Deputy Director of Income Tax, Hyderabad V. Scient Educational Society, Hyderabad

ITA 131/HYD/2010

• Counselvise Citation: [2011] 134 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 3349 (ITAT-HYDERABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 3 month(s) 13 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 10-05-2011
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 10-05-2011
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 27-01-2010
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: NIVEDITA BISWAS
• Assessee Lawyers: A V RAGHURAM
• Keywords: Tax effect
• Section: 260A; 12; 11

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD A BENCH, HYDERABAD BEFORE SHRI G.C. GUPTA, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO.130 & 131/H/2010 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2006-07 & 2007-08 THE DY. CIT (E)-I, HYDERABAD VS THE SCIENT EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY, HYDERABAD PAN AADTS 0229 G APPELLANT RESPONDENT APPELLANT BY : SMT. NIVEDITA BISWAS RESPONDENT BY: SHRI A.V. RAGHURAM ORDER PER CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: THESE TWO APPEALS PREFERRED BY THE REVENUE ARE DIRECTED AGAINST THE COMMON ORDER PASSED BY THE CIT(A) IV, HYDERABAD DATED 15 .12.2009 AND PERTAINS TO THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2006-07 & 2007-08. SINCE CERTAIN ISSUES INVOLVED IN THESE TWO APPEALS ARE COMMON IN NATURE, THEY ARE CLUBBED TOGETHER, HEARD TOGETHER AND DISPOSED OFF VIDE THIS COMMON ORDER FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE. 2. THE REVENUE RAISED THE FOLLOWING COMMON GROUN DS IN BOTH THE APPEALS AS FOLLOWS: 1. THE CIT(A) OUGHT TO HAVE APPRECIATED THE FACT THAT OBTAINING APPROVAL U/S 10(23C)(VI) OF THE IT ACT OF THE PRESCRIBED AUTHORI TY IS MANDATORY SINCE THE GROSS RECEIPTS OF THE SOCIETY HAVE EXCEEDED RS.ONE CRORE. 2. THE CIT(A) OUGHT TO HAVE APPRECIATED THE FACT T HAT IT WAS SECTION 10(23)(VI) THAT PROVIDED FOR EXEMPTION OF THE EDUCATIONAL INCO ME OF THE TRUSTS, SOCIETIES ETC. AND NOT SECTION 11. 3. THE DECISION OF THE ITAT RAJASTHAN SIKSHA SAMITH I HAS NOT BEEN ACCEPTED IN PRINCIPLE BUT THE APPEAL HAS NOT BEEN PREFERRED BEF ORE THE HIGH COURT U/S 260A DUE TO THE FACT THAT THE TAX EFFECT IS BELOW THE MO NETARY LIMITS. 4. IN THE CASE OF ST. THERESAS SOCIETY, THE DECISI ON OF THE ITAT HAS NOT BEEN ACCEPTED AND APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED BEFORE THE HIGH COURT. ITA NOS.130 & 131/H/2010 M/S SCIENT EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY, HYDERABAD 3. AT THE TIME OF HEARING, THE LEARNED AUTHORIZE D REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS PRAYED FOR CONSTITUTION OF A SPECIAL BENCH AND FILED A PETITION TO THIS EFFECT. WE HAVE GONE THROUGH THIS PETITION. IN OUR OPINION, THERE IS NO REASON FOR REFERRING THE MATTER TO A SPECIAL BENCH AS THE TRIBUNAL IS CONSISTENTLY HOLDI NG ON THIS ISSUE BY PLACING RELIANCE ON THE ORDER OF THIS TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF M/S VASAVI ACADEMY & EDUCATION, HYDERABAD IN ITA NO.1120/HYD/2009, DATED 29.1.2010 WHEREIN IT WAS H ELD AS FOLLOWS: WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE MATE RIAL ON RECORD. THE LEARNED AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THIS ISSUE COVERED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE BY THE ORDER OF THE HYDERABAD BENCH A OF THE TRIBUNAL DA TED 15.4.2009 IN ASSESSEES OWN CASES IN ITA NO.1133/HYD/2006 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2003-04 A ND ORDER DATED 17.4.2009 IN ITA NO.1206/HYD/2007 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2004-05. HOWEVER, WE FIND THAT THE CONSTITUTIONAL BENCH OF APEX COURT IN THE CASE OF T.M.A. PAI FOUN DATIONS AND OTHERS VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA & OTHERS (2002) 8 SCC 481 EXAMINED THE ISSUE OF COL LECTION OF CAPITATION FEES FOR THE ADMISSION OF STUDENTS OVER AND ABOVE FEES PRESCRIBED BY THE PRIV ATE INSTITUTION AND HELD THAT THE INSTITUTION WHICH ARE COLLECTING CAPITATION FEES FOR ADMISSION OF STUDENTS OVER AND ABOVE THE FEES PRESCRIBED CANNOT BE CONSTRUED AS CHARITABLE/EDUCATION INSTITU TION. APEX COURT FURTHER OBSERVED THAT THE FEES COLLECTED OVER AND ABOVE THE PRESCRIBED FEE FO R ADMISSION OF THE STUDENT HAS TO BE CONSTRUCTED AS CAPITATION FEE. THE APEX COURT, FUR THER OBSERVED THAT THE CONCERNED UNIVERSITY AND REGULATED BODY HAS TO TAKE ACTION FOR WITHDRAWA L OF THE RECOGNITION 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 C ASE OF ISLAMIC ACADEMY OF EDUCATION AND ANOTHER VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA & ANOTHER (2003) 6 S CC 697. IF THE DONATIONS WERE RECEIVED COMPULSORILY FOR ADMISSION OF STUDENTS, THE ASSESSE E IS NOT ENTITLED FOR EXEMPTION EITHER U/S 10(23C) OR U/S 11 OF THE IT ACT. SINCE THE LOWE R AUTHORITIES WERE NOT EXAMINED THE COLLECTION OF CAPITATION FEES IN THIS CASE, IN OUR OPINION, THE M ATTER REQUIRES TO BE EXAMINED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER WHETHER THE ASSESSEE IS COLLECTING THE CAPI TATION FEES FROM STUDENTS 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 CASE OF M/S. JAMIA NIZAMIA I N ITA NO.763/HYD/2007 DATED 30.6.2008, IN THE CASE OF INTERNATIONAL EDUCATIONAL ACADEMY, HYD ERABAD IN ITA NO.494/HYD/2007 AND 518/HYD/2008 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2002- 2003 A ND 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 R EMIT BACK THE MATTER TO THE FILE OF ASSESSING OFFICER WITH A DIRECTION TO ASSESSING OFFICER THAT HE SHALL RECONSIDER THE ENTIRE ISSUE IN THE LIGHT O F JUDGEMENT OF SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF M/S ISLAM IC ACADEMY OF EDUCATION & ANOTHER VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA AND ANOTHER (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 RECEIVED ANY MONEY OVER AND ABOVE THE FEES PRESCRIBED AND THEREA FTER DECIDE THE ISSUE AFRESH IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW AFTER GIVING REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF HEA RING TO THE ASSESSEE . WE MAKE IT CLEAR THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT ENTITLED FOR EXEMPTION EITHER U /S 11 OR U/S 10(23C) IN CASE IT COLLECTED ANY MONEY BY WHATEVER NAME IT IS CALLED I.E., DONATION, BUILDING FUND, AUDITORIUM FUND ETC. ETC., OVER AND ABOVE THE PRESCRIBED FEE FOR ADMISSION OF STUDE NTS. 5. LATER, THE ABOVE ASSESSEE FILED A MISCELLANEOU S PETITION IN MA NO.58/HYD/2010 AND THE SAME WAS DISPOSED OFF BY THI S TRIBUNAL VIDE ITS ORDER DATED 4 TH JUNE, 2010 BY HOLDING AS FOLLOWS: ITA NOS.130 & 131/H/2010 M/S SCIENT EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY, HYDERABAD THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED THE PRESENT MISCELLANEOUS AP PLICATION UNDER PROVISO TO RULE 24 OF THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL RULES, 1963 TO RECALL THE ORDER OF THIS TRIBUNAL DATED 29.01.2010 IN ITA NO.1120/HYD/2009. 2. THE AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE ASSESSE E SUBMITTED THAT THE ISSUE DEALT WITH BY THE TRIBUNAL DOES NOT FLOW FROM GROUNDS OF APPEAL. THE RE WAS NO GROUND RAISED BY THE DEPARTMENT RELATING TO COLLECTION OF CAPITATION FEE. THERE ARE NO FACT S ON RECORD RELATING TO THE ISSUE DEALT WITH BY THE TRIBUNAL. HE SUBMITTED THAT AS PER THE JUDGEMENT I N THE CASE OF JEYPORE TIMBER & VENEER MILLS (P) LTD ., (137 ITR 415) (GAUHATI HC), THE PROVISIONS OF SEC .254(1) IS BOTH ENABLING AND DISABLING PROVISION. HE DREW OUR ATTENTION TO THE SAID CASE LAW WHEREIN IT WAS OBSERVED THAT: THE POWER OF THE TRIBUNAL TO REMAND A CASE HAS BEE N PUT BEYOND ANY SHADOW OF DOUBT IN R. 28 OF THE IT ACT (APPELLATE TRIBUNAL) RULES, 1963. THE TRIBUNAL MUST FORM AN O PINION JUDICIOUSLY AND THEREAFTER IT CAN EXERCISE T HE POWER OF REMAND. A DETAILED REASON MAY NOT BE GIVEN IN THE DECISION. THE EXACT NATURE OF THE REMAND ORDER TO BE PASSED IN A GIVEN CASE IS A MATTER WITHIN THE ABSOLUTE DISCRETI ON OF THE TRIBUNAL, BUT THE POWER BEING JUDICIAL, IT MUST BE EXERCISED JUDICIOUSLY, ACCORDING TO RULE AND NOT ACCORDING TO HUMOUR, THE ORDER MUST BE LEGAL AND REGULAR, DISCI PLINED AS OPPOSED TO CAPRICIOUS. A CAPRICIOUS OR IMPETUOUS ORDER OF REM AND IS AN ABUSE OF THE DISCRETIONARY POWER CONFERRE D ON THE TRIBUNAL. WHEN SUCH A DISCRETIONARY ORDER IS MADE BY A TRIBUN AL, A HIGH POWERED AUTHORITY, THE PRESUMPTION IS TH AT IT WAS A DISCIPLINED AND RESPONSIBLE EXERCISE OF POWER. THE GROUNDS OF SUCH EXERCISE OF POWER MAY APPEAL EITHE R FROM THE ORDER OR THE REASONING OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE DECISION RE NDERED BY IT OR, IN AN APPROPRIATE CASE, IMPLICITLY FROM THE DECISION RENDERED BY IT IN THE BACKGROUND OF THE CONTENTIONS RAISED BEFORE IT. 3. ACCORDING TO THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSE E, THE TRIBUNAL EXCEEDS THE JURISDICTION VESTED WITH IT. HE SUBMITTED THAT THE REVENUE HAS NOT RAIS ED ANY GROUND WITH REGARD TO COLLECTION OF CAPITATION FEE OR ANY SUCH OTHER MATTE. NOR WAS AN Y EVIDENCE COLLECTED IN THIS REGARD BY THE REVENUE AND CONSEQUENTLY THERE WAS NO SCOPE EVEN TO RAISE ADDITIONAL GROUND IN THIS REGARD. HE SUBMITTED THAT THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL INDIRECTLY RESULTED IN GIVING THE DIRECTION FOR ENHANCEMENT OF ASSESSMENT WHICH SHALL OUGHT HAVE BE EN AVOIDED. 4. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTAT IVE SUBMITTED THAT THE ISSUE BEFORE US IN THE ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION IS WHETHER THE ASSESSEE ENTITLED FOR EXEMPTION U/S 11 & 12 OR 10(23C) OR NOT. THE ISSUE OF COLLECTION OF CAPITAT ION FEE IS VERY VITAL ISSUE AS PER THE JUDGEMENT OF THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT WHICH WAS RELIED BY THE T RIBUNAL WHILE DECIDING THE APPEAL. HE SUBMITTED THAT AS PER JUDGEMENT OF THE HONBLE SUPR EME COURT AS RELIED BY THE TRIBUNAL, IF ASSESSEE COLLECTED THE CAPITAL FEE, THEN DOES NOT E NTITLE FOR ANY EXEMPTIONS. HE SUBMITTED THAT WHEN THE CIT(A) DECIDE THE CASE WITHOUT BRINGING TH E PROPER FACTS ON RECORD, THE TRIBUNAL IS NOT PRECLUDED FROM SET ASIDE THE ISSUE TO THE FILE OF ASSESSING OFFICER FOR FRESH CONSIDERATION AFTER BRINGING THE ENTIRE FACTS ON RECORD. HE RELIED ON THE JUDGEMENTS: 1 . KAPURCHAND SHRIMAL VS. CIT (AP) (131 ITR 451) WHEREIN IT WAS HELD THAT THE FACTS REQUIRED FOR EX AMINING THE CLAIM WERE BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. THE ABSENCE OF AN APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIO NER, WHO HAD REMANDED THE MATTER TO THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, DID NOT IN ANY WAY PRECLUDE THE TRIBUNAL FROM HOLDING T HAT THE CAPITAL GAIN IN THE INSTANT CASE WAS A LONG TERM CAPITAL GA IN, SINCE SUCH RELIEF HAD IN FACT BEEN SOUGHT BY TH E ASSESSEE BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 2. CIT VS. SMT. S. VIJAYALAKSHMI (242 ITR 46) WHE REIN IT WAS HELD THAT AN APPELLATE AUTHORITY HAS TH E JURISDICTION AS WELL AS THE DUTY TO CORRECT ALL ERRORS IN THE PROCEEDIN GS UNDER APPEAL AND TO ISSUE, IF NECESSARY, APPROPR IATE DIRECTIONS TO THE AUTHORITY AGAINST WHO DECISION THE APPEAL IS PREFER RED TO DISPOSE OF THE WHOLE OR ANY PART OF THE MATT ER AFRESH, UNLESS FORBIDDEN FROM DOING SO BY STATUTE. 5. FURTHER, HE SUBMITTED THAT TRIBUNAL HAS TAKEN C ONSCIOUS DECISION. IT CANNOT BE RECTIFIED ACCORDING TO THE LIKING AND DISLIKING OF THE ASSESS EES COUNSEL. THE TRIBUNAL HAS NO REVIEW POWER. H E RELIED ON THE FOLLOWING JUDGEMENT : 1. CIT VS. RAMESH ELECTRIC & TRADING CO. (203 ITR 497 ) (BOM.HC) 2. ITO VS. ITAT & OTHER (229 ITR 651) ITA NOS.130 & 131/H/2010 M/S SCIENT EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY, HYDERABAD 3. SALGAOCAR MINING INDUSTRIES LTD. VS. DCIT (61 ITD 1 05) 4. ARUN KUMAR SRIVASTAVA VS. ITO (63 ITD 50) (3 RD MEMBER) (PUNE) 6. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. THE MAIN GRIEVANCE OF THE ASSESSEES COUNSEL IS THAT THE TRI BUNAL GONE BEYOND THE JURISDICTION VESTED WITH IT. THE TRIBUNAL SHOULD NOT HAVE SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER BY REMAND BACK THE ISSUE TO THE FILE OF ASSESSING OFFICER FOR FRESH CONSIDERATI ON SINCE THERE IS NO MATERIAL ON RECORD SO SUGGEST THE COLLECTION OF CAPITATION FEE. THE TRIBUNAL BY REMA ND THE ISSUE BACK TO THE FILE OF ASSESSING OFFICER CAUSED INJURY TO THE ASSESSEE AND THE TRIBUNAL SHOU LD NOT HAVE DISTURBED THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A). IN OUR OPINION, THE POWER OF THE TRIBUNAL U/S 254(1) A RE OF WIDEST AMPLITUDE. THE WORD USED IN THIS SECTION 254(1) THEREON OF COURSE, RESTRICT THE JURISDICTION OF THE TRIBUNAL TO THE SUBJECT MATTER OF THE APPEAL. THE WORDS PASS SUCH ORDERS THEREON AS THE TRIBUNAL THINKS FIT INCLUDE ALL THE POWERS (EXCEPT POSSIBLY THE POWER OF ENHANCEMENT WHICH AR E CONFERRED UPON THE CIT(A). THE ONLY THING IS THAT THE TRIBUNAL CANNOT ASSUME POWERS WHICH ARE IN CONSISTENT WITH THE EXPRESSED PROVISIONS OF THE ACT. HOWEVER, IT CANNOT BE INFERRED THAT THE TRIBU NAL CANNOT INTERFERE WITH ORDER OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES WHICH IS DEFECTIVE OR HAS NOT BROUGHT O N RECORD RELEVANT FACTS, WHEN THERE IS AN APPEAL OR CROSS OBJECTIONS AGAINST THAT ORDER. IT SHOULD BE NOTED THAT THE POWER OF THE TRIBUNAL MUST BE CONFINED TO THE ISSUE ARISE IN THE APPEAL AND IT CA NNOT TRAVEL OUTSIDE THE AMBIT OF ITS JURISDICTION. IF THE ASSESSING OFFICER MADE AN ERROR IN NOT BRINGING FACTS ON RECORD AND THE JUDGEMENT CANNOT BE WITHOUT EXAMINING THE FACTS ON RECORD, THEN TO RECT IFY THAT ERROR, THE TRIBUNAL CANNOT SHUT ITS EYES AND DELIVER THE JUDGEMENTS. IF THE TRIBUNAL DECIDE S TO REMAND TAKING A PARTICULAR VIEW OF THE CASE, BUT AN ALTERNATIVE VIEW OR OTHER VIEWS MIGHT EXIST FOR NOT REMANDING THE CASE, THE EXERCISE OF THE POWER OF THE TRIBUNAL SHOULD NOT BE DISTURBED. IF THE EFFECT OF THE ORDER OF REMAND IS TO BE RESULTED IN FAIR PLAY OF JUSTICE, THE ORDER SHOULD NOT BE DI STURBED. EVEN IN THAT EVENT, THE VIEW EXPRESSED B Y THE TRIBUNAL IS NOT CORRECT, THE ASSESSEE WOULD ALW AYS HAVE ITS REMEDY AS PROVIDED IN THE ACT. THE TRIBUNAL CANNOT OVER LOOK ITS OWN RESPONSIBLE POSIT ION WHILE DELIVERING JUSTICE. IT IS INCUMBENT ON THE PART OF THE TRIBUNAL TO DELIVER JUSTICE IN THE BEST INTEREST OF BOTH THE PARTIES. THE TRIBUNAL WH ILE DECIDING ANY APPEAL CANNOT TREAT THE FINDINGS OF TH E FACT MADE BY THE CIT(A) AS FINAL WHILE EXAMINING THE ISSUE, THE TRIBUNAL HAS TO SEE BOTH THE QUESTIO NS ON FACTS AND IN LAW. MERELY BECAUSE THE GROUND OF APPEAL STARTS WITH PHRASE WHETHER ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE THE TRIBUNAL CANNOT DECLINE TO INVESTIGATE THE FACTS AND COME TO THE CONCLUSIONS AS TO THE CORRECTNESS OF THE FINDI NGS OF THE CIT(A). FURTHER, EVEN ASSUMING THAT THE GR OUND IN APPEAL WAS OF LIMITED NATURE, THE QUESTION STILL REMAINS AS TO WHETHER ON THE BASIS OF THE FIN DINGS MADE BY THE CIT(A), THE CLAIM OF ASSESSEE COULD BE ALLOWED U/S 11 & 12 OR 10(23C). IN THIS C ASE, OF THE ASSESSEE, THE ONLY REQUIREMENT IS THAT THE TRIBUNAL SHOULD NOT ACT ON ANY INFORMATION WITHOUT PUTTING THE SAME TO THE PARTY AND FOR THE PURPOSE, IN VIEW OF THE JUDGEMENT OF THE HONBLE SU PREME COURT IN THE CASE OF T M A PAI FOUNDATIONS AND OTHERS VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA & OTH ERS (2002) 8 SCC 481 AND IN THE CASE OF ISLAMIC ACADEMY OF EDUCATION VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA & ANOTHER (2003) 6 SCC 697, THE TRIBUNAL SET ASIDE THE ISSUE TO THE FILE OF ASSESSING OFFICER FO R FRESH CONSIDERATION. BY THIS ACT OF THE TRIBUNAL , WE CANNOT SAY THAT THE TRIBUNAL TRAVEL BEYOND THE POWE R VESTED IN THE TRIBUNAL, BY THE STATUTE IN RESPECT OF THE APPEAL PREFERRED BEFORE IT. IN OUR OPINION IT IS OPEN TO THE TRIBUNAL TO INTERFERE WITH THE JURISDICTIONAL DISCRETION BY THE LOWER AUTHORITIES AND SUBSTITUTE THE SAME BY ITS OWN DISCRETION. WHE N IT DOES SO, IN PROPER EXERCISE OF ITS POWER U/S 254 BY TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION ALL THE RELEVANT FACT S INTO CONSIDERATION, AND IN DEFERRING FROM THE AUTHO RITIES BELOW AND EXERCISING ITS OWN DISCRETION, THE TRIBUNAL CANNOT BE HELD TO ACT ARBITRARY OR CAPRICI OUSLY. IN OUR OPINION, THE TRIBUNAL HAS NOT COMMITTED ANY ERROR IN REMANDING THE ISSUE BACK TO THE FILE OF ASSESSING OFFICER AND THE TRIBUNAL IS THE FINAL FACT FINDING BODY AND THE DECISION OF TH E TRIBUNAL HAS NOT TO BE SCRUTINIZED SENTENCE BY SENTENCE MERELY TO FIND OUT WHETHER ALL THE FACTS H AVE BEEN SET OUT IN DETAIL BY THE TRIBUNAL OR WHETHER SOME INCIDENTAL FACT WHICH APPEARS ON THE R ECORD HAS NOT BEEN NOTICED BY THE TRIBUNAL IN ITS JUDGEMENT. IF THE COURT, ON A FAIR READING OF THE JUDGEMENT OF THE TRIBUNAL, FINDS THAT IT HAS TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT ALL RELEVANT MATERIAL AND HAS NOT TAKE N INTO ACCOUNT ANY IRRELEVANT MATERIAL IN BASING IT S ITA NOS.130 & 131/H/2010 M/S SCIENT EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY, HYDERABAD CONCLUSIONS, THE DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL IS NOT LI ABLE TO BE INTERFERED WITH, UNLESS, OF COURSE, THE CONCLUSIONS ARRIVED AT BY THE TRIBUNAL ARE PERVERSE . 6.1. IT IS NOT NECESSARY FOR HE TRIBUNAL TO STATE I N ITS JUDGEMENT SPECIFICALLY OR IN EXPRESS WORDS TH AT IT HAS TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT THE CUMULATIVE EFFECT OF THE CIRCUMSTANCES OR HAS CONSIDERED THE TOTALITY OF TH E FACTS AS IF THAT WERE A MAGIC FORMULA; IF THE JUDGE MENT OF THE TRIBUNAL SHOWS THAT IT HAS IN FACT DONE SO THERE IS NO REASON TO INTERFERE WITH THE DECISIO N OF THE TRIBUNAL. 6. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE SETTLED POSITION, WE INCL INED TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ISSUES RAISED BY THE REVENUE TO THE FILE OF ASSESSI NG OFFICER ON SIMILAR DIRECTIONS CONTAINED THEREIN. 5. IN THE RESULT, BOTH THE APPEALS OF THE REVENU E ARE ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 10.5.2011 SD/- G.C. GUPTA SD/- CHANDRA POOJARI VICE PRESIDENT ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED 10 TH MAY, 2011 COPY FORWARDED TO: 1. THE DY. DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX (E)-I, HYDERABAD 2. M/S SCIENT EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY, 3-2-848/11, KACHIGU DA, HYDERABAD 3. CIT(A) IV, HYDERABAD 4. THE CIT, HYDERABAD 5. THE DR, ITAT, HYDERABAD NP