Ganta Sri Ram Educational Sociaty, Visakhapatnam V. THE ACIT, CIRCLE - 5(1), Visakhapatnam

ITA 128/VIZ/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 127 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 8868 (ITAT-VISAKHAPATNAM)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 2 month(s) 8 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 30-06-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 21-04-2014
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: R S ARAVINDAKSHAN
• Keywords: Capital asset; Charitable institution; Retrospective amendment; Reasonable cause; Benefit of exemption; Condonation of delay; Reassessment proceedings
• Section: 43B; 143(3); 12A; 12AA; 148; 6; 2

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, VISAKHAPATNAM BENCH, VISAKHAPATNAM . , . . , BEFORE SHRI V. DURGA RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI D.S. SUNDER SINGH , ACCOUNTANT MEMBER . / I . T .A.NO. 128 /VIZAG/ 201 4 ( / ASSESSMENT YEAR: 20 10 - 11 ) ./ I.T.A.NO. 129 /VIZAG/201 4 ( / ASSESSMENT YEAR: 20 11 - 12 ) M/S GANTA SRI RAM EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY D.NO.27 - 3 - 142 /1 ROAD NO.4, OFFICIAL COLONY VISAKHAPATNAM [PAN NO.A AAAG1472B ] ACIT, CIRCLE - 5(1) VISAKHAPATNAM ( / APPELLANT) ( / RESPONDENT) / APPELLANT BY : SHRI C SUBRAHMANYAM, AR / RESPONDENT BY : SHRI R.S.ARAVINDAKSHAN , D R / DATE OF HEARING : 1 5 .06.2017 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 30 .06.2017 2 ITA NO S . 128 /VI Z /201 2 AND 129 /VIZ/201 4, A.YS.20 10 - 11 AND 20 11 - 12 M/S GANTA SRIRAM EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY / O R D E R PER D.S. SUNDER SINGH , ACCOUNTANT MEMBER : BOTH T HE S E APPEAL S ARE F ILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE LD. C OMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (A PPEALS ) [CIT(A)], VI SAKHAPATNAM IN ITA NO. 0442 / 2012 - 1 3 /A CIT C - 5(1), VSP/2013 - 14, ITA NO.0443/2012 - 13/ACIT C - 5(1), VSP/2013 - 14 DATED 14.02.2014 FOR THE A.Y.2010 - 11 AND 2011 - 12 . ISSUES IN BOTH THE APPEALS ARE IDENTICAL , HENCE THEY ARE CLUBBED, HEARD TOGETHER AND DISPOSED OFF IN A COMMON ORDER FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE . ALL THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL INCLUDING THE ADDITIONAL GROUND FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE RELATED TO THE REGISTRATI ON U/S 12A OF INCOME TAX ACT. 2. THE ASSESSEE IS ENGAGED IN THE ACTIVITY OF RUNNING THE EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTIONS AND REGISTERED AS A SOCIETY WITH THE REGISTRAR OF SOCIETIES ON 23.08.2007. TH E ASSESSEES GROSS RECEIPTS WERE EXCEEDED RS.1 CRORE, THEREFORE , THE ASSESSEE SOUGHT EXEMPTION U/S 10(23C)(VI) OF THE I.T.ACT AND THE CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, VISAKHAPATNAM HAS REJECTED THE ASSESSEES REQUEST TO GRANT EXEMPTION U/S 10(23C)(VI) OF I.T.ACT. SUBSEQUENTLY, THE ASSESSEE APPLIED FOR REGISTRATION U/S 12A OF THE 3 ITA NO S . 128 /VI Z /201 2 AND 129 /VIZ/201 4, A.YS.20 10 - 11 AND 20 11 - 12 M/S GANTA SRIRAM EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY I.T.ACT ON 30.0 9 .201 1 BUT THE REGISTRATI O N U/S 12A WAS GRANTED TO THE ASSESSEE ON 30.03.2012 W.E.F. 01.04.2011. DURING THE PERIOD OF PENDING FOR REGISTRATION, THE ASSESSING OFFICER REOPENED THE ASSESSMENTS FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010 - 11 A ND 2011 - 12 AND MADE THE ASSESSMENTS U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 147 OF THE I.T.ACT AND BROUGHT TO TAX THE SUM OF RS.61,93,820/ - FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010 - 11 BY ORDER DATED 19.02.2013 AND A SUM OF RS.1,49,20,271/ - FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2011 - 12 BY ORDER DATED 25. 02.2013. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER, THE ASSESSEE WENT ON APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT (APPEALS) AND THE LD.CIT (APPEALS) CONFIRMED THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER HOLDING THAT THE REGISTRATION U/S 12A WAS GRANTED TO THE ASSESSEE W.E.F.01.04 .2011 AND WOULD BE APPLICABLE FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2012 - 13 ONWARDS AND NOT APPLICABLE FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010 - 11 AND 2011 - 12. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(APPEALS), THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 3. APPEARING FOR THE ASSESSEE, THE LD. AR ARGUED THAT THE ASSESS EE HAS APPLIED FOR REGISTRATION U/S 12A ON 30.09.2011 AND THE REGISTRATION WAS GRANTED ON 30.03.2012 W.E.F. 01.04.2011. DURING THE PENDENCY OF REGISTRATION, THE NOTICE U/S 148 WAS ISSUED ON 13.10.2011. BY FINANCE ACT, 2014 A PROV ISO HAS BEEN INTRODUCED IN I . T . ACT W.E.F.1.10.2014, 4 ITA NO S . 128 /VI Z /201 2 AND 129 /VIZ/201 4, A.YS.20 10 - 11 AND 20 11 - 12 M/S GANTA SRIRAM EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY WHERE, THE RE GISTRATION HAS BEEN GRANTED TO THE T RUST U/S 12A, THEN THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 11 AND 12 SHALL APPLY IN RESPECT OF ANY INCOME DERIVED FROM PROPERTY FOR THE PENDING ASSESSMENTS. SUBMISSION OF THE ASSESSEE IS THAT, CONSEQUENT TO INSERTION OF PROVISO INSERTED TO SECTION 12A, REGISTRATION GRANTED SHALL APPLY TO ALL THE PENDING ASSESSMENTS AND THE INCOME OF THE T RUST SHOULD GET THE BENEFIT OF SECTION 11 AND 12. THE LD.AR FURTHER ARGUED THAT TH E PROVISO WAS INTRODUCED W.E.F.1.10.2014 AND IT IS THE BENEFICIAL PROVISION WHICH SHOULD BE INTERPRETED LIBERALLY. IN THE PRESENT CASE, THE REGISTRATION WAS GRANTED ON 30.03.2012 AND AS ON THE DATE OF GRANTING THE REGISTRATION, THE PR OCEEDINGS INITIATED BY THE ASSESSING O FFICER U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 147 WERE PENDING, FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010 - 11 AND 2011 - 12 . IN FACT , THE ASSESSMENTS WERE COMPLETED AFTER GRANTING THE REGISTRATION VIDE ORDER DATED 19.02.2013 AND 25.02.2013 AND ACCORDING TO THE LD.AR SUB SECTION(2) OF SECTION 12A WOULD APPLY TO THE ASSESSES S CASE AND INCOME SHOULD BE EXEMPT. THE LD.A.R RELIED ON THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT JUDGEMENT IN 224 ITR 677 AND 367 ITR 466 AND THE DECISION OF HONBLE KOLKATA ITAT - C BENCH IN THE C ASE OF SREE SREE RAMAKRISHNA SAMITY REPORTED IN (2016) 156 I.T.D 0646 . ACCORDING TO THE LD. AR, THOUGH THE PROVISO WAS INSERTED W.E.F. 1.10.2014, FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF HONBLE ITAT KOLKATA AND THE RATIOS OF HONBLE SUPREME COURTS 5 ITA NO S . 128 /VI Z /201 2 AND 129 /VIZ/201 4, A.YS.20 10 - 11 AND 20 11 - 12 M/S GANTA SRIRAM EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY DECISION S CITED ( S UPRA ) THE AMENDMENT SHOULD BE MADE APPLICABLE RETROSPECTIVELY AND THE BENEFIT OF SECTION 11 AND 12 SHOULD BE EXTENDED TO THE ASSESSEE. 4. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LD.DR ARGUED THAT THE LEGISLATURE HAS CURTAIL ED THE POWERS OF CIT, TO ACCORD APPROVAL FROM THE RETROSPECTIVE DATE S TO KEEP TAB ON THE SOCIETIES TO IMPLEMENT THE PROVISIONS OF I . T . ACT METICULOUSLY AND TO PREVENT THE MISUSE OF EXEMPTIONS WITHOUT PAYMENT OF TAXES. THE PROVISO WAS INSERTED TO SUB SECTION 2 OF SECTION 12A W.E.F. 01.10.2014, AND IS NOT CLARIFICATORY IN NATURE. THEREFORE, IT CANNOT BE APPLIED RETROSPECTIVELY. WHEN THE PROVISIONS OF IT ACT ARE CLEAR AND UNAMBIGUOUS, IT SHOULD BE READ IN BETWEEN THE LINES AND SHOULD NOT BE INTERPRETED LIBERALLY TO DEFEAT THE INTENTION OF THE LEGISLTA URE . THE LEGISLATURE IS AWARE OF THE CONSEQUENCES OF NON APPLICATION OF THE BENEFIT OF SECTION 11 AND 12 FOR THE INTERVENING PERIOD AND INTENTIONALLY NOT EXTENDED THE BENEFIT FROM RETROSPECTIVELY. THEREFORE, THE LD.DR VEHEMENTLY OPPOSED THE ASSESSEES CO NTENTION FOR APPLICATION OF THE PROVISIONS RETROSPECTIVELY. THE LD DR ALSO ARGUED THAT T HERE IS AN ALTERNATIVE REMEDY AVAILABLE TO THE ASSESSEE WHERE THE ASSESSEE CAN APPROACH THE CIT FOR GRANTING OF REGISTRATION FOR THE EARLIER YEARS. ACCORDINGLY, THE L D. DR CONTENDED THAT THE CIT (APPEALS) HAS 6 ITA NO S . 128 /VI Z /201 2 AND 129 /VIZ/201 4, A.YS.20 10 - 11 AND 20 11 - 12 M/S GANTA SRIRAM EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY RIGHTLY CONFIRMED THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND THERE IS NO NECESSITY TO INTERFERE WITH IT. 5. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL PLACED ON RECORD. IN THIS CASE, THE ASSESSEE HAS APPLIED FOR REGISTRATION U/S 10(23C) SINCE THE RECEIPTS OF THE ASSESSEE EXCE E DED ONE CRORE AND THE CHIEF CIT HAS REFUSED TO GRANT EXEMPTION U/S 10(23C). AFTER REFUSAL OF EXEMPTION U/S 10(23C) , THE ASSESSEE HAS APPLIED FOR 12A REGISTRATION ON 30.09.201 1 AND THE REGISTRATION WAS GRANTED U/S 12A ON 30.03.2012 W.E.F. 01.04.2011. AS ON THE DATE OF GRANTING THE REGISTRATION, THE ASSESSMENTS FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010 - 11 AND 2011 - 12 ARE PENDING WITH THE A.O. W.E.F.01.10.2014 A PROVISO HAS BEEN INSERTED IN SUBSECTION 2 OF SECTION 12A EXTENDING THE BENEFITS OF SECTION 11 AND 12 FOR THE PENDING ASSESSMENTS DURING THE PENDENCY OF REGISTRATION. THE PROVISO IS APPLICABLE W.E.F. 01.10.2014 . THE ASSESSEE CONTENDED THAT THE PROVISO IS A BENEFICIAL PROVISION WHICH SHOULD BE MADE APPLICABLE TO THE ASSESSEE FOR THE PENDING ASSESSMENTS OF 2010 - 11 AND 2011 - 12. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LD.DR VEHEMENTLY OPPOSED THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE. TH IS ISSUE HAS BEEN CONSIDERED IN DETAIL BY THE COORDINATE BENCH OF ITAT KOLKATA IN SR EE SREE RAMAKRISHNA SAMITY VS. DCIT REPORTED IN 2016 156 ITD 0 6 46 AND HELD THAT THE BENEFIT OF EXEMPTION 7 ITA NO S . 128 /VI Z /201 2 AND 129 /VIZ/201 4, A.YS.20 10 - 11 AND 20 11 - 12 M/S GANTA SRIRAM EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY U/S 11 SHOULD BE GIVEN TO ALL THE PENDING ASSESSMENTS. WHILE COMING TO THE CONCLUSION, THE COORDINATE BENCH HAS CONSIDERED THE DECISION OF HONB LE SUPREME COURT IN 224 ITR 627, 367 ITR 466 AND 156 ITR 323. THE COORDINATE BENCH OF ITAT AHMEDABAD TRIBUNAL (SMC) IN THE CASE OF SHREE BHANUSHALI MITRA MANDAL TRUST VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER FOLLOWED THE DECISION OF ITAT KOLKATA AND HELD THAT THE BENEFIT U /S 11 AND 12 WOULD BE AVAILABLE TO THE ASSESSEE FOR THE PENDING ASSESSMENTS. THE LD.AR FURTHER BROUGHT TO OUR NOTICE, THE OBSERVATION OF HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF ALLIED MOTORS P. LTD. VS CIT IN 224 ITR 677 WHICH READS AS UNDER : A PROVISO WH ICH IS INSERTED TO REMEDY UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES AND TO MAKE THE PROVISION WORKABLE, A PROVISO WHICH SUPPLIES AN OBVIOUS OMISSION IN THE SECTION AND IS REQUIRED TO BE READ INTO THE SECTION TO GIVE THE SECTION A REASONABLE INTERPRETATION, REQUIRES TO BE TR EATED AS RETROSPECTIVE IN OPERATION SO THAT A REASONABLE INTERPRETATION CAN BE GIVEN TO THE SECTION AS A WHOLE. 4.1 WE EXTRACT THE RELEVANT PARAGRAPHS OF HONBLE KOLKATA ITAT DECISION IN THE CASE OF SREE SREE RAMA KRISHNA SAMITY WHICH READS AS UNDER : 6.2 WE FIND THAT THE OBJECTS OF THE ASSESSEE SOCIETY ARE CHARITABLE IN NATURE WITHIN THE MEANING OF SECTION 2(15) OF THE ACT ON WHICH FACT THERE IS ABSOLUTELY NO DISPUTE. IT IS PERTINENT TO NOTE THAT THE REGISTRATION U/S 12AA OF THE ACT WAS GRANTED TO THE ASSESSEE ON 29.10.2010 WITH EFFECT FROM 1.4.2010. ADMITTEDLY, THE NOTICE U/S 148 OF THE ACT WAS ISSUED BY THE DCIT, CIRCLE 2 SILIGURI FOR THE ASST YEARS 2003 - 04 TO 2008 - 09 ON 30.3.2010. EVEN FOR THE EARLIER YEARS, THE ASSESSEE SOCIETY WAS CARRYING ON THE SAME CHARITABLE 8 ITA NO S . 128 /VI Z /201 2 AND 129 /VIZ/201 4, A.YS.20 10 - 11 AND 20 11 - 12 M/S GANTA SRIRAM EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY OBJECTS AS PER THE TRUST DEED ON WHICH FACT ALSO THERE IS ABSOLUTELY NO DISPUTE. THE RECEIPTS WERE BROUGHT TO TAX ONLY ON THE PRETEXT THAT THE ASSESSEE SOCIETY IS NOT HAVING REGISTRATION U/S 12AA OF THE ACT IN THE ASST YEARS 2003 - 04 TO 200 8 - 09. 6.3 IT IS RELEVANT AT THIS JUNCTURE TO GET INTO THE AMENDMENT BROUGHT IN SECTION 12A BY FINANCE ACT 2014 WITH EFFECT FROM 1.10.2014 BY WAY OF INSERTION OF FIRST PROVISO TO SECTION 12A(2) OF THE ACT WHICH IS REPRODUCED BELOW FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENC E : 'SECTION 12 A (2) WHERE AN APPLICATION HAS BEEN MADE ON OR AFTER THE 1ST DAY OF JUNE 2007, THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 11 AND 12 SHALL APPLY IN RELATION TO THE INCOME OF SUCH TRUST OR INSTITUTION FROM THE ASSESSMENT YEAR IMMEDIATELY FOLLOWING THE FINANC IAL YEAR IN WHICH SUCH APPLICATION IS MADE: PROVIDED THAT WHERE REGISTRATION HAS BEEN GRANTED TO THE TRUST OR INSTITUTION UNDER SECTION 12AA, THEN, THE PROVISIONS OF SECTIONS 11 AND 12 SHALL APPLY IN RESPECT OF ANY INCOME DERIVED FROM PROPERTY HELD UNDER T RUST OF ANY ASSESSMENT YEAR PRECEDING THE AFORESAID ASSESSMENT YEAR, FOR WHICH ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS ARE PENDING BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER AS ON DATE OF SUCH REGISTRATION AND THE OBJECTS AND ACTIVITIES OF SUCH TRUST OR INSTITUTION REMAIN THE SAME FOR S UCH PRECEDING ASSESSMENT YEAR: PROVIDED FURTHER THAT NO ACTION UNDER SECTION 147 SHALL BE TAKEN BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN CASE OF SUCH TRUST OR INSTITUTION FOR ANY ASSESSMENT YEAR PRECEDING THE AFORESAID ASSESSMENT YEAR ONLY FOR NON - REGISTRATION OF SUCH TRUST OR INSTITUTION FOR THE SAID ASSESSMENT YEAR: PROVIDED ALSO THAT PROVISIONS CONTAINED IN THE FIRST AND SECOND PROVISO SHALL NOT APPLY IN CASE OF ANY TRUST OR INSTITUTION WHICH WAS REFUSED REGISTRATION OR THE REGISTRATION GRANTED TO IT WAS CANCELLED AT ANY TIME UNDER SECTION 12AA.' 6.4 ADMITTEDLY, THE REASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS WERE PENDING BEFORE THE LEARNED AO FOR THE ASST YEARS 2003 - 04 TO 2008 - 09 AS ON THE DATE OF GRANTING REGISTRATION U/S 12AA OF THE ACT ON 29.10.2010 WITH EFFECT FROM 1.4.2010 AS REAS SESSMENT PROCEEDINGS GOT COMMENCED PURSUANT TO ISSUANCE OF NOTICE U/S 148 ON 30.3.2010 AS STATED SUPRA . ADMITTEDLY, THE OBJECTS AND ACTIVITIES OF THE TRUST HAD REMAINED THE SAME IN PRECEDING ASSESSMENT YEARS ALSO I.E ASST YEARS 2003 - 04 TO 2008 - 09. THOUGH T HIS FIRST PROVISO TO SECTION 12A(2) TALKS ABOUT PENDENCY OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, IT IS RELEVANT TO GET INTO THE DEFINITION OF THE TERM 'ASSESSMENT' IN SECTION 2(8) OF THE ACT, WHEREIN IT IS DEFINED AS 'ASSESSMENT INCLUDES REASSESSMENT'. HENCE EVEN REASS ESSMENT PROCEEDINGS 9 ITA NO S . 128 /VI Z /201 2 AND 129 /VIZ/201 4, A.YS.20 10 - 11 AND 20 11 - 12 M/S GANTA SRIRAM EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY THAT WERE PENDING WOULD ALSO COME UNDER THE AMBIT OF THE FIRST PROVISO TO SECTION 12A(2) OF THE ACT. 6.5 THE SECOND PROVISO TO SECTION 12A(2) ALSO PROVIDES THAT NO ACTION U/S 147 OF THE ACT SHALL BE TAKEN MERELY FOR NON - REGISTRATION OF TRUST OR INSTITUTION. READING THIS PROVISO WITH THE FIRST PROVISO TO SECTION 12A(2) AND APPLYING THE RULE OF HARMONIOUS CONSTRUCTION, IT COULD SAFELY BE CONCLUDED THAT THE LEGISLATURE IN ITS WISDOM HAD ONLY BROUGHT THIS PROVISO TO PREVENT GENUINE HARDSHIP THAT COULD BE CAUSED ON THE ASSESSEE DUE TO NON - REGISTRATION U/S 12AA OF THE ACT AND ACCORDINGLY IN OUR OPINION, THE PROVISOS TO SECTION 12A(2) OF THE ACT IS TO BE CONSTRUED AS RETROSPECTIVE IN OPERATION. 6.6 THE THIRD PROVISO TO SECTION 12A(2) OF THE ACT ALSO PROVIDES THAT THE FIRST AND SECOND PROVISO SHALL NOT BE APPLICABLE IF THE TRUST OR INSTITUTION HAD BEEN REFUSED REGISTRATION EARLIER OR THE REGISTRATION GRANTED EARLIER IS CANCELLED BY THE COMMISSIONER U/S 12AA OF THE ACT. THIS ALSO GOES TO PROVE THAT THE FIRST AND SECOND PROVISO SHALL BE MADE APPLICABLE FOR THE TRUSTS FOR EARLIER ASSESSMENT YEARS ALSO WHO HAD NOT APPLIED FOR REGISTRATION U/S 12AA OF THE ACT AT ALL. 6.7 WE HOLD THAT THE REGISTRATION OF TRUST UNDER SECTION 12A OF THE ACT ONCE DONE IS A FAIT ACCOMPLI AND THE AO CANNOT THEREAFTER MAKE FURTHER PROBE INTO THE OBJECTS OF THE TRUST. RELIANCE IN THIS REGARD IS PLACED ON THE DECISION OF THE HON'BLE APEX COURT RENDERED IN THE CASE OF ASSTT. CIT V .SURAT CITY GYMKHANA [2008] 300 ITR 214/170 TAXMAN 612 . DRAWING ANALOGY FROM THIS JUDGEMENT, THE LOGICAL INFERENCE COULD BE THAT AS LONG AS THE OBJECTS WERE CHARITABLE IN NATURE IN THE EARLIER YEARS AND IN THE YEAR IN W HICH REGISTRATION U/S 12AA WAS GRANTED, THE EXISTENCE OF TRUST FOR CHARITABLE PURPOSES IN THE EARLIER YEARS CANNOT BE DOUBTED WITH. EVEN OTHERWISE, NO ADVERSE FINDINGS WERE GIVEN BY THE REVENUE WITH REGARD TO THE EXISTENCE OF THE ASSESSEE SOCIETY FOR CHARI TABLE PURPOSES IN THE ASSESSMENT YEARS UNDER APPEAL. 6.8 IT WILL BE RELEVANT TO GET INTO THE EXPLANATORY NOTES TO THE PROVISIONS OF THE FINANCE (NO. 2), 2014 AS GIVEN IN CBDT CIRCULAR NO. 01/2015 DATED 21.1.2015 IN REFERENCE F.NO. 142/13/2014 - TPL WHICH IS REPRODUCED HEREINBELOW FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE : PARA 8 - APPLICABILITY OF THE REGISTRATION GRANTED TO A TRUST OR INSTITUTION TO EARLIER YEARS PARA 8.2 NON - APPLICATION OF REGISTRATION FOR THE PERIOD PRIOR TO THE YEAR OF REGISTRATION CAUSED GENUINE H ARDSHIP TO CHARITABLE ORGANIZATIONS. DUE TO ABSENCE OF REGISTRATION, TAX LIABILITY IS FASTENED EVEN THOUGH THEY MAY OTHERWISE BE ELIGIBLE FOR EXEMPTION AND FULFILL OTHER 10 ITA NO S . 128 /VI Z /201 2 AND 129 /VIZ/201 4, A.YS.20 10 - 11 AND 20 11 - 12 M/S GANTA SRIRAM EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY SUBSTANTIVE CONDITIONS. HOWEVER, THE POWER OF CONDONATION OF DELAY IN SEEKING REGISTRA TION WAS NOT AVAILABLE. THIS CLEARLY GOES TO PROVE THAT THE FIRST PROVISO TO SECTION 12A(2) WAS BROUGHT IN THE STATUTE ONLY AS A RETROSPECTIVE EFFECT WITH A VIEW NOT TO AFFECT GENUINE CHARITABLE TRUSTS AND SOCIETIES CARRYING ON GENUINE CHARITABLE OBJECTS I N THE EARLIER YEARS AND SUBSTANTIVE CONDITIONS STIPULATED IN SECTION 11 TO 13 HAVE BEEN DULY FULFILLED BY THE SAID TRUST. THE BENEFIT OF RETROSPECTIVE APPLICATION ALONE COULD BE THE INTENTION OF THE LEGISLATURE AND THIS POINT IS FURTHER STRENGTHENED BY THE EXPLANATORY NOTES TO FINANCE (NO. 2) ACT, 2014 ISSUED BY THE CENTRAL BOARD OF DIRECT TAXES VIDE ITS CIRCULAR NO. 01/2015 DATED 21.1.2015. APPARENTLY THE STATUTE PROVIDES THAT REGISTRATION ONCE GRANTED IN SUBSEQUENT YEAR, THE BENEFIT OF THE SAME HAS TO BE APPLIED IN THE EARLIER ASSESSMENT YEARS FOR WHICH ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS ARE PENDING BEFORE THE LEARNED AO, UNLESS THE REGISTRATION GRANTED EARLIER IS CANCELLED OR REFUSED FOR SPECIFIC REASONS. THE STATUTE ALSO GOES ON TO PROVIDE THAT NO ACTION U/S 147 COU LD BE TAKEN BY THE AO MERELY FOR NON - REGISTRATION OF TRUST FOR EARLIER YEARS. 6.9 WITH REGARD TO THE ARGUMENTS OF THE LEARNED DR THAT DONATIONS RECEIVED BY ASSESSEE FALLS UNDER THE DEFINITION OF INCOME U/S 2(24)(IIA) OF THE ACT, WE WOULD LIKE TO STATE THAT INCOME DEFINITION IS AN INCLUSIVE DEFINITION. AN INCLUSIVE DEFINITION EXTENDS THE SPECIFIC MEANING GIVEN IN THE STATED ITEMS BY THE GENERAL MEANING AS COMMONLY UNDERSTOOD BY THE SAID EXPRESSION WHICH IS DEFINED IN A STATUTE. THE WORD INCOME AS IS COMMONLY UNDERSTOOD DOES NOT INCLUDE ANY DONATION SPECIFICALLY MEANT FOR UTILIZATION FOR ACQUIRING, CONSTRUCTING A CAPITAL ASSET, AS IS THE CASE HERE. FURTHER SECTION 2(24) HAD UNDERGONE AMENDMENT BY WAY OF INSERTION OF CLAUSE (IIA) BY FINANCE ACT, 1972 WITH EFFEC T FROM 1.4.1973. IN THIS CONNECTION, IT WILL BE RELEVANT TO GET INTO THE MEMORANDUM EXPLAINING THE PROVISIONS IN FINANCE ACT 1972 REPORTED IN 83 ITR (ST.) 173, WHEREIN PARAGRAPHS 24 AND 25 CLEARLY DEFINE THE SCOPE OF THE AMENDMENT WHEREIN IN PARAGRAPH 25(I ) , THE CONCLUDING SENTENCE IS AS UNDER: 'CONTRIBUTIONS RECEIVED WITH A SPECIFIC DIRECTION THAT THEY WILL FORM PART OF THE CORPUS OF THE TRUST OR DISTRIBUTION WILL, HOWEVER, NOT BE REGARDED AS INCOME.' THUS THE RELEVANT CLAUSE DEFINING INCOME IN SECTION 2 (24)(IIA) AS INTRODUCED WITH EFFECT FROM 1.4.1973 WAS CLEARLY NOT INTENDED TO COVER CONTRIBUTIONS/DONATIONS RECEIVED WITH A SPECIFIC DIRECTION THAT THEY WILL FORM PART OF THE CORPUS OF THE TRUST FOR UTILIZATION IN ACQUISITION/CONSTRUCTION OF A CAPITAL ASSE T. THUS WHAT IS NOT INCOME AS PER THE DEFINITION OF THE WORD INCOME IN THE ACT CANNOT BE 11 ITA NO S . 128 /VI Z /201 2 AND 129 /VIZ/201 4, A.YS.20 10 - 11 AND 20 11 - 12 M/S GANTA SRIRAM EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY BROUGHT TO TAX UNDER ANY OTHER PROVISION OF THE ACT. WE FIND THAT THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED CITA FAILED TO DISTINGUISH BETWEEN A CASE WHERE A RECEIPT IS NOT AN INCOME A T THE STAGE OF ITS RECEIPT AND A CASE WHERE IT IS NOT SO BUT IS CLAIMED TO BE EXEMPT BECAUSE OF ANY EXEMPTION PROVISION GRANTING EXEMPTION FROM TAXATION TO RECEIPTS WHICH ARE LIABLE TO TAXATION BUT FOR THE PROVISION GRANTING EXEMPTION. 6.10 WE HOLD THAT IT IS AN ESTABLISHED POSITION IN LAW THAT A PROVISO WHICH IS INSERTED TO REMEDY UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES AND TO MAKE THE PROVISION WORKABLE, A PROVISO WHICH SUPPLIES AN OBVIOUS OMISSION IN THE SECTION AND IS REQUIRED TO BE READ INTO THE SECTION TO GIVE THE SE CTION A REASONABLE INTERPRETATION, REQUIRES TO BE TREATED AS RETROSPECTIVE IN OPERATION, SO THAT A REASONABLE INTERPRETATION CAN BE GIVEN TO THE SECTION AS A WHOLE AND ACCORDINGLY THE SAID INSERTION OF FIRST PROVISO TO SECTION 12A(2) OF THE ACT WITH EFFECT FROM 1.10.2014 SHOULD BE READ AS RETROSPECTIVE IN OPERATION WITH EFFECT FROM THE DATE WHEN THE CONDITION OF ELIGIBILITY FOR EXEMPTION UNDER SECTION 11 & 12 AS MENTIONED IN SECTION 12A PROVIDED FOR REGISTRATION U/S 12AA AS A PRE - CONDITION FOR APPLICABILITY OF SECTION 12A. RELIANCE IN THIS REGARD IS PLACED ON THE FOLLOWING DECISIONS : ALLIED MOTORS (P.) LTD. V. CIT [1997] 224 ITR 677/91 TAXMAN 205 (SC) - JUDGEMENT BY THR EE JUDGES OF THE SUPREME COURT 'THE DEPARTMENTAL UNDERSTANDING ALSO APPEARS TO BE THAT SECTION 43B, THE PROVISO AND EXPLANATION 2 HAVE TO BE READ TOGETHER AS EXPRESSING THE TRUE INTENTION OF SECTION 43B. EXPLANATION 2 HAS BEEN EXPRESSLY MADE RETROSPECTIVE. THE FIRST PROVISO, HOWEVER, CANNOT BE ISOLATED FROM EXPLANATION 2 AND THE MAIN BODY OF SECTION 43B. WITHOUT THE FIRST PROVISO, EXPLANATION 2 WOULD NOT OBVIATE THE HARDSHIP OR THE UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES OF SECTION 43B. THE PROVISO SUPPLIES AN OBVIOUS OMIS SION. BUT FOR THIS PROVISO THE AMBIT OF SECTION 43B BECOME UNDULY WIDE BRINGING WITHIN ITS SCOPE THOSE PAYMENTS, WHICH WERE NOT INTENDED TO BE PROHIBITED FROM THE CATEGORY OF PERMISSIBLE DEDUCTIONS. IN THE CASE OF GOODYEAR INDIA LTD. V. STATE OF HARYANA (1 991) 188 ITR 402, SUPREME COURT SAID THAT THE RULE OF REASONABLE CONSTRUCTION MUST BE APPLIED WHILE CONSTRUING A STATUTE. LITERAL CONSTRUCTION SHOULD BE AVOIDED IF IT DEFEATS THE MANIFEST OBJECT AND PURPOSE OF THE ACT. AS OBSERVED BY G.P. SINGH IN HIS PRIN CIPLES OF STATUTORY INTERPRETATION, 4TH EDN., PAGE 291, 'IT IS WELL SETTLED THAT IF A STATUTE IS CURATIVE OR MERELY DECLARATORY OF THE PREVIOUS LAW, RETROSPECTIVE OPERATION IS GENERALLY INTENDED'. IN FACT THE AMENDMENT WOULD NOT SERVE ITS OBJECT IN SUCH A SITUATION, UNLESS IT 12 ITA NO S . 128 /VI Z /201 2 AND 129 /VIZ/201 4, A.YS.20 10 - 11 AND 20 11 - 12 M/S GANTA SRIRAM EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY IS CONSTRUED AS RETROSPECTIVE. THE VIEW, THEREFORE, TAKEN BY THE DELHI HIGH COURT CANNOT BE SUSTAINED.' CIT V. VIRGIN CREATIONS IN ITAT NO. 302 OF 2011 IN GA 3200/2011 DATED 23.11.2011, THE HON'BLE CALCUTTA HIGH COURT IN THE CONTEXT OF RETROSPECTIVE APPLICABILITY OF AMENDMENT TO SECTION 40(A)(IA) OF THE ACT HELD AS BELOW: 'THE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF ALLIED MOTORS P LTD AND ALSO IN THE CASE OF ALOM EXTRUSIONS LTD HAS ALREADY DECIDED THAT THE AFORESAID PROVISION HAS RETROSPECTIVE A PPLICATION. AGAIN, IN THE CASE REPORTED IN 82 ITR 570, THE SUPREME COURT HELD THAT THE PROVISION, WHICH HAS INSERTED THE REMEDY TO MAKE THE PROVISION WORKABLE, REQUIRES TO BE TREATED WITH RETROSPECTIVE OPERATION SO THAT REASONABLE DEDUCTION CAN BE GIVEN TO THE SECTION AS WELL'. CIT V. VATIKA TOWNSHIP (P.) LTD. [2014] 367 ITR 466/227 TAXMAN 121/49 TAXMANN.COM 249 (SC) - FIVE JUDGES DECISION OF THE SUPREME COURT : 'WE WOU LD ALSO LIKE TO POINT OUT, FOR THE SAKE OF COMPLETENESS, THAT WHERE A BENEFIT IS CONFERRED BY A LEGISLATION, THE RULE AGAINST A RETROSPECTIVE CONSTRUCTION IS DIFFERENT. IF A LEGISLATION CONFERS A BENEFIT ON SOME PERSONS BUT WITHOUT INFLICTING A CORRESPONDI NG DETRIMENT ON SOME OTHER PERSON OR ON THE PUBLIC GENERALLY, AND WHERE TO CONFER SUCH BENEFIT APPEARS TO HAVE BEEN THE LEGISLATORS OBJECT, THEN THE PRESUMPTION WOULD BE THAT SUCH A LEGISLATION, GIVING IT A PURPOSIVE CONSTRUCTION, WOULD WARRANT IT TO BE GI VEN A RETROSPECTIVE EFFECT. THIS EXACTLY IS THE JUSTIFICATION TO TREAT PROCEDURAL PROVISIONS AS RETROSPECTIVE. IN GOVERNMENT OF INDIA V. INDIAN TOBACCO ASSOCIATION REPORTED IN (2005) 7 SCC 396, THE DOCTRINE OF FAIRNESS WAS HELD TO BE RELEVANT FACTOR TO CON STRUE A STATUTE CONFERRING A BENEFIT, IN THE CONTEXT OF IT TO BE GIVEN A RETROSPECTIVE OPERATION. THE SAME DOCTRINE OF FAIRNESS, TO HOLD THAT A STATUTE WAS RETROSPECTIVE IN NATURE, WAS APPLIED IN THE CASE OF VIJAY V. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA REPORTED IN (2006) 6 SCC 289. IT WAS HELD THAT WHERE A LAW IS ENACTED FOR THE BENEFIT OF COMMUNITY AS A WHOLE, EVEN IN THE ABSENCE OF A PROVISION THE STATUTE MAY BE HELD TO BE RETROSPECTIVE IN NATURE. HOWEVER, WE ARE CONFRONTED WITH ANY SUCH SITUATION HERE. IN SUCH CASES, RE TROSPECTIVITY IS ATTACHED TO BENEFIT THE PERSONS IN CONTRADISTINCTION TO THE PROVISION IMPOSING SOME BURDEN OR LIABILITY WHERE THE PRESUMPTION ATTACHES TOWARDS PROSPECTIVITY. IN THE INSTANT CASE, THE PROVISO ADDED TO SECTION 113 OF THE ACT IS NOT BENEFICIA L TO THE ASSESSEE. ON THE CONTRARY, IT IS A PROVISION WHICH IS ONEROUS TO THE ASSESSEE. THEREFORE, IN A CASE LIKE THIS, WE HAVE TO PROCEED WITH THE NORMAL RULE OF PRESUMPTION AGAINST 13 ITA NO S . 128 /VI Z /201 2 AND 129 /VIZ/201 4, A.YS.20 10 - 11 AND 20 11 - 12 M/S GANTA SRIRAM EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY RETROSPECTIVE OPERATION. THUS, THE RULE AGAINST RETROSPECTIVE OPERATION I S A FUNDAMENTAL RULE OF LAW THAT NO STATUTE SHALL BE CONSTRUED TO HAVE A RETROSPECTIVE OPERATION UNLESS SUCH A CONSTRUCTION APPEARS VERY CLEARLY IN THE TERMS OF THE ACT OR ARISES BY NECESSARY AND DISTINCT IMPLICATION. DOGMATICALLY FRAMED, THE RULE IS NO MO RE THAN A PRESUMPTION, AND THUS COULD BE DISPLACED BY OUT WEIGHING FACTORS.' CIT V. J.H. GOTLA [1985] 156 ITR 323/23 TAXMAN 14J (SC) 'IF THE PURPOSE OF A PARTICULAR PRO VISION IS EASILY DISCERNIBLE FROM THE WHOLE OF THE SCHEME OF THE ACT WHICH IN THIS CASE, IS TO COUNTERACT THE EFFECT OF TRANSFER OF ASSETS SO FAR AS COMPUTATION OF INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE IS CONCERNED, THEN BEARING THAT PURPOSE IN MIND, WE SHOULD FIND OUT T HE INTENTION FROM THE LANGUAGE USED BY THE LEGISLATURE AND IF STRICT LITERAL CONSTRUCTION LEADS TO AN ABSURD RESULT, I.E., RESULT NOT INTENDED TO BE SUBSERVED BY THE OBJECT OF THE LEGISLATION FOUND IN THE MANNER INDICATED BEFORE, THEN ANOTHER CONSTRUCTION IS POSSIBLE APART FROM STRICT LITERAL CONSTRUCTION THEN THAT CONSTRUCTION SHOULD BE PREFERRED TO THE STRICT LITERAL CONSTRUCTION.' 6.11 WE ALSO HOLD THAT THOUGH EQUITY AND TAXATION ARE OFTEN STRANGERS , ATTEMPTS SHOULD BE MADE THAT THESE DO NOT REMAIN ALWA YS SO AND IF A CONSTRUCTION RESULTS IN EQUITY RATHER THAN IN INJUSTICE, THEN SUCH CONSTRUCTION SHOULD BE PREFERRED TO THE LITERAL CONSTRUCTION. IT IS ONLY ELEMENTARY THAT A STATUTORY PROVISION IS TO BE INTERPRETED UT RES MAGIS VALEAT QUAM PEREAT, I.E TO MA KE IT WORKABLE RATHER THAN REDUNDANT. APPLYING THIS LEGAL MAXIM, IT WOULD BE JUST AND FAIR TO HOLD THAT THE AMENDMENT IN SECTION 12A IS BROUGHT IN THE STATUTE TO CONFER BENEFIT OF EXEMPTION U/S 11 OF THE ACT ON THE GENUINE TRUSTS WHICH HAD NOT CHANGED ITS OBJECTIVES AND HAD CARRIED ON THE SAME CHARITABLE OBJECTS IN THE PAST AS WELL AS IN THE CURRENT YEAR BASED ON WHICH THE REGISTRATION U/S 12AA IS GRANTED BY THE DIT(EXEMPTIONS). 6.12 WE HOLD THAT THE ARGUMENTS OF THE LEARNED AR THAT, EVEN ASSUMING WITHOUT C ONCEDING, IN THE WORST SCENARIO, THE ASSESSEE SOCIETY COULD ONLY BE TAXED IN THE STATUS OF AN AOP DOES NOT REQUIRE ANY ADJUDICATION AS WE HOLD THAT THE ASSESSEE SOCIETY TO BE CONSTRUED AS A PUBLIC CHARITABLE TRUST AND ELIGIBLE TO CLAIM EXEMPTION U/S 11 OF THE ACT FOR THE EARLIER ASSESSMENT YEARS, MORE ESPECIALLY, ASST YEARS 2003 - 04 TO 2008 - 09 , THE DONATIONS RECEIVED FROM VARIOUS DONORS FOR CONSTRUCTION OF AN OLD AGE HOME WOULD TAKE THE CHARACTER OF CORPUS DONATIONS AS THEY ARE MEANT FOR SPECIFIC PURPOSES A ND ACCORDINGLY WOULD BE EXEMPT U/S 11(1)(D) OF THE ACT. EVEN OTHERWISE, THE SAID DONATION RECEIPTS ARE ONLY CAPITAL IN NATURE AS IT IS RECEIVED FOR CONSTRUCTION OF AN OLD AGE HOME ON WHICH FACT THERE IS ABSOLUTELY NO DISPUTE. THE LEARNED AO ALSO HAD 14 ITA NO S . 128 /VI Z /201 2 AND 129 /VIZ/201 4, A.YS.20 10 - 11 AND 20 11 - 12 M/S GANTA SRIRAM EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY DULY A CCEPTED THE NATURE OF DONATIONS, GENUINITY OF THE DONORS AND ITS UTILIZATION IN THE REMAND PROCEEDINGS. HENCE IN ANY CASE, A RECEIPT WHICH IS BY BIRTH, CAPITAL IN NATURE, CANNOT CHANGE ITS CHARACTER MERELY FOR WANT OF REGISTRATION OF SOCIETY U/S 12AA OF TH E ACT. IT IS NOT THE CASE OF THE REVENUE THAT THE DONATIONS RECEIVED ARE MEANT FOR GENERAL FUNCTIONING OF THE CHARITABLE OBJECTS OF THE SOCIETY, IN WHICH EVENT, THE DONATIONS RECEIVED THEREON WOULD TAKE THE CHARACTER OF REVENUE RECEIPTS REQUIRING TO BE CRE DITED IN THE INCOME AND EXPENDITURE ACCOUNT FOR UTILIZATION TOWARDS CHARITABLE OBJECTS THEREON. HENCE WE HOLD THAT IN ANY CASE, THE DONATIONS RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE SOCIETY CANNOT BE BROUGHT TO TAX IN THE ASSESSMENT. 6.13 WE HOLD THAT SINCE THE ONLY REAS ON FOR DENIAL OF EXEMPTION U/S 11 WAS ABSENCE OF REGISTRATION U/S 12AA (WHICH WAS GRANTED TO ASSESSEE SOCIETY ON 29.10.2010 WITH EFFECT FROM 1.4.2010) FOR THE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEARS AND ON NO OTHER GROUND, THE BENEFIT OF CHANGE IN LAW AS ABOVE BY FINANC E ACT 2014 SHOULD BE AVAILABLE AND FOR ALL THE YEARS, THE BENEFIT OF EXEMPTION SHOULD BE AVAILABLE ON THE DATE OF REGISTRATION AS ALL THE ASSESSMENTS WERE PENDING AS SHOWN ABOVE. IN THIS CONNECTION, IT REQUIRES MENTION SPECIFICALLY THAT ALL THE RECEIPTS OF THE DONATION WERE PROVED ON ENQUIRY TO HAVE BEEN RECEIVED FROM THE CLAIMED DONORS AND UTILIZED FOR THE SPECIFIC PURPOSE (CONSTRUCTION OF OLD AGE HOME) FOR WHICH THEY WERE RECEIVED. IN CONCLUSION, WE HOLD THAT THE INSERTION OF THE PROVISO TO SECTION 12A(2) OF THE ACT HAS TO BE CONSTRUED AS RETROSPECTIVE IN OPERATION. RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE VARIOUS JUDICIAL PRECEDENTS RELIED UPON AND IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, WE ALLOW THE GROUND NOS. 3 TO 8 RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE. 6. IN THE INSTANT CAS E, THE ASSESSEE IS CARRYING ON EDUCATIONAL ACTIVITY AND ENTITLED FOR REGISTRATION U/S 12A. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX HAS GRANTED THE REGISTRATION U/S12A. THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE IS CARRYING ON EDUCATIONAL ACTIVITY AND ENTITLED FOR REGISTRATION U/S 12 A IS NOT DISPUTED BY THE DEPARTMENT. THE OBJECTS OF THE TRUST ARE FOR THE CHARITABLE PURPOSE WITHIN THE MEANING OF 15 ITA NO S . 128 /VI Z /201 2 AND 129 /VIZ/201 4, A.YS.20 10 - 11 AND 20 11 - 12 M/S GANTA SRIRAM EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY SECTION 2 OF SUB SECTION 15 OF THE I.T.ACT. THE ASSESSEE HAS APPLIED FOR EXEMPTION U/S 10(23C) BUT THE CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX HAS REJECTED THE EXEMPTION CLAIMED U/S 10(23C). THE DELAY FOR MAKING APPLICATION FOR GRANTING REGISTRATION WAS DUE TO THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS CHOSEN A PATH OF 10(23C). THE REGISTRATION WAS GRANTED W.E.F. 1.4.2011 ON 30.03.2012 AND THE CIT HAS NEVER R EJECTED THE REGISTRATION EARLIER. HAD THE SOCIETY DID NOT PREFER THE PATH OF 10(23C), IT WOULD HAVE APPLIED WELL IN ADVANCE FOR REGISTRATION U/S12A, THUS WE FIND REASONABLE CAUSE FOR DELAY IN APPLYING FOR THE REGISTRATION U/S 12A. AS ON THE DATE OF REGIST RATION, THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENTS FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010 - 11 AND 2011 - 12 ARE PENDING. THE FACTS OF THE CASE ARE SIMILAR T O THAT OF SREE SREE RAMAKRISHNA SAMITY VS. DCIT REPORTED (SUPRA). THEREFORE, WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT THE FACTS OF THE KOLKATA TRIBUNAL ARE SQUARELY APPLICABLE TO THE ASSESSEES CASE AND ACCORDINGLY WE HOLD THAT EXEMPTION U/S 11 AND 12 SHOULD BE GRANTED TO THE ASSESSEE SUBJECT TO SATISFACTORY COMPLIANCE OF THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS LAID DOWN IN THE SECTION 11 AND 12 FOR THE PENDING ASSESSMENTS I.E. 2010 - 11 AND 2011 - 12. ACCORDINGLY APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. 16 ITA NO S . 128 /VI Z /201 2 AND 129 /VIZ/201 4, A.YS.20 10 - 11 AND 20 11 - 12 M/S GANTA SRIRAM EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY 7 . IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL S OF THE ASSESSEE ARE ALLOWED . T HE ABOVE ORDER WAS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 30 TH JUN 20 17 . SD/ - SD/ - ( . ) ( . . ) (V. DURGA RAO) ( D.S. SUNDER SINGH ) /JUDICIAL MEMBER /ACCOUNTANT MEMBER /VISAKHAPATNAM /DATED : 30 .06.2017 L. RAMA, SPS / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : - 1. / THE APPELLANT - M/S GANTA SRI RAM EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY , D.NO.27 - 3 - 142/1 , R OAD NO.4, OFFICIAL COLONY , VISAKHAPATNAM 2 . / THE RESPONDENT ACIT, CIRCLE - 5(1), VISAKHAPATNAM 3 . / THE CIT - 1 , VI SAKHAPATNAM 4 . ( ) / THE CIT (A) , VI SAKHAPATNAM 5 . , , / DR, ITAT, VISAKHAPATNAM 6 . / GUARD FILE / BY ORDER // TRUE COPY // SR. PRIVATE SECRETARY ITAT, VISAKHAPATNAM