ADIT, Bangalore V. Karnataka State Co-operative Federation Ltd., Bangalore

ITA 1159/BANG/2011

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 133 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 0378 (ITAT-BANGALORE)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 year(s) 6 month(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 25-05-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 11-05-2016
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 25-11-2011
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: S RAMASUBRAMANIAN
• Assessee Lawyers: DR P K SRIHARI
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard; Bonafide belief; Tax effect; Benefit of exemption; Condonation of delay

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL A BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI SUNIL KUMAR YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI ABRAHAM P. GEOERGE, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NOS. A.Y. APPELLANT VS. RESPONDENT 1159/BANG/2011 2006-07 THE ASST. DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION), CIRCLE 17(1), BANGALORE. KARNATAKA STATE CO-OPERATIVE FEDERATION LTD., NO.32, RACE COURSE ROAD, BANGALORE 560 001. PAN:AAAJK 0471H 381/BANG/2014 2005-06 THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 6(1), BANGALORE. 1243/BANG/2015 2005-06 KARNATAKA STATE CO-OPERATIVE FEDERATION LTD., BANGALORE. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, EXEMPTION CIRCLE I, BANGALORE. 1244/BANG/2015 2006-07 45/BANG/2015 2008-09 KARNATAKA STATE CO-OPERATIVE FEDERATION LTD., BANGALORE. THE DY. DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS), CIRLCE 17(1), BANGALORE. 46/BANG/2015 2009-10 APPELLANT BY : SHRI S. RAMASUBRAMANIAN, CA RESPONDENT BY : DR. P.K. SRIHARI, ADDL. CIT(DR) DATE OF HEARING : 11.05.2016 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 25.05.2016 ITA NOS.1159/B/11, 381/B/14, 1243 & 1244/B/15 AND 45 & 46/B/15 PAGE 2 OF 21 O R D E R PER SUNIL KUMAR YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER THESE ARE APPEALS PREFERRED BY THE ASSESSEE AS WE LL AS REVENUE AGAINST THE RESPECTIVE ORDER OF THE CIT(APPEALS). CERTAIN COMMON ISSUES ARE INVOLVED IN THESE APPEALS, THEREFORE, THESE APP EALS WERE HEARD TOGETHER AND ARE DISPOSED OF BY THIS CONSOLIDATED O RDER. WE, HOWEVER, PREFER TO ADJUDICATE THESE APPEALS ONE AFTER OTHER. ITA NOS.381/2014 & 1159/2011 2. THESE APPEALS ARE PREFERRED BY THE REVENUE ASSAI LING THE ORDER OF CIT(APPEALS) ON A SOLITARY GROUND THAT CIT(APPEALS) HAS ERRED IN ALLOWING EXEMPTION U/S. 10(23C)(IIIAB) OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT , 1961 [HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS THE ACT] WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE FACT THAT ASSESSEE SOCIETY WAS NEITHER AN UNIVERSITY NOR AN EDUCATIONAL INSTIT UTION EXISTING SOLELY FOR EDUCATIONAL PURPOSE, THOUGH VARIOUS GROUNDS ARE RAI SED IN THESE APPEALS. 3. DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING, THE LD. DR HAS INV ITED OUR ATTENTION TO JUDGMENT OF HONBLE APEX COURT IN THE CASE OF VISVESVARAYA TECHNOLOGICAL UNIVERSITY V. ACIT, CIVIL APPEAL NOS.4361-4366 OF 2 016 DATED 22.04.2016 IN SUPPORT OF HIS CONTENTION THAT FOR CLAIMING EXEM PTION U/S. 10(23C)(IIIAB), THE ASSESSEE IS REQUIRED TO ESTABLISH THAT THE EDUC ATIONAL INSTITUTION OR UNIVERSITY EXISTED SOLELY FOR EDUCATIONAL PURPOSE A ND NOT FOR THE PURPOSE OF PROFIT AND WHICH IS WHOLLY OR SUBSTANTIALLY FINANCE D BY THE GOVERNMENT. UNTIL ITA NOS.1159/B/11, 381/B/14, 1243 & 1244/B/15 AND 45 & 46/B/15 PAGE 3 OF 21 AND UNLESS BOTH THE CONDITIONS ARE FULFILLED, EXEMP TION U/S. 10(23C)(IIIAB) WOULD NOT BE AVAILABLE TO THE ASSESSEE. 4. BESIDES, THE LD. DR HAS INVITED OUR ATTENTION TO THE OBJECTS OF THE ASSESSEE SOCIETY WITH THE SUBMISSION THAT THE OBJEC TS OF THE ASSESSEE FEDERATION ARE NOT EDUCATIONAL IN NATURE. THE MAIN FUNCTIONS OF THE ASSESSEE SOCIETY WAS ENUMERATED IN PARA 3 OF THE AS SESSMENT ORDER FOR THE AY 2005-06 UNDER THE HEAD OBJECTIVES OF THE FE DERATION. HE HAS ALSO INVITED OUR ATTENTION TO THE GROSS RECEIPTS APPEARI NG AT PAGE 7 OF ASSESSMENT ORDER FOR AY 2005-06, WHEREFROM IT IS CL EARLY EVIDENT THAT OUT OF GROSS RECEIPTS OF RS.6,96,37,994, THE AMOUNT RECEIV ED BY THE ASSESSEE FROM THE GOVERNMENT IS ONLY RS.22 LAKHS, WHICH IS L ESS THAN 4% OF GROSS RECEIPTS. THEREFORE, IT WAS RIGHTLY CONCLUDED BY T HE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT ASSESSEE IS NOT WHOLLY OR SUBSTANTIALLY FINANCED BY THE GOVERNMENT. IN LIGHT OF THESE FACTS, THE AO HAS RIGHTLY DENIED THE BENEFIT OF EXEMPTION U/S. EXEMPTION U/S. 10(23C)(IIIAB) OF THE ACT TO THE ASS ESSEE; BUT THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) HAVING IGNORED THESE FACTS HAS ALLOWED THE EXEMPTION TO THE ASSESSEE. 5. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE, ON THE OTHER H AND, HAS PLACED HEAVY RELIANCE UPON THE ORDER OF CIT(APPEALS). BES IDES, IT WAS ALSO CONTENDED THAT AS PER CLAUSE (III) OF THE OBJECTS O F THE ASSESSEE SOCIETY, ASSESSEE WAS CREATED TO IMPART TRAINING TO EMPLOYEE S OF CO-OP. SOCIETIES, THE EMPLOYEES OF DEPT. OF CO-OPERATION AND EMPLOYEE S OF DEPT. OF CO-OP. ITA NOS.1159/B/11, 381/B/14, 1243 & 1244/B/15 AND 45 & 46/B/15 PAGE 4 OF 21 AUDIT AND ALSO TO IMPART EDUCATION AND TRAINING TO THE MEMBERS OF THE POTENTIAL MEMBERS, THE DIRECTORS AND OFFICE BEARERS OF THE CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES AND THE MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC; MEANING T HEREBY THAT THE ASSESSEE SOCIETY WAS ENGAGED SOLELY IN IMPARTING ED UCATION, THEREFORE, ASSESSEE IS AN EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTION AND ELIGIBLE FOR EXEMPTION U/S. 10(23C)(IIIAB) OF THE ACT. 6. HAVING CAREFULLY EXAMINED THE ORDERS OF AUTHORIT IES IN LIGHT OF THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND JUDGMENT OF THE HONBLE APEX COURT IN THE CASE OF VISVESVARAYA TECHNOLOGICAL UNIVERSITY V. ACIT (SUPR A) , WE FIND THAT FOR CLAIMING EXEMPTION U/S. 10(23C)(IIIAB), THE ASSESSE E SHOULD BE EITHER UNIVERSITY OR EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTION EXISTING SOLE LY FOR EDUCATIONAL PURPOSE AND NOT FOR THE PURPOSE OF PROFIT AND WHICH IS WHOL LY OR SUBSTANTIALLY FINANCED BY THE GOVERNMENT. THEREFORE, BEFORE CLAI MING EXEMPTION U/S. 10(23C)(IIIAB), THE ASSESSEE IS REQUIRED TO ESTABLI SH THAT IT IS EITHER UNIVERSITY OR EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTION EXISTING SOLE LY FOR EDUCATIONAL PURPOSE AND NOT FOR THE PURPOSE OF PROFIT AND IT IS WHOLLY OR SUBSTANTIALLY FINANCED BY THE GOVERNMENT. THESE ASPECTS WERE EXAMINED BY THE AO IN HIS ORDER AFTER RECORDING THE OBJECTS OF THE ASSESSEE SOCIETY . 7. UNDISPUTEDLY, THE ASSESSEE IS A STATE CO-OPERATI VE FEDERATION OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES AND ITS MEMBERS ARE DISTRICT CO-OPERATIVE UNIONS, APEX FEDERAL CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY, CO-OPERATIVE SPI NNING MILLS, CO- OPERATIVE SUGAR FACTORIES, CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES W HOSE AREA OF OPERATION ITA NOS.1159/B/11, 381/B/14, 1243 & 1244/B/15 AND 45 & 46/B/15 PAGE 5 OF 21 IS MORE THAN DISTRICTS BUT EXTENDS UPTO STATE AND C O-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES REGISTERED UNDER MULTI STATE CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES AND WHOSE HAD OFFICE IS LOCATED IN THE STATE OF KARNATAKA. THE MAIN OB JECTS OF THE ASSESSEE ARE TO FUNCTION AS THE ACCREDITED REPRESENTATIVE OF THE CO-OPERATIVE MOVEMENT IN KARNATAKA STATE WITH A VIEW TO FURTHER ITS PROGR ESS AND TO SAFEGUARD ITS INTEREST AND ALSO TO IMPART TRAINING TO THE EMPLOYE ES OF CO-OP. SOCIETIES, DEPT. OF CO-OPERATION AND DEPT. OF CO-OP. AUDIT, GO VT. OF KARNATAKA. FOR THE SAKE OF REFERENCE, WE EXTRACT THE OBJECTS OF TH E ASSESSEE SOCIETY AS UNDER:- (I) TO FUNCTION AS THE ACCREDITED REPRESENTATIVE OF THE CO- OPERATIVE MOVEMENT IN KARNATAKA STATE WITH A VIEW T O FURTHER ITS PROGRESS AND TO SAFEGUARD ITS INTEREST IN SUCH A WAY THAT THE BENEFITS OF THE CO-OPERATIVE MOVEMENT SHALL BE OPEN TO ALL IRRESPECTIVE OF CASTE, CREED AND RELIGION; (II) TO PROPAGATE CO-OPERATIVE PRINCIPLES AND PRACTICES FOR THE PURPOSE OF ENSURING THEIR ADOPTION BY ALL COOPERATI VE ORGANIZATIONS THROUGHOUT THE STATE; (III) TO IMPART TRAINING TO THE EMPLOYEES OF CO-OP SOCIETIES, THE EMPLOYEES OF DEPT. OF CO-OPERATION AND THE EMPL OYEES OF DEPT. OF CO-OP AUDIT. TO IMPART EDUCATION AND TR AINING TO THE MEMBERS, THE POTENTIAL MEMBERS, THE DIRECTOR S AND THE OFFICE-BEARERS OF THE CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES AN D THE MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC; (IV) TO ACT AS COORDINATING AGENCY ON ALL MATTERS PERTAINING TO COOPERATIVE EDUCATION AND FUNCTION AS A BODY OF EXP ERTS IN MATTERS RELATING TO EDUCATION; (V) TO SERVE AS THE EXPONENT OF CO-OPERATIVE OPINI ON AND FUNCTION AS A FOCUSING CENTRE OF NON-OFFICIAL OPINI ON ON ITA NOS.1159/B/11, 381/B/14, 1243 & 1244/B/15 AND 45 & 46/B/15 PAGE 6 OF 21 VARIOUS SUBJECTS AFFECTING THE MOVEMENT AND FOR REPRESENTING IT IN PROPER FORUM AND TO CARRY ON PRO PAGANDA AND CREATE PUBLIC OPINION ON SUCH SUBJECTS; (VI) TO PROMOTE DIFFERENT TYPES OF COOPERATIVE ACTI VITY IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PLANS OF COOPERATIVE DEVELOPMEN T AND TO STRENGTHEN THE EXISTING SOCIETIES IN THE STATE B Y PROVIDING ASSISTANCE AND GUIDANCE TECHNICAL AND OTH ERWISE. (VII) TO BRING ABOUT COORDINATION AMONG DIFFERENT TYPES OF COOPERATIVE ORGANIZATIONS IN THE STATE FOR THEIR MU TUAL BENEFIT; (VIII) TO COOPERATE WITH THE NATIONAL COOPERATIVE UNION OF INDIA AND IMPLEMENT TO THE EXTENT POSSIBLE THE POLICIES A DOPTED BY THE NATIONAL COOPERATIVE UNION OF INDIA AND THE INDIAN COOPERATIVE CONGRESS FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE MOVEMENT; (IX) TO OPEN LIBRARIES & READING ROOMS, TO PUBLISH OR ARRANGE PUBLICATION, PURCHASE AND SALE OF PERIODICALS, BOOK S AND PAMPHLETS ON LITERATURE, IN GENERAL, AND ON COOPERA TION, RURAL DEVELOPMENT AND ALLIED SUBJECTS IN PARTICULAR AND ARRANGE FOR THE PRODUCTION OF AUDIO-VISUAL AIDS INC LUDING FILMS, FILM-STRIPS AND DOCUMENTARIES ETC. ON CO-OPE RATION AND ALLIED SUBJECTS AND TO MAINTAIN OR CAUSE TO BE MAINTAINED COOPERATIVE PUBLICITY VANS; (X) TO ARRANGE FOR THE EXHIBITION OF ARTICLES RELA TING TO AGRICULTURE, COTTAGE INDUSTRIES, VILLAGE AND SMALL SCALE INDUSTRIES, MINOR FOREST PRODUCE AND PROCESSING UNI TS BELONGING TO THE CO-OPERATIVE INSTITUTIONS; (XI) TO ESTABLISH CO-OPERATIVE TRAINING CENTRES, S CHOOLS AND COLLEGES FOR RUNNING PRESCRIBED COURSES OF TRAINING AND IMPARTING INSTRUCTIONS, HOLDING EXAMINATIONS, AWARD ING DIPLOMA AND ISSUING CERTIFICATES; (XII) TO DEVELOP INTER-CO-OPERATIVE RELATIONSHIP AN D HELP THE CO- ORDINATED FUNCTIONING OF THE CO-OPERATIVE MOVEMENT IN VARIOUS SECTORS; ITA NOS.1159/B/11, 381/B/14, 1243 & 1244/B/15 AND 45 & 46/B/15 PAGE 7 OF 21 (XIII) TO CONDUCT STATE LEVEL / NATIONAL LEVEL CO-OPERATIVE CONFERENCES, SEMINARS, MEETINGS, WORKSHOPS, EXHIBIT IONS AND COMPETITIONS IN ESSAY WRITING, DEBATES ETC. AMO NG STUDENTS OF HIGH SCHOOLS, COLLEGES AND UNIVERSITIES ; (XIV) TO ACQUIRE, PURCHASE, OWN OR DISPOSE OF THE IMMOVABLE PROPERTY BY WAY OF SALE, LEASE, EXCHANGE OR OTHERWI SE FOR THE FURTHERANCE OF THE OBJECTS OF THE FEDERATION WI TH APPROVAL OF THE GENERAL BODY; (XV) TO PROMOTE STUDY AND RESEARCH ON PROBLEMS CON NECTED WITH RURAL DEVELOPMENT IN GENERAL AND COOPERATION I N PARTICULAR AND TO CONDUCT SOCIO-ECONOMIC SURVEYS OF RURAL AND URBAN AREAS AND TO TAKE UP CONSULTANCY WORK, VA LUATION ETC., (XVI) TO ESTABLISH PRINTING PRESS FOR PRINTING OF BOOKS, JOURNALS, PERIODICALS AND NEWSPAPERS, INCLUDING TEXT BOOKS, MAGAZINES. OTHER BOOKS AND OTHER REQUIREMENTS OF CO - OPERATIVES; (XVII) TO RAISE FUNDS INCLUDING CORPUS FUND AND AD MINISTER THE FUNDS SO RAISED ACCORDING TO THESE BYE-LAWS AND SUB SIDIARY RULES FRAMED BY THE BOARD FROM TIME TO TIME; (XVIII) TO ADVISE THE GOVERNMENT ON MATTERS RELATI NG TO COOPERATIVE MOVEMENT FROM TIME TO TIME; (XIX) TO SUPERVISE AND INSPECT THE WORK OF THE DIST . CO-OP UNIONS AND REPRESENT THEIR INTEREST; (XX) TO ADVANCE INTEREST FREE LOAN AND SUBSIDY TO DISTRICT CO- OP. UNIONS FOR CONSTRUCTION OF NEW BUILDINGS DEPEND ING UPON THE FINANCIAL POSITION, THE BUDGET ALLOCATION AND THE CAPACITY TO PAY OF THE FEDERATION, (XXI) TO DISCHARGE SUCH FUNCTIONS AND SUCH DUTIES AS THE STATE GOVERNMENT/THE REGISTRAR OR THE NATIONAL CO-OPERATI VE UNION OF INDIA MIGHT VEST IN THE FEDERATION; (XXII) TO ARRANGE STUDY TOURS OUTSIDE THE STATE AND OUTSIDE THE COUNTRY, IF NEED BE, TO ENABLE THE CO-OPERATORS OF THE STATE ITA NOS.1159/B/11, 381/B/14, 1243 & 1244/B/15 AND 45 & 46/B/15 PAGE 8 OF 21 TO HAVE A FIRST HAND KNOWLEDGE OF THE CO-OPERATIVE DEVELOPMENT IN SUCH PLACES; (XXIII) TO CONDUCT EXAMINATIONS FOR THE PURPOSE OF RECRUITMENT AND PROMOTION OF THE EMPLOYEES OF THE CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES, IF REQUIRED; (XXIV) TO GENERALLY UNDERTAKE ALL SUCH OTHER ACTI VITIES AS ARE INCIDENTAL TO OR CONDUCIVE TO THE ATTAINMENT OF THE ABOVE OBJECTIVES. 8. FROM A CAREFUL PERUSAL OF THE OBJECTS OF ASSESSE E SOCIETY, WE FIND THAT ONE OF THE OBJECT OF THE ASSESSEE SOCIETY MAY BE TO IMPART TRAINING TO EMPLOYEES OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES, EMPLOYEES OF D EPARTMENT OF CO- OPERATION AND EMPLOYEES OF DEPARTMENT OF CO-OPERATI VE AUDIT AND ALSO TO IMPART EDUCATION AND TRAINING TO MEMBERS, DIRECTORS AND OFFICE BEARERS OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES; BUT FROM A CAREFUL PERUSAL OF INCOME & EXPENDITURE ACCOUNT, WE FIND THAT EXPENDITURE WAS INCURRED UNDE R DIFFERENT HEADS NOT TO IMPART EDUCATION TO THE MEMBERS OF DIFFERENT CO-OPE RATIVE SOCIETIES. THE DETAILS OF INCOME & EXPENDITURE ARE AVAILABLE AT PA GES 31 TO 41 OF COMPILATION OF THE ASSESSEE. THEREFORE, IN LIGHT O F THESE FACTS, IT CANNOT BE SAID THAT ASSESSEE EXISTS SOLELY FOR EDUCATIONAL PU RPOSE AND NOT FOR THE PURPOSE OF PROFIT. THE ASSESSEE SOCIETY HAS ALSO E ARNED PROFIT FROM OTHER ACTIVITIES. THEREFORE, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE AO HAS RIGHTLY HELD THAT ASSESSEE DOES NOT EXIST SOLELY FOR EDUCATIONAL PURP OSE AND NOT FOR THE PURPOSE OF PROFIT. ITA NOS.1159/B/11, 381/B/14, 1243 & 1244/B/15 AND 45 & 46/B/15 PAGE 9 OF 21 9. SO FAR AS THE FUNDING FROM THE GOVERNMENT IS CON CERNED, IT IS ALSO EVIDENT FROM THE ASSESSMENT ORDER THAT THE MAIN FUN D COMES FROM ITS MEMBERS AND NOT FROM THE STATE GOVT. AND HAVING ANA LYSED THE DETAILS OF RECEIPTS WHICH IS AVAILABLE AT PAGE 7 OF THE ASSESS MENT ORDER, THE AO HAS HELD THAT OUT OF GROSS RECEIPTS OF RS.6,96,37,994 I N AY 2005-06, THE ASSESSEE HAS RECEIVED FROM THE GOVERNMENT RS.22 LAK HS, WHICH IS LESS THAN 4% OF THE GROSS RECEIPTS. THEREFORE, IT CANNO T BE SAID THAT THE ASSESSEE IS WHOLLY OR SUBSTANTIALLY FINANCED BY THE GOVERNMENT. THIS EVIDENCES OF FACT HAVE NOT BEEN REBUTTED BY THE CIT (APPEALS) WHILE ALLOWING EXEMPTION U/S. 10(23C)(IIIAB) OF THE ACT. MOREOVER, DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING OF THESE APPEALS, THE ASSESSEE HA S NOT PLACED ANY EVIDENCE ON RECORD TO SUBSTANTIATE THAT IT HAS FULF ILLED BOTH THE REQUISITE CONDITIONS FOR CLAIMING EXEMPTION U/S. 10(23C)(IIIA B) OF THE ACT. MOREOVER, THE HONBLE APEX COURT HAS CATEGORICALLY HELD IN T HE CASE OF VISVESVARAYA TECHNOLOGICAL UNIVERSITY V. ACIT (SUPRA) THAT FOR CLAIMING EXEMPTION U/S. 10(23C)(IIIAB) OF THE ACT, THE ASSESSEE IS REQUIRED TO FULFILL BOTH THE CONDITIONS AND IF IT FAILS TO SATISFY ANY ONE OF TH EM, ASSESSEE IS NOT ENTITLED FOR EXEMPTION U/S. 10(23C)(IIIAB) OF THE ACT. THE RELEVANT PORTION OF THE JUDGMENT OF THE HONBLE APEX COURT IS EXTRACTED HER EUNDER:- 10. THE ABOVE WOULD REQUIRE THE COURT TO GO INTO THE FURTHER QUESTION AS TO WHETHER THE APPELLANT UNIVERSITY IS WHOLLY OR SUBSTANTIALLY FINANCED BY THE GOVERNMENT WHICH IS A N ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENT FOR CLAIMING BENEFIT UNDER SECTION 10(2 3C)(IIIAB) OF THE ACT. IT IS NOT IN DISPUTE THAT GRANTS/DIRECT FI NANCING BY THE ITA NOS.1159/B/11, 381/B/14, 1243 & 1244/B/15 AND 45 & 46/B/15 PAGE 10 OF 21 GOVERNMENT DURING THE SIX (06) ASSESSMENT YEARS IN QUESTION I.E. 2004-2005 TO 2009-2010 HAD NEVER EXCEEDED 1% OF THE TOTAL RECEIPTS OF THE APPELLANT - UNIVERSITY- ASSESSEE. I N SUCH A SITUATION, THE ARGUMENT ADVANCED IS THAT FEES OF AL L KINDS COLLECTED WITHIN THE FOUR CORNERS OF THE PROVISIONS OF SECTIO N 23 OF THE VTU ACT MUST BE TAKEN TO BE RECEIPTS FROM SOURCES O F FINANCE PROVIDED BY THE GOVERNMENT. SUCH RECEIPTS, IT IS UR GED, ARE FROM SOURCES STATUTORILY PRESCRIBED. THE RATES OF SUCH F EES ARE FIXED BY THE FEE COMMITTEE OF THE UNIVERSITY OR BY AUTHORIZE D GOVERNMENT AGENCIES (IN CASES OF COMMON ENTRANCE TE ST). IT IS, THEREFORE, CONTENDED THAT SUCH RECEIPTS MUST BE UND ERSTOOD TO BE FUNDS MADE AVAILABLE BY THE GOVERNMENT AS CONTEMPLA TED BY THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 10 (23C) (IIIAB) OF THE ACT. 11. UNIVERSITIES AND EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTIONS ENTI TLED TO EXEMPTION UNDER THE ACT HAVE BEEN CATEGORIZED UNDER THREE DIFFERENT HEADS, NAMELY, THOSE COVERED BY SECTION 1 0(23C)(IIIAB); SECTION 10(23C)(IIIAD) AND 10(23C)(VI) OF THE ACT. THE REQUIREMENT OF THE UNIVERSITY OR THE EDUCATIONAL IN STITUTION EXISTING 'SOLELY FOR EDUCATIONAL PURPOSES AND NOT F OR PURPOSES OF PROFIT' IS THE CONSISTENT REQUIREMENT UNDER SECTION 10(23C)(IIIAB), 10(23C)(IIIAD) AND 10(23C)(VI). HOWEVER, IN CASES O F UNIVERSITIES COVERED BY SECTION 10(23C)(IIIAB) FUND ING MUST BE WHOLLY OR SUBSTANTIALLY BY THE GOVERNMENT WHEREAS I N CASES OF UNIVERSITIES COVERED BY SECTION 10(23C)(IIIAD) THE AGGREGATE ANNUAL RECEIPTS SHOULD NOT EXCEED THE AMOUNT AS MAY BE PRESCRIBED. UNIVERSITIES COVERED BY SECTION 10(23C) (VI) ARE THOSE OTHER THAN MENTIONED IN SUB-CLAUSE (IIIAB) OR SUB-C LAUSE (IIIAD) AND WHICH ARE REQUIRED TO BE SPECIFICALLY APPROVED BY THE PRESCRIBED AUTHORITY. 12. HAVING REGARD TO THE TEXT AND THE CONTEXT OF T HE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 10 (23C) (IIIAB), 10 (23C) (IIIAD) AND 1 0 (23C) (VI) IT WILL BE REASONABLE TO REACH A CONCLUSION THAT WHILE SECTION 10 (23C) (IIIAB) DEALS WITH GOVERNMENT UNIVERSITIES, S ECTION 10 (23C) (IIIAD) DEALS WITH SMALL UNIVERSITIES HAVING AN ANNUAL 'TURNOVER' OF LESS THAN RUPEES ONE CRORE (AS PRESCR IBED BY RULE 2 (BC) OF THE INCOME TAX RULES). ON A SIMILAR NOTE, IT IS POSSIBLE TO READ SECTION 10 (23C) (VI) TO BE DEALING WITH PR IVATE UNIVERSITIES WHOSE GROSS RECEIPTS EXCEEDS RUPEES ON E CRORE. RECEIPTS BY WAY OF FEE COLLECTION OF DIFFERENT KIND S CONTINUE TO A ITA NOS.1159/B/11, 381/B/14, 1243 & 1244/B/15 AND 45 & 46/B/15 PAGE 11 OF 21 MAJOR SOURCE OF INCOME FOR ALL UNIVERSITIES INCLUDI NG PRIVATE UNIVERSITIES. LEVY AND COLLECTION OF FEES IS INVARI ABLY AN EXERCISE UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF THE STATUTE CONSTITUTING TH E UNIVERSITY. IN SUCH A SITUATION, IF COLLECTION OF FEES IS TO BE UN DERSTOOD TO BE AMOUNTING TO FUNDING BY THE GOVERNMENT MERELY BECAU SE COLLECTION OF SUCH FEES IS EMPOWERED BY THE STATUTE , ALL SUCH RECEIPTS BY WAY OF FEES MAY BECOME ELIGIBLE TO CLAI M EXEMPTION UNDER SECTION 10 (23C) (IIIAB). SUCH A RESULT WHICH WOULD VIRTUALLY RENDER THE PROVISIONS OF THE OTHER TWO SU B-SECTIONS NUGATORY CANNOT BE UNDERSTOOD TO HAVE BEEN INTENDED BY THE LEGISLATURE AND MUST, THEREFORE, BE AVOIDED. 13. IT WILL, THEREFORE, BE MORE APPROPRIATE TO HOL D THAT FUNDS RECEIVED FROM THE GOVERNMENT CONTEMPLATED UNDER SEC TION 10(23C)(IIIAB) OF THE ACT MUST BE DIRECT GRANTS/CON TRIBUTIONS FROM GOVERNMENTAL SOURCES AND NOT FEES COLLECTED UNDER T HE STATUTE. THE VIEW OF THE DELHI HIGH COURT IN MOTHER DIARY FRUIT & VEGETABLE PRIVATE LIMITED VS. HATIM ALI & ANR.[(201 5) 217 DLT 470] WHICH HAD BEEN BROUGHT TO THE NOTICE OF THE COURT HAS TO BE UNDERSTOOD IN THE CONTEXT OF THE DEFINITION OF 'PUB LIC AUTHORITY' AS SPECIFIED IN SECTION 2(H)(D)(II) OF THE RIGHT TO IN FORMATION ACT, 2005 WHICH IS IN THE FOLLOWING TERMS: (H) 'PUBLIC AUTHORITY' MEANS ANY AUTHORITY OR BODY OR INSTITUTION OF SELF- GOVERNMENT ESTABLISHED OR CONS TITUTED,- (A) .................. (B) .................. ..................... (D) BY NOTIFICATION ISSUED OR ORDER MADE BY THE APPROPRIATE GOVERNMENT, AND INCLUDES ANY (I) ......... (II) NON-GOVERNMENT ORGANIZATION SUBSTANTIALLY FINA NCED, DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY BY FUNDS PROVIDED BY THE APP ROPRIATE GOVERNMENT .' 14. RELIANCE HAS BEEN PLACED ON THE JUDGMENT OF TH E HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA IN COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, BANGALORE VS. INDIAN INSTITUTE OF MANAGEMENT (2014) 49 TAXMAN N.COM 136 ITA NOS.1159/B/11, 381/B/14, 1243 & 1244/B/15 AND 45 & 46/B/15 PAGE 12 OF 21 (KARNATAKA), PARTICULARLY, THE VIEW EXPRESSED THAT THE EXPRESSI ON 'WHOLLY OR SUBSTANTIALLY FINANCED BY THE GOVERNMENT ' AS APPEARING IN SECTION 10(23C) CANNOT BE CONFINED TO ANNUAL GRANTS AND MUST INCLUDE THE VALUE OF THE LAND MADE AVAILAB LE BY THE GOVERNMENT. IN THE PRESENT CASE THE HIGH COURT IN P ARAGRAPH 53 OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT HAS RECORDED THAT EVEN IF THE VALUE OF THE LAND ALLOTTED TO THE UNIVERSITY (114 ACRES) IS TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT THE TOTAL FUNDING OF THE UNIVERSITY BY THE GOVERNMENT WOULD BE AROUND 4% - 5% OF ITS TOTAL RECEIPT. THAT APART WHAT WAS HELD BY THE HIGH COURT IN THE ABOVE CASE, WHILE REP ELLING THE CONTENTION OF THE REVENUE THAT THE EXEMPTION UNDER SECTION 10(23C) (IIIAB) OF THE ACT FOR A PARTICULAR ASSESSM ENT YEAR MUST BE JUDGED IN THE CONTEXT OF RECEIPT OF ANNUAL GRANTS F ROM THE GOVERNMENT IN THAT PARTICULAR YEAR, IS THAT APART F ROM ANNUAL GRANTS THE VALUE OF THE LAND MADE AVAILABLE; THE IN VESTMENT BY THE GOVERNMENT IN THE BUILDINGS AND OTHER INFRASTRUCTUR E AND THE EXPENSES INCURRED IN RUNNING THE INSTITUTION MUST A LL BE TAKEN TOGETHER WHILE DECIDING WHETHER THE INSTITUTION IS WHOLLY OR SUBSTANTIALLY FINANCED BY THE GOVERNMENT. THE SITUA TION BEFORE US, ON FACTS, IS DIFFERENT LEADING TO THE IRRESISTI BLE CONCLUSION THAT THE APPELLANT UNIVERSITY DOES NOT SATISFY THE SECON D REQUIREMENT SPELT OUT BY SECTION 10 (23C) (IIIAB) OF THE ACT. T HE APPELLANT UNIVERSITY IS NEITHER DIRECTLY NOR EVEN SUBSTANTIAL LY FINANCED BY THE GOVERNMENT SO AS TO BE ENTITLED TO EXEMPTION FR OM PAYMENT OF TAX UNDER THE ACT. 10. IN LIGHT OF THE AFORESAID JUDGMENT AND LEGAL PR OPOSITION OBSERVED HEREINBEFORE, WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED VIEW THAT AS SESSEE SOCIETY HAS NOT FULFILLED BOTH THE REQUISITE CONDITIONS FOR CLAIMIN G EXEMPTION U/S. 10(23C)(IIIAB) OF THE ACT. IT NEITHER EXISTS SOLEL Y FOR EDUCATIONAL PURPOSE, NOR WAS IT SUBSTANTIALLY OR WHOLLY FINANCED BY THE GOVERNMENT. THEREFORE, THE CIT(APPEALS) WAS NOT CORRECT IN HOLDING THAT TH E ASSESSEE IS ENTITLED FOR EXEMPTION U/S. 10(23C)(IIIAB) OF THE ACT. WE ACCOR DINGLY SET ASIDE THE ITA NOS.1159/B/11, 381/B/14, 1243 & 1244/B/15 AND 45 & 46/B/15 PAGE 13 OF 21 ORDER OF CIT(APPEALS) AND RESTORE THE ORDER OF ASSE SSING OFFICER IN THIS REGARD. ITA NOS.1243, 1244, 45 & 46/BANG/2015 11. THESE APPEALS ARE PREFERRED BY THE ASSESSEE ASS AILING THE ORDER OF CIT(APPEALS) ON THE FOLLOWING COMMON GROUNDS AND FO R THE SAKE OF REFERENCE, WE EXTRACT THE GROUNDS RAISED IN ITA NO. 1243/B/2015:- 1. THAT THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCO ME TAX (APPEALS) IN SO FAR IT IS PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTERE STS OF THE APPELLANT IS BAD AND ERRONEOUS IN LAW AND AGAINST T HE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. 2. THAT THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEAL S) OUGHT TO HAVE HELD THAT THE AMOUNT RECEIVED FROM TH E CO- OPERATIVE SOCIETIES TOWARDS CO-OPERATIVE EDUCATION FUNDS U/S 57(2A) OF KARNATAKA CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES ACT 1959 IS NOT INCOME. 3. THAT THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEAL S) OUGHT TO HAVE HELD THAT THE AMOUNT RECEIVED FROM THE CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES U/S 57(2A) OF CO- OPERATIVE SOCIETIES ACT 1959 IS NOT LIABLE TO TAX A S IT DIVERTED AT SOURCE IN VIEW OF THE STATUTORY OBLIGATIONS CAST UNDER CO- OPERATIVE SOCIETIES ACT 1959. ADDITIONAL GROUNDS : 1) THAT THE LEARNED LOWER AUTHORITIES ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN ASSESSING THE APPEAL IN THE STATUS OF 'CO-OPERAT IVE SOCIETY' AND NOT IN THE STATUS OF 'ARTIFICIAL JURID ICAL PERSON'. 2) THAT THE LEARNED LOWER AUTHORITIES OUGHT TO HAV E HELD THAT THE INTEREST RECEIVED FROM CO-OPERATIVE BANKS IS EX EMPT U/S 80P(2)(D) OF THE ACT. ITA NOS.1159/B/11, 381/B/14, 1243 & 1244/B/15 AND 45 & 46/B/15 PAGE 14 OF 21 EACH OF THE ABOVE IS WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO ONE ANOTH ER AND THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE OF THE HON'BLE INCOME TAX AP PELLATE TRIBUNAL, BANGALORE, TO ADD, DELETE, MODIFY OR OTHE RWISE AMEND ALL OR ANY OF THE ABOVE GROUNDS EITHER BEFORE OR DURING THE HEARING. 12. OUT OF THESE APPEALS, TWO APPEALS BEARING NOS. ITA 1243 & 1244/BANG/2015 ARE FILED LATE. DELAY IN FILING OF ITA NO.1243/B/2015 IS OF 621 DAYS AND ITA NO.1244/B/2015 IS OF 1446 DAYS. F OR CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING OF THE APPEALS, THE ASSESSEE HAS FI LED APPLICATIONS STATING THEREIN THAT INITIALLY THE ASSESSEE WAS UNDER A BONAFIDE BELIEF THAT IT NEED NOT TAKE ANY FURTHER ACTION, EXCEPT TO DEFEND THE O RDER OF CIT(APPEALS) BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL, IF THE DEPARTMENT FILES AN APP EAL. BUT, AFTER THE JUDGMENT OF THE HON'BLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT I N THE CASE OF CIT V. CHILDRENS EDUCATION SOCIETY, 358 ITR 373 (KAR) IN WHICH IT WAS HELD THAT SOCIETY REGISTERED UNDER A STATUTE IS TO BE ASSESSE D AS AN ARTIFICIAL JURIDICAL PERSON (AJP), THE ASSESSEE HAS REALIZED THAT IT WAS ASSESSED IN A WRONG STATUS. THEREFORE, THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED THE PRES ENT APPEALS ASSAILING THE ORDER OF THE CIT(APPEALS) THAT THE ASSESSEE OUGHT T O HAVE BEEN ASSESSED IN THE STATUS OF AJP, INSTEAD OF AOP. 13. IN THESE APPEALS, THOUGH THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED THE APPLICATIONS FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY, BUT THESE WERE NOT ARGUED BY THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING. WE, HOWEVER, EXAMINED THE CONTENTS OF THE APPLICATIONS AND ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE ASSES SEE HAS NOT RAISED ANY DISPUTE WITH REGARD TO THE STATUS OF THE ASSESS EE BEFORE THE LOWER ITA NOS.1159/B/11, 381/B/14, 1243 & 1244/B/15 AND 45 & 46/B/15 PAGE 15 OF 21 AUTHORITIES. THE LOWER AUTHORITIES HAVE ASSESSED T HE ASSESSEE IN THE SAME STATUS IN WHICH THE RETURN OF INCOME WAS FILED. TH EREFORE, AFTER THE JUDGMENT OF THE HON'BLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT, NO CAUSE OF ACTION HAS ARISEN IN FAVOUR OF ASSESSEE TO FILE THE PRESENT AP PEAL. MOREOVER, IT WAS FOR THE ASSESSEE TO DECIDE AS TO WHETHER APPEAL IS TO B E FILED AGAINST THE ORDER OF CIT(APPEALS) OR NOT IN THE PRESCRIBED PERIOD. I F IT DOES NOT DO SO, THE ASSESSEE CANNOT TAKE SHELTER OF JUDGMENT OF HON'BLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN WHICH CERTAIN PROPOSITION OF LAW IS LAID D OWN IN CERTAIN CIRCUMSTANCES. SINCE THE DELAY IN FILING THESE APP EALS WAS INTENTIONAL, IT CANNOT BE CALLED THAT UNDER BONAFIDE BELIEF, THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT FILE THE APPEALS IN TIME. FINDING NO FORCE IN THE APPLICATI ONS FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY, WE HOLD THAT THESE APPEALS ARE BARRED BY LIM ITATION, THEREFORE, NOT ADMITTED FOR HEARING. 14. WE, HOWEVER, ADJUDICATE THE ISSUES INVOLVED IN THESE APPEALS AS THE SAME ARE ALSO RAISED IN OTHER APPEALS WHICH ARE FIL ED IN TIME. 15. IN THE REMAINING APPEALS, THE ASSESSEE HAS RAIS ED AN ADDITIONAL GROUND WITH REGARD TO NON-ADJUDICATION OF THE CLAIM OF ASSESSEE U/S. 80P(2)(D) OF THE ACT. THIS GROUND WAS SPECIFICALLY RAISED BEFORE THE CIT(APPEALS) IN THESE APPEALS, BUT IT ESCAPED THE A TTENTION OF THE CIT(APPEALS) AND THIS GROUND REMAINED TO BE ADJUDIC ATED. SINCE THE CIT(APPEALS) HAS NOT ADJUDICATED THIS GROUND OF APP EAL, WE RESTORE THE ISSUE TO THE CIT(APPEALS) WITH A DIRECTION TO ADJUD ICATE THIS GROUND RELATING ITA NOS.1159/B/11, 381/B/14, 1243 & 1244/B/15 AND 45 & 46/B/15 PAGE 16 OF 21 TO CLAIM U/S. 80P(2)(D) OF THE ACT WITH RESPECT TO INTEREST RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE. 16. IN THESE APPEALS, ONE MORE GROUND WAS ALSO RAIS ED WITH RESPECT TO NATURE OF RECEIPT OF CO-OPERATIVE EDUCATION FUND U/ S. 57(2A) OF KARNATAKA CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES ACT, 1959 FROM VARIOUS CO-OP ERATIVE SOCIETIES. THOUGH THIS GROUND WAS ALSO RAISED BEFORE THE CIT(A PPEALS) IN ITS APPEALS, BUT IT ALSO REMAINED TO BE UNADJUDICATED BY THE CIT (APPEALS), BECAUSE THE CIT(APPEALS) HAS MAINLY DWELT UPON THE ISSUE OF CLA IM OF EXEMPTION U/S. 10(23C)(IIIAB) OF THE ACT. THEREFORE, THIS ISSUE I S RESTORED TO THE CIT(APPEALS) WITH A DIRECTION TO ADJUDICATE THIS GR OUND BY PASSING A REASONED ORDER AFTER AFFORDING OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE. 17. DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING OF THESE APPEALS, THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO RAISED ONE MORE ADDITIONAL GROUND WITH REGARD TO STATUS IN WHICH IT IS TO BE ASSESSED. IN THIS REGARD, THE LD. COUNSEL FO R THE ASSESSEE HAS ADMITTED DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING THAT IT HAS S HOWN ITS STATUS AS CO- OPERATIVE SOCIETY IN ITS RETURN OF INCOME BEFORE T HE AO AND IT WAS ALSO ASSESSED AS THE SAME, WHEREAS AS PER THE JUDGMENT O F CIT V. CHILDRENS EDUCATION SOCIETY, 358 ITR 373 (KAR) , CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES ARE TO BE ASSESSED AS ARTIFICIAL JURIDICAL PERSON (AJP). THO UGH THIS GROUND WAS NOT RAISED BEFORE ANY OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES, BUT THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS PLEADED THAT EVEN IN THAT SITUATION, A SSESSEE CAN RAISE ADDITIONAL GROUND BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. IN SUPPORT O F HIS CONTENTION, HE HAS ITA NOS.1159/B/11, 381/B/14, 1243 & 1244/B/15 AND 45 & 46/B/15 PAGE 17 OF 21 PLACED RELIANCE UPON THE JUDGMENT OF HONBLE APEX C OURT IN THE CASE OF CIT V. NATIONAL THERMAL POWER CORPORATION, 229 ITR 383 . IT WAS FURTHER CONTENDED THAT IF THE ASSESSEE IS TO BE ASSESSED AS AJP AND THE AO HAS ASSESSED IT TO BE AN AOP IN A WRONG STATUS, THE ASS ESSMENT ORDER DESERVES TO BE QUASHED. IN SUPPORT OF THAT PROPOSI TION OF LAW, HE HAS PLACED RELIANCE UPON THE ORDER OF TRIBUNAL IN THE C ASE OF ZIAULLA SHERIFF V. ACIT, 316 ITR (AT) 92 (ITAT BANG). 18. DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING, THE LD. COUNSEL F OR THE ASSESSEE HAS ADMITTED THAT IN THE RETURN OF INCOME IT NEVER CLAI MED TO BE THE ARTIFICIAL JURIDICAL PERSON (AJP) AGAINST THE STATUS. COPIES OF RETURNS OF INCOME ARE NOT FILED BEFORE US FOR OUR PERUSAL. DURING THE CO URSE OF HEARING, THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE CANDIDLY ADMITTED THAT ASS ESSEE SOCIETY WAS TAXED AT THE RATES OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES AND TH ERE WOULD NOT BE ANY CHANGE IN TAX EFFECT OR COMPUTATION OF INCOME, EVEN IF THE ASSESSEE IS TO BE ASSESSED AS AJP. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE FURTHER CONTENDED THAT SINCE AS PER THE JUDGMENT OF HON'BLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT V. CHILDRENS EDUCATION SOCIETY (SUPRA) , CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES ARE TO BE ASSESSED AS AJP, THE ASSESSEE SHOULD BE ASSESSED AS SUCH AND THE ASSESSMENT FRAMED IN THE STATUS OF AOP DESERVES TO BE QUASHED AND FRESH ASSESSMENT SHOULD BE MADE IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSES SEE AS AN AJP. 19. THE LD. DR, ON THE OTHER HAND, HAS CONTENDED TH AT ASSESSEE HAS NEVER CLAIMED IT TO BE AJP AGAINST ITS STATUS. IT FILED RETURN IN THE STATUS OF A CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY OR CLAIMED THE STATUS TO BE AO P. THEREFORE, THE AO ITA NOS.1159/B/11, 381/B/14, 1243 & 1244/B/15 AND 45 & 46/B/15 PAGE 18 OF 21 WAS NOT UNDER ANY OBLIGATION TO ASSESS THE ASSESSEE AS AJP. MOREOVER, THE ASSESSEE HAS NEVER RAISED THIS OBJECTION EITHER BEFORE THE AO OR BEFORE THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY. FOR THE FIRST TIME, THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THIS ADDITIONAL GROUND BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL TO UNSETTLE T HE ASSESSMENT FRAMED BY THE AO. THE LD. DR FURTHER CONTENDED THAT THERE W ILL BE NO CHANGE EITHER IN THE COMPUTATION OF INCOME OR IN THE TAX LIABILIT Y. UNDER THE GARB OF CHANGE OF STATUS, THE ASSESSEE TRIES TO GET THE ASS ESSMENT DECLARED AS BAD, WHICH IS NOT PERMISSIBLE AT THIS STAGE. THE L D. DR FURTHER CONTENDED THAT THE FACTS IN THE CASE OF CIT V. NATIONAL THERMAL POWER CORPORATION (SUPRA) ARE DIFFERENT. IN THAT CASE THE CLAIM OF ASSESSEE WAS UNDER ADJUDICATION BEFORE THE AO, THOUGH HE HAS OFFERED I T TO TAX. BUT IN THE INSTANT CASE, THE ASSESSEE HAS NEVER RAISED ANY CLA IM WITH REGARD TO STATUS OF AJP. MOREOVER IN THAT CASE, THE COMPUTATION OF INCOME WOULD BE CHANGED IF THE CLAIM OF ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED WHICH W OULD EFFECT THE TAX LIABILITY. BUT IN THE INSTANT CASE, NEITHER THE CO MPUTATION NOR THE TAX LIABILITY WOULD BE EFFECTED, EVEN IF THE STATUS IS CHANGED, A S THE ASSESSEE SOCIETY WAS CHARGED TO TAX AT THE RATES APPLICABLE TO CO-OP ERATIVE SOCIETIES. THEREFORE, THIS GROUND WAS RAISED WITH AN ULTERIOR MOTIVE. 20. HAVING CAREFULLY EXAMINED THE ORDERS OF LOWER A UTHORITIES IN LIGHT OF THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS, WE FIND THAT DESPITE DIRECTI ONS, ORIGINAL RETURNS OF INCOME ARE NOT FILED PRODUCED BEFORE US. FROM THE RECORDS AVAILABLE FOR THE AY 2005-06, WE FIND THAT THE STATUS OF ASSESSEE WAS SHOWN TO BE CO- ITA NOS.1159/B/11, 381/B/14, 1243 & 1244/B/15 AND 45 & 46/B/15 PAGE 19 OF 21 OPERATIVE SOCIETY. THE AO HAS SHOWN THE SAME STAT US OF THE ASSESSEE IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER ON THE BASIS OF STATUS SHOWN I N THE RETURN OF INCOME, THEREFORE THE AO CANNOT BE HELD RESPONSIBLE FOR ASS ESSING THE ASSESSEE UNDER DIFFERENT STATUS. IT IS ALSO AN ADMITTED FAC T THAT THERE WOULD NEITHER BE ANY CHANGE IN THE COMPUTATION OF INCOME NOR TAX EFF ECT, EVEN IF THE STATUS OF THE ASSESSEE IS TO BE CHANGED FROM AOP TO AJP, B ECAUSE THE ASSESSEE HAS ALREADY BEEN ASSESSED AT THE RATES APPLICABLE T O THE CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES. IT IS ALSO NOTICED FROM THE RECORD THAT DURING THE AY 2005-06 IN THE TAX COMPUTATION FORM, THE STATUS OF THE ASSESSE E WAS SHOWN TO BE AJP, MEANING THEREBY IN THE INCOME TAX COMPUTATION FORM, THE AO HAS ASSESSED THE ASSESSEE IN THE STATUS OF AJP. THEREFORE, NO G RIEVANCE OF THE ASSESSEE IS LEFT OUT IN THE AY 2005-06. FOR THE RE MAINING ASSESSMENT YEARS, THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT FILED THE INCOME TAX CO MPUTATION FORM ISSUED BY THE AO. THEREFORE, IN THE ABSENCE OF THIS INFOR MATION, WE CANNOT HOLD CONCLUSIVELY THAT ASSESSEE WAS NOT FINALLY ASSESSED IN THE STATUS OF AJP IN THE INCOME TAX COMPUTATION FORM. 21. DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING, A SPECIFIC QUERY WAS RAISED AS TO WHAT BENEFIT THE ASSESSEE WILL GET EVEN IF THE STATUS IS CHANGED FROM AOP TO AJP, THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE CANDIDLY ADMI TTED THAT IT WOULD NOT GET ANY MONETARY BENEFIT. BUT FROM THE ARGUMENTS O F BOTH THE PARTIES, IT APPEARS THAT ONCE THE ASSESSEE IS HELD TO BE AJP AT THIS VERY STAGE, IT WOULD TRY TO UNSETTLE THE ASSESSMENT ORDER BY SAYIN G THAT THE ASSESSMENT ITA NOS.1159/B/11, 381/B/14, 1243 & 1244/B/15 AND 45 & 46/B/15 PAGE 20 OF 21 ORDER WAS PASSED UNDER A WRONG STATUS, THEREFORE IT SHOULD BE QUASHED. IF THIS PRACTICE IS TO BE ALLOWED AT ANY STAGE UNDER T HE GARB OF ADMISSION OF ADDITIONAL GROUND IN LIGHT OF THE JUDGMENT OF CIT V. NATIONAL THERMAL POWER CORPORATION (SUPRA) , IT WOULD BE A MISUSE OF THE PROCESS OF LAW AND TH ERE WOULD NOT BE ANY END TO LITIGATION. IN THIS CASE, SINCE THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN ASSESSED IN THE STATUS WHICH HAS BEEN SHOWN BY IT IN THE RETURN OF INCOME, THE CHANGE OF STATUS AT THIS VERY STAGE IS NOT DESIRABLE BY ALLOWING THE ASSESSEE TO RAISE THE ADDITIONAL GROUND. WE TH EREFORE FIND NO MERIT IN THE REQUEST OF THE ASSESSEE FOR ADMISSION OF ADDITI ONAL GROUND AT THIS STAGE AND WE ACCORDINGLY REJECT THE REQUEST FOR ADMISSION OF ADDITIONAL GROUND IN THIS REGARD. 22. ACCORDINGLY, THESE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE ARE DISMISSED. 23. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEALS OF THE REVENUE ARE A LLOWED AND THAT OF THE ASSESSEE ARE PARTLY ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSE S. PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THIS 25 TH DAY OF MAY, 2016. SD/- SD/- ( ABRAHAM P. GEORGE ) (SUNIL KUMAR YA DAV ) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIA L MEMBER BANGALORE, DATED, THE 25 TH MAY, 2016. /D S/ ITA NOS.1159/B/11, 381/B/14, 1243 & 1244/B/15 AND 45 & 46/B/15 PAGE 21 OF 21 COPY TO: 1. APPELLANTS 2. RESPONDENTS 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR, ITAT, BANGALORE. 6. GUARD FILE BY ORDER ASSISTANT REGISTRAR, ITAT, BANGALORE.