M/s Dakshina Kannada Koota Brahmanara Mitra Mandali, Bangalore V. Asst. Director of Income Tax, Bangalore

ITA 1483/BANG/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 131 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 9440 (ITAT-BANGALORE)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 9 month(s) 26 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 26-08-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 19-05-2016
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 30-10-2013
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SWAPA DAS JT
• Keywords: Business income; Depreciation; Charitable institution; Question of law; Benefit of exemption; Cancellation of registration
• Section: 12AA; 11

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL SMC A BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI SUNIL KUMAR YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NOS.1483 & 1484/BANG/2013 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2009-10 & 2010-11 M/S. DAKSHINA KANNADA KOOTA BRAHMANARA MITRA MANDALI, # 12, BULL TEMPLE ROAD, BASAVANGUDI, BANGALORE 560 004. PAN: AAATD 0670K VS. THE ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 17(1), BANGALORE. APPELLANT RESPONDENT APPELLANT BY : SHRI SURESH MUTHUKRISHNAN RESPONDENT BY : SMT. SWAPA DAS, JT. CIT(DR) DATE OF HEARING : 28.06.2016 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 26.08.2016 O R D E R PER SUNIL KUMAR YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER THESE ARE APPEALS PREFERRED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAIN ST THE SEPARATE ORDERS OF THE CIT(APPEALS)-V, BANGALORE DATED 02.08 .2013 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2009-10 & 2010-11. THEY WERE HEAR D TOGETHER AND ARE DISPOSED OF BY THIS CONSOLIDATED ORDER. COMMON GRO UNDS OF APPEAL ARE RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THESE APPEALS, FOR THE SA KE OF REFERENCE, THE GROUNDS RAISED IN ITA NO.1483/BANG/2013 ARE EXTRACT ED HEREUNDER:- ITA NOS.1483 & 1484/BANG/2013 PAGE 2 OF 15 1. THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT[A] IN SO FAR AS S USTAINING THE ADDITIONS AND DISMISSING THE APPEAL IS OPPOSED TO L AW, EQUITY, WEIGHT OF EVIDENCE, FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE APPELLANT'S CASE. 2. THE LEARNED CIT[A] FAILED TO APPRECIATE THAT TH E SOCIETY WAS FORMED TO PROMOTE WELFARE, AMENITY, CONTACT, MU TUAL HELP, CO-OPERATION, SOCIAL AND CULTURAL DEVELOPMENT AMONG KOOTA BRAHMIN COMMUNITIES OF 14 VILLAGES AND TO CONSTRUCT KALYAN MANTAP AND OTHER INFRASTRUCTURE FACILITIES FOR THEI R RELIGIOUS NECESSITY BESIDES RENDERING ASSISTANCE AND FACILITY TO PROMOTE EDUCATION AMONG THE POOR STUDENTS OF 'THE' COMMUNIT Y AND THEREFORE, THE MAIN OBJECT IN CONSTRUCTING THE KALY AN MANTAP IS NOT TO CONSTRUCT AND OPERATE THE KALYAN MANTAP ON C OMMERCIAL LINES AND MERE REALIZATION OF SOME INCOME FROM SUCH BUILDINGS WITHOUT ANYTHING MORE DONE OR EFFORTS MADE IN AN OR GANIZED AND SYSTEMATIC MANNER TO EARN ANY SUCH INCOME AND THE S AME IS ESSENTIALLY TO HELP POOR AND WOULD NOT IMPRINT SUCH RECEIPTS WITH THE CHARACTER OF RECEIPTS FROM AN ACTIVITY IN THE N ATURE OF BUSINESS, COMMERCE OR TRADE AND THEREFORE, THE CONS TRUCTION PLACED ON FOURTH LIMB OF DEFINITION 'CHARITABLE PUR POSE AS ENSHRINED U/S.2[15] OF THE ACT, DISENTITLING THE AP PELLANT FROM THE BENEFITS OF SECTION 11 OF THE ACT, IS MISCONCEIVED AND CONSEQUENTIAL FINDING IS ON ERRONEOUS APPRECIATION OF FACTS AND LAW AND REQUIRES TO BE VACATED. 3. THE LEARNED CIT[A] FAILED TO APPRECIATE THE INC OME DERIVED BY THE APPELLANT IS ACCIDENTAL AND IS NOT F ROM ANY ACTIVITY IN THE NATURE OF BUSINESS AND THE BUILDING WAS CONS TRUCTED AS A MATTER OF PROVIDING RELIEF TO THE POOR, WHICH ARE P ER SE CHARITABLE AND IS NEVER EXPLOITED TOWARDS THE ADVANCEMENT OF A NY OTHER OBJECT OF GENERAL PUBLIC UTILITY INVOLVING CARRYING ON ANY ACTIVITY IN THE NATURE OF TRADE, BUSINESS OR COMMERCE AND AC CORDINGLY, THE FINDING OF THE A.O. IS VITIATED AND REQUIRES TO BE SET-ASIDE. 4. WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE ABOVE, THE HON'BLE DIT [E] HAVING CANCELLED THE REGISTRATION W. E. F. THE ASSE SSMENT YEAR 2009-10 AND NOT FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10, TH E CIT[A] OUGHT TO HAVE GRANTED THE BENEFITS OF SECTION 11 OF THE ACT, FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10. ITA NOS.1483 & 1484/BANG/2013 PAGE 3 OF 15 5. THE HON'BLE DIT [E] HAVING HELD THAT THE APPELL ANT IS DERIVING INCOME FROM NON-CHARITABLE PURPOSES AND IS NOT ENTITLED TO EXEMPTION U/S.11 OF THE ACT, HAS LOST JURISDICTION OVER THE APPELLANT AND CONSEQUENTLY, THE LEARNED A.O. ALSO L OST JURISDICTION ON THE APPELLANT TO ASSESS THE APPELLANT ANY FURTHE R AND CONSEQUENTLY, THE ORDER PASSED REQUIRES TO BE CANCE LLED, AS ONE PASSED WITHOUT ANY JURISDICTION. 6. WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE RIGHT TO SEEK WAIVER W ITH THE HON'BLE CCIT /DG , THE APPELLANT DENIES ITSELF LIABLE TO BE CHARGED TO INTEREST U/S 234-B, 234-C AND 234-D OF THE ACT, WHICH UNDER THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE APPELLANT'S CASE DESERVES TO BE CANCELLED. 7. FOR THE ABOVE AND OTHER GROUNDS THAT MAY BE URG ED AT THE TIME OF HEARING OF THE APPEAL, YOUR APPELLANT HUMBL Y PRAYS THAT THE APPEAL MAY BE ALLOWED AND JUSTICE RENDERED AND THE APPELLANT MAY BE AWARDED COSTS IN PROSECUTING THE APPEAL AND ALSO ORDER FOR THE REFUND OF THE INSTITUTION FEES AS PART OF THE C OSTS. 2. THE FACTS IN BRIEF BORNE OUT FROM THE RECORD ARE THAT DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE ASSESSING OFF ICER HAS NOTED FROM THE ACCOUNTS FOR THE YEAR ENDING 31.3.2009 THAT THE RE WAS TOTAL RECEIPT OF RS.37,45,915 FROM KALYANA MANTAPA HIRE CHARGES, RS. 3,51,334 FROM SAMSKRITHA MANDIRA AND RS.1,75,500 FROM GENERATOR H IRE CHARGES. HAVING NOTED THAT THERE IS NO ELEMENT OF CHARITY OR PROVID ING SERVICES FREE OF COST AND THAT ASSESSEE HAS EARNED RS.30,72,028 NET SURPL US FOR THE AY 2009- 10, THE AO HAS MADE A PROPOSAL TO THE CIT FOR CANCE LLATION OF REGISTRATION EARLIER GRANTED U/S. 12AA OF THE ACT AND THEREAFTER THE DIT(E), BANGALORE HAS CANCELLED THE REGISTRATION U/S. 12AA VIDE ORDER DATED 21.12.2011 W.E.F. AY 2009-10. HAVING NOTED THAT THE REGISTRATION WA S CANCELLED, THE AO HAS NOT ALLOWED ANY EXEMPTION U/S. 11 OF THE ACT AND CO MPUTED THE INCOME OF ITA NOS.1483 & 1484/BANG/2013 PAGE 4 OF 15 THE ASSESSEE IN THE STATUS OF AOP. AN APPEAL WAS P REFERRED BEFORE THE CIT(APPEALS). 3. DURING THE PENDENCY OF THE APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT (APPEALS), AN APPEAL WAS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE TRIBUNA L AGAINST THE ORDER OF CANCELLATION OF REGISTRATION GRANTED U/S. 12AA OF T HE ACT AND THE TRIBUNAL VIDE ITS ORDER DATED 4.1.2013 ALLOWED THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER U/S. 12AA(3) CANCELLING THE REGISTRATION TO THE ASSESSEE. IT WAS ARGUED BEFORE THE CIT(APPEALS) THAT SINCE THE TRIBU NAL HAS TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT ALL THE RELEVANT FACTS WHILE ALLOWING THE A PPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE AND SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF DIT(E) CANCELLING REGISTRATI ON TO THE ASSESSEE, NO CONTRARY VIEW CAN BE TAKEN IN THIS APPEAL AND THE A SSESSEE BE ALLOWED THE EXEMPTION FROM THE ACTIVITIES UNDERTAKEN BY IT. 4. THE CIT(APPEALS) RE-EXAMINED THE ENTIRE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE AND THE DEFINITION OF CHARITABLE PURPOSE AS DEFINED I N SECTION 2(15) OF THE ACT IN THE LIGHT OF THE AMENDMENTS AND HAS COME TO THE CON CLUSION THAT THE AMENDMENT TO SECTION 2(15) BY THE FINANCE ACT, 2008 IS APPLICABLE W.E.F. 1.4.2009 RELEVANT TO AY 2009-10 IN THE LIGHT OF NOT ES ON CLAUSES TO THE FINANCE BILL, 2008. THE CIT(APPEALS) HAS ALSO EXAM INED THE NATURE OF ACTIVITIES UNDERTAKEN BY THE ASSESSEE AND HAVING NO TED THAT MAJOR ACTIVITIES OF THE ASSESSEE IS HIRING OF KALYANA MANTAPA AND EA RNING INCOME THEREFROM, THE CIT(APPEALS) HAS CONFIRMED THE ORDER OF THE AO DENYING THE BENEFIT OF EXEMPTION U/S. 11 OF THE ACT. THE RELEV ANT OBSERVATIONS OF THE ITA NOS.1483 & 1484/BANG/2013 PAGE 5 OF 15 CIT(APPEALS) IN THIS REGARD ARE EXTRACTED HEREUNDER FOR THE SAKE OF REFERENCE:- 8. I HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE ABOVE WRITTEN AND ORAL SUBMISSION BY THE LD. AR THE APPELLANT AND GONE THR OUGH THE CASE LAWS RELIED UPON IN SUPPORT OF THE GROUNDS AND ARGU MENTS. I HAVE ALSO CONSIDERED THE HON'BLE ITAT BANGALORE ORDER DATED 4 .01.2013 IN ASSESSEE'S CASE (ITA NO. 78/BANG/2012) ALLOWING THE APPEAL AGAINST ORDER U /S 12AA(3) CANCELLING THE REGISTRATION TO THE ASSESSEE . PERUSAL OF FORM 10(RULE 17 ) DATED 23.7.2009 SHOWS THAT AN AMOUNT OF RS.19,29,9601- HAS BEEN ACCUMULATED AND SET APART U /S 11 (2) FOR THE PURPOSE OF CONSTRUCTION OF B UILDING FOR KALYAN MANDIR AND READING ROOM, OFFICE ROOM AND ROOM FOR STUDENTS, TO BE UTIL IZED BEFORE 31.03.2014. THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO PAID ADVANCE TAX OF RS. 800,000/- . 8.2 THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN THE LIGHT OF AMENDM ENT TO S. 2(15) BY THE FINANCE ACT, 2008, AS EXPLAINED IN CBDT CIRCULA R NO.11/2008 DATED 19.12.2008 HAS HELD THE ASSESSEE TO BE ENGAGE D IN PURSUING AN OBJECT OF PUBLIC UTILITY, AND THAT MOST OF THE OBJE CTS OF THE MANDALI WOULD FALL UNDER ANY OTHER OBJECTS OF GENERAL PUBLI C UTILITY', EXCEPT THE OBJECT OF RENDERING THE ASSISTANCE AND FACILITI ES TO PROMOTE EDUCATION FOR POOR STUDENTS, WHICH WILL FALL UNDER THE LIMB 'RELIEF TO THE POOR' AS NO FORMAL EDUCATION IS IMPARTED BY THE MANDALI IT HAS ALSO BEEN HELD BY ASSESSING OFFICER THAT DURING AY 2009-10 THIS OBJECT WAS NOT PURSUED AS NO ACTIVITY OF RENDERING ANY ASSISTANCE OR PROVIDING FACILITIES TO PROMOTE EDUCATION FOR THE P OOR STUDENT OF THE COMMUNITY WAS CARRIED OUT IN BANGALORE OR ELSEWHERE , AND NO EXPENDITURE WAS INCURRED TOWARDS THIS END. THE ASSE SSING OFFICER ALSO REBUTTED THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE THAT A FTER CANCELLATION OF REGISTRATION U/S 12AA BY THE DIT(E), BANGALORE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD NO JURISDICTION OVER THE APPELLANT, BY REFERRING TO THE CBDT NOTIFICATION DATED 14.09.2001 GRANTING JURISDI CTION TO THE DIT(E) BANGALORE. FACTS OF THE CASE:- 9. AS PER THE MEMORANDUM OF ASSOCIATION OF ASSESSE E SOCIETY, IT HAS BEEN FORMED BY FOURTEEN VILLAGES OF SOUTH KANARA FO R FRIENDLY CONTACT, SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT AND OTHER OBJECTS MENTI ONED BELOW- ITA NOS.1483 & 1484/BANG/2013 PAGE 6 OF 15 (A) TO CONSTRUCT BUILDINGS FOR RELIGIOUS ACTIVITIES AND MARRIAGE HALLS WITH THE CLOSE FRIENDSHIP AND SUPPORT OF KOOTA BRAH MANA SOCIETY AND TO MAINTAIN THE SAME PROPERLY, (B) TO COLLECT THE FUNDS AND HELP THE POOR STUDENTS TO GET EDUCATION AND TO EXTEND ALL OTHER NECESSARY HELP AND SUPPORT TO THEM, (C) TO UNDERTAKE AND MAINTAIN CULTURAL, SOCIAL AND RELI GIOUS ACTIVITIES OF THE SOCIETY, (D) TO UTILIZE THE PROPERTIES AND FUNDS COLLECTED IN TH E NAME OF THE SOCIETIES AS CHARITIES, FOR THE IMPROVEMENT AND DEV ELOPMENT OF THE SOCIETY, (E) TO MAINTAIN GOOD FRIENDSHIP AND INTEGRITY AMONG THE MEMBERS OF THE SOCIETY. 9.2 AS PER THE BYE-LAWS THE MEMBERSHIP OF THE SOCI ETY IS LIMITED TO KOOTA BRAHMINS RESIDING WITHIN THE BANGALORE MAHANA GAR PALIKE AND OTHER PLACES. 9.3 AS PER THE INCOME AND EXPENDITURE ACCOUNT OF TH E APPELLANT SOCIETY FOR THE YEAR ENDED ON 31.3.2009, IT RECEIVE D RS. 38,06,530/- FROM HIRING OF KALYAN MANDAPA (MARRIAGE HALLS), RS. 527,250/- FROM THE SAMSKRITHA MANDIR, RS.692,190/- FROM VAIDHIKA M ANDIR, RS. 19,86,752/- AS INTEREST ON FDS, RS.163,500/- FROM H IRING OF GENERATOR SET, BESIDES OTHER RECEIPTS TOTALING TO RS.76,32,75 6/- DURING THE RELEVANT PREVIOUS YEAR. THE NET SURPLUS IS RS. 23,7 6,478/- (EXCLUDING DEPRECIATION AMOUNT OF RS.677,078/-). THE BALANCE SHEET SHOWS KALYAN MANTAP, VYDHIKA MAND IR (VITTHAL NAGAR) AND SAMSKRITHA MANDIR AS BUILDINGS, BESIDES GENERATOR, VESSELS, ETC AS OTHER ASSETS. THE ASSESSEE HAD FIXE D DEPOSITS WITH BANKS OF RS.242,55,569/- AS ON 31.3,2009. THE ASSES SEE COLLECTED RS.52.51 LAKHS AS RENT ADVANCE (TOWARDS LETTING OF THE MANDAPS AND ASSOCIATED ASSETS) AND ADJUSTED RS.52.79 LAKHS TOWA RDS SUCH RENT AND OTHER CHARGES . CAPITAL (?) FUND OF RS.304,75,535/- HAS BEEN SHOWN ON LIABILITY SIDE WHICH INCLUDES SURPLUS OF RS.2376 ,478/- , BESIDES BUILDING DONATION FUND OF RS.749,000/- RECEIVED DUR ING THE YEAR. ADMITTEDLY, THERE IS NO APPLICATION OF INCOME OR FUNDS FOR THE EDUCATION, HELP OR SUPPORT OF POOR STUDENTS. APPELLATTE DECISION ITA NOS.1483 & 1484/BANG/2013 PAGE 7 OF 15 10. THE APPELLANT HAS ARGUED IN ITS SUBMISSION DA TED 22.1.2013 THAT THE INCOME DERIVED IS FROM THE KALYA N MANTAPS, IS NOT PURSUANT TO ANY OTHER OBJECT OF GENERAL UTILITY, AN D THAT IT WAS CONSTRUCTED FOR ALLEVIATING THE MISERIES OF PEOPLE IN SECURING A PLACE FOR PERFORMANCE OF MARRIAGES AND OTHER FUNCTIONS AN D RELIGIOUS CEREMONIES, WHICH MANY PEOPLE CANNOT AFFORD. THUS, IT WAS FOR THE PURPOSES OF HELPING THE POOR, WHO CANNOT AFFORD TO PAY HUGE RENTS FOR LUXURIOUS KALYAN MANTAPS, ETC., WHICH ARE RUN ON CO MMERCIAL LINES. IT IS SIMPLY INCOME DERIVED FROM THE BUILDING. NO ACTI VITY IS DONE WHILE EXPLOITING THE SAME AS A BUSINESS BY DOING ADVERTIS EMENT AND SOLICITING THE CUSTOMERS. IT IS ALSO FURTHER SUBMIT TED THAT NO SERVICES ARE RENDERED AND NOMINAL CHARGES ARE COLLECTED TO M EET THE COST OF MAINTENANCE. THERE IS NO PROFIT MOTIVE AT ALL, WHIC H IS INSIGNIA OF A BUSINESS ACTIVITY DONE SYSTEMATICALLY. THEREFORE, T HE RECEIPTS ARE NOT IMPRINTED WITH THE CHARACTER OF BUSINESS RECEIPTS A S NO SYSTEMATIC AND ORGANIZED ACTIVITY IS UNDERTAKEN TO EARN THAT INCOM E AND IT IS DONE ONLY WITH A VIEW TO CATER TO THE NEEDS OF POOR AND NEEDY. 10.2 IN OTHER WORDS, THE CONSTRUCTION OF KALYAN MA NDAPS WAS WITH THE OBJECT OF THE FIRST LIMB OF CHARITABLE PUR POSE, AS DEFINED IN S. 2(15), I.E. 'RELIEF FOR THE POOR', HOWEVER, THE SAM E IS NOT BORN OUT OF THE STATED OBJECTS IN THE MEMORANDUM OF ASSOCIATION . AS MENTIONED EARLIER IN PARA 9 ABOVE, THE CONSTRUCTION OF BUILDI NGS AND MARRIAGE HALLS AND THEIR MAINTENANCE WITH SUPPORT OF THE MEM BERS OF KOOTA BRAHMIN SOCIETY, IS TO ACHIEVE THE MAIN OBJECT OF F RIENDLY CONTACT, SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT OF SUCH KOOTA BRAHMINS. THUS CON STRUCTION OF SUCH BUILDING IS AN OBJECT AND PURPOSE OF THE APPEL LANT SOCIETY BY ITSELF. THERE IS NOTHING IN THE OBJECTS OF THE ASS ESSEE TO SHOW THAT RELIEF TO THE POOR THROUGH KALYAN MANDAPS OR OTHER BUILDINGS, IS ONE OF ITS OBJECTS, AT ALL. EVEN THE OTHER OBJECT OF HE LPING THE POOR STUDENTS HAS NOT BEEN PURSUED. IN FACT THE OBJECTS AT CLAUSE (C) TO (E) EXTRACTED IN PARA 9 ABOVE IS TO USE THE CONSTRUCTED PROPERTIE S FOR THE CULTURAL, SOCIAL AND RELIGIOUS ACTIVITIES OF THE MEMBERS OF T HE SOCIETY, I.E KOOTA BRAHMINS. 10.3 THERE IS NOTHING TO SHOW THAT KOOTA BRAHMINS OF KANARA ARE POOR OR UNDER-PRIVILEGED. IN FACT, ALL THE FOUN DING MEMBERS ARE OWNERS OF BUSINESSES IN BANGALORE. EVEN THE INTERN ET SITES BOAST OF RICH AND FAMOUS FROM THE COMMUNITY. THE CONCESSION RATES CHARGED FROM MEMBERS OF THE KOOTA BRAHMIN SOCIETY, OR BRAHM INS AS SUCH COULD NOT BE SAID TO BE PROVIDING RELIEF TO THE POO R. IN FACT, IT IS DISCRIMINATORY, AND GOES AGAINST THE LETTER AND SPI RIT OF SECTION ITA NOS.1483 & 1484/BANG/2013 PAGE 8 OF 15 13(1)(B) WHICH PROHIBITS TAX EXEMPTION TO THE CHARI TABLE TRUST OR INSTITUTION CREATED FOR THE BENEFIT OF ANY RELIGIOU S COMMUNITY OR CASTE. 10.4 IT IS THEREFORE HELD THAT THE ASSESSEE TRUST HAS NOT BEEN CREATED OR ESTABLISHED WITH AN OBJECT OF OR FOR THE CHARITABLE PURPOSE OF THE 'RELIEF TO THE POOR', AND IS NOT ENGAGED IN ANY SUCH ACTIVITY. AS PER THE STATED AIMS AND OBJECTS, THE SOCIETY IS FOR MED TO PROMOTE WELFARE, AMITY, CONTACT, MUTUAL HELP, CO-OPERATION, SOCIAL AND CULTURAL DEVELOPMENT AMONG KOOTA BRAHMIN COMMUNITY, AND TO C ONSTRUCT KALYANA MANDAPA AND OTHER FACILITIES FOR THEIR SOCI AL AND RELIGIOUS ACTIVITIES. THUS THE OBJECTS OF THE ASSESSEE SOCIET Y HAS BEEN RIGHTLY HELD BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO FALL UNDER THE RES IDUAL CATEGORY OF CHARITABLE PURPOSE, I.E. 'ANY OTHER OBJECTS OF GENE RAL PUBLIC UTILITY'. 11. THE OTHER CONTENTION OF THE APPELLANT IS THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT CARRYING ON ANY BUSINESS, AND THAT THE RENT RECEIVED FROM LETTING OUT OF THE KALYAN MANTAPAS SHOULD BE ASSESS ED AS INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY. IT IS ARGUED THAT ASSESSEE'S I NCOMES IN EARLIER YEARS HAVE BEEN TREATED BY ASSESSING OFFICER AS INC OME FROM 'OTHER SOURCES', AND NOW IT COULD NOT BE ASSESSED AS BUSIN ESS INCOME. IT IS ALSO SUBMITTED THAT THE INCOME FOR THE YEAR UNDER A PPEAL IS ALSO ASSESSED UNDER THE HEAD 'OTHER SOURCES'. WHILE ON T HIS POINT THE HON'BLE MADRAS HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF DIT [E] V. SAMYUKTHA GOWDA SARASWATHA SABHA REPORTED IN 66 DTR 211. 11.2 IN MY CONSIDERED VIEW, IT IS NEITHER IMPORTAN T NOR RELEVANT AS TO WHETHER THE INCOME FROM LETTING OUT OF KALYAN A MANDAPA AND OTHER BUILDINGS, ALONG WITH OTHER ASSETS SUCH AS GE NERATOR, VESSELS ETC. FOR THE PERFORMANCE OF MARRIAGE OR OTHER RELIGIOUS CEREMONIES, SHOULD BE CALLED AS 'BUSINESS INCOME' OR ' INCOME FROM HOU SE PROPERTY' OR ANY OTHER NAME. THE DECISION OF HON'BLE MADRAS HIGH COU RT (66 DTR 211/ (2000) 245 ITR 242) RELIED BY THE APPELLANT WA S CONSIDERED BY THE HON'BLE MADRAS HIGH COURT IN A SUBSEQUENT DECIS ION IN CASE OF PARAMARTHA BHUSHANAM SRI NATHALLA SAMPATH CHETTY CH ARITIES REPORTED IN (2003) 182 CTR 380. IN THIS SUBSEQUENT DECISION IT WAS HELD BY THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT THAT DECISION OF THE COURT REPORTED IN 243 ITR 439 (MADRAS) WHICH HELD THAT LETTING OF KAL YANA MANDAPAS FOR MARRIAGE AND OTHER FUNCTIONS WOULD BE BUSINESS ACTIVITY AND NOT RENTAL INCOME, CANNOT BE IGNORED. IT ALSO CONSIDERE D THAT IN THE EARLIER ORDER (66 DTR 211) THE COURT WAS EXAMINING THE ISSU E WITH REGARD TO S. 13(1)(BB) AND NOT S.11(4A). IT WAS HELD BY THE H ON'BLE HIGH COURT (182 CTR 380) THAT WHETHER THE INCOME FROM LETTING OUT THE MARRIAGE HALLS WOULD BE BUSINESS INCOME OR INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY ITA NOS.1483 & 1484/BANG/2013 PAGE 9 OF 15 WOULD DEPEND ON THE INTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE AND W HETHER IT WAS CARRIED OUT SYSTEMATICALLY TO MAKE PROFITS OUT OF T HE ASSETS. IT ALSO HELD THAT THE TRIBUNAL ERRED IN APPLYING THE WRONG TEST TO HOLD THAT OBJECTS OF THE TRUST WAS GENERAL PUBLIC UTILITY AND NOT TO EARN PROFIT, AND HENCE LETTING OUT OF MARRIAGE HALL WAS NOT BUSI NESS ACTIVITY. PARA 6-10 OF THE ORDER (182 CTR 380) IS REPRODUCED BELOW :- 6. THE SECOND MISTAKE COMMITTED BY THE TRIBUNAL WA S THAT THE TRIBUNAL HAS CONSIDERED THE QUESTION WHETH ER THE ACTIVITIES CARRIED ON BY THE ASSESSEE-TRUST IN LETT ING OUT THE KALYANAMANDAPAM WOULD BE BUSINESS OR NOT BY APPLYIN G THE TESTS WHICH ARE MEANT TO DETERMINE WHETHER THE OBJE CTS OF THE TRUSTS ARE CHARITABLE OBJECTS OR NOT WITHIN THE MEA NING OF S. 2(15) OF THE ACT. THE TRIBUNAL FELL IN ERROR IN HOL DING THAT WHERE THE OBJECT OF THE TRUST WAS GENERAL UTILITY A ND NOT TO EARN PROFIT, IT WOULD NOT LOSE ITS CHARACTER OF CHA RITABLE PURPOSES, MERELY BECAUSE SOME PROFIT AROSE OUT OF T HE ACTIVITIES. THIS COURT IN MADRAS STOCK EXCHANGE LTD . CASE (SUPRA) AND THE MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT IN MAHAKO SHAL SHAHEED SMARAK TRUST'S CASE (SUPRA) AND GANESHRAM LAXMINARAYAN GOEL'S CASE (SUPRA) HAVE CONSIDERED TH E QUESTION AS TO WHAT ARE THE PREDOMINANT OBJECTS OF THE TRUST AND WHETHER THE ACTIVITY OF THE TRUST WAS TO CARRY OUT AN OBJECT OF GENERAL PUBLIC UTILITY AND NOT TO EARN PROFIT. T HE TRIBUNAL THEREFORE WAS NOT CORRECT IN APPLYING THE TESTS LAI D DOWN IN THESE CASES IN CONSIDERING THE QUESTION WHETHER THE ACTIVITIES OF THE TRUST ARE BUSINESS ACTIVITIES OR NOT. 7. IT IS NO DOUBT TRUE THAT MR. DEVANATHAN, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE RELIED UPON THE DECISION O F THIS COURT IN CIT VS. SAMYUKTHA GOWDA SARASWATHA SABHA (2000) 245 ITR 242 (MAD) AND AN UNREPORTED DECISION OF THIS CO URT IN DIRECTOR OF WEALTH-TAX (EXEMPTIONS) VS. A.V.M. CHAR ITIES (TC NO. 235 OF '1997, DT. 12TH NOV., 2001), WHEREIN IT WAS HELD THAT THE INCOME DERIVED FROM LETTING OUT KALYANAMANDAPAM WAS NOT A BUSINESS INCOME AND HENCE , THE PROVISIONS OF S. 13(L)(BB) OF THE ACT WERE NOT APPL ICABLE. ON THE OTHER HAND, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR REVENUE STRONGL Y RELIED ON THE DECISION OF THIS COURT IN CIT VS. HALAI MEMON ASSOCIATION (2000) 162 CTR (MAD) 373 : (2000) 243 I TR 439 (MAD) WHERE THIS COURT HELD THAT THE LETTING OUT OF KALYANAMANDAPAM FOR MARRIAGES AND OTHER FUNCTIONS A ND THEREBY MAKING THE PREMISES AVAILABLE TO OTHERS FOR LIMITED ITA NOS.1483 & 1484/BANG/2013 PAGE 10 OF 15 PERIODS WOULD AMOUNT TO BUSINESS ACTIVITY AND WHAT WAS GRANTED BY THE OWNER WAS ONLY A LICENCE FOR A SPECI FIED PERIOD AND THE ACTIVITY OF THE ASSESSEE WOULD BE DESCRIBED AS BUSINESS ACTIVITY WITH THE INTENTION OF EARNING INC OME FROM THE BUILDING. THOUGH MR. DEVANATHAN, LEARNED COUNSE L FOR THE ASSESSEE SOUGHT TO DISTINGUISH THE DECISION OF THIS COURT IN HALAI MEMON ASSOCIATION'S CASE (SUPRA) ON THE GROUN D THAT THIS COURT WAS CONSIDERING THE QUESTION WHETHER THE INCOME FROM LETTING OUT THE KALYANAMANDAPAM WAS BUSINESS I NCOME OR INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY, HOWEVER, WE ARE OF T HE VIEW THAT THE DECISION CANNOT BE SIDE-TRACKED BECAUSE TH IS COURT CONSIDERED THE QUESTION WITH REFERENCE TO THE ASSES SABILITY OF INCOME FROM LETTING OUT OF KALYANAMANDAPAM. THIS CO URT HAS CONSIDERED THE QUESTION WITH REFERENCE TO THE HEAD OF INCOME UNDER WHICH THE INCOME FROM LETTING OUT THE KALYANAMANDAPAM WOULD FALL. WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE DECISION IS RELEVANT IN CONSIDERING THE QUESTION WH ETHER THE LETTING OUT OF KALYANAMANDAPAM WOULD AMOUNT TO BUSI NESS ACTIVITY OR NOT. 8. AS FAR AS THE DECISION OF THIS COURT IN SAMYUKTHA GOWDA SARASWATHA SABHA'S CASE (SUPRA) ARE THE UNREP ORTED DECISION OF THIS COURT IN A.V.M. CHARITIES' CASE (S UPRA) ARE CONCERNED, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE REVENUE WOULD CO NTEND THAT THIS COURT HAS HELD THAT THE INCOME DERIVED FR OM LETTING OUT KALYANAMANDAPAM WAS NOT A BUSINESS INCOME AND I T WAS AN INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY WITH REFERENCE TO THE PROVISIONS OF S. 13(L)(BB) OF THE ACT AND NOT WITH REFERENCE TO THE PROVISIONS OF THE S. 11( 4A) OF THE ACT. HOWEVE R, WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT IT IS NOT NECESSARY TO EXPRESS ANY OPINION ON THE QUESTION AS TO WHETHER THE LETTING OUT OF KALYANAMANDAPAM WAS A BUSINESS OF THE ASSESSEE AS I T WOULD DEPEND UPON THE INTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE AND WHETH ER IT WAS SYSTEMATICALLY CARRIED ON BY THE ASSESSEE WITH INTE NTION TO MAKE PROFIT OUT OF THE ASSETS. THE ITO HAS, NO DOUB T, OBSERVED THAT THE KALYANAMANDAPAM WAS LET OUT TO GENERAL PUB LIC AT COMPETITIVE RATES AND ALSO ON DAILY BASIS AND HENCE , IT WAS A BUSINESS ACTIVITY. THE CIT(A) ALSO, FOLLOWING AN EA RLIER ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL IN TULUVA VELLALA ASSOCIATIONS VS. CIT DT. 8TH FEB., 1990, HELD THAT THE INCOME FROM KALYANAMANDAP AM WAS BUSINESS INCOME: HOWEVER, THE TRIBUNAL HAS NOT CONS IDERED THE QUESTION WITH PROPER PERSPECTIVE, BUT DECIDED T HE QUESTION BY APPLYING A WRONG TEST, VIZ., WHETHER THE PREDOMI NANT ITA NOS.1483 & 1484/BANG/2013 PAGE 11 OF 15 OBJECT OF THE TRUST WAS TO MAKE PROFIT OR NOT. WE A RE OF THE VIEW, INSOFAR AS S. 11(4A) OF THE ACT IS CONCERNED, IT IS THE ACTIVITY OF THE ASSESSEE THAT WOULD BE RELEVANT. 9. LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE REVENUE ALSO REFERRED TO TH E DEED OF SETTLEMENT DT. 1ST MARCH, 1958, TO SHOW THE OBJECTS OF THE TRUST. MR. DEVANATHAN, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE DEED WAS NOT REFERRED TO EITHER BY THE AO, OR BY THE CIT(A) OR BY THE TRIBUNAL AND THEREFORE, IT IS NOT OPEN TO THE COUNSEL FOR THE REVENUE TO REFER TO THE SAID DOCUMENT. WE FIND FORCE IN THE SUBMISSION OF THE LE ARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE AS THE DEED WAS NOT REFERR ED TO BY THE TRIBUNAL OR BY THE CIT(A) OR BY THE AO IN THEIR RES PECTIVE ORDERS. THOUGH THE DOCUMENT WAS INCLUDED AS A PART OF THE STATEMENT OF THE CASE ON THE BASIS OF THE DIRECTION S GIVEN BY THIS COURT UNDER S. 256(2) OF THE ACT IN TCP NOS. 4 11 TO 413 OF 1996 DT. 25TH FEB., 1997, WE ARE OF THE VIEW, SI NCE THE TRIBUNAL OR OTHER AUTHORITIES HAVE NOT CONSIDERED T HE SAID DEED, IT IS IMPERMISSIBLE FOR THE LEARNED COUNSEL F OR THE. REVENUE TO REFER TO THE SAID DOCUMENT. 10. LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE THEREFORE SUBMITTE D THAT THE MATTER MAY BE REMITTED BACK TO THE TRIBUNA L SO THAT THE TRIBUNAL MAY CONSIDER THE QUESTION, FOR SUCH CO URSE OF ACTION THE COUNSEL FOR REVENUE DID NOT OBJECT. HENC E, WE RETURN THE REFERENCE WITHOUT ANSWERING THE QUESTION OF LAW REFERRED TO US. THE TRIBUNAL IS DIRECTED TO CONSIDE R THE QUESTION AFRESH IN THE LIGHT OF THE PRINCIPLES LAID DOWN EARLIER AND IN THE LIGHT OF THE DECISIONS REFERRED TO BY US IN OUR JUDGMENT. IT IS MADE CLEAR THAT IT IS OPEN TO THE P ARTIES TO LET IN FRESH EVIDENCE BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. IT IS ALSO MADE CLEAR THAT IT IS OPEN TO THE TRIBUNAL TO REMIT THE MATTER TO THE LOWER AUTHORITIES FOR FRESH CONSIDERATION. 11.3 THE DECISION REFERRED ABOVE HAVE BEEN RENDERE D WITH REGARD TO THE APPLICATION OF SECTION 11 (4A), TO EX AMINE WHETHER THE ACTIVITIES OF THE TRUST WAS CHARITABLE WITHIN THE M EANING OF SECTION 2(15) OR A BUSINESS ACTIVITY THE PROFITS OF WHICH W OULD NOT BE EXEMPT U/S 11. THE DISTINCTION BETWEEN 'BUSINESS' HELD AS PROPERTY UNDER TRUST AS CONTEMPLATED IN SECTION 11(4) AND THAT WHICH IS NOT HELD AS PROPERTY UNDER TRUST BUT IS CARRIED OUT TO MEET THE CHARITABLE OBJECTS OF THE TRUST AS IN S. 11 (4A) HAS BEEN DEALT AS LENGTH BY THE HON'BLE APEX COURT IN THANTHI TRUST CASE (2001) 247 ITR 785 (SC) , WHICH HELD THAT ITA NOS.1483 & 1484/BANG/2013 PAGE 12 OF 15 IN VIEW OF SUBSTITUTED SUB-S. (4A) OF S. 11 W.E.F. 1ST APRIL, 1992, ASSESSEE-TRUST WAS ENTITLED TO EXEMPTION UNDER S. 1 1 FOR ASST. YR. 1992- 93 AND THEREAFTER IN RESPECT OF ITS INCOME OF NEWSP APER BUSINESS WHICH WAS EMPLOYED TO ACHIEVE ITS CHARITABLE OBJECT S. THE APEX COURT ALSO CITED A HYPOTHETICAL EXAMPLE OF A TRUST HAVING 'RELIEF TO THE POOR' AS ITS OBJECT, ENGAGED IN PROVIDING EMPLOYMEN T TO WEAVERS, HAND LOOMS AND PURCHASING RAW MATERIALS AND SELLING THE PRODUCE, WHICH COULD BE SAID TO BE AN ACTIVITY FOR CHARITABL E PURPOSE. CONSTRUCTION OF MARRIAGE HALLS AND LETTING OUT THE SAME ON COMMERCIAL LINES COULD NOT BE SAID TO BE EITHER THE MEANS OR THE END OF PROVIDING RELIEF TO THE POOR, OR IN ANY WAY ALLE VIATING POVERTY, AS HAS BEEN CLAIMED BY THE APPELLANT IN THE PRESENT CA SE. 11.4 THE AMENDMENTS BROUGHT ABOUT IN S.2(15) BY TH E FINANCE ACT, 2008 AND SUBSEQUENT FINANCE ACTS, APPLIES TO A CASE WHERE THE TRUST IS PURSUING ITS OBJECT OF ACTIVITY IN THE NAT URE OF TRADE, COMMERCE OR BUSINESS .... FOR A CESS OR FEE OR ANY OTHER CON SIDERATION, IRRESPECTIVE OF THE NATURE OF USE OR APPLICATION, O R RETENTION, OF THE INCOME FROM SUCH ACTIVITY. IN THE PRESENT CASE, THE INCOME EARNED FROM LETTING OF THE BUILDINGS ON DAILY BASIS ON A C OMMERCIAL BASIS, HAS BEEN APPLIED TO VARIOUS EXPENSES RELATING TO THE AC TIVITY OF LETTING OUT THE MARRIAGE HALLS, AND MAINTENANCE OF THE BUILDING S AND FACILITIES, WHICH AGAIN IS NOTHING BUT THE GENERAL PUBLIC UTILI TY. EVEN THE SURPLUS ACCUMULATED IS FOR CONSTRUCTION OF KALIAN MANTAPA ( MARRIAGE HALLS) WHICH WOULD ONLY BE FOR GENERAL PUBLIC UTILITY. THE ASSESSEE HAS SUBSTANTIAL DEPOSITS IN THE BANK, WHICH EARNS SUBST ANTIAL INTEREST. THESE HAVE NOT BEEN APPLIED TO ANY CHARITABLE OBJEC TS, SUCH AS RELIEF TO THE POOR, EDUCATION OR MEDICAL RELIEF, DESPITE B EING RENDERED SURPLUS AFTER CONSIDERING THE EXPENSES INVOLVED IN RUNNING AND MAINTENANCE OF MARRIAGE HALLS AND OTHER BUILDINGS. THE HOLD ORIENTATION OF THE TRUST SEEMS TO BE CONSTRUCTION O F MORE MARRIAGE HALLS. AS STATED EARLIER, MARRIAGE HALLS RUN ON COM MERCIAL LINES, ARE NEITHER THE MEANS NOR THE END FOR PROVIDING RELIEF TO THE POOR, EVEN IF PEOPLE OF THE KOOTA BRAHMINS MAY HAVE BEEN CHARGED A CONCESSIONAL RATE FOR SUCH UTILITIES. 5. AGGRIEVED, THE ASSESSEE HAS PREFERRED AN APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL AND REITERATED ITS CONTENTIONS AS RAISED B EFORE THE CIT(APPEALS). WHEREAS, THE LD. DR HAS INVITED OUR ATTENTION TO TH E INCOME & EXPENDITURE ITA NOS.1483 & 1484/BANG/2013 PAGE 13 OF 15 ACCOUNT AVAILABLE AT PAGE 7 OF THE COMPILATION OF T HE ASSESSEE WITH THE SUBMISSION THAT OUT OF TOTAL RECEIPTS OF RS.76,13,7 88, THE KALYANA MANTAPA HIRE CHARGES WAS OF RS.37,45,915 AND THE INTEREST O N FDRS WAS RS.17,48,006. SIMILARLY, GENERATOR HIRE CHARES WAS COLLECTED AT RS.1,75,500. THERE WAS AN EXCESS OF INCOME OVER EX PENDITURE OF RS.30,72,028.44. FROM THE DETAILS OF ACTIVITIES, T HE ASSESSEE COULD NOT ESTABLISH AS TO WHAT CHARITABLE ACTIVITIES IN FACT WAS UNDERTAKEN BY IT. THE LD. DR HAS ALSO INVITED OUR ATTENTION TO THE DEFINI TION OF CHARITABLE PURPOSE AS GIVEN IN SECTION 2(15) OF THE ACT WITH THE SUBMI SSION THAT SINCE THE ASSESSEE IS NOT ENGAGED IN CHARITABLE ACTIVITIES, E XEMPTION U/S. 11 CANNOT BE ALLOWED TO IT. 6. HAVING CAREFULLY EXAMINED THE ORDERS OF LOWER AU THORITIES IN THE LIGHT OF RIVAL SUBMISSIONS, I FIND THAT AGAINST THE ORDER OF CANCELLATION OF REGISTRATION U/S. 12AA OF THE ACT, AN APPEAL WAS FI LED BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL AND THE TRIBUNAL SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF CANCELLATIO N AGAINST WHICH AN APPEAL WAS FILED BEFORE THE HONBLE HIGH COURT OF K ARNATAKA AND THE HONBLE HIGH COURT HAS CONFIRMED THE ORDER OF TRIBU NAL. WHILE DEALING WITH THE ISSUE OF CANCELLATION OF REGISTRATION, THE HON BLE HIGH COURT HAS OBSERVED THAT REGISTRATION CAN ONLY BE CANCELLED IF THE ACTIVITIES OF SUCH TRUST OR INSTITUTION ARE NOT BEING CARRIED OUT IN A CCORDANCE WITH THE OBJECTS OF THE TRUST/INSTITUTION. THEY HAVE NOT GONE INTO THE MERITS OF THE CASE AS TO WHETHER LETTING OUT OF KALYANA MANTAPA IS A CHARITA BLE ACTIVITY OR IN THE NATURE OF BUSINESS ACTIVITY. BUT, WHILE GRANTING E XEMPTION U/S. 11 OF THE ITA NOS.1483 & 1484/BANG/2013 PAGE 14 OF 15 ACT, THE AO IS COMPETENT TO EXAMINE THE STATEMENT O F ACCOUNTS AND THE REAL ACTIVITIES UNDERTAKEN BY THE ASSESSEE. IF THE AO IS SATISFIED THAT THE ACTIVITIES UNDERTAKEN BY THE ASSESSEE ARE NOT OF CH ARITABLE NATURE, AND IN THE NATURE OF COMMERCIAL ACTIVITIES OR IN THE NATUR E OF BUSINESS, HE CAN DENY THE BENEFIT OF EXEMPTION TO THE ASSESSEE. 7. IN THE INSTANT CASE, THE AO HAS EXAMINED THE NAT URE OF ACTIVITIES IN THE LIGHT OF STATEMENT OF ACCOUNTS, BALANCE SHEET A ND THE ACTIVITIES UNDERTAKEN BY THE ASSESSEE. THE CIT(APPEALS) HAS A LSO EXAMINED THE ACTIVITIES OF THE ASSESSEE AND HAS NOTED THAT THE M AIN ACTIVITY OF THE ASSESSEE IS LETTING OUT OF KALYANA MANTAPA ON HIRE CHARGES AND BY DOING SO, ASSESSEE HAS EARNED SOME OF RS.37,45,915. BESI DES, ASSESSEE HAS ALSO COLLECTED GENERATOR HIRE CHARGES AND INTEREST ON FDRS, ETC. SIMILARLY, FROM THE EXPENDITURE SIDE, IT IS ALSO NOTED THAT A SSESSEE HAS NOT INCURRED ANY MAJOR EXPENDITURE ON ACCOUNT OF EDUCATION AND M EDICAL RELIEF TO THE POOR. DURING THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT YEAR, INCOME OVER EXPENDITURE WAS OF RS.30,72,028.44. FROM A CAREFUL PERUSAL OF THE INCOME & EXPENDITURE ACCOUNT FOR AY 2009-10, IT IS NOTICED T HAT THE MAIN ACTIVITIES OF THE ASSESSEE WAS ONLY LETTING OUT OF KALYANA MANTAP A AND WHATEVER INCOME OVER EXPENDITURE WAS EARNED DURING THE YEAR, IT WAS PUT IN FDRS TO EARN INTEREST THEREON. NO CHARITABLE ACTIVITY AS D EFINED UNDER THE ACT WAS UNDERTAKEN BY THE ASSESSEE. IN THE LIGHT OF THESE FACTS, I AM OF THE CONSIDERED VIEW THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT UNDERTAKE N CHARITABLE ACTIVITY DURING THE YEAR, THEREFORE, IT IS NOT ELIGIBLE FOR EXEMPTION U/S. 11 OF THE ACT. ITA NOS.1483 & 1484/BANG/2013 PAGE 15 OF 15 I ACCORDINGLY FIND NO INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER OF THE CIT(APPEALS) AND CONFIRM HIS ORDER. 8. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE ARE D ISMISSED. PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THIS 26 TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2016. SD/- (SUNIL KUMAR YADAV ) JUDICIAL MEMBER BANGALORE, DATED, THE 26 TH AUGUST, 2016. /D S/ COPY TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR, ITAT, BANGALORE. 6. GUARD FILE BY ORDER ASSISTANT REGISTRAR, ITAT, BANGALORE.