Centre for Rural Studies and Development,Madakasira, Hyderabad V. ACIT, Anantapur

ITA 1078/HYD/2010

• Counselvise Citation: [2014] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 74505 (ITAT-HYDERABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 5 month(s) 6 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 16-01-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 27-06-2011
• Assessment Year: 2002-2003
• Appeal Filed On: 10-08-2010
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Charitable institution
• Section: 143(3); 234B; 12A; 12AA; 148; 11

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCH B', HYDERABAD BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SMT. ASHA VIJAYARAGHAVAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NOS. 1076, 1077 AND 1078/HYD/2010 ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2000-01, 2001-02 & 2002-03 CENTRE FOR RURAL STUDIES AND DEVELOPMENT MADAKASIRA, ANANTHAPUR. VS. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE -1, ANANTHAPUR. APPELLANT RESPONDENT ASSESSEE BY: SRI S. RAMA RAO REVENUE BY: SRI D. SUDHAKAR RAO DATE OF HEARING: 16/01/2014 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 16/01/2014 O R D E R PER CHANDRA POOJARI, AM: THESE APPEALS PREFERRED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE DIRECT ED AGAINST A COMMON ORDER OF THE CIT(A), TIRUPATHI DAT ED 23/09/2005 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2000-01 TO 2002-03. SINCE THE FACTS AND ISSUES ARE COMMON IN THESE APPEALS, THEY WERE CLUBB ED AND HEARD TOGETHER, THEREFORE, A COMMON ORDER IS PASSED FOR T HE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE. 2. THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED A COMMON GROUND IN THESE APPEALS, WHICH IS AS FOLLOWS: THE LEARNED CIT(A) ERRED IN HOLDING THAT THE APPELL ANT IS NOT ELIGIBLE FOR EXEMPTION U/S 11 OF THE IT ACT WHEN TH E APPELLANT WAS PURSUING THE APPLICATION FOR REGISTRATION U/S 1 2A AND WHEN ULTIMATELY THE ASSESSEE WAS GRANTED REGISTRATI ON U/S 12AA OF THE ACT. 3. BRIEFLY THE FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT T HE APPELLANT IS A SOCIETY REGISTERED WITH THE DIST. REGISTRAR, ANANTA PUR UNDER I.T.A. NOS. 1076, 1077 & 1078/HYD/2010 CENTRE FOR RURAL STUDIES AND DEVLEOPMENT MADAKASIRA 2 THE SOCIETIES REGISTRATION ACT 1860. THE SOCIETY CAME INTO EXISTENCE BY WAY OF A MEMORANDUM OF ASSOCIATION ENT ERED INTO ON 1.10.1991 AND REGISTERED ON 7.10.1991. THE SOCIETY IS MEANT FOR CHARITABLE PURPOSES AND THE OBJECTS AN D AIMS OF THE SOCIETY MENTIONED IN THE MEMORANDUM CLEARLY IND ICATE THAT ALL SUCH OBJECTS ARE CHARITABLE IN NATURE. THE SOCI ETY HAS NO PROFIT MOTIVE. THE SOCIETY COULD NOT CARRY ON THE O BJECTS ON ITS OWN DUE TO NON AVAILABILITY OF FUNDS. THEREFORE, TH E SOCIETY APPROACHED VARIOUS DONORS WITH THE PROPOSAL OF CARR YING OUT THE PROJECTS AS PER THE OBJECTS. THE DONORS LIKE SO CIAL EDUCATION DEVELOPMENT TRUST (SEDT) OXFAM AND UUAC H AVE ACCEPTED TO DONATE THE FUNDS FOR IMPLEMENTATION OF SPECIFIC PROJECTS. ACCORDING TO THE AGREEMENTS ENTERED INTO BETWEEN THE APPELLANT SOCIETY AND VARIOUS DONORS, THE GRANT S WERE GIVEN FOR CARRYING OUT SPECIFIC PROJECTS. FOR THIS PURPOSE, SPECIFIC AMOUNTS WERE SANCTIONED. THE DONO RS ALSO PRESCRIBED TIME LIMIT FOR COMPLETION OF THE PROJECT AND ACCORDING TO THE AGREEMENT THE DONORS CAN COLLECT B ACK THE AMOUNT SO PAID IF THE PROJECT IS NOT COMPLETED. THE DETAILS OF SUBJECT PROJECTS UNDERTAKEN, THE AMOUNT RECEIVED FR OM EACH DONOR, THE AMOUNT SPENT, DATE OF COMPLETION OF THE PROJECTS ARE MENTIONED IN THE STATEMENT ANNEXED. IT CAN BE S EEN FROM THE DETAILS THE APPELLANT ACTED AS AN AGENT FOR VAR IOUS DONOR IN IMPLEMENTING THE PROJECTS ON THEIR BEHALF. THE APPE LLANT DID NOT UNDERTAKE ANY PROJECT ON IT'S OWN NOR RECEIVED ANY DONATION EXCLUSIVELY FOR THE PURPOSE OF RUNNING THE SOCIETY. 3.1 HOWEVER, THE APPELLANT WITH AN OBJECT OF REGIST ERING ITSELF U/S 12AA OF THE I.T. ACT FILED AN APPLICATION FOR R EGISTRATION U/S 12A BEFORE THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, GUNTUR O N 5.19.1992. IN RESPONSE THERETO THE CIT ISSUED MEMOR ANDUM DATED 23.11.1992 FOLLOWED BY A LETTER DATED 22.12.1 992 BY THE ACIT, CIRCLE-1, ANANTAPUR. THE APPELLANT SOCIETY RESPONDED IMMEDIATELY THEREAFTER AND FILED THE INFO RMATION I.T.A. NOS. 1076, 1077 & 1078/HYD/2010 CENTRE FOR RURAL STUDIES AND DEVLEOPMENT MADAKASIRA 3 REQUIRED. FINALLY, TILL 6.11.2002, THE CIT CONCERNE D DID NOT PASS ANY ORDER EITHER REJECTING OR ALLOWING REGISTR ATION U/S 1.2A. ON 6.11.2002, THE CIT, TIRUPATI ISSUED A LETTER REQUIRING THE ASSESSEE TO FILE A FRESH FORM 10A AS THE COPY F ILED EARLIER CANNOT BE ACTED UPON. ACCORDINGLY, VIDE LETTER DATE D 23.11.2002, THE APPELLANT FILED ALL THE DETAILS. AN D COPY OF THE APPLICATION AND THE EARLIER CORRESPONDENCE. THE APP ELLANT ALSO ANNEXED A COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 5.10.1992. THE CIT, TIRUPATI REGISTERED THE SOCIETY U/S 12A WITH EFFECT FROM 1.4.2002 RECKONING THE COPY OF THE APPLICATION AS F ILED ALONGWITH LETTER DATED 23.11.2002. 3.2 THE APPELLANT IN THE MEANTIME, WAS FILING THE R ETURNS OF INCOME FOR ALL THE ASSESSMENT YEARS CLAIMING EXEMPT ION U/S 11 OF THE I.T. ACT. FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2001-20 02, THE APPELLANT FILED THE RETURN OF INCOME ON 10.10.2001 ADMITTING INCOME AT RS. NIL. THE RETURN WAS PROCESSED U/S 143 ( 1). LATER A NOTICE U/S 148 WAS ISSUED ON 28.11.2003 IN RESPON SE TO WHICH THE APPELLANT FILED THE SAME RETURN. THE ASSE SSING OFFICER COMPLETED THE RE-ASSESSMENT U/S 143(3) ON 3 0.3.2005 DETERMINING THE TOTAL INCOME AT RS. 10,80,020/-. WH ILE DOING SO, THE ASSESSING OFFICER (A) REJECTED THE CLAIM FO R EXEMPTION U/S 11 OF THE I.T. ACT, (B) TREATED THE UNSPENT GRA NTS FROM THE DONORS AS THE INCOME OF THE APPELLANT, AND (C) ALSO TREATED THE DONATIONS AND THE BANK INTEREST AS THE INCOME OF TH E APPELLANT. THE ASSESSING OFFICER ALSO CHARGED INTER EST U/S 234A OF RS. 1,72,940/-, U/S 234B OF RS. 6,47,970/-. IT IS AGAINST THE SAID ORDER OF ASSESSMENT, THE APPELLANT CARRIED THE MATTER IN APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT(A). 4. THE CIT(A) REJECTED THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE. 5. BEFORE US, THE ASSESSEE FILED THESE APPEALS ON 10/08/2010, BELATEDLY, WITH A DELAY OF 1720 DAYS. F URTHER, WE I.T.A. NOS. 1076, 1077 & 1078/HYD/2010 CENTRE FOR RURAL STUDIES AND DEVLEOPMENT MADAKASIRA 4 HAVE NOTICED THAT THERE WAS A SHORT PAYMENT OF APPE AL FILING FEES BY RS. 9,500/- IN EACH APPEAL. IN OTHER WORDS, THE ASSESSEE PAID APPEAL FILING FEE OF RS. 500/- PER AP PEAL INSTEAD OF RS. 10,000/- PER APPEAL. 6. BEFORE GOING INTO THE OTHER ISSUES, FIRST WE DEA L WITH THE PAYMENT OF SHORT FEE. ACCORDING TO THE LEARNED AR T HE APPLICABLE FILING FEES TO THE ASSESSEES CASE IS ON LY RS. 500/- AS THE ASSESSEES CASE FALLS U/S 253(6) OF THE IT A CT. IN THIS CONNECTION, HE REFERRED TO CBDT CIRCULAR NO. 779, D ATED 14/09/1999. ACCORDING TO HIM, THE APPEALS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS NOT LINKED TO THE ASSESSED INCOME AND, BEING SO, FILING FEE SHOULD BE CONSIDERED AT RS. 500/- ONLY. FOR THIS PROPOSITION, HE RELIED ON THE DECISION OF THE ITAT HYDERABAD BENCH A IN THE CASE OF AP STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD VS. ITO, [1994] 49 ITD 522 WHEREIN IT WAS HELD AS FOLLOWS: AGRICULTURAL INCOME IS INCOME WHICH IS NOT TO BE INCLUDED WHILE COMPUTING THE TOTAL INCOME OF AN ASSESSEE AND THAT IS PROVIDED IN CLAUSE (1) OF SECT ION 10. THE INCLUSION OF AGRICULTURAL INCOME FOR DETERM INING THE TAX PAYABLE BY THE ASSESSEE IS UNDER THE FINANC E ACT BUT THAT IS ONLY FOR THE PURPOSE OF CHARGING IN COME- TAX IN RESPECT OF THE TOTAL INCOME AND FOR NO OTHER PURPOSE. THE TAX ON THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSE E OTHER THAN AGRICULTURAL INCOME IS DETERMINED BY DEE MING THE AGRICULTURAL INCOME AS PART OF THE TOTAL INCOME AND BY THIS PROVISION, IT CANNOT BE CONCLUDED THAT THE AGRICULTURAL INCOME FORMS PART OF THE TOTAL INCOME AS SUCH. THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 2(2) OF THE FINANCE ACT, 1993, MAKE IT CLEAR AND PROVIDE THAT WHERE THE ASSE SSEE HAS IN THE PREVIOUS YEAR ANY NET AGRICULTURAL INCOM E EXCEEDING RS. 600 IN ADDITION TO THE TOTAL INCOME A ND THE TOTAL INCOME EXCEEDS A PARTICULAR AMOUNT, THEN THE NET AGRICULTURAL INCOME SHALL BE TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT AS IF THE NET AGRICULTURAL INCOME WAS COMPRISED IN THE TOTAL INCOME AFTER THE PRESCRIBED LIMIT OF THE TOTAL INCO ME BUT WITHOUT BEING LIABLE TO TAX AND THIS IS ONLY FOR PU RPOSES OF CHARGING INCOME-TAX IN RESPECT OF THE TOTAL INCO ME. HERE, THE DEEMING AGRICULTURAL INCOME TO BE A PART OF THE TOTAL INCOME IS ONLY FOR A LIMITED PURPOSE AND THAT DEEMING CANNOT BE EXTENDED TO MEAN THAT THE I.T.A. NOS. 1076, 1077 & 1078/HYD/2010 CENTRE FOR RURAL STUDIES AND DEVLEOPMENT MADAKASIRA 5 AGRICULTURAL INCOME ALSO FORMS PART OF THE TOTAL IN COME OF THE ASSESSEE FOR OTHER PURPOSES AS WELL. THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE OTHER THAN AGRICULTURAL INCO ME BEING LESS THAN RS. 1 LAKH, THE FEE, IN THE INSTANT CASE, THEREFORE, WOULD BE RS. 250/-. 7. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LEARNED DR SUBMITTED THAT THE FILING PAYABLE BY THE ASSESSEE IN THIS CASE IS RS. 10,000/- PER APPEAL AS IT DOES NOT FALL UNDER CLAUSE (D) OF SECT ION 253(6) OF THE IT ACT AND ALSO THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFOR E THE TRIBUNAL ON THE INCOME ASSESSED AND NOT WITH REGARD TO GRANTING OF REGISTRATION U/S 12A OF THE ACT. 8. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PER USED THE RECORD AS WELL AS GONE THROUGH THE ORDERS OF TH E REVENUE AUTHORITIES. IN THIS CASE THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED N IL RETURNS FOR ALL THE THREE ASSESSMENT YEARS UNDER CONSIDERAT ION. HOWEVER, THE INCOME ASSESSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFIC ER IS AS UNDER: INSTITUTIONS 2000-01 2001-02 2002-03 SEDT 6959 218080 73346 OX FAM - 234091 - FORD FOUNDATION 1757921 - 700317 UUAC 725375 530902 492639 MGYS - - 11847 DWMA, ANANTAPUR - - 400000 OTHER INCOME (INTEREST FROM BANK) 58524 93051 197650 CONTRIBUTION/DONATIONS 32605 3900 9667 TOTAL 2581384 1080024 1504359 8.1 THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS COMPUTED INCOME OF TH E SOCIETY FOR ASSESSMENT YEARS 2000-01, 2001-02 AND 2 002-03 SINCE REGISTRATION U/S 12A WAS NOT GRANTED FOR THES E THREE YEARS, WHICH WAS HOWEVER GRANTED FROM DATED 01/04/2 002 I.E. RELEVANT TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2003-04 ONWARDS. SI NCE THE COMMISSIONER HAS NOT GRANTED REGISTRATION U/S 12A, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS COMPUTED INCOME FOR THESE ASS ESSMENT YEARS. I.T.A. NOS. 1076, 1077 & 1078/HYD/2010 CENTRE FOR RURAL STUDIES AND DEVLEOPMENT MADAKASIRA 6 8.2 BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER, THE ASSESSEE CLAI MED THAT AMOUNTS RECEIVED FROM FUNDING AGENCIES, SEDT, OXFAM , FORD FOUNDATION ETC WERE RECEIVED FOR SPECIFIC PROJ ECTS AND SOCIETY NEVER BECAME OWNER OF THE FUNDS AND SOCIETY WAS ACTING AS AN AGENT FOR IMPLEMENTATION OF THE PROJEC TS OF THE DONORS. THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER P LACED RELIANCE ON THE OBSERVATION OF THE ITAT, HYDERABAD BENCH IN THE CASE OF NIRMAL AGRICULTURAL CREDIT SOCIETY VS. ITO WHEREIN THE HONBLE ITAT OBSERVED THAT DONATIONS RECEIVED F OR SPECIFIC PURPOSES DO NOT BELONG TO THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSE E FURTHER REPORTED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT GRANTS F OR SPECIFIED PURPOSE ARE NOT ASSESSEES INCOME OR CORPUS SINCE T HE ASSESSEE IS ACTING AS AGENT FOR FUNDING AGENCIES. T HE ASSESSING OFFICER WHILE CONSIDERING THE REPLIES GIV EN BY THE ASSESSEE HAS STATED AS UNDER: THE FUNDING AGENCIES IN ITS LETTERS STATES THAT THE GRANTS WERE SANCTIONED PROJECT-WISE FOR SPECIFIED PERIOD A S PER THE PROPOSALS SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE. THE GRANTS SANCTIONED WERE RELEASED IN INSTALMENTS; DATE/FINAN CIAL YEAR-WISE FOR UTILISATION ON SPECIFIED PURPOSE WITH OUT ANY SPECIFICATION OF TIME LIMIT. THIS IMPLIES THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS TO UTILIZE THE GRANTS SANCTIONED WITHIN THE FIN ANCIAL YEAR UNDER WHICH GRANTS WERE SANCTIONED. THERE WAS NO SPECIFIC CONDITION FOR RETURNING OF UNSPENT GRANTS. THE ASSESSEES CONTENTION THAT THE GRANTS RECEIVED WITH SPECIFIC PURPOSE DOES NOT FORM THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE IN CASE OF UNSPENT GRANTS IS NOT ACCEPTABL E. THE GRANTS ARE RECEIVED FOR SPECIFIC PURPOSE AND UTILISATION FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. THE ASSESSEE FAILS TO UTILIZE THE GRANTS WITHIN THE SPE CIFIED PERIOD, I.E. DURING THE YEAR. THE UNSPENT GRANTS AR E CONSIDERED AS INCOME. THE OTHER RECEIPTS UNDER INTE REST AND LOCAL DONATIONS ADMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE NO T TIED-UP GRANTS AND THE NATURE OF THESE RECEIPTS ATT RACTS THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 12. KEEPING IN VIEW THE OBSERVATIONS OF THE HONBLE ITAT THE UNSPENT GRANTS AND OTHER RECEIPTS ARE ASSESSED AS INCOME OF THE ASSESS EE, FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. ACCORDINGLY, THE ASSESSEES CLAIM THAT THE SURPLUSE S IN RESPECT OF GRANTS FROM FUNDING AGENCIES ARE NOT ITS INCOME I.T.A. NOS. 1076, 1077 & 1078/HYD/2010 CENTRE FOR RURAL STUDIES AND DEVLEOPMENT MADAKASIRA 7 WAS DECLINED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND ASSESSED TO TAX. 8.3 IN THIS CASE, PRIMARILY, DEFECTIVE NOTICE WAS I SSUED TO THE ASSESSEE BY THE REGISTRY IN FILING THESE APPEALS, N AMELY, I) SHORT FEES PAYMENT OF FILING FEES AND II) DELAY IN FILING OF THESE APPEALS BY 1720 DAYS. 8.4 NOW THE ASSESSEES CONTENTION IS THAT THE DISPUTE BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL IS ONLY PERTAINING TO GRANTING OF EXEMPTION U/S 11 OF THE IT ACT AND DOES NOT RELATE TO QUANTIF ICATION OF INCOME. HE POINTED OUT THAT ONCE EXEMPTION U/S 11 I S GRANTED, THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE FALLS UNDER CLAUSE (D) OF SECTION 253(6) OF THE IT ACT. 8.5 FOR THE PURPOSE OF DECIDING THE ISSUE IN DISPUT E, IT IS APPROPRIATE TO REFER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 253( 6) OF THE IT ACT. 253(6) AN APPEAL TO THE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL SHALL B E IN THE PRESCRIBED FORM 9 AND SHALL BE VERIFIED IN THE PRESCRIBED MANNER AND SHAL L, IN THE CASE OF AN APPEAL MADE, ON OR AFTER THE 1ST DAY OF OCTOBER, 1998, IRR ESPECTIVE OF THE DATE OF INITIATION OF THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS RELATING T HERETO, BE ACCOMPANIED BY A FEE OF, (A) WHERE THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE AS COMP UTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER, IN THE CASE TO WHICH THE APPEAL RELATES, IS ONE HUN DRED THOUSAND RUPEES OR LESS, FIVE HUNDRED RUPEES, (B) WHERE THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE, COMPUT ED AS AFORESAID, IN THE CASE TO WHICH THE APPEAL RELATES IS MORE THAN ONE HUNDRED T HOUSAND RUPEES BUT NOT MORE THAN TWO HUNDRED THOUSAND RUPEES, ONE THOUSAND FIVE HUNDRED RUPEES, (C) WHERE THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE, COMPUT ED AS AFORESAID, IN THE CASE TO WHICH THE APPEAL RELATES IS MORE THAN TWO HUNDRED T HOUSAND RUPEES, ONE PER CENT OF THE ASSESSED INCOME, SUBJECT TO A MAXIMUM O F TEN THOUSAND RUPEES, 10 [(D) WHERE THE SUBJECT MATTER OF AN APPEAL RELATES TO ANY MATTER, OTHER THAN THOSE SPECIFIED IN CLAUSES (A), (B) AND (C), FIVE HUNDRED RUPEES: 8.6 ON PLAIN READING OF THE ABOVE SECTION, WE FIND THAT THE ASSESSEE IS REQUIRED TO PAY THE APPEAL FEE NOT IN T ERMS OF SECTION 253(6)(D) OF THE IT ACT, BUT, IT SHOULD BE PAID THE I.T.A. NOS. 1076, 1077 & 1078/HYD/2010 CENTRE FOR RURAL STUDIES AND DEVLEOPMENT MADAKASIRA 8 APPEAL FEES IN TERMS OF SECTION 253(C) OF THE IT AC T. ACCORDING TO THE ASSESSEE, THE CASE FALLS UNDER CLAUSE (D) OF THE ABOVE SECTION, ONCE EXEMPTION U/S 11 IS GRANTED TO THE AS SESSEE. IN THE PRESENT CASE, WHAT TO BE SEEN IS THAT THE FIGUR E THAT DETERMINES THE QUANTUM FEES PAYABLE AND IT RELATES TO THE QUANTUM OF TOTAL INCOME COMPUTED BY THE ASSESSING O FFICER TO WHICH THE APPEAL RELATES. AS SEEN FROM THE ABOVE TA BLE OF COMPUTATION DONE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER, THE INCO ME OF THE ASSESSEE RELATES TO INCOME DETERMINED BY THE ASSESS ING OFFICER, WHICH IS MORE THAN RS. 2,00,000/-. BEING S O, THE FEES PAYABLE IS 1% ASSESSED INCOME SUBJECT TO A MAXIMUM OF RS. 10,000/-. THE WORD IN THE CASE TO WHICH THE APPEAL RELATES IN CLAUSE (A), (B) AND (C) OF SECTION 253(6) SHOULD BE UNDERSTOOD SO AS TO COVER ALL APPEALS, WHICH ARE FILED IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE WHERE THE APPEAL IS FILED AGAINST THE ORDE R WHICH IS BASED ON QUANTUM OF INCOME ASSESSED. IN THE PRESENT CASE, THE APPEALS ARE UNTENABLY CONNECTED WITH THE ASSES SMENT ORDER, MORE PARTICULARLY, WITH THE TOTAL INCOME COM PUTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THE ASSESSEE MAY BE SEEKING EXEMPTION U/S 11, BUT, IT DOES NOT FORM PART OF THE ASSESSED INCOME AS COMPUTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND THI S IS SUFFICIENT TO ESTABLISH THE NEXUS BETWEEN THE AMOUN T OF INCOME ASSESSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND ALSO ESTABLISHED REQUISITE FILING FEES. IF THE LEGISLATU RE WANTED TO PROVIDE TO PAY THE FILING FEES BASED ON THE QUANTUM INCOME ASSESSED IN THE CASE OF APPEALS FILED AGAINST ASSES SMENT ORDERS, THEN, THEY COULD HAVE EASILY USED MUCH SIMP LER PHRASEOLOGY IN CLAUSE (A) TO (C) OF SECTION 253(6) OF THE ACT AS IN SECTION 246, WHICH PROVIDES APPEALS TO THE CIT(A ). HOWEVER, SINCE THE EXPRESSION IN THE CASE TO WHICH THE APPEAL RELATES HAVE BEEN COINED IN CLAUSES (A) TO (C), IT INDICATES THE CLEAR INTENTION ON THE PART OF THE LE GISLATURE TO INTER-LINK WITH THE AMOUNT OF INCOME ASSESSED BY TH E I.T.A. NOS. 1076, 1077 & 1078/HYD/2010 CENTRE FOR RURAL STUDIES AND DEVLEOPMENT MADAKASIRA 9 ASSESSING OFFICER IN CASE OF ALL APPEALS, WHICH HAV E RELATED TO THE AMOUNT OF ASSESSED INCOME INCLUDING APPEALS IN PENALTY FOR CONCEALMENT. RESIDUARY CLAUSES INTRODUCED AS CL AUSE (D) WITH EFFECT FROM 01/06/1999 TAKES CARE OF ALL APPEA LS INCLUDING THE APPEALS AGAINST CERTAIN PENALTIES, WHICH HAVE N O NEXUS WITH THE AMOUNT OF INCOME ASSESSED. IF THE EXPRESSI ON CASE USED IN SUBSEQUENT USED TO BE READ AS ASSESSMENT OR DER IF THE EXPRESSION CASE, THEN, FOR THE PERIOD PRIOR T O 01/06/1999 WHEN CLAUSE (D) WAS INSERTED NO FILING FEES WOULD B E LEVIABLE INSPITE OF APPEALS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST TH E ORDERS OTHER THAN ASSESSMENT ORDERS. THEREFORE, THE PRESEN T INTERPRETATION MADE BY THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE IS DEVOID OF MERIT AND ACTUALLY THE ASSESSEE IS IN APP EAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL IS WITH REGARD TO THE ADDITION, WHICH DOES NOT FALL UNDER THE PURVIEW OF CLAUSE (D) OF SECTION 253(6) O F THE IT ACT. FURTHER, WE PLACE RELIANCE ON THE JUDGMENT OF THE S PECIAL BENCH IN THE CASE OF BIDYUTH KUMAR SETT VS. ITO, 92 ITD 148 (CAL.). IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE DISCUSSION, WE ARE INC LINED TO HOLD THAT THE ASSESSEES CASE DOES NOT FALL UNDER THE PU RVIEW OF SECTION 253(6)(D) OF THE IT ACT AND THE CASE RELIED UPON BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE CASE OF AP STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD (SUPRA) DOES NOT APPLICABLE TO THE FACTS OF THE CASE OF ASS ESSEE AND DEVOID OF ANY MERIT. ACCORDINGLY, ALL THE APPEALS U NDER CONSIDERATION ARE DISMISSED ON ACCOUNT OF DEFICIENC Y IN PAYMENT OF FILING FEES, WHICH SHOULD BE AT RS. 10,0 00/- PER APPEAL AND NOT RS. 500/- PER APPEAL, AS PAID BY THE ASSESSEE. 8.7 AS THE APPEALS HAVE BEEN DISMISSED IN VIEW OF T HE SHORT PAYMENT OF FILING FEE, WE DECLINE TO ADJUDICATE ANY OTHER GROUNDS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE ON MERITS OR RELATIN G TO CONDONATION OF DELAY. I.T.A. NOS. 1076, 1077 & 1078/HYD/2010 CENTRE FOR RURAL STUDIES AND DEVLEOPMENT MADAKASIRA 10 9. IN THE RESULT, ALL THE THREE APPEALS FILED BY TH E ASSESSEE ARE DISMISSED. PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 16/01/2014. SD/- (ASHA VIJAYARAGHAVAN) JUDICIAL MEMBER SD/- (CHANDRA POOJARI) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER HYDERABAD, DATED 16/01/2014 KV COPY FORWARDED TO: 1. CENTRE FOR RURAL STUDIES AND DEVELOPMENT MADAKAS IRA, ANANTHAPUR, C/O SRI S. RAMA RAO, ADVOCATE, FLAT NO. 102, SHRIYAS RESIDENCY, ST. NO. 9, HIMAYATHNAGAR, HYDERABAD. 2. ITO, WARD 12 (3), HYDERABAD 3. CIT(A)-II, HYDERABAD 4. CIT-I, HYDERABAD. 5. THE DR, ITAT, HYDERABAD