Asst. DIT (Exemption)-I, Hyderabad V. Sankurathri Foundation, Hyderabad

ITA 1199/HYD/2012

• Counselvise Citation: [2012] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 66441 (ITAT-HYDERABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 month(s) 10 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 16-11-2012
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 06-08-2012
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: VIDISHA KALRA
• Assessee Lawyers: K SRINIVASAN
• Keywords: Depreciation; Charitable institution
• Section: 143(3); 260A; 12A; 11

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNALHYDERABAD BENCH HYDERABAD BENCH B, HYDERABAD BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SMT. ASHA VIJAYARAGHAVAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO. 1199 & 1200/HYD/2012 ASSESSMENT YEARS : 2006-07 & 2009-10 ASST. DIRECTOR OF INCOME-TAX (EXEMPTIONS)-I, AP PELLANT HYDERABAD. VS. SANKURATHRI FOUNDATION, RESPONDENT HYDERABAD. (PAN AABTS9148L) APPELLANT BY : SMT. VIDISHA KALRA RESPONDENT BY : SHRI K. SRINIVASAN DATE OF HEARING : 14/11/2012 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 16/11/ 2012 ORDER PER ASHA VIJAYARAGHAVAN, J.M.: BOTH THESE APPEALS FILED BY THE REVENUE ARE DIREC TED AGAINST THE RESPECTIVE ORDERS OF CIT-IV, HYDERABAD, FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2006-07 AND 2009-10. SINCE IDENTICAL ISSUES A RE INVOLVED IN BOTH THESE APPEALS, THEY WERE CLUBBED AND HEARD TOG ETHER AND, THEREFORE, A COMMON ORDER IS PASSED FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENC. 2. BRIEFLY THE FACTS OF THE CASE IN AY 2006-07 ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE SOCIETY FILED ITS RETURN OF INCOME ON 16/1 0/2006 DECLARING NIL INCOME, AFTER CLAIMING EXEMPTION U/S 11 OF THE ACT. WHILE 2 ITA NO. 1199 & 1200/HYD/2012 SANKURATHRI FOUNDATION COMPLETING THE ASSESSMENT U/S 143(3) ON 24/12/2008, THE AO DENIED THE CLAIM OF EXEMPTION U/S 11 OF THE ACT ON THE GROUND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT OBTAINED THE APPROVAL OF THE P RESCRIBED AUTHORITY, AS REQUIRED UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF SEC. 10(23C)(VI)/(VIA) OF THE ACT. ON APPEAL, THE CIT(A)-IV, HYDERABAD DIR ECTED THE AO TO ALLOW THE CLAIM OF EXEMPTION U/S 11 OF THE ACT, SUB JECT TO FULFILLMENT OF THE CONDITIONS OF SEC. 13 OF THE ACT. 3. CONTESTING THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A), THE DEPARTME NT FILED AN APPEAL BEFORE THE ITAT, HYDRA BAD. THE ITAT, VIDE I TS ORDER DATED 07/07/2010, DIRECTED THE AO TO VERIFY WHETHER THE A SSESSEE HAD CONTRAVENED THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 13 OF THE ACT OR NOT. ACCORDINGLY, THE MATTER WAS RESTORED TO THE FILE OF THE AO FOR FRESH CONSIDERATION, AFTER GIVING PROPER OPPORTUNITY OF B EING HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE. IT IS IN CONSEQUENCE OF THE SAID ORDER OF ITAT THAT THE PRESENT ORDER WAS PASSED ON 29/12/2011, WHEREBY TOT AL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE WAS DETERMINED AT RS. 30,59,821/-. 4. THE CIT(A) HELD THAT FROM THE ASSESSMENT ORDER P ASSED IN PURSUANCE OF THE ORDER OF THE ITAT, IT IS SEEN THAT WHILE THE AO HAS NOT FOUND ANY CONTRAVENTION OF THE PROVISIONS OF SE C. 13, HE HAS NOT ENTERTAINED THE ALLOWABILITY OF ALTERNATIVE CLAIM O F EXEMPTION U/S 11. BESIDES, HE HAS DISALLOWED THE CLAIM OF DEPRECI ATION OF RS. 70,27,257/-. HE HAS NOTED THAT THOUGH THE CLAIM OF DEPRECIATION WAS ALLOWED BY THE ITAT IN THE CASE OF KAMINENI EDUCATI ONAL SOCIETY AND MANY OTHERS, WITH DUE RESPECT TO SUCH DECISIONS, TH E DEPARTMENT HAS NOT ACCEPTED THOSE AND HAS FILED APPEALS ON THI S ISSUE U/S 260A OF THE ACT BEFORE THE HONBLE HIGH COURT OF A.P. 3 ITA NO. 1199 & 1200/HYD/2012 SANKURATHRI FOUNDATION 5. AS REGARDS THE ALLOWABILITY OF ALTERNATIVE CLAIM OF EXEMPTION U/S 11, IN THE ORDER DATED 07/05/2009, THE CIT(A) H ELD THAT IT HAS ALREADY BEEN DISCUSSED IN DETAIL THAT SUCH AN ALTER NATIVE CLAIM CAN BE MADE BY AN ASSESSEE TRUST/SOCIETY U/S 11, EVEN I F IT HAS NOT RECEIVED THE REQUISITE APPROVAL U/S 10(23C)(VI). WH ILE SUCH AN ALTERNATIVE CLAIM HAS BEEN UPHELD BY THE JURISDICTI ONAL ITAT ALSO, IT IS SEEN THAT A SIMILAR VIEW HAS BEEN TAKEN BY THE H ONBLE COCHIN BENCH OF ITAT IN THE CASE OF A1-FAROOK EDUCATIONAL CENTRE VS. ITO (123 ITD 523), (124 TTJ 286), WHO HAVE ALSO ECHOED THE SAME VIEW, APPROVING OF THE ELIGIBILITY OF AN ASSESSEE FOR AN ALTERNATIVE CLAIMS U/S 11 OR 10(23C), EVEN THOUGH SEC. 10(23C) IS MORE APPROPRIATE FOR THE EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTIONS. MORE RECENTLY, TH E HONBLE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. MAHAS ABHA GURUKUL VIDYAPEETH HARYANA (326 ITR 25) HAVE ALSO OPINED TH AT ONCE ALL THE REQUISITE CONDITIONS FOR EXEMPTION U/S 11 ARE MET, EVEN IF THE CONDITIONS U/S 10(23C)(VI) HAVE NOT BEEN COMPLIED W ITH, THERE WILL BE NO BAR TO SEEK EXEMPTION U/S 11. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE DISCUSSION AND RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF THE ITAT , HYDERABAD BENCH, THE CIT(A) HELD THAT THE ASSESSEE WOULD BE E LIGIBLE FOR CLAIM OF EXEMPTION U/S 11 OF THE ACT, AND EVEN OTHER WISE , THE AO HAS NOT FOUND ANY CONTRAVENTION OF THE PROVISIONS OF SEC. 1 3 OF THE ACT, WHICH COULD HAVE LEAD TO FORFEITURE OF SUCH CLAIM. 6. AS REGARDS THE CLAIM OF DEPRECIATION, THE CIT(A) HELD THAT IN VIEW OF THE DISTINCTION CLEARLY MADE OUT BY THE HON BLE AHMEDABAD BENCH OF ITAT IN THE CASE OF SHRIMAD VALLABH VISHWA DHARMA SANSTHA (2006) (102 TTJ 653) AND FURTHER BY THE HON . P&H HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. DESH BHAGAT MEMORIAL E DUCATION TRUST 4 ITA NO. 1199 & 1200/HYD/2012 SANKURATHRI FOUNDATION (2010 IND LAW P&H 2212) DT. 10/08/2010, THE AO IS D IRECTED TO ALLOW THE CLAIM OF DEPRECIATION. 7. FOR THE AY 2009-10, THE FACTS ARE THAT DURING TH E COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, IT WAS ARGUED BEFORE THE AO THAT THE REGISTRATION U/S 12A OF THE ACT IS ENOUGH FOR CLAIM ING EXEMPTION AND THAT NOTIFICATION U/S 10(23C(VI) IS NOT MANDATORILY REQUIRED. HOWEVER, THE AO HELD THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT ENTIT LED TO CLAIM EXEMPTION IN THE ABSENCE OF APPROVAL U/S 10(23C)(VI ) OF THE IT ACT. 8. BEFORE THE CIT(A), THE AR OF THE ASSESSEE REITER ATED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD CLAIMED EXEMPTION U/S 11 AND 12A ONLY AND NOT U/S 10(22) OR 10(23C)(VI), SO AS TO CONCLUDE THAT THE A SSESSEE WAS NOT ENTITLED TO EXEMPTION AS IT HAD NOT OBTAINED APPROV AL U/S 10(23C)(VI). IT WAS REITERATED THAT THE ASSESSEE HA D COMPLIED WITH AND NOT VIOLATED OR CONTRAVENED THE PROVISIONS OF S ECTION 11 TO 13 OF THE ACT. THE DECISIONS OF THE ITAT, HYDERABAD WERE ALSO CITED TO CONTEND THAT EXEMPTION U/S 11 WAS ALLOWABLE. AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE, THE CIT(A) FOLLOWING T HE DECISION OF THE HONBLE PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. MAHASABHA GURUKUL VIDYAPEETH HARYANA, 326 ITR 25 HE LD THAT THE ASSESSEE WOULD BE ELIGIBLE FOR CLAIM OF EXEMPTION U /S 11 OF THE ACT AND HE THEREFORE DIRECTED THE AO TO GRANT EXEMPTION U/S 11 OF THE ACT TO THE ASSESSEE. 9. WITH RESPECT TO THE DEPRECIATION, FOLLOWING THE RATIO LAID DOWN IN THE DECISIONS MENTIONED IN PARA 6.1 OF HIS ORDER AS ALSO IN VIEW OF THE DISTINCTION CLEARLY MADE OUT BY THE HONBLE AHM EDABAD BENCH OF ITAT IN THE CASE OF SHRIMAD VALLABH VISHWA DHARMA S ANSTHA (2006) 5 ITA NO. 1199 & 1200/HYD/2012 SANKURATHRI FOUNDATION (102 TTJ 653) AND FURTHER BY THE HONBLE P&H HIGH C OURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. DESH BHAGHAT MEMORIAL EDUCATION TRUST (S UPRA), THE CIT(A) DIRECTED THE AO TO ALLOW THE CLAIM OF DEPREC IATION OF RS. 57,62,049/-. 10. AGGRIEVED, THE REVENUE IS IN APPEALS BEFORE US AND HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL, WHICH ARE COMMON I N BOTH THE YEARS UNDER CONSIDERATION: 1. THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT(A) IS ERRONEOUS BOT H ON FACTS AND IN LAW. 2. THE LEARNED CIT(A) ERRED IN HOLDING THAT THE ASS ESSEE IS ELIGIBLE FOR CLAIM U/S 11 EVEN IN ABSENCE OF APPROV AL UNDER SUB-CLAUSE (VI) TO SECTION 10(23C) OF THE IT ACT, 1 961. 3. THE LEARNED CIT(A) OUGHT TO HAVE APPRECIATED THA T APPROVAL UNDER SUB-CLAUSE (VI) TO SECTION 10(23C) IS DISTINC T FROM REGISTRATION U/S 12A OF THE ACT. 4. THE LEARNED CIT(A) OUGHT TO HAVE APPRECIATED THE FACT THAT OBTAINING APPROVAL OF THE PRESCRIBED AUTHORITY IS M ANDATORY AS PER THE PLAIN MEANING OF SECTION 10(23C)(VI) OF THE IT ACT, 1961 WHEREVER THE AGGREGATE GROSS RECEIPTS OF EDUCA TIONAL INSTITUTIONS ARE OVER AND ABOVE RS. 1 CRORE. 5. THE LEARNED CIT(A) OUGHT TO HAVE SUSTAINED THE DISALLOWANCE OF DEPRECIATION MADE BY THE AO BASING ON APEX COURT ORDER IN THE CASE OF ESCORTS & OTHERS VS. UNI ON OF INDIA (199 ITR 44). 11. WE HAVE HEARD THE ARGUMENTS OF BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE RECORD AS WELL AS GONE THROUGH THE ORDERS OF TH E AUTHORITIES BELOW. WE FIND THAT THAT THE ISSUE UNDER CONSIDERAT ION IS COVERED BY THE DECISION OF THE COORDINATE BENCH OF ITAT, HYDER ABAD IN THE CASE OF AL-HABEED CHARITABLE TRUST, HYDERABAD IN ITA NO. 2069/HYD/11 FOR AY 2004-05 VIDE ORDER DATED 30/03/2012, WHEREIN IT HAS BEEN HELD AS FOLLOWS: 4. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD. WE FIND THAT THE MAIN ISSUE INVOLVED IN TH E ABOVE GROUNDS IS COVERED 6 ITA NO. 1199 & 1200/HYD/2012 SANKURATHRI FOUNDATION BY THE ORDER OF THE HYDERABAD BENCH A OF THE TRIB UNAL DATED 15.4.2009 IN THE CASES OF VASAVI ACADEMY OF EDUCATION, HYDERABAD IN ITA NO.1133/HYD/2006 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2003-04 AN D ORDER DATED 17.4.2009 IN ITA NO.1206/HYD/2007 FOR THE ASSESSMEN T YEAR 2004-05, WHEREIN IT WAS HELD THAT IF DONATIONS ARE RECEIVED COMPULSORILY FOR THE ADMISSION OF STUDENTS, BY WHATEVER NAME IT MAY BE C ALLED, I.E. DONATION, BUILDING FUND, AUDITORIUM FUND, ETC. OVER AND ABOVE THE PRESCRIBED FEE, FROM THE STUDENTS, THE ASSESSEE WOULD NOT BE ENTITLED FO R EXEMPTION EITHER UNDER S.10(23C) OR UNDER S.11 OF THE ACT. FURTHER, WE FI ND THAT THE CONSTITUTIONAL BENCH OF APEX COURT IN THE CASE OF T.M.A. PAI FOUND ATIONS AND OTHERS VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA & OTHERS (2002) 8 SCC 481 EXAMIN ED THE ISSUE OF COLLECTION OF CAPITATION FEES FOR THE ADMISSION O F STUDENTS OVER AND ABOVE FEES PRESCRIBED BY THE PRIVATE INSTITUTION AND HELD THAT THE INSTITUTION WHICH ARE COLLECTING CAPITATION FEES FOR ADMISSION OF STU DENTS OVER AND ABOVE THE FEES PRESCRIBED CANNOT BE CONSTRUED AS CHARITABLE/E DUCATION INSTITUTION. APEX COURT FURTHER OBSERVED THAT THE FEES COLLECTED OVER AND ABOVE THE PRESCRIBED FEE FOR ADMISSION OF THE STUDENT HAS TO BE CONSTRUC TED AS CAPITATION FEE. THE APEX COURT, FURTHER OBSERVED THAT THE CONCERNED UNI VERSITY AND REGULATED BODY HAS TO TAKE ACTION FOR WITHDRAWAL OF THE RECOG NITION IN CASE IT IS FOUND THAT THE EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTION RECEIVED ANY MONEY OVER AND ABOVE THE FEES PRESCRIBED FOR THE COURSES. SAME VIEW WAS TAKEN BY APEX COURT IN THE CASE OF ISLAMIC ACADEMY OF EDUCATION AND ANOTHER VS. STA TE OF KARNATAKA & ANOTHER (2003) 6 SCC 697. IF THE DONATIONS WERE RE CEIVED COMPULSORILY FOR ADMISSION OF STUDENTS, THE ASSESSEE IS NOT ENTITLED FOR EXEMPTION EITHER U/S 10(23C) OR U/S 11 OF THE IT ACT. SINCE THE LOWER A UTHORITIES HAVE NOT EXAMINED THE COLLECTION OF CAPITATION FEES IN THIS CASE, IN OUR OPINION, THE MATTER REQUIRES TO BE EXAMINED BY THE ASSESSING OFF ICER WHETHER THE ASSESSEE IS COLLECTING THE CAPITATION FEES FROM STU DENTS OR NOT AND IT IS NECESSARY FOR BRINGING THE ACTUAL FACTS ON RECORD F OR DECIDING THE ISSUE EFFECTIVELY. SIMILAR VIEW WAS TAKEN BY US IN THE C ASE OF M/S. JAMIA NIZAMIA IN ITA NO.763/HYD/2007 DATED 30.6.2008, IN THE CASE OF INTERNATIONAL EDUCATIONAL ACADEMY, HYDERABAD IN ITA NO.494/HYD/20 07 AND 518/HYD/2008 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2002- 2003 AN D 2004-05 AND SRI SAI SUDHIR EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY, HYDERABAD IN ITA NO .999/HYD/20-06 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2003-04. THEREFORE, WE SET ASIDE THE ORDERS OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES AND REMIT BACK THE MATTER TO THE FILE O F ASSESSING OFFICER WITH A DIRECTION TO ASSESSING OFFICER THAT HE SHALL RECONS IDER THE ENTIRE ISSUE IN THE LIGHT OF JUDGMENT OF SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF M /S ISLAMIC ACADEMY OF EDUCATION & ANOTHER VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA AND ANOT HER (SUPRA), AND IN THE CASED OF T.M.A. PAI FOUNDATION AND OTHERS VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA AND OTHERS (SUPRA), AND FIND OUT WHETHER THE ASSESSEE HAS RECE IVED ANY MONEY OVER AND ABOVE THE FEES PRESCRIBED AND THEREAFTER DECIDE THE ISSUE AFRESH IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW AFTER GIVING REASONABLE OPPORTU NITY OF HEARING TO THE ASSESSEE. WE MAKE IT CLEAR THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NO T ENTITLED FOR EXEMPTION EITHER U/S 11 OR U/S 10(23C) IN CASE IT COLLECTED A NY MONEY BY WHATEVER NAME IT IS CALLED I.E., DONATION, BUILDING FUND, AU DITORIUM FUND ETC. ETC., OVER AND ABOVE THE PRESCRIBED FEE FOR ADMISSION OF STUDE NTS. 7 ITA NO. 1199 & 1200/HYD/2012 SANKURATHRI FOUNDATION 12. WITH RESPECT TO THE DEPRECIATION, THE COORDINAT E BENCH HELD AS FOLLOWS: 6. WE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES ON THIS ISSUE. SIMIL AR ISSUE CAME UP FOR CONSIDERATION BEFORE THE JAIPUR BENCH OF THIS T RIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF JAIPUR STOCK EXCHANGE (108 TTJ 393)(JP), WHEREIN IT WAS HE LD THAT DEPRECIATION ON FIXED ASSETS IS AN ALLOWABLE DEDUCTION, WHICH IS NE CESSARY TO ARRIVE AT THE INCOME AVAILABLE FOR APPLICATION TO CHARITABLE PURP OSE. FURTHER, IN THE CASE OF MAHILA SIDH NIRMAN YOJNA V/S. IAC (50 ITD 472), IT HAS BEEN HELD BY THE DELHI BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL THAT MERELY BECAUSE ENT IRE VALUE OF ASSET IS ALLOWABLE AS EXPENDITURE UNDER S.11, IT IS NOT SUFF ICIENT TO DENY CLAIM FOR DEPRECIATION UNLESS THE VALUE OF ASSET HAS BEEN ACT UALLY ALLOWED AS EXPENDITURE. IF NOT SO ALLOWED IN THE YEAR OF ACQU ISITION, ASSESSEE WILL BE ENTITLED TO DEPRECIATION. FURTHER, IT WAS HELD BY T HE COCHIN BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF DY. CIT V/S. ADI SANKARA TR UST (46 SOT 230) THAT WHERE AN ASSESSEE TRUST IS CLAIMING DEPRECIATION ON ASSETS WHERE COST OF THE RELEVANT ASSETS STOOD CLAIMED AS AN APPLICATION OF INCOME FOR A PRECEDING AND/OR THE CURRENT YEAR UNDER S.11(1), ITS CLAIM UN DER S.32(1)IS ELIGIBLE ONLY IN RESPECT OF BUSINESS ASSETS AND WHERE ENTIRE COST OF THE ASSET STANDS ALLOWED BY WAY OF APPLICATION OF INCOME UNDER S.11( 1), THE DEPRECIATION CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE UNDER S.32(1) IS NOT ALLOWA BLE AS THE TRUST IS NOT UNDERTAKING ANY BUSINESS ACTIVITY. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS DIRECTED TO VERIFY IN RESPECT OF EACH AS SET ON WHICH DEPRECIATION CLAIMED, WHETHER THE VALUE OF SUCH ASSET WAS IN FAC T ALLOWED UNDER S.11, AND IF IT WAS SO ALLOWED, THE DEPRECIATION WOULD NOT BE ALLOWED IN RESPECT OF SUCH ASSET. ONLY IF THE VALUE OF THE ASSET WAS NOT ALLOW ED AS EXPENDITURE UNDER S.11, THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS REQUIRED TO ALLOW DE PRECIATION THEREON, AS PER THE RATE APPLICABLE TO THOSE ASSETS, AS HELD IN THE CASE OF MAHILA SIDH NIRMAN YOJNA, CITED SUPRA. THIS ISSUE RAISED BY THE REVE NUE IS SET ASIDE TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR FRESH CONSIDERATION, I N THE LIGHT OF THE ABOVE OBSERVATIONS. THE ASSESSING OFFICER SHALL ACCORDIN GLY REDECIDE THE ISSUE IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW AND AFTER GIVING REASONABLE OPP ORTUNITY OF HEARING TO THE ASSESSEE. 13. SINCE THE ISSUES UNDER CONSIDERATION ARE MATERI ALLY IDENTICAL TO THAT OF THE CASE DECIDED BY THE COORDINATE BENCH I N THE CASE OF AL- HABEEB CHARITABLE TRUST (SUPRA), RESPECTFULLY FOLLO WING THE SAME, WE SET ASIDE THE ORDERS OF THE CIT(A) IN BOTH THE YEAR S UNDER CONSIDERATION AND REMIT THE ISSUES TO THE FILE OF T HE AO WITH A DIRECTION TO DECIDE THE SAME AFRESH IN THE LIGHT OF THE SAID DECISION OF THE COORDINATE BENCH. 8 ITA NO. 1199 & 1200/HYD/2012 SANKURATHRI FOUNDATION 14. IN THE RESULT, BOTH THE APPEALS OF THE REVENUE ARE PARTLY ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 16 TH NOVEMBER, 2012. SD/- SD/- (CHANDRA POOJARI) (ASHA VIJAY ARAGHAVAN) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER HYDERABAD, DATED: 16 TH NOVEMBER, 2012 KV COPY TO:- 1) ADIT (EXEMPTION)-I, 3 RD FLOOR, AAYAKAR BHAVAN, BASHEERBAGH, HYDERABAD 500 004. 2) SAKURATHRI FOUNDATION, 4-2-50, DWARKANAGAR 2, BANDLAGUDAJAGI, HYDERABAD. 3) THE CIT(A)-IV, HYDERABAD 4) DIT(EXEMPTIONS), HYDERABAD 5) THE DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE, I.T.A.T., HYD ERABAD.