Sidhashram, Thane V. Income-tax Officer,

ITA 113/PUN/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 132 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 1944 (ITAT-PUNE)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 3 month(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 15-04-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 15-02-2016
• Assessment Year: misc
• Appeal Filed On: 15-01-2014
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SUBHASH CHANDRA
• Keywords: Charitable institution; Principle of natural justice
• Section: 80G; 12A; 12AA; 12

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL B BENCH, PUN E , , !'#'' $ , % & BEFORE SHRI R.K. PANDA, AM AND SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY, JM / ITA NOS. 113 & 114/PN/2014 SIDHASHRAM, 7/50, 1 ST FLOOR, TRAMBAKESH NAGAR, E WARD, NAGALA PARK, KOLHAPUR, PRESENT ADDRESS : 16/203, GALAXY, 2 ND FLOOR, HIGHLAND RESIDENCY, THANE (W) 400607 PAN : AABTS3845E ....... / APPELLANT ' / V/S. INCOME TAX OFFICER, (TECH-II), KOLHAPUR / RESPONDENT ASSESSEE BY : SHRI M.K. KULKARNI REVENUE BY : SHRI SUBHASH CHANDRA / DATE OF HEARING : 15-02-2016 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 15-04-2016 ( / ORDER PER VIKAS AWASTHY, JM : THESE TWO APPEALS HAVE BEEN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ASSAILIN G THE ORDER DATED 06-11-2013 PASSED BY COMMISSIONER OF INCOM E TAX-II, KOLHAPUR CANCELLING THE REGISTRATION GRANTED TO THE ASSES SEE U/S. 12AA OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS THE ACT) AND ORDER DATED 23-12-2013 WITHDRAWING APPROVAL GRANTED U/ S. 80G(5) OF THE ACT. 2 ITA NOS. 113 & 114/PN/2014 2. ITA NO. 113/PN/2014 IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX PASSED U/S. 12AA(3) OF THE ACT AND ITA NO. 114/PN/2014 IS AGAINST THE ORDER OF COMMISSIONER OF I NCOME TAX PASSED U/S. 80G(5) OF THE ACT R.W. RULE 11AA(5) OF THE INCOM E TAX RULES, 1962. 3. THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE AS EMANATING FROM THE RE CORDS ARE: THE ASSESSEE IS A TRUST WHICH HAD COME INTO EXISTENCE VIDE R EGISTERED TRUST DEED DATED 10-05-1998. THE ASSESSEE TRUST WAS GRANT ED REGISTRATION U/S. 12AA OF THE ACT VIDE ORDER DATED 24-08-1999. APPR OVAL U/S. 80G WAS ALSO GRANTED TO THE ASSESSEE WHICH WAS SUBSEQUENT LY EXTENDED FROM TIME TO TIME. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX VIDE OR DER DATED 21-11-2011 CANCELLED THE REGISTRATION OF THE ASSESSEE TR UST ON THE GROUND THAT SOME OF THE OBJECTS STATED IN THE TRUST D EED WERE AGAINST THE SPIRIT OF PUBLIC CHARITABLE TRUST. THE COMMISSIONER OF IN COME TAX OBSERVED THAT CLAUSE 13(A)(2) AND 14(B) OF THE TRUST DEED G IVES UNLIMITED POWERS TO THE PRESIDENT WHO IS ALSO THE SETTLOR OF THE TRUST. AGAINST THE ORDER OF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CANCELLING THE REGISTRATION, THE ASSESSEE PREFERRED AN APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL IN ITA NOS. 92 & 93/PN/2012. THE CO-ORDINATE BENCH OF THE TRIB UNAL VIDE ORDER DATED 27-06-2013 SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF COMMISSIO NER OF INCOME TAX AND RESTORED THE MATTER BACK TO THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX FOR DE NOVO CONSIDERATION OF THE ISSUE AFTER GRANTING OPPO RTUNITY OF HEARING TO THE ASSESSEE, IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE. BEFORE THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, THE ASSES SEE CONTENDED THAT THE OBJECTIONABLE CLAUSES IN THE TRUST D EED ARE BEING AMENDED/REPEALED. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX VIDE IMP UGNED ORDER HELD THAT SINCE THE ASSESSEE HAS ADMITTED THAT T HERE WERE CERTAIN 3 ITA NOS. 113 & 114/PN/2014 OBJECTIONABLE CLAUSES IN THE TRUST DEED GRANTING UNLIMITED POWER TO THE SETTLOR OF THE TRUST, THE ORDER OF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX IN CANCELLING THE REGISTRATION IS VINDICATED. THE COMMISSIONER O F INCOME TAX VIDE IMPUGNED ORDER CANCELLED THE REGISTRATION GRANTE D TO THE ASSESSEE IN THE YEAR 1999. SUBSEQUENTLY, VIDE SEPARATE ORDER DATED 24- 12-2013 THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX WITHDREW THE APP ROVAL GRANTED TO THE ASSESSEE U/S. 80G(5)(VI), AS WELL. NOW, THE AS SESSEE HAS ASSAILED BOTH THE ORDERS OF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX IN THE PRESENT APPEALS. 4. SHRI M.K. KULKARNI APPEARING ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX HAS ERRED IN CANCELLIN G THE REGISTRATION U/S. 12AA BY INVOKING THE PROVISIONS OF SUB-SE CTION (3) TO SECTION 12AA OF THE ACT. THE ASSESSEE WAS GRANTED REG ISTRATION IN THE YEAR 1999. SUB-SECTION (3) TO SECTION 12AA WAS INSERTED BY THE FINAN CE (NO. 2) ACT, 2004 W.E.F. 01-10-2004. THE PROVISIONS OF SUB-SE CTION (3) SHALL NOT APPLY RETROSPECTIVELY IN THE CASES WHERE REGIS TRATION HAS BEEN GRANTED PRIOR TO THE INSERTION OF SUB-SECTION (3) TO SECT ION 12AA OF THE ACT. IN SUPPORT OF HIS SUBMISSIONS, THE LD. AR PLACED RELIAN CE O THE FOLLOWING DECISIONS : I. WELHAM BOYS SCHOOL SOCIETY VS. CENTRAL BOARD OF DIRECT TA XES, 285 ITR 74 (UTTARANCHAL); II. SINHAGAD TECHNICAL EDUCATION SOCIETY VS. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX & ANR., 343 ITR 23 (BOM); III. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX VS. MANAV VIKAS AVAM SEWA SANSTHAN, 336 ITR 250 (ALL); IV. PRABODHAN SHIKSHAN PRASARAK SANSTHA VS. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX IN ITA NO. 892/PN/2012 DECIDED ON 30-09-2013. 4 ITA NOS. 113 & 114/PN/2014 4.1 THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE STATED AT THE BAR THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS AMENDED THE TRUST DEED AND HAS DELETED/ AMENDED THE CLAUSES ON WHICH THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX HAS RAISED OBJECTION. THE AMENDED TRUST DEED COULD NOT BE FILED BEFORE THE COM MISSIONER OF INCOME TAX AS THE AMENDMENTS WERE CARRIED OUT/APPROV ED AFTER THE DATE OF PASSING OF IMPUGNED ORDERS. 5. ON THE OTHER HAND SHRI SUBHASH CHANDRA REPRESENTIN G THE DEPARTMENT VEHEMENTLY SUPPORTED THE ORDERS OF COMMISS IONER OF INCOME TAX IN CANCELLING THE REGISTRATION AND CONSEQUENTLY WITHD RAWING APPROVAL GRANTED U/S. 80G(5) OF THE ACT. THE LD. DR SUBMITT ED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD GRANTED UNLIMITED POWERS TO THE PRESIDENT WHO IS THE SETTLOR OF THE TRUST IN APPOINTING THE CHAIRMAN, VICE-CHAIRM AN AND OTHER TRUSTEES, HE HAD ABSOLUTE CONTROL OVER THE CORP US OF THE TRUST, WHICH IS AGAINST THE NORMS OF PUBLIC CHARITABLE TRUST. THE LD. DR SUBMITTED THAT THE CASE LAWS ON WHICH THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS PLACED RELIANCE ARE NOT APPLICABLE IN THE FACTS AND CIRC UMSTANCES OF THE PRESENT CASE. THE LD. DR PRAYED FOR DISMISSING THE AP PEALS OF THE ASSESSEE. 6. WE HAVE HEARD THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BY THE REPRESEN TATIVES OF RIVAL SIDES AND HAVE PERUSED THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIE S BELOW. THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL ASSAILING THE ORDER OF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX IN CANCELLING THE REGISTRATION GRANTED TO THE ASSESSEE IN THE YEAR 1999 AND THE CONSEQUENT WITHDRAWAL OF THE APPROVAL U/S. 80G(5) OF THE ACT. THE FIRST CONTENTION OF THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE IS THAT THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX HAS WRONGLY EXERCISED HIS JUR ISDICTION IN INVOKING THE PROVISIONS OF SUB-SECTION (3) OF SECTION 12AA FOR CANCELLING 5 ITA NOS. 113 & 114/PN/2014 THE REGISTRATION GRANTED U/S. 12AA WAY BACK IN THE YEAR 1999. THE PROVISIONS OF SUB-SECTION (3) TO SECTION 12AA WERE INSERTED BY THE FINANCE (NO. 2) ACT, 2004 W.E.F. 01-10-2004. THE NEWLY INSER TED PROVISION WILL NOT OPERATE RETROSPECTIVELY. THE REGISTRATIO N GRANTED U/S. 12AA PRIOR TO 01-10-2004 CANNOT BE REVOKED UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 12AA(3) OF THE ACT. 7. WE FIND THAT SIMILAR ISSUE HAD COME UP BEFORE THE CO-OR DINATE BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF PRABODHAN SHIKSHAN P RASARAK SANSTHA VS. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (SUPRA). THE Q UESTION WHICH HAD COME UP FOR ADJUDICATION BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL RE ADS AS UNDER: 1. WHETHER IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE C ASE AND IN LAW THE LD. CIT-II KOLHAPUR WAS JUSTIFIED IN CANCELLING/WITHDRA WING THE REGISTRATION GRANTED TO THE ASSESSEE U/S 12A OF THE ACT ON 11-2- 1998 RESORTING TO PROVISIONS OF SEC. 12AA(3) INSERTED IN THE ACT W.E. F. 1-10-2004 BEING PROSPECTIVE IN NATURE APPLY ONLY TO REGISTRATION GR ANTED PRIOR TO 1-10- 2004? IN THE SAID CASE, THE ASSESSEE WAS GRANTED REGISTRATIO N U/S. 12A OF THE ACT BY THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOLHAPUR VID E ORDER DATED 11-02-1998. SUBSEQUENTLY, THE COMMISSIONER OF INC OME TAX OBSERVED THAT THE ACTIVITIES OF THE TRUST CARRIED OUT WE RE COMMERCIAL IN NATURE, THERE WERE VIOLATIONS OF THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 1 3 OF THE ACT, AND THE ASSESSEE HAD DEPOSITED HUGE SUMS IN PAT SANST HAS IN CONTRAVENTION OF THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 11(5) OF THE ACT AND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD FAILED TO APPLY THE FUNDS SET APART FOR THE OBJECTS OF THE TRUST. APART FROM THE ABOVE THERE WERE CERTAIN OTHER DISCREPANCIES. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX INVOKED THE PROVISIONS OF S UB-SECTION (3) OF SECTION 12AA AND CANCELLED THE REGISTRATION GRANTED TO THE 6 ITA NOS. 113 & 114/PN/2014 ASSESSEE U/S. 12A. THE ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MATTER IN APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. THE TRIBUNAL CONSIDERED JUDGMENTS OF VARIOU S HON'BLE HIGH COURTS INCLUDING THE DECISION OF HON'BLE ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX VS. MANAV VIKAS AV AM SEWA SANSTHAN (SUPRA) AND HELD AS UNDER: 8.9. .IT IS SETTLED LEGAL POSITION TH AT THE JUDICIAL /QUASI-JUDICIAL AUTHORITY CANNOT REVIEW IT S OWN ORDER. THE CANCELLATION/WITHDRAWAL OF REGISTRATION GRANTED UND ER S. 12A PRIOR TO 1- 10-2004 INVOKING S. 12AA(3) TANTAMOUNTS TO REVIEW O F THE ORDER. THE POWER GRANTED UNDER S. 12AA(3) IS NOT RETROSPECTIVE . WE FIND THAT THE HON'BLE ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT IN CIT V. MANAV VIKAS AVAM SEWA SANSTHA (2011) 336 ITR 250 (ALL) HELD AS UNDER:- IT IS WELL SETTLED, PROPOSITION OF LAW THAT THE JU DICIAL/QUASIJUDICIAL AUTHORITY CANNOT REVIEW ITS OWN ORDER, UNLESS THE P OWER OF REVIEW IS EXPRESSLY CONFERRED ON IT BY THE STATUTE UNDER WHIC H IT DERIVES ITS JURISDICTION AS HELD IN THE CASE OF DR. SMT. KUNTES H GUPTA V. MANAGEMENT OF HINDU KANYA MAHAVIDYALAYA AIR 1987 SC 2186) AND THE FULL BENCH DECISION OF THIS COURT IN THE CASE O F SMT. ANARKALI V. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF CONSOLIDATION REPORTED IN 1997 ( 15). SO THE ORDER PASSED BY THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX-II, LUCKNO W DATED MARCH 13, 2009 IS WITHOUT JURISDICTION AND VOID AB INITIO AND THE APPEAL IN LT.A. NO. 304/LKO/2009 FILED BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE I TAT LUCKNOW BENCH, LUCKNOW WAS CORRECTLY AND RIGHTLY ALLOWED BY THE SAID AUTHORITY BY ORDER DATED JULY 10, 2009. THE HON'BLE HIGH COUR T OF ALLAHABAD IN OXFORD ACADEMY FOR CAREER DEVELOPMENT V. CF. CIT (2 009) 315 ITR 382 (ALL) HELD THAT SINCE S. 12AA(3) WAS INCORPORATED I N THE ACT, W.E.F. 1ST OCT. 2004, AND NOT APPLICABLE RETROSPECTIVELY, REGI STRATION GRANTED TO ASSESSEE ON 1ST APRIL, 1999 COULD NOT ,THEREFORE, B E CANCELLED BY THE CIT BY INVOKING POWERS U/S 12AA(3) OF THE ACT. EVEN ASS UMING THAT CIT HAS POWER TO RESCIND THE ORDER OF REGISTRATION ON THE G ROUND THAT REGISTRATION HAS BEEN OBTAINED BY PRACTICING FRAUD OR FORGERY TH ERE WAS NOTHING IN THE SHOWCAUSE NOTICE OR IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER DT. 9 TH MARCH 2004 ALLEGING THAT THE PETITIONER HAD OBTAINED THE REGIS TRATION BY PRACTICING FRAUD OR FORGERY. 8.10 EVEN THE ITAT RANCHI BENCH IN THE CASE OF INST ITUTE OF SCIENCE & MANAGEMENT V. CIT (CENTRAL) PATNA (2012) 25 TAXMANN .COM 186 (RANCHI) HAS HELD THAT THE COMMISSIONER BEFORE PASSING AN OR DER UNDER S. 12AA(3) TO SATISFY, HIMSELF THAT ACTIVITIES OF SUCH TRUST OR INSTITUTION ARE NOT GENUINE OR ARE NOT BEING CARRIED OUT IN ACCORDA NCE WITH OBJECTS OF 7 ITA NOS. 113 & 114/PN/2014 TRUST OR INSTITUTION AND BEFORE PROCEEDING TO CANCE L REGISTRATION OF SUCH TRUST OR INSTITUTION A REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF BE ING HEARD HAS TO BE GIVEN'. THE COORDINATE BENCH OF ITAT AHEMDABAD BENC H IN DIRECTOR OF INCOME-TAX V. N. H. KAPAIDA EDUCATION TRUST (2008) 148 TTJ (AHD) 37 HELD THAT REGISTRATION UNDER S. 12A HAVING BEEN GRA NTED TO ASSESSEE W.E.F. 21ST MARCH, 1990, AMENDED PROVISIONS OF S. 1 2 AA (3) COULD NOT BE APPLIED AGAINST ASSESSEE RETROSPECTIVELY PRIOR TO A MENDMENT W.E.F. 1ST JUNE, 2010. PRIOR TO THAT REGISTRATIONS WERE GRANTE D UNDER CL. (B) OF SUBSECTION (1) OF S. 12AA. SEC. 12 AA (3) HAS BEEN AMENDED BY FINANCE ACT, 2010 W.E.F. 1ST JUNE, 2010 AND FOLLOWING HAVE BEEN ADDED IN THIS PROVISION 'OR HAS OBTAINED REGISTRATION AT ANY TIME UNDER SECTION 12A AS IT STOOD BEFORE ITS AMENDMENT BY THE FINANCE (NO 2) ACT, 1996 (33 OF 1996)'. THE AMENDED PROVISION IN S. 12AA (3) CANNOT BE APPLIED AGAINST THE ASSESSEE RETROSPECTIVELY PARTICULARLY PRIOR TO AMENDMENT DT 1ST JUNE, 2010. THE DIRECTOR OF IT (EXEMPTION) WAS NOT JUSTIF IED IN RESORTING TO CANCEL THE REGISTRATION GRANTED TO THE ASSESSEE TRU ST EARLIER BY CIT, VIDE HIS ORDER DT. 21ST MARCH, 1990 W.E.F. 21ST MARCH, 1 990. THEREFORE, IMPUGNED ORDER WAS SET ASIDE AND QUASHED. THE ABOVE LEGAL PROPOSITION LAID DOWN THAT THE PROVISIONS OF SEC. 12AA(3) ARE N OT RETROSPECTIVE AND THEREFORE, RESULTANTLY THE REGISTRATION GRANTED PRI OR TO INSERTION OF S. 12AA(3) OF THE ACT COULD NOT BE CANCELLED OR WITHDR AWN WHICH WOULD AMOUNT TO REVIEW. THE HON'BLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF SINHAGAD TECHNICAL EDUCATION SOCIETY V. CIT (CENTRA L) 2012) 343 ITR 23 (BOM) HAS HELD THAT 'EVERY STATUTORY PROVISION WHIC H OPERATES IN RESPECT OF A TRUST, WHICH HAS ALREADY BEEN REGISTERED IN TH E PAST IS NOT NECESSARILY RETROSPECTIVE. A PROVISION IS RETROSPEC TIVE WHEN IT TAKES AWAY A RIGHT WHICH HAS VESTED OR ACCRUED IN THE PAST. TH E EFFECT OF THE PROVISION IS TO EMPOWER THE COMMISSIONER TO CANCEL THE REGISTRATION OF THE TRUST WHERE HE IS SATISFIED THAT THE ACTIVITIES OF THE TRUST ARE NOT GENUINE OR ARE NOT BEING CARRIED OUT IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE OBJECTS OF THE TRUST OR INSTITUTION. THIS COULD NOT BY ANY STRETCH OF IMAGI NATION BE REGARDED AS RETROSPECTIVE ALTERNATION OF THE LAW. IN THE CASE B EFORE US, AS PER THE AMENDMENT BY THE FINANCE ACT, 2010, THE COMMISSIONER HAS CLAIMED TO BE EMPOWERED TO INITIATE STEPS FOR THE CANCELLATION OF THE REGISTRATION OF A TRUST OR INSTITUTION WHERE THE ACTIVITIES OF THE TR UST OR INSTITUTION ARE NOT GENUINE OR ARE NOT BEING CARRIED OUT IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE OBJECTS THEREOF EVEN IN RELATION TO A TRUST WHICH WAS REGIS TERED UNDER S. 12A AS IT THEN STOOD.' SO BASIC REQUIREMENT FOR INVOKING S . 12AA(3) IS THAT THE ACTIVITIES OF THE TRUST ARE NOT GENUINE AND ARE NOT BEING CARRIED OUT IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE OBJECTS OF THE TRUST. THE CIT H AS RECORDED HER FINDINGS IN THE ORDER U/S 12AA(3) THAT THE TRUST IS IMPARTING KNOWLEDGE 8 ITA NOS. 113 & 114/PN/2014 AT COST AND THEREFORE, NOT A CHARITABLE TRUST WITHI N THE PURVIEW OF S. 2(15) OF THE ACT, SECONDLY, THE APPELLANT TRUST HAS CONTRAVENED THE PROVISIONS OF SS. 11(5) AND 13(1) (C) OF THE ACT. T HIRDLY, THE TRUST IS TREATED BY THE CHAIRMAN AND FAMILY MEMBERS/RELATIVES AS THE IR PRIVATE PROPERTY AND ENJOYED BY THEM FOR THEIR BENEFITS ONLY. THERE IS NOTHING ON RECORD TO SUGGEST THAT THE TRUST IS NOT 'GENUINE'. IN FACT, T HE TRUST IS CARRYING ON EDUCATIONAL ACTIVITIES THEY ARE CHARITABLE IN NATUR E. THE ACTIVITIES ARE CARRIED OUT AS PER ITS OBJECTS. THERE IS NO INFRING EMENT OF ANY OF THE PROVISIONS CONTAINED IN SS.11(5) AND 13 OF THE ACT. THE PROVISIONS OF S.12AA(3) FOR CANCELLATION/WITHDRAWAL OF REGISTRATI ON GRANTED TO IT W.E.F. 11-2-1998 U/S 12A OF THE ACT ARE NOT RETROSPECTIVE AND THEREFORE, THE IMPUGNED ORDER OF THE CIT PASSED U/S 12AA(3) IS NOT HING BUT A REVIEW OF ITS EARLIER ORDER WHICH IS IMPERMISSIBLE IN LAW. WE HOLD SO. RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF CO-ORDINATE BENCH WE H OLD THAT THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX HAS ERRED IN INVOKIN G THE PROVISIONS OF SUB-SECTION (3) TO SECTION 12AA FOR CANCELLING T HE REGISTRATION GRANTED TO THE ASSESSEE U/S. 12AA PRIOR T O THE INSERTION OF SUB-CLAUSES (3) W.E.F. 01-10-2004. 8. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE STATED AT THE BAR THAT THE ASSESSEE TRUST HAS AMENDED THE TRUST DEED BY DELETING /AMENDING THE OBJECTS OF THE ASSESSEE TRUST ON WHICH THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX HAD RAISED OBJECTION. THE AMENDED TRUST DEED COULD NOT BE PLACED BEFORE THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX AS THE AMENDMENT WAS CARRIED OUT AFTER THE IMPUGNED ORDER WAS PASSED. IN VIEW OF THE MATTER, WE DEEM IT APPROPRIATE TO REMIT THE FILE BACK TO COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX FOR CONSIDERING THE AMENDED TRUST DEED AND THEREAFT ER PASS THE ORDER, IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW. 9. THE CONSEQUENT ORDER PASSED BY THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX IN WITHDRAWING THE APPROVAL U/S. 80G(5) IS ALSO SET ASIDE AND THE FILE IS 9 ITA NOS. 113 & 114/PN/2014 REMITTED BACK TO THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX FOR RECON SIDERATION IN THE LIGHT OF OUR ABOVE FINDINGS. 10. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE ARE ALLOWE D FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSE. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON FRIDAY, THE 15 TH DAY OF APRIL, 2016. SD/- SD/- ( . . / R.K. PANDA) ( ! ' / VIKAS AWASTHY) #' / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER $ % #' / JUDICIAL MEMBER / PUNE; &# / DATED : 15 TH APRIL, 2016 RK ()*%+,#-#.+ / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. / THE APPELLANT. 2. / THE RESPONDENT. 3. ' / THE CIT-1I, KOLHAPUR 4. !() %%*+ , *+ , , ,-. , / DR, ITAT, B BENCH, PUNE. 5. ) / 01 / GUARD FILE. // ! % // TRUE COPY// #2 / BY ORDER, %3 *. / PRIVATE SECRETARY, *+ , / ITAT, PUNE