M/s Shiksha Sudhar Sabha Parol, Hamirpur V. CIT(E), Chandigarh

ITA 138/CHANDI/2018

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 118 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7218 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH)
• Duration Of Justice: 11 month(s) 3 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 09-01-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 08-01-2019
• Assessment Year: misc
• Appeal Filed On: 05-02-2018
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: G S PHANI KISHORE
• Keywords: Charitable institution

Judgement Text

, IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CHANDIGARH BENCH B CHANDIGARH , ! '# $ % & '# , () BEFORE: SH. SANJAY GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SMT. ANNAPURNA GUPTA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ./ ITA NO. 138/CHD/2018 M/S SHIKSHA SUDHAR SABHA PAROL, VPO PAROL, TEHSIL BHORANJ, DISTT. HAMIRPUR (HP). THE CIT (EXEMPTIONS), CHANDIGARH. ./ PAN NO: AAGAS6411E / APPELLANT / RESPONDENT / ASSESSEE BY : SHRI ALOK KRISHAN, C.A.` ! / REVENUE BY : SHRI G.S.PHANI KISHORE, CIT-DR ' !# $/ DATE OF HEARING : 08.01.2019 %&'()* $/ DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 09.01.2019 (*/ ORDER PER ANNAPURNA GUPTA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: THIS APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER PASSED BY THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS) [HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS CIT(E) U/S 10(23C)(VI) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 ( HEREINAFT ER REFERRED TO AS 'ACT') DATED 30.12.2017. 2. THE ASSESSEE BEFORE US HAS CHALLENGED THE REJECT ION OF ITS APPLICATION FOR GRANT OF APPROVAL AS AN EDUC ATIONAL INSTITUTION EXISTING SOLELY FOR EDUCATIONAL PURPOSE S, UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 10(23C)(VI) OF THE ACT, F OR THE PURPOSE OF CLAIMING EXEMPTION OF ITS INCOME UNDER THE SAID SECTION. THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL : ITA -138/CHD/2018 PAGE 2 OF 9 1. THAT THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER (EXEMPTIONS) HAS ERRE D IN REJECTING OUR APPLICATION FOR REGISTRATION UNDER SECTION 10( 23C)(VI) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961. 2. THAT THE APPELLANT'S MAIN OBJECT IS TO RUN EDUCATIO NAL INSTITUTION THAT QUALIFIES THE PROVISION OF SECTION 10(23C)(V I). 3. THAT THE APPELLANT HAS SUBMITTED THE REQUIRED DOCUM ENT AS DESIRED BY LD. COMMISSIONER (EXEMPTIONS). ALTHOUGH T HE SUBMISSIONS HAS BEEN TAKEN ON RECORD BUT THE ATTACHMENTS HAV E NOT BEEN CONSIDERED. 4. THAT THE LD. COMMISSIONER (EXEMPTIONS) HAS ERRED IN CALCULATING THE GROSS RECEIPTS OF THE APPELLANT FOR THE LAST 3 YEAR S AS RECEIPTS MENTIONED IN ORDER DOES NOT MATCH WITH THE AUDITED 'INCOME & EXPENDITURE ACCOUNT' SUBMITTED. THIS DOESN'T IMPACT REGISTRATION UNDER SECTION 10(23C)(VI). 5. THAT THE OBSERVATION OF THE LD. COMMISSIONER (EXEM PTIONS) OF DEPOSITING VERY LESS RECEIPTS IN BANK ACCOUNTS AND CORRELATING WITH 'EXISTING NOT FOR PROFIT' IS NOT VALID AND ALSO FAC TUALLY INCORRECT. THERE IS NO REQUIREMENT UNDER SECTION 10(23C)(VI) ON THE QUANTUM OF DEPOSITS MADE IN BANK. 6. THAT THE APPELLANT CRAVES TO ADD, AMEND, ALTER OR WITHDRAW ANY GROUND OR GROUNDS OF APPEAL. 3. DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING BEFORE US, LD. COUN SEL FOR THE ASSESSEE DREW OUR ATTENTION TO THE FACTS OF THE CASE, AS REPRODUCED AT PAGE NO.1 OF THE ORDER OF TH E CIT(E),THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS A SOCIETY CREATED ON 0 9-12- 16 AND RUNNING A SCHOOL NAMELY NEW ERA SR. SEC.SCHOOL.THAT IT HAD FILED AN APPLICATION IN FOR M NO. 56D REQUESTING FOR GRANT OF APPROVAL U/S 10(23C)(VI ) OF THE ACT ON 09.12.2016. THEREAFTER, LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE POINTED OUT THAT AFTER CALLING FOR NECESSA RY INFORMATION FROM THE ASSESSEE, THE LD. CIT (E) REJE CTED THE APPLICATION OF THE ASSESSEE NAMELY FOR THREE REASON S ; I) THAT EDUCATION WAS NOT ITS SOLE OBJECTIVE WHICH WAS A NECESSARY PRE-REQUISITE FOR THE PURPOSE OF GRANT OF APPROVAL U/S 10(23C)(VI) OF TH E ACT; II) THAT IN EARLIER YEARS, THE ASSESSEE HAD CLAIMED EXEMPTION U/S 10(23C)(IIIAD), WHICH WAS ITA -138/CHD/2018 PAGE 3 OF 9 INADMISSIBLE SINCE ITS AGGREGATE RECEIPTS HAD EXCEEDED THE PRESCRIBED LIMIT OF RS. 1 CRORE; AND III) THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS DEPOSITING ONLY SMALL PORTION OF ITS RECEIPTS IN THE BANKS, THUS, KEEPING AWAY A SUBSTANTIAL CHUNK OF PUBLIC MONEY FROM THE BANKING CHANNELS. 4. OUR ATTENTION WAS DRAWN TO THE RELEVANT FINDINGS OF THE LD. CIT (E) AT PARA 10 TO 12 OF THE ORDER AS UN DER : 10. ON 26.12.2017 & 27.12.2017, REPLIES IN RESPON SE TO ABOVE NOTED QUERIES WERE RECEIVED THROUGH E-MAILS. AFTER PERUSA L OF WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS, IT IS SEEN THAT THE APPLICANT SOCIETY HAD AGGREGATE RECEIPTS ABOVE RS. 1 CRORE IN LAST TWO YEARS. THE SUMMARY OF AGGREGATE RECEIPTS OF APPLICANT SOCIETY IS GIVEN BELOW- F.Y GROSS RECEIPTS (RS.) 2014-15 77,37,379/- 2015-16 1,12,14,834/- 2016-17 1,18, 12,9?9/ - A FURTHER PERUSAL OF THE COPY OF THE ITRS WITH REFE RENCE TO THE RECEIPTS AND PAYMENT ACCOUNTS, REVEALS THAT THE APPLICANT HAS CL AIMED INADMISSIBLE EXEMPTION U/S 10(23C)(IIIAD) IN THE PRECEDING YEARS AS ITS AGGREGATE RECEIPTS HAD EXCEEDED RS. 01 CRORE IN F.Y 2015-16 AND F.Y 20 16-17. MOREOVER, PERUSAL OF MOA PROVIDED BY APPLICANT REVEALS THAT T HE MOA DOES NOT RESTRICT THE OPERATIONS OF THE APPLICANT THAT WOULD SATISFY THE CONDITION 'SOLELY FOR EDUCATION'. THIS IS A MANDATORY CONDITI ON FOR GRANTING APPROVAL U/S 10(23)(VI). ALTHOUGH, THE APPLICANT HA S PROVIDED SEPARATE COPY AS REGARDS THE OBJECTS IN ENGLISH BUT ALL OBJE CTS ARE DIFFERENT FROM THE OBJECTS STATED IN MOA. TO THAT EXTENT, THE CLAIMS O F THE SOCIETY U/S 10(23C)(I:DAD) ARE PRIMA FACIE WRONG BOTH IN TERMS OF RECEIPTS AS ALSO PRESENCE OF OBJECTS OTHER THAN 'EDUCATION' IN MOA. MOREOVER, IN THE INSTANT CASE THE APPLICANT IS A SOCIETY AND THERE IS NO MEN TION OF RUNNING ANY SCHOOL IN. THE MEMORANDUM OF ASSOCIATION OF THE SOC IETY. IN THE CASE OF PINEGROVE INTERNATIONAL CHARITABLE TRUST THE HON'BL E PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT IN CWP NO. 6031 OF 2009 HAS CLEARLY ADDR ESSED THE QUESTION THAT WHETHER AN INSTITUTION REGISTERED AS A SOCIETY UNDER THE SOCIETIES REGISTRATION ACT, 1860, LOSE ITS CHARACTER AS AN ED UCATIONAL INSTITUTION, ELIGIBLE TO APPLY FOR EXEMPTION UNDER SECTION 10(23 C)(VI) OF THE ACT? THE HON'BLE COURT AT PARA 8.13(4) OF THE ORDER IN THE C ASE OF PINEGROVE INTERNATIONAL CHARITABLE TRUST SUMMED UP AS UNDER:- 'THE EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTIONS, WHICH ARE REGISTERED AS A SOCIETY, WOULD CONTINUE TO RETAIN THEIR CHARACTER AS SUCH AN D WOULD BE ELIGIBLE TO APPLY FOR EXEMPTION UNDER SECTION 10(23 C)(VI) OF ME ACT. FURTHER, THE HON'BLE COURT AT PARA NO. 8.7 (PAGE 61 -62) HAS QUOTED THE VERDICT OF HON'BLE APEX COURT IN THE CASE OF ADITAN AR EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTION WHERE IT HAS BEEN HELD THAT AN EDUCATIO NAL SOCIETY OR A TRUST OR OTHER SIMILAR BODY RUNNING AN EDUCATION INSTITUTION SOLELY FOR EDUCATIONAL PURPOSES AND NOT FOR THE PURPOSE OF PROFIT COULD BE REGARDED AS 'OTHER ITA -138/CHD/2018 PAGE 4 OF 9 EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTION'. THE SOCIETY'S CLAIM IN LI GHT OF THE RATIOS OF THE JUDGMENTS ABOVE AND ALSO BECAUSE OF LACK OF ANY SPE CIFICATION ABOUT AN INSTITUTION IN ITS MEMORANDUM, IS NOT TENABLE FOR T HE PURPOSE OF APPROVAL U/S 10(23C)(VI) OF THE ACT. IT IS CLEAR THAT THE EDUCAT IONAL INSTITUTION (BEING RUN AT PRESENT) IS NOT REGISTERED AS A SOCIETY IN THE S PIRIT OF THE RATIO LAID DOWN IN THE CASE OF PINEGROVE INTERNATIONAL CHARITA BLE TRUST. IN THE INSTANT CASE APPLICANT BEING A SOCIETY PRIMA FACIE DOES NOT GET COVERED UNDER SECTION 10(23C)(VI) OF THE ACT. IN THAT CONTE XT, THE APPLICANT CONTENTED IN ITS REPLY DATED 20.12.2017 THAT RESOLUTION PASSE D REGARDING TO OPEN 'NEW ERA SR. SCHOOL' HAS BEEN SUBMITTED TO THE REGI STRAR FOR APPROVAL FOR INCLUSION IN THE OBJECTS OF THE SOCIETY AND AMENDED CLAUSE WOULD BE SUBMITTED TO DEPARTMENT. HOWEVER, THE APPLICANT FUR NISHED A COPY OF APPLICATION REGARDING 'ISSUANCE OF ACKNOWLEDGMENT F OR AMENDMENT IN AIMS AND OBJECTIVES & BYE-LAWS OF THE SOCIETY' AND A COP Y OF OBJECTS. IN THAT CONTEXT, THE APPLICANT FAILED TO PROVIDE AMENDED BY E-LAWS WITH CONTAINS CHANGED OBJECTS WITH REGISTERED BY THE REGISTERING AUTHORITIES. IN THE ABSENCE OF LEGALLY REGISTRATION AND ACCEPTANCE WITH REGISTERING AUTHORITY, DOCUMENTS FURNISHED BY APPLICANT R EGARDING CHANGED OBJECTS ARE NOT LEGALLY TENABLE. 11. FURTHER, PERUSAL OF BANK STATEMENTS PROVIDED BY APP LICANT IT IS SEEN THAT APPLICANT HAS NOT DEPOSITED ITS WHOLE REC EIPTS IN BANKS. THE ISSUED GETS EXACERBATED BY THE F ACT THAT THE SOCIETY HAS DEPOSITED ONLY 14.2%, 14.3 % AND 37.2% OF AGGREGATE RECEIPTS IN BANKS DURING F .Y. 2014-15, 2015-16 AND 2016-17 RESPECTIVELY. THEREFORE, KEEPING AWAY A SUBSTANTIAL CHUNK OF THE PUBLIC MONEY FROM THE BANKING CHANNELS ALSO DOESN'T LEND TO TRANSPARENCY IN ACTIVITIES. THIS ALSO IMPINGES UPON THE DECISION IN RESPECT OF THE OTHER NECESSARY CONDITION 'EXISTING NOT FOR PROFITS' IN C ASE OF SUCH APPLICATIONS. SUCH PREDOMINANT FOCUS ON CASH TRANSACTIO NS ALSO DEPRIVE THE DEPARTMENT FROM EXAMINING THE EXTENT OF SURPLUS GEN ERATED IN ACTUALITY AND THE REASONABLENESS THEREOF. 12. KEEPING IN THE VIEW OF DECISION OF THE HON'BLE PUNJ AB & HARYANA HIGH COURT (REFER PARA '4'), IT IS SAFE TO CONCLUDE THAT THE APPLICANT IS NOT TO BE ENTITLED TO CLAIM EXEMPTION U/S 10(23C) AS HAVIN G OBJECTS OTHER THAN 'EDUCATION'. KEEPING AWAY PUBLIC MONEY FROM BANKING CHANNEL AND INADMISSIBLE CLAIMS FOR EXEMPTION IN PAST ALSO IMPI NGE ON THE EXTENT AND QUALITY O/ SURPLUSES BEING GENERATED BY THE APPLICA NT SOCIETY AND WHETHER THE SAME ARE GETTING REDEPLOYMENT INTO EDUCATION. TAKIN G ALL THE AFORESAID INTO CONSIDERATION IT IS DIFFICULT TO VERIFY THE AC TIVITIES OF THE SOCIETY AND COME TO THE CONCLUSION THAT IT EXISTS 'SOLELY FOR EDUCAT ION'. MOREOVER, IT CAN'T BE SAID THAT THE SCHOOL HAS BEEN REGISTERED AS SOCIETY IN T HE PRESENT CASE. THE APPLICATION U/S 10(23C)(VI) FOR GRANT OF APPROVAL I S ACCORDINGLY REJECTED. 5. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE STATED THAT ALL THE ABOVE CONTENTIONS OF THE LD. CIT (E) WERE INCORRECT. TAK ING UP THE FIRST CONTENTION, THAT ITS OBJECTS WERE NOT SOLELY FOR TH E PURPOSE OF EDUCATION, THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE CONTEND ED THAT IT HAD DULY AMENDED ITS OBJECTS AND FILED THE SAME WITH THE REG ISTRAR OF SOCIETIES AND A COPY OF THE SAME HAD ALSO BEEN SUBMITTED TO THE LD. CIT (E) ITA -138/CHD/2018 PAGE 5 OF 9 WHO HAD FAILED TO TAKE A COGNIZANCE OF THE SAME. O UR ATTENTION WAS DRAWN TO PAPER BOOK PAGE NO. 95 WHICH WAS A COPY OF THE REPLY OF THE ASSESSEE TO THE LD. CIT (E) ON E-MAIL DATED 27.12.2 017 SUBMITTING CERTIFIED AMENDED COPIES OF THE OBJECTS, CLAUSE, RU LES AND REGULATIONS OF THE SOCIETY. OUR ATTENTION WAS ALSO DRAWN TO TH E AMENDED OBJECTS OF THE ASSESSEE SOCIETY STATING THAT IT WOULD ONLY RUN EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTION AND NOT PERFORM ANY OBJECT OTHER THAN E DUCATIONAL INSTITUTION. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE ALTER NATIVELY CONTENDED THAT EVEN IF THE OBJECTS INCLUDED OTHER THAN IMPART ING EDUCATION, IT WAS THE ACTUAL ACTIVITY CARRIED ON BY THE ASSESSEE WHICH WAS NEEDED TO BE CONSIDERED FOR THE PURPOSE OF GRANT OF APPROV AL. RELIANCE WAS PLACED ON THE ORDER OF THE ITAT AMRITSAR BENCH IN T HE CASE OF ST. MARYS EDUCATION TRUST VS COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TA X (EXEMPTION) (2018) 97 TAXMANN.COM 639 ( AMRITSAR BENCH).COPY OF THE ORDER WAS PLACED BEFORE US. THEREAFTER, THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE CONTEN DED THAT THE CONTENTION OF THE LD. CIT (E) THAT THE ASSESSEE SOC IETY HAD WRONGLY CLAIMED EXEMPTION U/S 10(23C)(IIIAD) IN THE PRECEDI NG YEAR SINCE ITS RECEIPTS HAD EXCEEDED THE PRESCRIBED LIMIT OF RS. 1 CRORE WAS FACTUALLY INCORRECT. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSES SEE CONTENDED THAT IT IS EVIDENT FROM THE FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF THE ASS ESSEE SOCIETY THAT ITS RECEIPTS HAD NEVER EXCEEDED RS. 1 CRORE IN THOS E YEARS. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE CONTENDED THEREFORE THAT T HIS CONTENTION OF THE LD. CIT (E) WAS ALSO BASED ON INCORRECT APPRECI ATION OF FACTS. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE, THEREAFTER, STATED TH AT THE CONTENTION OF THE LD. CIT (E) THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS ROUTING ONLY A VERY SMALL PORTION OF ITS RECEIPTS THROUGH BANK WAS ALSO FACTUALLY INC ORRECT. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE POINTED OUT THAT WHILE THE LD. CIT (E) HAD ITA -138/CHD/2018 PAGE 6 OF 9 FOUND ONLY 14.2%, 14.3% AND 37.2% OF THE RECEIPTS B EING DEPOSITED IN THE BANK IN FINANCIAL YEAR 2014-15, 2015-16 AND 2016-17 RESPECTIVELY, THE FACT OF THE MATTER WAS THAT THE A SSESSEE HAD DEPOSITED 44.71% AND 70.97% OF THE TOTAL RECEIPTS I N THE BANK IN FINANCIAL YEAR 2015-16 AND 2016-17 RESPECTIVELY. E VEN OTHERWISE, IT WAS POINTED OUT THAT THIS COULD NOT BE A CRITERIA F OR REJECTING THE APPLICATION FOR GRANT OF APPROVAL SINCE IT DID NOT IMPINGE UPON THE GENUINENESS OF THE OBJECTS AND ACTIVITIES CARRIED O UT BY THE ASSESSEE SOCIETY WHICH WERE NEEDED TO BE EXAMINED BY THE CIT (E) FOR GRANTING APPROVAL. 6. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE FURTHER CONTEND ED THAT EVEN OTHERWISE, THE REASON FOR NOT ROUTING OF THE RECEIP TS THROUGH THE BANK WAS THAT THE SCHOOL RUN BY THE ASSESSEE SOCIETY WAS LOCATED IN A REMOTE VILLAGE AND THE BANKS WERE LOCATED AT A GREA T DISTANCE AND THEREFORE, IT WAS NOT BE FEASIBLE FOR DEPOSITING TH E ENTIRE CASH RECEIPTS ON A DAILY BASIS IN THE BANKS. THUS IT WAS CONTENDE D THAT THE LD.CIT(E) HAD DENIED APPROVAL ON INCORRECT AND IRRE LEVANT CONSIDERATION OF FACTS AND WITHOUT PROPERLY APPRECI ATING THE CONTENTIONS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE HIM. 7. THE LD. DR ON THE OTHER HAND, CONTENDED THAT THE LD. CIT (E) HAD BASED HIS FINDINGS ON FACTUAL CONSIDERATIONS WH ICH COULD NOT BE DISMISSED LIGHTLY. LD.DR CONTENDED THAT THE ASSESSE ES CLAIM OF EXEMPTION U/S 10(23C)(IIIAD) IN THE EARLIER YEARS E VEN WHEN THE RECEIPTS EXCEEDED RS. 1 CRORE WAS BASED ON FACTUAL FINDINGS IN THIS REGARD.OUR ATTENTION WAS DRAWN TO PARA 10 OF THE OR DER WHEREIN THE CIT(E) HAD TABULATED THE GROSS RECEIPTS OF THE F.Y 2014-15 TO 2016-17 SHOWING RECEIPTS EXCEEDING RS.1 CR IN F.Y 2015-16 A ND 2016-17. ITA -138/CHD/2018 PAGE 7 OF 9 IT WAS FURTHER CONTENDED THAT THE LD.CIT(E) HAD AL SO GIVEN FACTS AND FIGURES WITH REGARD TO THE PERCENTAGE OF CASH DEPOS ITED IN THE BANK IN THE PRECEDING YEARS AT PARA 11 OF HIS ORDER. THE L D. DR FURTHER CONTENDED THAT THE LD. CIT (E) HAD NOTED IN HIS ORD ER THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD FURNISHED A COPY OF APPLICATION REGARD ING ISSUANCE OF ACKNOWLEDGEMENT FOR AMENDMENT IN AIMS AND OBJECTS A ND BY-LAWS OF THE SOCIETY AND HAD FAILED TO PROVIDE AMENDED BY-L AWS WHICH CONTAINED CHANGED OBJECTS DULY REGISTERED WITH THE REGISTERING AUTHORITIES, IN THE ABSENCE OF WHICH THE DOCUMENTS FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT BE ACCEPTED. THE LD. DR FURTHER POINTED OUT THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS MAINTAINING FOUR BANK ACCOUNTS AND HAD FURNISHED DETAILS VIS--VIS ONLY TWO OF THEM, WHICH WAS ALSO NOTED BY THE LD. CIT (E). OUR ATTENTION WAS DRAWN TO PARA 9 OF THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT (E) AS UNDER : 9. ON 20.12.2017, SH. ARVIND SHARMA, C.A COUNSEL FOR T HE APPLICANT ATTENDED THIS OFFICE AND FILED REPLY TO LETTER DATE D 13.12.2017 ALONGWITH ORIGINAL COPY OF MOA OF THE SOCIETY. AFTER CONSIDER ING THE RESPONSE, IT WAS SEEN THAT THE APPLICANT HAD MAINTAINED 4 BANK ACCOU NTS, BUT THE STATEMENTS OF ONLY 2 BANK ACCOUNTS WERE FURNISHED. REGARDING BANK ACCOUNTS, A FRESH SHOW-CAUSE LETTER DATED 23.1 2.2017 WAS SENT TO APPLICANT AND THE MATTER WAS FINALLY FIXED FOR 25.1 2.2017. THE SAME WAS EMAILED ALSO TO APPLICANT AT [e-mail] . THE APPLICANT WAS GIVEN THE LEEWAY TO FILE ITS REPLY THROUGH E-MAIL A T [e-mail]. THE CONTENTS OF THE SAME A RE REPRODUCED AS UNDER:- (I) PROVIDE THE BANK, STATEMENTS FROM 01.04.2 016 TO 31.03.2017 OF ALL THE 4 BANK ACCOUNTS MAINTAINED BY YOU AS MENTIONED IN THE AFFIDAVIT, (II) PROVIDE THE COMPUTATION OF INCOME FILED WITH THE RE TURN OF INCOME FOR A.Y 2015-16, 2016-17 AND 2017-15. 8. TO THIS, THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE CONTEN DED THAT IT HAD FILED ALL COPIES OF ALL THE FOUR BANKS ACCOUNTS MAI NTAINED BY IT WITH THE LD. CIT (E). THE LD. DR RESPONDED BY STATING THAT ITS LIMITED PRAYER WAS THAT THE MATTER MAY BE RESTORED BACK TO THE LD. CIT (E) FOR CONSIDERING THE ITA -138/CHD/2018 PAGE 8 OF 9 APPLICATION OF THE ASSESSEE AFRESH, SINCE THE ASSES SEE WAS CHALLENGING THE FACTUAL AVERMENTS MADE BY THE CIT(E), WHICH NEE DED TO BE EXAMINED AND VERIFIED BY THE CIT(E) HIMSELF. 9. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUSED THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. WE FIND MERIT IN THE CONTEN TION OF THE LD. DR THAT THE ISSUE OF GRANT OF APPROVAL NEEDS TO BE RES TORED BACK TO THE CIT(E). ADMITTEDLY, THE BASIS FOR REJECTION OF THE GRANT OF APPROVAL U/S 10(23C)(VI) WAS THE FACTUAL FINDINGS OF THE LD. LD. CIT (E) THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD FAILED TO FURNISH AMENDED BY-LAWS WHIC H WERE DULY REGISTERED WITH THE REGISTERING AUTHORITY SHOWING THAT IT WAS EXISTING ONLY FOR THE PURPOSE OF EDUCATION AND NOT ANY OTHER PURPOSE, THAT IT HAD WRONGFULLY CLAIMED EXEMPTION U/S 10(23C)(IIIAD) IN THE PRECEDING YEARS THOUGH ITS RECEIPTS EXCEEDED THE PRESCRIBED L IMIT OF RS. 1 CRORE FOR CLAIMING THE EXEMPTION AND THAT IT WAS DEPOSITI NG VERY SMALL PORTION OF ITS RECEIPTS IN THE BANKS WHICH DID NOT LEND TRANSPARENCY TO THE ACTIVITIES OF THE ASSESSEE SOCIETY. THE ASS ESSEE HAS CHALLENGED ALL THE FACTUAL FINDINGS OF THE LD. CIT (E) STATING THAT IT HAD DULY FILED THE AMENDED BY-LAWS BEFORE THE CIT(E) AND THAT ITS TOTAL RECEIPTS IN THE PRECEDING YEARS HAD NOT EXCEEDED RS. 1 CRORE A ND ALSO THAT IT WAS DEPOSITING MUCH MORE OF ITS RECEIPTS IN THE BAN K, THAN AS STATED BY THE CIT (E). SINCE THE ASSESSEE HAS CONTROVERTED THE FACTUAL AVERMENTS OF THE CIT(E) WHO HAS DENIED APPROVAL ON THE SAID BASIS,, WE AGREE WITH THE LD. DR THAT THE MATTER NEEDS TO B E RE-EXAMINED BY THE CIT(E) AFTER VERIFYING THE CONTENTIONS OF THE L D. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE. WE, THEREFORE, CONSIDER IT FIT TO RESTOR E THE MATTER BACK TO THE CIT(E) TO CONSIDER AND VERIFY THE CONTENTIONS M ADE BY THE ASSESSEE AND THEREAFTER DECIDE THE ISSUE OF GRANT O F APPROVAL VIS--VIS ITA -138/CHD/2018 PAGE 9 OF 9 SECTION 10(23C)(VI) AFRESH IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW. WE MAY ADD THAT THE ASSESSEE BE GIVEN DUE OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING IN THIS REGARD. 10. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL STANDS ALLOWED FOR ST ATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 09.01.2019. SD/- SD/- ( ) ( $ % & '# ) (SANJAY GARG) (ANNAPURNA GUP TA) / JUDICIAL MEMBER () / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER POONAM &+ ,- .-) / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. / THE APPELLANT 2. / THE RESPONDENT 3. ' / / CIT 4. ' / ( )/ THE CIT(A) 5. -!01 2 , $ 2* , 34516 / DR, ITAT, CHANDIGARH 6. 15 7# / GUARD FILE &+ ' / BY ORDER, 8 / ASSISTANT REGISTRAR