THE VIOLATION WAS FOUND BY THE AO- THERE IS A VITAL DIFFERENCE BETWEEN ELIGIBILITY FOR EXEMPTION AND WITHDRAWAL OF EXEMPTION/FORFEITURE FOR EXEMPTION FOR CONTRAVENTIO N OF THE PROVISIONS OF LAW- DECIDED AGAINST REVENUE.' 5. THE ASSESSING OFFICER DID NOT FIND MERIT IN THE AFORESAID REPLY OF THE ASSESSEE FOR THE FOLLOWING REASONS:- 4.1 ASSESSEE HAS MADE PAYMENTS TO THEIR MEMBERS R EGARDING SALARY. THESE AMOUNTS ARE NOT REASONABLE BECAUSE ASSESSEE HAS ONL Y SUBMITTED THAT TRUST IS PAYING CHARGES TO THEM AGAINST THE SERVICES PROVIDE D BY THEM AND THEY ARE WELL QUALIFIED PERSONS. THE REPLY OF ASSESSEE DULY CONSIDERED BUT NOT ACCEPTED ON THIS GROUND, BECAUSE MEMBERS OR TRUSTEES ARE WEL L QUALIFIED CANNOT BE A GROUND FOR THE PAYMENTS OF HIGH SALARY. THE SALARY PAID TO MEMBERS IS NOT REASONABLE AND UNDUE BENEFIT TO THESE RELATED PERSO NS U/S 13(3) OF I.T. ACT. ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO PRODUCE OR SUBMIT ANY DOCUME NTARY EVIDENCES REGARDING THE SERVICES PROVIDED BY THESE PERSONS. O NLY RUN A CHARITABLE INSTITUTION CAN NOT BE A GROUND TO PAY THE SALARY O R OTHER ALLOWANCE TO THEM. 4.2 IT IS ALSO SEEN FROM THE PERSONAL ITR OF THES E PERSONS THAT THEY ARE ALSO DOING SOME OTHER WORK ALONG WITH GETTING SALARY /H ONORARIUM FROM THE HERITAGE EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY. THE NATURE OF THIS WORK IS RUN A BUSINESS AND GETTING INTEREST / REMUNERATION FROM SOME OTHER BUSINESS CONCERNS. O N PERUSAL OF THE ABOVE, IT IS CLEAR THAT THESE PERSONS ARE NOT CONCENTRATE ON THEIR JOB AND DOING OTHER WORKS ALONG WITH THE SERVICES PROVIDED TO THE ASSES SEE. THE REPLY IN THIS REGARD IS NOT ACCEPTED. THE REPLY OF ASSESSEE IS NOT ON REAL GROUND, IT'S A FACT THAT BUSINESS IS A 24 HOURS JOB AND IT IS DIFFICULT TO M ANAGE BUSINESS WITH ANY OTHER JOB. IT IS ALSO A FACT THAT SALARY / HONORARIUM PAI D TO THE MEMBERS OF THE TRUST IS HIGHER COMPARED TO OTHER SALARIED EMPLOYEES. SO REP LY IN THIS REGARD IS NOT ACCEPTED AND PAYMENTS MADE TO THESE PERSONS ARE NOT REASONABLE AND LIABLE FOR DISALLOWANCE U/S 13 (L)(C) R.W. 13(3) OF I. T. ACT, 1961 AND TAXED U/S 164 (2) OF I. T. ACT. 6 ITA NOS 1069 TO 1071-CHD-2019- M/S HERITAGE EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY, CHANDIGARH 6. THE ASSESSING OFFICER ALSO MENTIONED THAT DURING ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS INFORMATION FROM DDIT-1(INVESTIGATION) HAD BEEN RECEIVED VIDE LETTER DATED 3.10.2016 HAVING THE FOLLOWING DETAILS :- 4.3 IT IS MENTIONED HERE THAT DURING THE ASSESSME NT PROCEEDINGS INFORMATION FROM DDIT-1 (INVESTIGATION), CHANDIGARH HAS BEEN RE CEIVED VIDE LETTER NO 924, DATED-03-10-2016, RECEIVED IN THE OFFICE OF UNDERSI GNED ON 06-10-2016. THE DETAILS OF THE SAME ARE AS UNDER:- '2. IN THIS CONNECTION, IT IS INTIMATED THAT SURVE Y U/S 133A HAS BEEN CARRIED OUT BY THIS OFFICE IN THE CASE OF M/S MIRAGE INFRA LTD. ON 01.12.2014. THE ENQUIRIES HAS ALSO BEEN MADE BY THIS OFFICE IN REFE RENCE TO TAX EVASION PETITION IN THE CASE OF SH. PAWAN KUMAR BANSAL FROM VARIOUS PARTIES AND FOUND THAT M/S MIRAGE INFRA LTD. A COMPANY OF SH. PAWAN KUMAR BANS AL AND HIS FAMILY MEMBERS HAS MADE TRANSACTION WITH THE VARIOUS COMPA NIES/TRUST. 3. AS PER THE ALLEGATION MENTIONED IN THE TEP, THE TRUST M/S HERITAGE EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY, CHANDIGARH PROMOTED BY THE FAM ILY OF MR. PAWAN KUMAR BANSAL SMT. AMBIKA SONI& SH. BALKRISHAN BANSAL, WHI CH IS INVOLVED IN FINANCIAL IRREGULARITIES. THE ALLEGATION IN THE TEP IS 'THE ACCOUNT OF THE SOCIETY HAVE BEEN GROSSLY MISRE PRESENTED. IN THE BALANCE SHEET OF HERITAGE EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY, LOSS OF RS. 12.40 CRORES HAS BEEN REFLECTED AS ON 31.03.2011. WHEREAS THE SURPLUS OF THE DELHI PUBLIC SCHOOL HAS NOT BEEN REFLECTED IN THE BOOKS OF THE SOCIETY. UNS ECURED LOAN OF RS. 23.86 CRORE HAS BEEN SHOWN FROM DELHI PUBLIC SCHOOL, IN THE BAL ANCE SHEET OF M /S HERITAGE EDUCATION SOCIETY, WHICH PRIMA-FACIE APPEARS TO BE ACCUMULATED SURPLUS OF THE SCHOOL. THE EXEMPTION GRANTED UP 12AA SHOULD BE CANCELLED FORTH WITH AND PROSECUTION SHOULD BE LAUNCHED AS PER LAW AGAINST T HE VIOLATORS. 4. THE SAID SOCIETY IS RUNNING A SCHOOL UNDER THE AEGIS OF DELHI PUBLIC SCHOOL AT CHANDIGARH SINCE 2001. THE SAID SOCIETY H AS CLAIMED THE EXEMPTION U/S 11 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961. WHEREAS SOCIETY IS BEING RUN AS A PROFIT MAKING ORGANIZATION BY ITS MEMBERS. THE MEMBERS OF THE GOVERNING BODY ARE BEING PAID SALARY RS. 57.60 LACS AS PER BELOW:- MR. AMIT KUMAR BANSAL S/O SH. PAWAN KUMAR BANSALRS. 19,20,000/- MR. ANUPSONI S/O SMT. AMBIKASONIRS. 19,20,000/- MR. MUKESHBANSAL S/O S. BALKRISHANBANSALRS. 19,20,0 00/- 5. DURING THE COURSE OF INQUIRY SOCIETY WAS ASKED TO JUSTIFY THE PAYMENT MADE TO THE ABOVE PERSONS ALONG WITH THE SUPPORTING EVIDENCES. HOWEVER ON PERUSAL OF THE REPLY IT IS FOUND THAT THE SOCIETY H AS NOT SUBMITTED ANY MATERIAL EVIDENCES OF THEIR WORK. MOREOVER DISCREET ENQUIRIE S WERE GOT MADE THROUGH INSPECTOR. IT HAS BEEN REPORTED BY THE INSPECTOR TH AT SH. AMIT BANSAL SH. ANUP SONI& SH. MUKESH BANSAL DO NOT DAILY COME TO THE SC HOOL PREMISES. THEY HAVE NO FIXED SCHEDULE OR TIME TABLE TO COME TO THE SCHO OL. RATHER, IN REAL SENSE, THEY ARE NOT PERFORMING ANY DUTIES AT ALL. IT IS CL EAR THAT THE SALARY OF RS. 57.60 LACS PAID TO THESE PERSONS BY THE SOCIETY IS NEITHE R GENUINE NOR JUSTIFIED. THE TRUST IS IN A WAY CLAIMING BOGUS EXPENSES. SINCE ALL THE ABOVE PERSONS ARE THE 7 ITA NOS 1069 TO 1071-CHD-2019- M/S HERITAGE EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY, CHANDIGARH MEMBER/OFFICE BEARER OF THE SOCIETY, THEREFORE IT I S CLEAR CUT VIOLATION OF SECTION 13 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961. THEREFORE, YOU ARE REQUESTED REOPEN THE CASES OF THE SOCIETY U/S 147 OF THE ACT, FOR THE A. Y. 20 08-09 TO 2015-16 TO DISALLOW THE SALARY/REMUNERATION MADE TO SH. AMIT BANSAL, ANOOP SONI AND MUKESH BANSAL. 6. THE NEXT ISSUE IS THAT VIDE REPLY DATED 15.12.2 015 SUBMITTED BY THE COUNSEL OF THE ASSESSEE DURING ASSESSMENT PROCEEDIN GS A.Y. 2014-15, AS PER THE BALANCE SHEET AS ON 31.03.2011 SHOWN THE LOSS OF RS . 12.40 CRORES AND STATED THE SOCIETY IS MAINTAINING SEPARATE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS O F MJS HERITAGE EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY & M/S DELHI PUBLIC SCHOOL. AFTER THE CONSOL IDATED BALANCE SHEET OF M/S HERITAGE SOCIETY IS PREPARED THE RESERVE AND SURPLU S OF M/S HERITAGE EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY & M/S DELHI PUBLIC SCHOOL COMES TO RS. 12,60,83,332/- AS ON 31.03.2011 MAINLY DUE TO CLAIM OF DEPRECIATION, INT EREST AND SALARY AS THERE IS NO CORRESPONDING INCOME RECEIPT. THE INCOME GENERATED THROUGH SCHOOL HAS BEEN REFLECTED IN THE BOOKS OF DELHI PUBLIC SCHOOL. THE CONSOLIDATED RESULT OF THE SOCIETY AND THE SCHOOL IS EXCESS OF INCOME OVER EXPENDITURE. THIS IS REGULAR PRACTICE OF THE SOCIETY, THEREFORE, YOU ARE REQUESTED REOPEN THE CASES OF TH E SOCIETY U/S 147 OF THE ACT, FOR THE A.Y. 2008-09 TO 2015-16 TO DISALLOW SINCE THE SOCIETY IS MISUSING THE EXEMPTION FOR BENEFIT OF TH E OFFICE BEARER/MEMBER OF THE TRUST ON PERUSAL OF THE BALANCE SHEET OF THE SOCIETY IT I S ALSO SEEN THAT THE SOCIETY HAS RECEIVED UNSECURED LOAN OF RS. 40,22,68 ,419/- TILL 31.03.2015 FROM VARIOUS PERSONS, NAME OF THE PERSONS IS ALSO MENTIO NED IN THE BALANCE SHEETS. THIS UNSECURED LOAN INCLUDES AMOUNT OF RS. 34,97,68 ,419/-ROM DELHI PUBLIC SCHOOL TILL. 31.03.2015. THIS SOCIETY HAS NOT SUBMI TTED ANY DETAIL OF SUCH UNSECURED LOANS RECEIVED; THEREFORE, THE MATTER IS REFERRED TO THE AO OF THE SOCIETY FOR FURTHER VERIFICATION FOR RELEVANT A.YRS . THE ABOVE INFORMATION IS PASSED TO YOU FOR REOPENING THE CASES U/S 147 OF IT. ACT. KINDLY FIND ENCLOSED HEREWITH THE TEP REPORT IN THE CASE FOR FURTHER VERIFICATION S AND NECESSARY ACTION AT YOUR END.' 7. ON THE BASIS OF THE AFORESAID LETTER, THE ASSESS ING OFFICER ASKED THE COPY OF INVESTIGATION FROM THE DDIT-1(INVESTIGATION ), CHANDIGARH. IN RESPONSE, REPORT FROM INSPECTOR OF THE INVESTIGATION WING WAS RECEIVED WHICH READS AS UNDER:- 'I VISITED TODAY I.E. ON 01.12.2015 TO THE PREMISES OF DELHI PUBLIC SCHOOL, SECTOR-40, CHANDIGARH TO MAKE DISCREET ENQU IRIES IN RELATION TO SH. AMIT BANSAL, SH. ANUP SONI & SH. MUKESH BANS AL, OFFICE BEARER OF THE SOCIETY NAMELY HERITAGE EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY AS DIRECTED. I, HAS BEEN GATHERED IN THE DISCREET ENQUIRIES THAT SH . AMIT BANSAL, SH. ANUP SONI& SH. MUKESH BANSAL DO NOT DAILY COME TO T HE SCHOOL PREMISES. THEY HAVE NO FIXED SCHEDULE OR TIME TABLE TO COME TO THE SCHOOL. THEY COME TO THE SCHOOL PREMISES ONLY TO AT TEND MEETINGS. THE MEETING THEMSELVES ARE NOT CONDUCTED ON REGULAR OR ROUTINE BASIS.' 8 ITA NOS 1069 TO 1071-CHD-2019- M/S HERITAGE EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY, CHANDIGARH 8. ON THE BASIS OF THE AFORESAID REPORT, THE ASSESS ING OFFICER OBSERVED THAT THE SAID THREE PERSONS I.E; S/SHRI ANUP SONI, AMIT KUMAR BANSAL & MUKEH BANSAL WERE OFFICE BEARERS OF THE ASSESSEES SOCIET Y AND THOSE WERE NOT REGULARLY COMING TO SCHOOL AND THEY WERE ATTENDING THE MEETINGS OF THE ASSESSEE SOCIETY OCCASIONALLY. HE FURTHER OBSERVED THAT ONE OF THE INSPECTORS OF HIS OFFICE, SHRI ANURAG LAKRA VISITED THE PREMIS ES OF THE ASSESSEE SOCIETY AND SUBMITTED THE REPORT AS UNDER:- 'IT IS SUBMITTED THAT AS PER YOUR DIRECTIONS I HAVE VISITED THE DPS SCHOOL, SECTOR 40-C, CHANDIGARH ON 26.12.2017FOR SERVICE THE SUMMO N TO ASSESSEE/WITNESS U/S 131 OF IT. ACT, 1961 AND MET WITH THE PRINCIPAL & A CCOUNTS OFFICER OF THE SCHOOL. ON ENQUIRY WITH THE PRINCIPAL & ACCOUNT OFFICER ABO UT SH. AMIT KUMAR BANSAL, SH. ANUP SONI AND SH. MUKESH BANSAL, IT CAME TO NOT ICE THAT THEY WERE NOT AVAILABLE IN THE PREMISES OF THE SCHOOL.' 9. ON THE BASIS OF THE AFORESAID REPORT, THE ASSESS ING OFFICER OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE SOCIETY WAS PROVIDING SALARY TO I TS MEMBERS WITHOUT ANY SERVICES PROVIDED BY THEM AND THEY WERE NOT REGULAR EMPLOYEES OF THE SCHOOL. HE FURTHER OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD P ROVIDED SALARY TO THOSE PERSONS BEFORE MAY, 2013 AND THEREAFTER THE NATURE OF PAYMENTS WAS CHANGED IN THE NAME OF HONORARIUM. THE ASSESSING OF FICER REPRODUCED THE DETAILS OF THE HONORARIUM PAID FROM FINANCIAL YEAR 2013-14 TO 2015-16 ALONG WITH SALARY TO THE TEACHING STAFF AND ADMINISTRATIV E STAFF IN PARA 4.6 AT PAGES 7 TO 9 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 28.12.2017, FO R THE SAKE OF REPETITION THE SAME IS NOT REPRODUCED HEREIN. THE ASSESSING OFFICE R OBSERVED THAT ASSESSEE WAS PROVIDING SALARY TO THE AFORESAID PERSONS TILL MAY 2013 AND SUDDENLY CHANGED THE NATURE OF PAYMENTS AND THAT THOSE PERSO NS NEVER WORKED AS SALARIED EMPLOYEES IN THE SCHOOL AND THE ASSESSEE S OCIETY. THEY WERE GETTING THOSE PAYMENTS AS DESIGNATED MEMBERS OF THE SOCIETY AS OFFICE BEARERS WHICH WAS NOT ALLOWABLE U/S 13(1)(C) R.W. SECTION 1 3(3) OF THE ACT. HE FURTHER OBSERVED THAT THOSE PERSONS ATTENDED MEETING OF THE ASSESSEE SOCIETY ONLY IN THE CAPACITY OF MEMBERS AND THOSE MEETINGS WERE HEL D OCCASIONALLY, THEREFORE, THE HUGE PAYMENTS MADE COULD NOT BE CONS IDERED AS GENUINE AND REASONABLE. THE ASSESSING OFFICER ALSO MENTIONE D THAT THE CASE LAWS 9 ITA NOS 1069 TO 1071-CHD-2019- M/S HERITAGE EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY, CHANDIGARH RELIED BY THE ASSESSEE WERE ON DIFFERENT FACTS THAN THE FACTS OF THE ASSESSEE. HE MADE THE ADDITION OF RS. 54 LACS BY OBSERVING IN PARA 4.8 AND 4.9 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER ASUNDER:- 4.8 ASSESSEE IS PROVIDING SPECIAL TREATMENT TO TRU STEES & THEIR RELATIVES. THE ABOVE FACTS, SHOW THAT THESE MEMBERS HAVE TAKEN ADV ANTAGE OF BEING RELATIVES & TRUSTEES OF THE ASSESSEE. AS IS CLEAR F ROM THE ABOVE TABLE THAT SALARY/HONORIUM IS PAID ONLY TO THE PERSONS COVERED U/S 13(3). RATHER THE MEMBERS ARE MANAGING THE SOCIETY FOR CHARITABLE PUR POSES AND CLAIMING EXEMPTION FROM TAX, THEY SHOULD ALL THE MORE BE DOI NG A SELFLESS SERVICE OR AT LEAST SHOULD NOT BE SIPHONING OFF THE FUNDS OF THE SOCIETY UNDER THE GARB OF HONORIUM/SALARY PAYMENTS TO THEIR OWN SELF & FAMILY MEMBERS. ON TOP OF IT ASSESSEE IS PROJECTING AS IF HUGE FAVOUR IS DONE TO THE SOCIETY BY THE MEMBERS BY SERVICES PROVIDED TO IT. TRUSTEES ARE THE PERSON S MANAGING THE SOCIETY & THEY DECIDE FOR THEMSELVES WHAT BENEFITS ARE TO BE EXTRA CTED FROM THE SOCIETY FOR THEMSELVES & THE FAMILY MEMBERS. THIS IS BLATANT MI SUSE AND MANIPULATION OF THE SOCIETY BY ITS OWN MEMBERS & SUCH TRANSACTIONS ARE COVERED U/S 13(3) R.W.S 13(L)(C) R.W.S 164(2) AND SECTION 11. 4.9 HOWEVER, CASE LAWS REGARDING THE TAXABILITY OF THE AMOUNT U/S 13(L)(C) IS CONCERNED, THESE CASE LAWS ARE DULY CONSIDERED AND ACCORDING THE CASE LAWS AND SECTION 164 (2) OF I.T.ACT,1961 TAXABILITY IS A PPLICABLE LIMITED TO VIOLATION OF AMOUNT OF 54,00,000/- UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTI ON 13 (L)(C) R.W. 13 (3) OF I.T.ACT,1961. 10. BEING AGGRIEVED, THE ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MATTE R TO THE LD. CIT(A) AND SUBMITTED AS UNDER: 'THE ASSESSEE SOCIETY HAD PAID AN AMOUNT OF RS. 63, 00,000/- AS SALARY/HONORARIUM TO THE TRUSTEES FOR PROFESSIONAL AND EXPERT SERVICE S PROVIDED BY SUCH PERSONS. NO DIRECT OR INDIRECT BENEFIT HAD BEEN GIVEN TO THEM A ND ONLY SALARY HAD BEEN PAID TO THEM FOR SERVICES PROVIDED BY THEM. THE CONTENTI ON OF THE LEGISLATURE IS TO RESTRICT ANY UNDUE BENEFIT WHICH WAS DERIVED BY ANY PERSONS (COVERED UNDER SECTION 13(3) OF THE ACT) MUST BE EXCLUDED FROM EXE MPTION PROVIDED IN SECTION 11 OF THE ACT. SO THE THRUST OF THE COMPLETE SECTION IS BASICALLY LIES ON 'ANY DIRECT OR INDIRECT BENEFIT. ACT DOES NOT DEFINE THE WORD 'BENEFIT', BU T IT IS A GENERAL CLAUSE AND AS PER OXFORD DICTIONARY THE 'BENEFIT' MEANS 'AN ADVAN TAGE OR PROFIT GAINED FROM SOMETHING' SPECIFIED PERSONS MUST GOT SOME ADVANTAGE OR PROFIT TO ATTRACT SECTION 13 (3) OF ACT. BUT IN OUR CASE THE ASSESSEE HAD PAID HONORARI UM TO SUCH PERSONS AGAINST SERVICES RECEIVED, IT IS PURELY A NORMAL CONTRACT W ITHOUT ANY UNDUE BENEFIT/PROFIT OR ADVANTAGE TO SUCH PERSONS.LT IS HERITAGE EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY NOT SUCH SPECIFIED PERSONS WHO IS BENEFITED FROM THIS CONTRA CT, AS THE SPECIFIED PERSONS ARE PROVIDING VARIOUS SPECIALIZED & EXPERT SERVICES TO TRUST AT CONCESSIONAL PRICE. THE WORK OF THESE PERSONS INVOLVES SELECTION OF TEA CHERS, INTERACTION WITH PARENTS, MANAGEMENT OF CAPITAL EXPENDITURE, PROVIDING RESOUR CES TO SCHOOLS INCLUDING ITS 10 ITA NOS 1069 TO 1071-CHD-2019- M/S HERITAGE EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY, CHANDIGARH FUNDING, MANAGING FEES, COLLECTION, ADMINISTRATIVE CONTROL, INTERACTION WITH THE MAIN DPS SOCIETY, LAISONING WITH IT, IMPLEMENTING I TS POLICIES, INTERACTION WITH CBSE AND OTHER DAY TO DAY AFFAIRS OF THE SCHOOL, WHICH A LSO INCLUDES BUDGETING, FINANCING AND EVEN INTERACTION WITH PARENTS AND TEA CHER ASSOCIATIONS ETC, WHICH INVOLVES A LOT OF TIME AND EFFORTS FOR WHICH OTHERW ISE SOCIETY WOULD HAVE TO ENGAGE OUTSIDE PERSONS OTHERWISE AND DUE TO THE FAC T THAT SUCH TALENT WAS WITHIN THE HOME CIRCLE I.E. THE WARDS OF THE TRUSTEES. EVE N THE PROVISIONS OF INCOME TAX ACT UNDER SECTION 11 TO 13 DO NOT PUT ANY BAR ON SU CH PERSONS HAVING ADEQUATE QUALIFICATIONS AND CAPABILITIES WORKING FOR THE ACH IEVEMENTS OF GOALS OF THE TRUST. IT IS FURTHER STATED THAT IN ALL THERE ARE 9 MEMBER S IN THE SOCIETY AND SALARY WAS PAID TO ONLY THREE MEMBERS, WHO TAKE ACTIVE PARTICI PATION IN THE DAY TO DAY FUNCTION OF THE SCHOOL. BENEFIT MUST BE A CASE WHERE THERE IS ONE WAY FLOW OF ADVANTAGES/PROFIT MEANS FROM TRUST TO SPECIFIED PERSONS. BUT IN OUR CASE TH E ASSESSEE TRUST HAD FULL VALUE ITS CONSIDERATION PAID IN SHAPE OF PROFESSIONAL/SPECIAL IZED EXPERTISE OF SUCH PERSONS. THE INTENTION OF ASSESSEE TO RUN THE TRUST FOR CHAR ITABLE PURPOSE ONLY. THE ASSESSEE HAD MADE APPLICATION OF INCOME EVEN MORE THAN THE R ECEIPTS OF THE TRUST THEREFORE, IF THE SALARY PAID TO SPECIFIED PERSONS WERE IGNORED THAN ALSO THE ASSESSEE HAD MADE 85% OF THE RECEIPTS AS APPLICATIO N OF INCOME FOR THE PURPOSE OF SOCIETY. ALSO IT WAS COVERED UNDER PROVISO TO SECTION 13(L)( C) OF THE ACT THAT 'IN THE CASE OF A TRUST OR INSTITUTION CREATED OR ESTABLISHED BEFOR E THE COMMENCEMENT OF THIS ACT, THE PROVISIONS OF SUB-CLAUSE (II) SHALL NOT APPLY T O ANY USE OR APPLICATION, WHETHER DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY, OF ANY PART OF SUCH INCOME OR ANY PROPERTY OF THE TRUST OR INSTITUTION FOR THE BENEFIT OF ANY PERSON REFERRED TO IN SUB-SECTION (3), IF SUCH USE OR APPLICATION IS BY WAY OF COMPLIANCE WITH A MANDA TORY TERM OF THE TRUST OR A MANDATORY RULE GOVERNING THE INSTITUTION' SO WE HAVE PAID HONORARIUM FOR THE SERVICES PROVIDE D TO SOCIETY WHICH WAS ALSO COVERED UNDER TRUST DEED. IT WAS ALSO MENTIONED IN THE MOA UNDER POWER AND DUTIES OF GOVERNING BODY CLAUSE 8 PARA XI THAT GOVERNING BODY SHALL HAVE AUTHORITY TO RECOMPENSE MEMBERS FOR ALL THE EXPENDI TURES INCURRED FOR THE SOCIETY AND TO PROVIDE FOR OTHER SERVICES REQUIRED FOR THE DISCHARGE OF FUNCTIONS OF THE SOCIETY. IF THE INTENTIONS OF SOCIETY WERE TO PROVI DE DIRECT OR INDIRECT BENEFIT TO SPECIFIED PERSONS THAN THEY WILL PROVIDE SALARY/HON ORARIUM TO ALL THE SPECIFIED PERSONS COVERED UNDER SECTION 13(3) OF THE ACT. RELIANCE IS PLACED ON THE FOLLOWING CASE LAWS/JUDGE MENT IN SUPPORT TO THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE: HON'BLE BENCH OF ITAT AHMEDABAD IN THE CASE OF PNR SOCIETY FOR RELIEF & REHABILITATION OF THE DISABLED TRUST VERSUS THE DDI T (EXEMPTION) BHAVNAGAR [2014] 34 ITR (TRIB) 465 (ITAT [AHM]) HON'BLE GUJARAT HIGH COURT (UPHELD BY HON'BLE SUPREME COURT) IN THE CASE OF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX VERSUS BHOLARAM EDUCATIO N SOCIETY R/ TAX APPEAL NO. 306 OF 2018 JURISDICTIONAL COURT IN THE CASE OF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX VERSUS M/S. IDICULA TRUST SOCIETY, FARIDABAD 2014 (4) TMI 535 - PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT HON'BLE BENCH OF ITAT, CHANDIGARH IN THE CASE OF YO UNG SCHOLARS EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY VERSUS ITO [2011] 12 ITR 11 ITA NOS 1069 TO 1071-CHD-2019- M/S HERITAGE EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY, CHANDIGARH FURTHER ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS FOR THE AY 2010-11 W AS COMPLETED UNDER SECTION 143(3) AND NO DISALLOWANCE OF SALARY PAID TO ABOVE TRUSTEES WAS MADE. AO HAD ASKED FOR JUSTIFICATION OF SALARY PAID TO MEMBERS A ND HAD ACCEPTED THE SAME WITHOUT DRAWING ANY WRONG INFERENCE ON THE SAME. IT IS WELL SETTLED LAW THAT THE DOCTRINE OF RES JUDICATA IS NOT APPLICABLE TO THE F ISCAL STATUTES. HOWEVER, THE DOCTRINE OF CONSISTENCY PREVAILS OVER THE DOCTRINE OF RES JUDICATA WHERE THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE ARE IDENTICAL AND THE REVENUE HAS GRANTED ALLOWANCE OF SALARY FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010-11 . THE SAME POINT HAD ALREADY BEEN DISCUSSED DURING TH E ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS OF AY 2010-11. THE DEPARTMENT HAD ACCEPTED THE ASSE SSEE'S SUBMISSION OF SALARY WITHOUT DRAWING ANY WRONG INFERENCE. THE ASSESSMENT ORDERS FOR A.Y. 2010-11 HAD BEEN PASSED WITHOUT MAKING ANY ADDITION. THEREFORE, IT WOULD BE HARASSMENT TO THE ASSESSEE FOR RE-OPENING THE CASE FOR THE SAME I SSUE WHICH HAD ALREADY BEEN DISCUSSED BY THE DEPARTMENT DURING THE ASSESSMENT P ROCEEDINGS OF PREVIOUS ASSESSMENT YEARS. SO THIS IS ONLY A MERE CHANGE OF OPINION REGARDING SALARY PAID TO TRUSTEES FOR WHICH ID. AO HAD ALREADY ACCEPTED T HE ASSESSEE SUBMISSIONS. RELIANCE IS PLACED ON THE FOLLOWING CASE LAWS/ JUDI CIAL PRONOUNCEMENTS: COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DELHI VERSUS M/S KE LVINATOR OF INDIA LIMITED [2010] 320 ITR 561 (SC) COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, FARIDABAD VERSUS M/S IT W INDIA LTD 2015] 377ITR 195 (PSNH) COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DELHI VS. KELVINATOR OF INDIA LTD. [2010 (1) TM 11 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] MITSUBISHI ELECTRIC AUTOMOTIVE INDIA PVT. LTD. VERS US UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS 2015] 377 ITR 266 (P&H) JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF STATE BANK OF PATIALA VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 86 ANOTHER [20151 375 ITR 109 (P&H) ALSO THE AMOUNT PAID TO MEMBERS INCLUDES TRAVELLING EXPENSES ALSO INCURRED BY THEM FOR WORKS OF SOCIETY. ALSO THE SCHOOL WAS MANA GED BY THE PRINCIPAL BUT ALL THE DECISION WERE TAKEN BY THE MEMBERS IN THE BACK. THE PRINCIPAL CONSULT WITH THEM ON DAY TO DAY BASIS. THE AMOUNT PAID TOP THEM INCLUDES ALL THE EXPENSES FOR TRAVELLING FROM CHANDIGARH TO DELHI FOR THE WOR K OF SCHOOL FOR THREE TIMES IN A WEEK. SO HOW CAN THE DEPARTMENT ASSUME THAT THE AMO UNT PAID TO THEM WAS HIGHER THAN OTHER EMPLOYEES. FURTHER THE ADDITION MADE BY ID. AO WAS TOTALLY ON THE BASIS OF REPORT OF DDITFLNV.), CHANDIGARH WHERE THEY HAVE MENTIONED TH AT THE MEMBERS HAVE NO FIXED SCHEDULE OR TIME TABLE TO COME TO THE SCHOOL. NO REGISTER WAS MAINTAINED OF THEIR PRESENCE IN THE SCHOOL BUT ID. AO HAD IGNORED THE FACTS THAT THE SERVICES THEY PERFORM FOR THE SOCIETY NOT REQUIRE THEIR PRES ENCE IN THE SCHOOL ON ROUTINE BASIS. THEY ALL ARE QUALIFIED PERSONS AND PROVIDING SERVICES FOR SELECTION OF TEACHERS, INTERACTION WITH PARENTS, MANAGEMENT OF C APITAL EXPENDITURE, PROVIDING RESOURCES TO SCHOOLS INCLUDING ITS FUNDIN G, MANAGING FEES, COLLECTION, ADMINISTRATIVE CONTROLS AND INTERACTION WITH MAIN D PS SOCIETY, IMPLEMENTING ITS POLICIES, INTERACTION WITH CBSE AND OTHER DAY TO DA Y AFFAIRS OF THE SCHOOL. THE MEMBERS ARE MORE CONVENIENT AND MANAGEABLE AS COMPA RED TO OUTSIDE HIRED RESOURCES. ALL THESE SERVICES WERE PROVIDED BY THEM BY VISITING SCHOOL AT CHANDIGARH ON TIME TO TIME BASIS AND THE REMAINING WORK WAS DONE BY THEM ELECTRONIC & TELEPHONIC MEDIA. THEREFORE IT CANNOT BE PRESUMED THAT THEY ARE NOT PERFORMING ANY DUTIES AT ALL AND SALARIES PROVI DED TO THEM WAS IN VIOLATION OF SECTION 13(L)(C)OF THE ACT. 12 ITA NOS 1069 TO 1071-CHD-2019- M/S HERITAGE EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY, CHANDIGARH THE ID. AO HAD IGNORED THE FACT THAT THE MEMBERS WH O HAD RECEIVED SALARY/HONORARIUM FROM ASSESSEE HAD PAID TAXES @ 30 % ON THE SAME IN THEIR RETURN OF INCOME I.E. AT MAXIMUM MARGINAL RATE OF TAXES AN D IN THE CASE OF ASSESSEE THE INCOME OF TRUST WAS EXEMPTED U/S 11 EVEN IF THE EXP ENDITURE OF SALARY TO MEMBERS WAS IGNORED AS THE EXPENDITURE WAS HIGHER T HAN 85% OF THE RECEIPTS. THE SAME INCOME CANNOT BE TAXED TWICE IN THE HANDS OF MEMBERS AND IN THE HANDS OF TRUST. THE MEMBERS HAD PAID TAXES AT MAXIMUM MARGINAL RATE AND THE TAX IS TO BE PAID BY ONE ENTITY ONLY AND BY RELYING UPON CIRCULAR NO. 157 (F.NO.228/8/73-IT (A-II) DATED 26.12.1974 MAKING CLARIFICATION FOR SECTION 1 64/166 OF THE ACT CONTENDED THAT ALL THE INCOME ARE TO BE CHARGED TO TAX ONLY O NCE AND IT IS NOT OPEN TO THE INCOME-TAX OFFICER TO ASSESS THE SAME INCOME FOR TH AT ASSESSMENT YEAR IN THE HANDS OF OTHER PERSONS I.E. ASSESSEE TRUST. FOR REA DY PERUSAL, OPERATIVE PART OF THE CIRCULAR NO. 157 (F.NO.228/8/ 73-IT (A-II) DATED 26 .12.1974 IS REPRODUCED AS UNDER :- '1. ATTENTION IS INVITED TO BOARD'S INSTRUCTION NO. 45/78/66/ITJ(5), DATED 24-2-1967 [PRINTED HERE AS CLARIFICATION 2] ON THE SUBJECT OF ASSESSMENT MADE UNDER SECTION 41 (2) OF THE 1922 ACT/SECTION 166 OF THE 1961 ACT. IN SPITE OF THE CLEAR INSTRUCTIONS TO THE EFFECT THAT NEITHER SECTION 41 WHICH GIVE AN OPTION TO THE DEPARTMENT TO TAX EITHER THE REPRESENTATIVE ASSESSEE OR THE BENEFICIA L OWNER OF THE INCOME NOR THE PARALLEL PROVISIONS OF THE 1961 ACT CONTEMPLATED AS SESSMENT OF THE SAME INCOME BOTH IN THE HANDS OF THE TRUSTEES AND THE BENEFICIA RIES, INSTANCES HAVE COME TO THE NOTICE OF THE BOARD OF SUCH DOUBLE ASSESSMENT ACCORDING TO THE SCHEME OF THE 1961 ACT, EVEN AS IT WAS UNDER THE 1922 ACT, THE GENERAL PRINCIPLE IS TO CHARGE ALL INCOME ONLY ONCE . THE BOARD DESIRE TO REITERATE THE EARLIER INSTRUCTIONS IN THIS REGARD. IN ORDER T HAT THERE IS NO LOSS OF REVENUE, THE INCOME-TAX OFFICER SHOULD KEEP THIS POINT IN VIEW A T THE TIME OF RAISING THE INITIAL ASSESSMENT EITHER OF THE TRUST OR THE BENEFICIARIES AND ADOPT A COURSE BENEFICIAL TO THE REVENUE. HAVING EXERCISED HIS OPTION ONCE, I T WILL NOT BE OPEN TO THE INCOME-TAX OFFICER TO ASSESS THE SAME INCOME FOR TH AT ASSESSMENT YEAR IN THE HANDS OF THE OTHER PERSON (I.E. THE ASSESSEE TRUST) .' IN OUR CASE ALSO THE MEMBERS HAD PAID TAXES ON THE AMOUNT PAID TO THEM (A 30% AND THE SAME WOULD NOT BE TAXED AGAIN IN THE HANDS OF ASSESSEE TRUST. EVEN IF THE EXPENDITURE OF SALARY BOOKED BY THE TRUST IN THEIR BOOKS HAD BEEN IGNORED THAN ALSO THE INCOME OF TRUST WAS EXEMPTED U/S 11 OF THE ACT AS THEIR EXPENDITURE WAS MORE THAN 85% OF THE RECEIPTS.' 11. THE LD. CIT(A) AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSION S OF THE ASSESSEE SUSTAINED THE ADDITION MADE BY THE A.O. BY OBSERVIN G IN PARA 7.3 AS UNDER: DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS NO DOCU MENTARY EVIDENCES, W.R.T. THE SERVICES CLAIMED TO BE PROVIDED TO THE ASSESSEE SOCIETY, WERE ADDUCED EITHER. MERE CLAIMS THAT THEY ARE WELL QUALIFIED DO ES NOT ENTITLE THEM TO CLAIM UNREQUITED PAYMENTS. NO EVIDENCE OF THE EXACT WORK BEING DONE AND THE EXPENDITURE INCURRED (WHICH IS CLAIMED TO BE RECOMP ENSED) WERE PROVIDED DURING THE APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS EITHER. THE REASON S CONTAINED IN THE WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS ARE CLEARLY UNTENABLE. IT HAS BEEN CLAI MED THAT EVEN AS THE SCHOOL WAS MANAGED BY THE PRINCIPAL ALL THE DECISIONS WERE TAKEN BY THE MEMBERS IN THE BACK. THIS CLEARLY IS NOT SOUND REASONING. IT C ONNOTES SUBVERSION OF THE ROLES OF A PRINCIPAL WHO ALONE IS RESPONSIBLE AND ACCOUNTABL E FOR ALL DECISIONS W.R.T 13 ITA NOS 1069 TO 1071-CHD-2019- M/S HERITAGE EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY, CHANDIGARH RUNNING OF AN INSTITUTE AND NO ONE ELSE. THE WRITTE N SUBMISSIONS ALSO CLAIM THAT THE MEMBERS WERE REIMBURSED FOR THEIR TRAVELS FROM CHAN DIGARH TO DELHI AND BACK THREE TIMES A WEEK. THE PURPOSES OF SUCH FREQUENT T RAVEL HAVE NOT BEEN PROVIDED. EVEN IF ONE PRESUMES THAT SUCH VISITS WER E UNDERTAKEN FOR INTERACTION WITH CBSE AND DPS SOCIETY (AS CONTAINED IN SUBSEQUE NT SUBMISSIONS) THE FREQUENCY OF THE CLAIMED TRAVELS BY ITSELF IS NOT B ORNE BY THE REQUIREMENTS PER SE. THE ASSESSEE FURTHER DOES NOT ELUCIDATE WHETHER CBS E ACKNOWLEDGES THE MEMBER OF THE GOVERNING BODY AS THE REPRESENTATIVES OF THE SCHOOL. IT IS ANOTHER MATTER THAT THE CLAIMS OF TRAVEL ARE MERE STATEMENT S WHICH HAVE NOT BEEN CORROBORATED BY EVIDENCE SUGGESTING ANY BENEFIT TO THE ASSESSEE SOCIETY. ADDITIONALLY, PERSONS WHO COME TOGETHER WEARING THE BADGE OF ALTRUISM ON THEIR COLLARS AND FLAUNT THAT AS THE GUIDING FOR CE WHILE SEEKING EXEMPTION ARE NOT EXPECTED TO BLEED THE ASSESSEE SOCIETY OF THE P UBLIC MONEY MEANT TO BE UTILIZED FOR THE PUBLIC BENEFIT ON THE BASIS OF WHI CH EXEMPTION FROM TAXATION IS GRANTED TO SUCH ENTITIES. TRUSTS AND SOCIETIES CAN NOT BE ALLOWED TO ACT AS FIRMS / BUSINESS WHERE MEMBERS OF THE GOVERNING BODY ASSUME THAT THEY ARE PARTNERS / DIRECTORS AND TAKE OUT SUBSTANTIAL CHUNKS FROM THE PUBLIC FUNDS MEANT, IN THE PRESENT CASE, TO BE SPENT FOR EDUCATION. IN THAT LIGHT THE ALTERNATE CLAIM THAT THE AMOUNTS RECEIVED FROM THE SOCIETY HAVE BEEN DULY DISCLOSED IN THE INDIVIDUAL RETURN OF INCOME AND TAXES HAVE BEEN PAID ALSO DOES NOT HOLD WATER. INFRACTION S ARISING FROM MISUSE OF EXEMPTION PROVISIONS CAN NOT BE ABSOLVED ON ACCOUNT OF PAYMENT OF TAXES ON THE RELEVANT AMOUNTS. MOREOVER, SUCH CONCLUSIONS, A BOUT A PART OF CLAIMED UTILIZATION NOT BEING FOR CHARITABLE PURPOSES, MAY ALSO BRING THE ASSESSEE WITHIN THE FOLD OF ENTITIES THAT FAILED TO UTILIZE 85% OF THEIR INCOME FOR CHARITABLE PURPOSES. IN THIS CASE, HOWEVER THIS ISSUE MAY NOT BE RELEVANT BECAUSE OF ABSENCE OF ANY FINDING BY THE AO ON THIS COUNT AS A LSO THE CLAIMS OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE UTILIZATION HAS BEEN SUBSTANTIALL Y AS PER THE THRESHOLD OF 85% (THE AO NEEDS TO EXAMINE THIS ASPECT WHETHER THE TH RESHOLD OF 85% UTILIZATION IS MET AFTER THE DISALLOWANCE OF CLAIMED UTILIZATIO N). REFERENCE TO BOARD'S CIRCULAR OF 1967 BY THE ASSESSEE IS ALSO MISPLACED. THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 11, 12 AND 13 HAVE UNDERGONE SUBSTANTIVE CHANGES IN THE 52 YEARS SUBSEQUENT TO THE CIRCULAR INCLUDING POWERS ASSIGNED TO THE CO MPETENT AUTHORITY TO WITHDRAW REGISTRATION ON THE BASIS OF EVIDENCES TO THE EFFECT PREVALENT IN THE CASE. SEVERAL RECENT JUDICIAL DECISIONS HAVE EMPHAS IZED ON THE NEED TO VIEW EXEMPTION PROVISIONS IN THE MOST STRINGENT MANNER. IF THE SAME IS NOT DONE THERE COULD BE MANY SCENARIOS WHERE PUBLIC FUNDS OF A PUB LIC CHARITABLE TRUST/SOCIETY ARE UTILIZED FOR PURPOSES THAT ARE NOT CHARITABLE A ND THE ASSESSEE TRUSTS/SOCIETIES KEEP ON INFRINGING ON THE RIGHTS OF THE BENEFICIARI ES BY CLAIMING THAT TAXES HAVE BEEN PAID ON AMOUNTS EXTRICATED FROM THE TRUST/SOCI ETY. THE ASSESSEE CLAIMS THAT THE MEMORANDUM OF ASSOCIAT ION PROVIDES FOR RECOMPENSING MEMBERS FOR ALL THE EXPENDITURES INCUR RED BY THEM FOR THE SOCIETY. THE CLAUSES SPECIFICALLY MEANS REIMBURSING OF SMALL AMOUNTS ( AS IS IN VOGUE IN THE CASE OF ALL OTHER SOCIETIES AND ALSO IN SYNC WITH T HE MOAS APPROVED BY THE REGISTRAR OF SOCIETIES APART FROM THE CONDITIONS IN HERENT IN THE SOCIETY'S REGISTRATION ACT, 1860) IN LIEU OF ANY EXPENDITURES THAT MAY HAVE BEEN INCURRED FOR THE SOCIETY. IN THE INSTANT CASE THERE IS NO EV IDENCE OF ANY EXPENDITURE BEING REIMBURSED. THE CLAIMS THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS COVERE D BY THE PROVISO TO SECTION 13(L)(C) HAVE TO BE NEGATED. NO EVIDENCE ABOUT THE MANDATORY TERMS OF THE SOCIETY AND THE RULES GOVERNING THE INSTITUTION HAS BEEN FILED, TO CORROBORATE THE CLAIMS, EITHER. THE OTHER CLAIM THAT HONORARIUM (SA LARIES) WERE PAID ONLY TO THREE AND NOT TO ALL SPECIFIED PERSONS, IN FACT, WOULD GO AGAINST THE ASSESSEE AS AN 14 ITA NOS 1069 TO 1071-CHD-2019- M/S HERITAGE EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY, CHANDIGARH ACKNOWLEDGEMENT THAT IT WAS MEANT FOR AGGRANDIZING SPECIFIED PERSONS AND POSSIBLY INVITE WITHDRAWAL OF REGISTRATION IN THE C ASE. FURTHER, THE CONTRIBUTION OF THE PERSONS THAT WERE CITED AS RATIONALE FOR GIVING THEM PECUNIARY BENEFITS ALL PERTAIN TO THE H EADMASTER OR PRINCIPAL, THE BURSAR, THE ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER ETC OF THE SCHOO L UNDER THE SOCIETY WHO ARE BEING PAID HANDSOME AMOUNTS AS SALARIES SEPARATELY. IT CANNOT BE THAT THE CREDIT FOR WORKS ASSIGNED TO AND FALLING WITHIN THE DOMAIN OF PROFESSIONALS AND OTHER OFFICIALS (DULY RECOGNIZED BY THE BOARD OF ED UCATION REGULATING THE AFFAIRS OF THE SOCIETY'S SCHOOL) COULD BE USURPED BY A FEW OF THE MEMBERS OF THE SOCIETY WHO SUBSEQUENTLY WOULD GO ON TO CLAIM PECUNIARY BEN EFITS. THIS CLAIM TOWARDS OSTENSIBLE ASSUMPTION OF ROLES (WHICH IN FACT REMAI NS UNCORROBORATED AND UNEVIDENCED) CAN NOT BE ACCEPTED TO ACCORD ANY BENE FIT TO THE ASSESSEE SOCIETY. HE FURTHER OBSERVED AS UNDER: FURTHER THE FACTS BROUGHT OUT IN THE ASSESSMENT ORD ER LEAD TO A FAIR CONCLUSION THAT THE MEMBERS OF THE GOVERNING BODY OF THE SOCIE TY HAVE BEEN MADE UNREASONABLE PAYMENTS. ADDITIONALLY, IT IS HELD THA T THE AO WAS PERFECTLY JUSTIFIED IN HOLDING THE AMOUNT OF RS. 54,00,000/- AS THE AMO UNT PAID UNREASONABLY TO THE MEMBERS OF THE GOVERNING BODY AND THE INFRACTION WA S DULY COVERED UNDER SECTION 13(L)(C) RWS 13(3) & 164(2) OF THE INCOME T AX. THESE GROUNDS OF APPEAL ARE DISMISSED . 12. NOW THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL. 13. LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE REITERATED THE SUB MISSIONS MADE BEFORE THE AUTHORITIES BELOW AND FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT TH E ASSESSEE IS A CHARITABLE SOCIETY REGISTERED UNDER SECTION 12AA OF THE ACT AN D IS RUNNING A SCHOOL IN CHANDIGARH IN THE NAME OF DELHI PUBLIC SCHOOL(DPS). THE REFERENCE WAS MADE TO PAGE NO. 19A OF THE ASSESSEES PAPER BOOK WH ICH IS THE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE FOR REGISTRATION UNDER SECTION 12A OF T HE ACT. IT WAS CONTENDED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD BEEN FILING THE RETURN EVER S INCE THE INCEPTION OF SCHOOL AND MAJORITY OF THE ASSESSMENTS HAD BEEN FRAMED UND ER SECTION 143(3) OF THE ACT AND NO ADVERSE VIEW HAD BEEN TAKEN BY THE DIFFE RENT ASSESSING OFFICERS WHO ALLOWED ALL THE EXPENSES AND RECEIPTS SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE. IT WAS STATED THAT THE ASSESSEE FURNISHED THE COPY OF THE AUDIT REPORT ALONGWITH THE RETURN OF INCOME WHEREIN UNDER THE COLUMN, WHETHER ANY PAYMENT WAS MADE TO SPECIFIED PERSONS DURING THE PREVIOUS YEARS BY WAY OF SALARY, ALLOWANCE OR OTHERWISE, THE DETAILS HAD BEEN MENTI ONED WHICH WERE NOTICED BY THE A.O. WHILE FRAMING THE ORIGINAL ASSE SSMENT, SO THERE WAS NO 15 ITA NOS 1069 TO 1071-CHD-2019- M/S HERITAGE EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY, CHANDIGARH FAILURE ON THE PART OF THE ASSESSEE TO DISCLOSE ALL MATERIAL FACTS NECESSARY FOR COMPLETION OF THE ASSESSMENT. THE REFERENCE WAS MAD E TO PAGE NO. 3 OF THE ASSESSEES PAPER BOOK. IT WAS FURTHER CONTENDED THA T THE A.O. IN THE ORDER SHEET DT. 11/12/2012 (COPY OF WHICH IS PLACED AT PA GE NO 21 OF THE PAPER BOOK) CLEARLY MENTIONED THAT THE REPLY RELATING TO THE SALARY TO THE SPECIFIED PERSONS HAD BEEN GIVEN AND OTHER DETAILS WERE ALSO FURNISHED. THE REFERENCE WAS MADE TO PAGE NO. 70 TO 71 OF THE ASSESSEES PAP ER BOOK WHICH IS THE COPY OF ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT ORDER DT. 11/12/2012 PA SSED UNDER SECTION 143(3) OF THE ACT. IT WAS REITERATED THAT THE SALARY TO TH E SPECIFIED PERSONS HAD BEEN PAID IN THE EARLIER YEARS ALSO AND NO ADVERSE VIEW HAD BEEN TAKEN AND THAT IN THE A.YS 2008-09, 2009-10 AND 2010-11 THE SALAR Y / HONORARIUM TO SPECIFIED PERSONS WAS AT RS. 36 LACS, RS. 45 LACS AND RS. 54 LACS RESPECTIVELY WHICH HAVE BEEN ACCEPTED BY THE DEPARTMENT. 13.1 LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE ALSO FURNISHED TH E WRITTEN SUBMISSION RUNNING INTO PAGE NO. 1 TO 14 COPY OF WHICH IS PLAC ED ON RECORD AND ON THE ISSUE RELATING TO DISALLOWANCE OF SALARY / HONORARI UM PAID TO SPECIFIED PERSONS WHEREIN, IT HAS BEEN SUBMITTED AS UNDER: I. IT HAS BEEN ACCEPTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER/ CIT(A) THAT THE MEMBERS POSSESS THE REQUISITE QUALIFICATION. II. THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS SATISFIED DURING THE COURSE OF ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS WITH REGARD TO THE JUSTIFICA TION OF SALARY/HONORARIUM TO THE 'SPECIFIED PERSONS' AND ALSO THE SAME ISSUE WAS EXAMINED IN ASSTT. YEARS 2008-09, 2009-10 AND 2010-11. III. THE DETAIL OF WORK/SERVICES AS RENDERED BY THE 'SPECIFIED PERSONS' HAD BEEN EXPLAINED IN DETAIL AT PAGES 45 TO 45A OF THE PAPER BOOK, WHICH IS BEING RELIED UPON AND REFERENCE BE MADE TO SPECIFIC REPLI ES FOR ASSTT. YEARS 2008-09, 2009-10 AND 2010-11 AT PAGES 72 TO 88 OF THE PAPER BOOK-LL. IV. THE SALARY HAS BEEN PAID FOR THE PAST MANY YEA RS EARLIER TO ASSTT. YEAR 2008- 09 AS WELL AND ACCEPTED BY THE DEPARTMENT IN THE ORDERS PASSED U/S 143(3)/143(1) AND THE ISSUES HAVE ATTAINED FINALITY . 13.2 THE RELIANCE WAS PLACED ON THE FOLLOWING CASE LAWS: CIT VS. IDICULA TRUST SOCIETY REPORTED IN 104 DTR 0 009 (P&H) CIT EXEMPTIONS VS. CMR JNANADHARA TRUST REPORTED IN 55 TAXMANN.COM 516 (KARNATAKA HC) 16 ITA NOS 1069 TO 1071-CHD-2019- M/S HERITAGE EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY, CHANDIGARH DR. D.Y. PATIL PRATISTHAN VS. DCIT REPORTED IN 39 T AXMANN.COM 138 ITAT PUNE BENCH YOUNG SCHOLARS EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY VS. ITO REPORTED IN 25 TAXMANN.COM 422 ITAT CHANDIGARH BENCH PINEGROAVE INTERNATIONAL CHARITABLE TRUST VS. DCIT REPORTED IN ITA NO. 567/CHD/2019 (CHD TRIB) 13.3 IT WAS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT IN THE EARLIER Y EARS ON THE BASIS OF SIMILAR FACTS PAYMENT TO SALARY HAD BEEN ACCEPTED. THEREFOR E IN VIEW OF THE PRINCIPLES OF CONSISTENCY THE DISALLOWANCE MADE BY THE A.O. AND SUSTAINED BY THE LD. CIT(A) WAS NOT JUSTIFIED. RELIANCE WAS P LACED ON THE FOLLOWING CASE LAWS : PRASAD MULTI SERVICES PVT. LTD. VS. DCIT REPORTED I N 423 ITR 542 (GUJ) CIT VS. DALMIA DADRI CEMENT LTD. [1970] 77 ITR 410 (P&H) BERGER PAINTS INDIA LTD. VS. CIT [2004] 266 ITR 99 (SC) PRASAD MULTI SERVICES PVT. LTD. VS. DCIT [2020] 423 ITR 542 (GUJ) DCIT VS. UNITED VANASPATI LTD. (2005) 275 ITR 124 ( AT)(TM) RADHASOAMI SATSANG VS. CIT (1992) 193 ITR 321 (SC) CIT VS. ARTHUR ANDERSEN & CO. (2009) 318 ITR 229 (B OM) CIT VS. LEADER VALVES LTD. (2007) 295 ITR 273 (P&H) 13.4 LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE ALSO FURNISHED TH E WRITTEN SUBMISSION TO REBUT THE FINDINGS OF THE LD. CIT(A) AND THE A.O. R ELATING TO THE DISALLOWANCE OF SALARY WHICH READ AS UNDER: A. THE FINDING OF CIT(A) IN PARA 7.3 THAT NO ADDITI ONAL SERVICES HAVE BEEN PROVIDED IS ABSOLUTELY INCORRECT IN VIEW OF THE CLE AR CUT SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE ABOUT THE SERVICES BEING RENDERED, WHICH A RE THERE AT PAGES 45 TO 45A OF THE PAPER BOOK AND AT PAGES 72 TO 88 OF THE PAPER BOOK. B. BOTH THE CIT(A) AND ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT DO UBTED THE QUALIFICATION, BUT THEN HAS HELD THAT THE QUALIFICATION IS NOT ENO UGH, BUT HAS TOTALLY IGNORED THE SERVICES RENDERED BY THEM AND WHICH SERVICES HA VE BEEN RENDERED NOT ONLY FROM THIS YEAR, BUT FROM THE PAST TEN YEARS. C. THE FINDING OF THE CIT(A) THAT IT IS ONLY THE PR INCIPAL, WHO IS ONLY CAPABLE FOR RUNNING THE SCHOOL IS AGAIN MISCONCEIVED, BECAU SE ULTIMATELY, IT IS ONLY UNDER HIS GUIDANCE AND SUPPORT OF THE MANAGEMENT TH AT, THE INSTITUTION IS RUN, WHICH INVOLVES DEVOTING OF TIME TO MANAGE THE SCHOO L, SELECTION OF TEACHERS, MANAGEMENT OF CAPITAL EXPENDITURE, INTERACTION WITH THE MEMBERS OF DPS SOCIETY, LIASONING WITH IT, IMPLEMENTING ITS POLICI ES, INTERACTION WITH CBSC AND OTHER DAY TO DAY AFFAIRS OF THE SCHOOL, WHICH ALSO INCLUDES BUDGETING, FINANCING AND EVEN INTERACTION WITH PARENTS AND TEACHER ASSOC IATIONS ETC. ALL THESE WORKS 17 ITA NOS 1069 TO 1071-CHD-2019- M/S HERITAGE EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY, CHANDIGARH INVOLVE LOT OF TIME AND EFFORTS FOR WHICH OTHERWISE SOCIETY WOULD HAVE TO ENGAGE OUTSIDE PERSONS OTHERWISE AND DUE TO THE FAC T THAT SUCH TALENT WAS WITHIN THE HOME CIRCLE I.E. THE WARDS OF THE TRUSTE ES AND THUS, THEIR SERVICES WERE TAKEN . D. THE RELIANCE BY THE CIT(A) ON GENERAL PRESUMPTIO N IN PARA-1 OF THE ORDER AT PAGE 8 IS AGAIN ON PRESUMPTION/ASSUMPTION WITHOU T ANY SUBSTANTIVE MATERIAL ON RECORD. THERE IS NO MISUSE OF EXEMPTION PROVISIO NS. E. THE CIT(A) HAS TOTALLY IGNORED ALL SUCH FACTUAL FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES AND HAS ONLY PRESUMED CERTAIN THINGS AND IT IS A SE TTLED LAW THAT NO PRESUMPTION CAN BE MADE IN JUSTIFYING THE ADDITION AS PER THE JUDGMENT OF HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF OMAR SALAY MOH AMED SAIT VS CIT 37 ITR 151. F. THE MEMORANDUM OF ASSOCIATION CLEARLY STIPULATES ABOUT THE PAYMENT TO THE MEMBERS OF THE SOCIETY, IT IS AS PER CLAUSE (XI) OF THE MEMORANDUM OF ASSOCIATION AS PER PAGE 21 K OF THE PAPER BOOK., WH ICH IS BEING REPRODUCED AS UNDER:- XI). TO RECOMPENSE MEMBERS FOR ALL BONAFIDE EXPEND ITURE INCURRED FOR THE SOCIETY AND TO PROVIDE FOR OTHER SERVICES REQUIRED FOR THE DISCHARGE OF FUNCTIONS OF THE SOCIETY. HOWEVER, NO MEMBER OF THE GOVERNING BO DY SHALL BE APPOINTED TO ANY SALARIED OFFICER.' G. FROM THE ABOVE, IT IS VERY CLEAR THAT THE FOR TH E SERVICES RENDERED BY THE MEMBERS, THE SOCIETY HAS PAID CERTAIN AMOUNT AS SAL ARY/HONORARIUM AS PER PAST PRACTICE AND EVEN THE JUSTIFICATION IS THERE VIZ SA LARY PAID TO STAFF OF THE SCHOOL AND FOR WHICH, NO DOUBT HAS BEEN RAISED. THE TOTAL AMOUNT OFSALARY DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION IS TO THE TUNE OF RS. 4,73 ,08,743 AND OUT OF WHICH, THE SALARY/ HONORARIUM PAID TO THE MEMBERS IS ONLY 36 L ACS, WHICH IS QUITE JUSTIFIED AND NO COMPARABLE CASE AS TO HOW MUCH SALARY CAN BE JUS TIFIED, HAS NOT BEEN CITED. THE FINDING OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND RELIANCE O N THE REPORT OF 'INVESTIGATION WING' THAT THERE IS NO 'ATTENDANCE REGISTER' FOR TH E MEMBERS IS AGAIN MISCONCEIVED, BECAUSE OF THE NATURE OF DUTIES, THER E CANNOT BE ANY ATTENDANCE REQUIRED OF THE MEMBERS TO COME TO THE SCHOOL PREMI SES ON DAY TO DAY BASIS AND IT HAS RIGHTLY BEEN STATED THAT THERE CANNOT BE A F IXED SCHEDULE AND TIME TABLE FOR COMING TO THE SCHOOL TO THE MEMBERS, BUT THEN I T HAS CATEGORICALLY BEEN STATED THAT THEY COME TO THE SCHOOL TO ATTEND THE M EETING AND THE NATURE OF THE DUTY ITSELF SUFFICE THAT THESE DUTIES WHICH THEY AR E RENDERING, I.E. MAINTENANCE OF CAPITAL ASSETS AND OTHER DAY TO DAY ACTIVITIES AND IF ANY OTHER PERSON EMPLOYED AT THEIR PLACE, WOULD HAVE DEMANDED MORE HONORARIUM /SALARY. NO COMPARATIVE INSTANCE HAS BEEN QUOTED AS TO WHAT COULD BE REASON ABLE OF SALARY/HONORARIUM. ALL THESE SERVICES DEMAND EXPERIENCED PERSON AND CO NSUME LOT OF TIME AND EFFORTS. THE PROOF OF THE SERVICES IS A SMOOTH AND EFFICIENT CONDUCT OF THE SCHOOL FUNCTIONS AND ITS CONTINUOUS GROWTH WHICH IS MORE T HAN DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE. H. THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND CIT(A) HAS TAKEN A VER Y NARROW VIEW AND THEY HAVE COMPARED THE MEMBERS OF THE SOCIETY WITH THE T EACHING STAFF, WHICH IS WHOLLY MISCONCEIVED AS PER PARA 7 OF THE ORDER OF T HE ASSESSING OFFICER AND THEY HAVE IGNORED THE PRESENT DAY CIRCUMSTANCES AS TO HO W THE SCHOOL ARE BEING RUN. I. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE SAID FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCE S AND CASE LAWS, THE SALARY/HONORARIUM AS ALLOWED IN EARLIER YEARS, MAY, PLEASE, BE ALLOWED AND THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A) SUSTAINING THE ADDITION DESERVE S TO BE DELETED. 18 ITA NOS 1069 TO 1071-CHD-2019- M/S HERITAGE EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY, CHANDIGARH 13.5 IT WAS ALSO STATED THAT THE A.O. WHILE INVOKIN G THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 13(3) OF THE ACT HAD NOT CITED ANY COMPARABLE CASE, THEREFORE, THE DISALLOWANCE MADE BY THE A.O. AND SUSTAINED BY THE LD. CIT(A) WAS NOT JUSTIFIED. 14. IN HIS RIVAL SUBMISSIONS THE LD. SR. DR STRONGL Y SUPPORTED THE IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED BY THE LD. CIT(A) AND REITERATED THE O BSERVATIONS MADE BY THE A.O. AND THE LD. CIT(A) IN THEIR ORDERS. IT WAS FUR THER STATED THAT SINCE THE SPECIFIED PERSONS WERE NOT PROVIDING ANY SERVICE AN D THEY WERE NOT ATTENDING THE OFFICE REGULARLY THEREFORE THE SALARY PAID TO THEM WAS NOT JUSTIFIED AND DISALLOWANCE MADE BY THE AO WAS RIGHT LY SUSTAINED BY THE LD. CIT(A). 15. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS OF BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON THE RECORD. IN THE PRESEN T CASE THE A.O. DISALLOWED THE REMUNERATION/SALARY AMOUNTING TO RS. 54 LAC PAI D BY THE ASSESSEE TO THE MEMBERS OF THE SOCIETY FOR THE REASON THAT NO SERVI CE WAS PROVIDED BY THEM AND THAT HAVING THE QUALIFICATION IS NOT A CRITERIA TO MAKE THE PAYMENT OF SALARY/REMUNERATION TO THE MEMBERS OF THE SOCIETY. LD. CIT(A) SUSTAINED THE DISALLOWANCE MADE BY THE A.O. IN THE INSTANT CASE I T IS NOTICED THAT THE A.O. ON THE ONE HAND SAID THAT THE PERSONS WERE NOT DOIN G ANY SERVICE ON THE CONTRARY IN PARA 4.2 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER HE MEN TIONED THAT THOSE PERSONS APART FROM DOING SERVICES WERE ALSO DOING SOME OTHE R WORK ALONGWITH GETTING SALARY / HONORARIUM FROM THE ASSESSEE. THEREFORE, T HE STAND TAKEN BY THE A.O. IS CONTRADICTORY BECAUSE ON THE ONE HAND THE REMUNE RATION / SALARY PAID TO THE MEMBERS OF THE SOCIETY WAS DISALLOWED ON THE BA SIS OF NO SERVICES PROVIDED BY THEM ON THE OTHER HAND HE HIMSELF ADMIT TED IN PARA 4.2 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER THAT THOSE PERSONS WERE DOING OTHE R WORKS ALONGWITH SERVICES PROVIDED TO THE ASSESSEE. IT IS ALSO NOTIC ED THAT THE A.O. ON THE BASIS OF REPORT OF ONE OF THE INSPECTOR OF INVESTIGATION WING DISALLOWED THE SALARY / REMUNERATION. THE SAID INSPECTOR IN HIS REPORT HAS STATED THAT THOSE PERSONS NAMELY MR. AMIT, MR. ANOOP AND MR. MUKESH BANSAL DI D NOT CAME DAILY TO THE SCHOOL PREMISES, THEY HAD NO FIXED SCHEDULE OR TIME TABLE TO COME TO THE 19 ITA NOS 1069 TO 1071-CHD-2019- M/S HERITAGE EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY, CHANDIGARH SCHOOL AND THAT THEY CAME TO THE SCHOOL PREMISES ON LY TO ATTEND THE MEETINGS WHICH WERE NOT CONDUCTED ON REGULAR OR ROU TINE BASIS. FROM THE AFORESAID REPORT ALSO IT IS CLEAR THAT THOSE PERSON S ALTHOUGH DID NOT COME DAILY TO THE SCHOOL BUT THEY WERE COMING WHENEVER T HE MEETINGS WERE FIXED. 15.1 AS REGARDS TO THE SERVICES PROVIDED BY THOSE P ERSONS, THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE WAS THAT THE SPECIFIED PERSONS TO WHOM SALARY/HONORARIUM WAS PAID WERE POSSESSING THE REQUISITE QUALIFICATION AN D THEY WERE PROVIDING GUIDANCE AND SUPPORT TO THE MANAGEMENT FOR SELECTIO N OF TEACHERS, MANAGEMENT OF CAPITAL EXPENDITURE, INTERACTION WITH MEMBERS OF DPS SOCIETY, LIASONING WITH IT, IMPLEMENTING ITS POLICI ES, INTERACTION WITH CBSE AND TEACHERS ASSOCIATION ETC. WHICH INVOLVED LOT OF TIM E AND EFFORTS FOR WHICH OTHERWISE ASSESSEE SOCIETY WOULD HAVE TO ENGAGE OUT SIDE PERSONS. THE SAID EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT REBUTTED AT ANY STAGE. 15.2 ON A SIMILAR ISSUE THE HONBLE PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. INDICULA TRUST SOCIETY (SUPRA)HELD AS UN DER: PAYMENT WAS MADE TO THE STATED PERSONS AND WAS C ONFIRMED BY THE TAX- AUDITORS AS WELL, IS NOT IN DISPUTE. THE PAYMENTS H AVE BEEN MADE AND THE EXPENDITURE IS ACTUALLY INCURRED BY THE ASSESSEE (W HICH IS A CHARITABLE SOCIETY EXISTING SOLELY FOR THE PURPOSE OF EDUCATION). THER E IS NOTHING TO SHOW THAT THE PAYMENTS MADE TO THE PERSONS MENTIONED IN THE RETUR N AS ALSO IN TAX AUDIT REPORTS, WERE EXCESSIVE. 15.3 IN THE PRESENT CASE ALSO THE PAYMENTS MADE TO THE SPECIFIED PERSONS WAS REPORTED BY THE TAX AUDITOR AND THUS SAID PAYME NT WAS NOT IN DISPUTE AND NO COMPARABLE CASE HAS BEEN CITED BY THE AO TO SUBSTANTIATE THAT HOW AND IN WHAT MANNER THE PAYMENT MADE TO THE MEMBERS OF THE SOCIETY WAS EXCESSIVE WHILE INVOKING THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 13(1)(C) OF THE ACT. 15.4 SIMILARLY THE HONBLE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT IN T HE CASE OF CIT (EXEMPTION) VS. CMR JNANADHARA TRUST(SUPRA) HELD AS UNDER: THE PAYMENT OF THE AMOUNTS IN QUESTION TO THE TR USTEES, OUT OF THE TRUST AMOUNT, IS NOT IN DISPUTE. THE TRIBUNAL HAS CLEARLY SET OUT THE SERVICES RENDERED BY THESE TRUSTEES FOR THE TRUST AND THEREAFTER IT HAS COME T O THE CONCLUSION THAT THE SAID AMOUNTS PAID, ARE REASONABLE AND NOT EXCESSIVE. WHE N THE TRUST IS AVAILING THE SERVICES OF THESE TRUSTEES AND ON ACCOUNT OF THE SE RIES RENDERED BY THEM, THERE IS A SUBSTANTIAL GROWTH IN THE TRUST AND ITS ACTIVITIE S, WHEN THE PAYMENTS ARE MADE 20 ITA NOS 1069 TO 1071-CHD-2019- M/S HERITAGE EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY, CHANDIGARH FOR SUCH SERVICES RENDERED, IT CANNOT BE SAID THAT IT CONTRAVENES SECTION 13(1)(C). CONSEQUENTLY, THERE IS NO JUSTIFICATION FOR DENYING THE BENEFIT UNDER SECTION 11. 15.5 IN THE PRESENT CASE ALSO WHEN THE ASSESSEE SOC IETY WAS AVAILING THE SERVICES OF THE MEMBERS OF THE SOCIETY AND IF THEY HAVE NOT PROVIDED THOSE SERVICES TO ASSESSEE SOCIETY, IT WOULD HAVE ENGAGED THE PERSON FROM OUTSIDE TO WHOM SALARY WAS REQUIRED TO BE PAID. THEREFORE, THE DISALLOWANCE MADE BY THE AO AND SUSTAINED BY THE LD. CIT(A) WAS NOT J USTIFIED PARTICULARLY WHEN NOTHING IS BROUGHT ON RECORD TO SUBSTANTIATE THAT T HE SALARY PAID TO THEM WAS EXCESSIVE. 15.6 SIMILARLY IN THE CASE OF YOUNG SCHOLARS EDUCAT IONAL SOCIETY VS. ITO (SUPRA) ITAT CHANDIGARH BENCH B HELD AS UNDER: THAT THE QUALIFICATION OF S WAS INDICATED AS M. A. B.ED, BESIDES OTHER DEGREES AND DIPLOMAS, E.G., SANGEET VISHARAD (SITAR), SANGE ET BHUSHAN (VOCAL), SANGEET BHUSHAN (SITAR)SENIOR DIPLOMA (VOCAL), SANGEET PARV EWSHIKA (VOCAL) AND SHE ALSO HELD NCC J CERTIFICATE. A NUMBER OF CERTIFICATES AND DISTINCTIONS HAD ALSO BEEN MENTIONED HAVING REGARD TO PROFESSIONAL QUALIFICATI ONS OF THE PRINCIPAL S. THOUGH THE PAYMENT OF SALARY FELL UNDER THE BAR PLA CED BY SECTION 13, HOWEVER, HAVING REGARD TO HER QUALIFICATIONS AND SERVICES RE NDERED TO THE ASSESSEE, THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE FELL UNDER SECTION 13(2)(C) AS THE SALARY PAID WAS NOT UNREASONABLE. IN VIEW OF THIS, THE ASSESSEE WENT OU T OF THE BAR PLACED BY THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 13. 15.7 IN THE PRESENT CASE ALSO THE AO HIMSELF ADMITT ED THAT THE SPECIFIED PERSONS WERE HAVING THE HIGHER QUALIFICATION AND NO COMPARABLE CASE WAS BROUGHT ON RECORD TO SUBSTANTIATE THAT THE SALARY / REMUNERATION PAID TO THEM WAS EXCESSIVE. THEREFORE, THE DISALLOWANCE MAD E BY THE AO AND SUSTAINED BY THE LD. CIT(A) WAS NOT JUSTIFIED. 15.8 IN THE PRESENT CASE IT IS ALSO NOTICED THAT TH E REMUNERATION / SALARY PAID TO THE SAME PERSONS IN THE EARLIER YEARS HAD BEEN A CCEPTED WHILE FRAMING THE ASSESSMENT ORDERS UNDER SECTION 143(3) OF THE A CT. THEREFORE, BY KEEPING IN VIEW THE PRINCIPLES OF CONSISTENCY NO DISALLOWAN CE IS TO BE MADE FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION IF THE FACTS ARE IDENTICAL IN THE PRECEDING YEARS WHEREIN THE SIMILAR PAYMENTS HAVE BEEN ACCEPTED BY THE DEPARTMENT. 21 ITA NOS 1069 TO 1071-CHD-2019- M/S HERITAGE EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY, CHANDIGARH 15.9 ON A SIMILAR ISSUE THE HONBLE APEX COURT IN TH E CASE OF RADHASOAMI SATSANG VS. CIT (SUPRA) HELD AS UNDER: 'STRICTLY SPEAKING, RES JUDICATA DOES NOT APPLY TO INCOME TAX PROCEEDINGS. THOUGH, EACH ASSESSMENT YEAR BEING A UNIT, WHAT WAS DECIDED IN ONE YEAR MIGHT NOT APPLY IN THE FOLLOWING YEAR; WHERE A FUNDAMENTA L ASPECT PERMEATING THROUGH THE DIFFERENT ASSESSMENT YEARS HAS BEEN FOUND AS A FACT ONE WAY OR THE OTHER AND PARTIES HAVE ALLOWED THAT POSITION TO BE SUSTAI NED BY NOT CHALLENGING THE ORDER, IT WOULD NOT BE AT ALL APPROPRIATE TO ALLOW THE POSITION TO BE CHANGED IN A SUBSEQUENT YEAR'. 15.10 SIMILARLY THE HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COUR T IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. LEADER VALVES LTD. (SUPRA)HELD AS UNDER: HELD, THAT KEEPING IN VIEW THE PRINCIPLE OF CONSIST ENCY, THE REVENUE COULD NOT BE PERMITTED TO RAISE AN ISSUE IN ISOLATION ONLY FOR O NE YEAR IN THE CASE OF ONE ASSESSEE, WHILE ACCEPTING THE FINDINGS ON THE SAME ISSUE IN THE CASE OF OTHER ASSESSES AND FOR OTHER YEARS IN THE CASE OF ASSESSE E .' 15.11 A SIMILAR VIEW HAS BEEN TAKEN BY THE HONBLE J URISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. DALMIA DADRI CEMENT LTD. WHE REIN IT HAS BEEN HELD AS UNDER: 'HELD ALSO, THAT THOUGH AS A GENERAL RULE THE PRINC IPLE OF RES JUDICATA IS NOT APPLICABLE TO DECISIONS OF INCOME TAX AUTHORITIES A ND AN ASSESSMENT FOR A PARTICULAR YEAR IS FINAL AND CONCLUSIVE BETWEEN THE PARTIES ONLY IN RELATION TO THE ASSESSMENT FOR THAT YEAR AND THE DECISIONS GIVEN IN AN ASSESSMENT FOR AN EARLIER YEAR ARE NOT BINDING EITHER ON THE ASSESSEE OR THE DEPARTMENT IN A SUBSEQUENT YEAR, THIS RULE IS SUBJECT TO LIMITATIONS, FOR THER E SHOULD BE FINALITY AND CERTAINTY IN ALL LITIGATIONS INCLUDING LITIGATION ARISING OUT OF THE INCOME TAX ACT AND AN EARLIER DECISION ON THE SAME QUESTION CANNOT BE REOPENED.' 15.12 SIMILARLY THE HONBLE GUJARAT HIGH COURT IN TH E CASE OF PRASAD MULTI SERVICES PVT. LTD. VS. DCIT (SUPRA) HELD AS UNDER: 'ALTHOUGH THE DOCTRINE OF RES JUDICATA DOES NOT STR ICTLY APPLY TO INCOME-TAX PROCEEDINGS, YET IN ORDER TO MAINTAIN CONSISTENCY, THE REVENUE CANNOT BE PERMITTED TO RAKE UP STALE ISSUES AGAIN MERELY BECA USE THE SCOPE OF APPEAL IS WIDER THAN THE SCOPE OF REFERENCE.' 15.13 IN THE PRESENT CASE ALSO AS WE HAVE ALREADY P OINTED OUT THAT SIMILAR CLAIM FOR MAKING THE PAYMENT ON ACCOUNT OF SALARY / REMUNERATION TO THE SAME SPECIFIED PERSONS HAD BEEN ACCEPTED BY THE DEP ARTMENT IN THE PRECEDING YEARS THEREFORE KEEPING IN VIEW THE PRINC IPLES OF CONSISTENCY THE 22 ITA NOS 1069 TO 1071-CHD-2019- M/S HERITAGE EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY, CHANDIGARH DISALLOWANCE MADE BY THE AO AND SUSTAINED BY THE LD . CIT(A) FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION WAS NOT JUSTIFIED. 16. AS WE HAVE DIRECTED TO DELETE THE DISALLOWANCE MADE BY THE AO AND SUSTAINED BY THE LD. CIT(A) IN THE FORMER PART OF T HIS ORDER, THEREFORE NO FINDINGS ARE BEING GIVEN ON THE LEGAL ISSUE RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE VIDE GROUND NOS. 1 TO 3 VIDE WHICH THE ASSESSEE HAS CHALLENGED THE ISSUE OF REOPENING UNDER SECTION 147 OF THE ACT OF THE CONCLUDED ASSES SMENT UNDER SECTION 143(3) OF THE ACT. 17. THE FACTS IN THE REMAINING A.YS 2014-15 AND 201 5-16 IN ITA NO. 1070 & 1071/CHD/2019 ARE SIMILAR TO THE FACTS INVOLVED IN ITA NO. 1069/CHD/2019 FOR THE A.Y. 2010-11, THEREFORE, OUR FINDINGS GIVEN IN THE FORMER PART OF THIS ORDER SHALL APPLY MUTATIS MUTANDIS FOR THE A.YS 2014-15 A ND 2015-16 ALSO. 18. IN THE RESULT, APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE ARE ALLO WED. (ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 03/12/2020 ) SD/- SD/- ! . . , (SANJAY GARG ) ( N.K. SAINI) '#$ / JUDICIAL MEMBER / VICE PRESIDENT DATE: 03/12/2020 AG %( )*+* / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. / THE APPELLANT 2. / THE RESPONDENT 3. ! , / CIT 4. ! , ( )/ THE CIT(A) 5. *-. / , #/ , 012.3 / DR, ITAT, CHANDIGARH 6. .24' / GUARD FILE
Mehul