M/S SRIRAM EDUCATIONAL TRUST, CHENNAI V. DCIT (EXEMPTIONS) CHENNAI CIRCLE, CHENNAI

ITA 1547/CHNY/2018

• Counselvise Citation: [2020] 110 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 4026 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 5 month(s) 19 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 27-10-2020
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Assessment Year: 2012-2013
• Appeal Filed On: 08-05-2018
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: S SRIDHAR
• Keywords: Reopening of assessment; Depreciation; Retrospective amendment; Benefit of exemption; Cancellation of registration; Revenue expenditure; Set aside
• Section: 143(3); 201; 274; 147; 131; 11

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL , C B ENCH, CHENNAI . , ! . , ! ' BEFORE SHRI DUVVURU RL REDDY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI G.MANJUNATHA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ./ I.T.A.NOS.1546 & 1547/CHNY/2018 ( / ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2011-12 & 2012-13) SRIRAM EDUCATIONAL TRUST NO.49, ANNA SALAI (DEVI THEATRE COMPLEX), CHENNAI-600 002. VS THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS), 121, NUNGAMBAKKAM HIGH ROAD. CHENNAI-34. PAN:AAATS2429R ( /APPELLANT) ( /RESPONDENT) ./ I.T.A.NO.1591/CHNY/2018 ( / ASSESSMENT YEAR:2012-13) THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS),CHENNAI CIRCLE, AAYAKAR BHAVAN ANNEX BULDG, 3 RD FLOOR, 121, NUNGAMBAKKAM HIGH ROAD. CHENNAI-34. VS SRIRAM EDUCATIONAL TRUST NO.49, ANNA SALAI (DEVI THEATRE COMPLEX), CHENNAI-600 002. PAN:AAATS2429R ( /APPELLANT) ( /RESPONDENT) / ASSESSEE BY : MR. S.SRIDHAR, ADVOCATE / REVENUE BY : MR. ABANI KANTA NAYAK,CIT /DATE OF HEARING : 22.10.2020 /DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 27.10.2020 / O R D E R PER G.MANJUNATHA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: THESE ARE TWO APPEALS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR TH E ASSESSMENT YEARS 2011-12 & 2012-13 AND ONE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2012-13 ARE DIREC TED AGAINST THE COMMON ORDER PASSED BY THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-17, CHENNAI DATED 28.02.2018 AND PER TAIN TO 2 ITA NO.1546, 1547 & 1591/CHNY/2018 ASSESSMENT YEARS 2011-12 & 2012-13. SINCE, THE FACT S AND ISSUES INVOLVED ARE IDENTICAL, FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE THESE APPEALS WERE HEARD TOGETHER AND ARE BEING DISPOSED OFF, BY THIS CONSOLIDATED ORDER. 2. THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED MORE OR LESS COMMON GRO UNDS OF APPEAL FOR BOTH THE ASSESSMENT YEARS. THEREFORE, FO R THE SAKE OF BREVITY, THE GROUNDS FILED FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2011-12 ARE REPRODUCED AS UNDER:- THIS APPEAL IS FILED AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE COMM ISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-(APPEAL) DATED 28 TH FEBRUARY 2018 PASSED U/S 250(6) OF INCOME TAX ACT ON THE FOLLOWING AMONGST OTHER GROUNDS EACH OF WHICH IS IN THE ALTERNATIVE AND WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO ANY OTHER GROU ND. 1. THE LEARNED CIT (A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND IN FACT IN CONFIRMING THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER DETERMINING THE INCOME AT RS.19,71,33,840/-. 2. THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW IN SUSTAINING T HE TAX PAYABLE AS DETERMINED BY THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER AT RS.9 ,72,22,380/-. 3. THE LEARNED CLT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW IN NOT QUASHING THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER WHICH IS CONTRARY TO LAW, FACTS A ND IN CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. 4. THE LEARNED CIT(A) IS WRONG IN CONFIRMING THE REASS ESSMENT FRAMED U/S 147OF TAX ACT. I. NON DISPOSAL OF OBJECTIONS RAISED BY THE APPELLA NT 5. THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN PARA 3.1 IN PAGE NO.5 OF T HE ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED U/S 147 R.W.S. 143(3) DATED 23 RD MARCH 2016 HAS STATED THAT THE APPELLANT HAS NOT OBJECTED TO THE REOPENIN G OF THE ASSESSMENT, WHEREAS THE APPELLANT VIDE LETTER DATED 12 TH MAY 2015 HAS FILED ITS OBJECTION BEFORE THE LEARNED ASSESSIN G OFFICER. THE ASSESSING OFFICER FAILED TO DISPOSE OFF THE OBJECTI ONS RAISED BY THE APPELLANT. 3 ITA NO.1546, 1547 & 1591/CHNY/2018 6. THE CIT (A) HAS ERRED IN NOT CONSIDERING THE ABOVE FACT BRO UGHT TO HIS NOTICE VIDE SUBMISSION DATED 23 RD FEB 2018 AND FAILED TO DEAL THE ISSUE IN HIS ORDER. 7. THE CIT (A) HAS FAILED TO APPRECIATE THAT THE REASS ESSMENT ORDER PASSED WITHOUT REJECTION OF THE OBJECTIONS RAISED B Y THE APPELLANT WOULD RENDER THE ENTIRE REASSESSMENT PROCEEDING VOI D ABINITIO. 8. THE CIT(A) IS WRONG IN NOT FOLLOWING THE LAW LAID D OWN BY THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA IN THE CASE OF GKN DRIVE SHA FTS VS ITO 259 ITR 019 AND THE LAW LAID DOWN BY THE HON'BLE HIGH C OURT OF MADRAS WHICH IS ALSO THE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT. II. CLAIM OF DEPRECIATION NOT ALLOWED 9. THE CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN NOT ALLOWING THE CLAIM O F DEPRECIATION. 10. THE CIT(A) IS WRONG IN NOT CONSIDERING THE ADDITION AL GROUNDS OF APPEAL ADDUCED BY THE APPELLANT ON 26 TH FEBRUARY 2018 BEFORE CIT (A) ON THE CLAIM OF DEPRECIATION. 11. THE CIT(A) HAS FAILED TO CONSIDER THE JUDGEMENT GIV EN BY THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF MADRAS IN THE CASE OF OIT VS MEDICAL TRUST OF SEVENTH ADVENTISTS REPORTED IN 84 TAXMAAN.COM 202 (MADRAS) AND JUDGEMENT OF THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA IN THE CASE O F CIT VS RAJASTHAN & GUJARAT CHARITABLE FOUNDATION IN CA NO.7186 OF 2014 . III. WRONG ADDITION OF UNSPENT ACCUMULATION OF AY 2 005-06 12. THE CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN NOT DELETING THE ADDITION O F RS.6.63 CRORE AS DETAILED IN PARA 6 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER WHICH PE RTAIN TO UNEXPENDED ACCUMULATION OF AY 2005-06. 13. THE CLT(A) HAS ERRED IN SUSTAINING THE ADDITION OF RS.6.63 CRORE WHERE AS S.NO.7 IN PAGE 4 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER I TSELF STATES THAT THE CARRY FORWARD EXPENDITURE OF RS.4.92 CRORE PERT AINING TO AY 2004-05 WAS ADJUSTED IN AY 2005-06 AND THUS ARRIVIN G AT THE TAXABLE INCOME FOR THE AY-2005-06 AS NIL. 14. THE CLT(A) HAS FAILED TO CONSIDER THE FACT THAT WHE N THERE WAS NO TAXABLE INCOME FOR THE APPELLANT FOR THE AY 2005-06 THE QUESTION OF UNEXPENDED ACCUMULATION DOES NOT ARISE AS THE CARRY FORWARD EXPENDITURE OF AY 2004-05 OF RS.4,92,22,844/- WAS A DJUSTED AGAINST THE SHORTFALL IN ARRIVING AT 85% OF THE INCOME OF A Y 2005-06 AMOUNTING TO RS.3,19,95,993/-. 15. THE CIT(A) IS WRONG IN NOT DETERMINING THE BALANCE CARRY FORWARD EXPENDITURE OF AY 2004-05 AFTER SET OFF AGAINST THE SHORTFALL IN 4 ITA NO.1546, 1547 & 1591/CHNY/2018 EXPENDITURE OF AY 2005-06. IV. FORM 10 NOT CONSIDERED 16. THE CIT (A) HAS ERRED IN NOT ENTERTAINING THE PLEA FOR ACCUMULATION OF INCOME FOR THE PURPOSE STATED FORMING PART OF TH E STATUTORY FORM10 WITHIN THE SCOPE OF SECTION 11(2) OF THE INC OME TAX ACT. 17. THE CIT(A) HAS FAILED TO DEAL WITH THE ACCUMULATION THROUGH FORM 10 ADDUCED AS ADDITIONAL GROUND OF APPEAL BY THE APPEL LANT VIDE ITS ADDITIONAL GROUNDS DATED 26TH FEBRUARY 2018 FILED B EFORE THE CLT(A). 18. THE CLT (A) SHALL HAVE CONSIDERED THE DECISION OF THE HON'B LE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT IN CIT VS MAYUR FOUNDATION (2005) 274 ITR 565 WHICH DISTINGUISHED THE JUDGEMENT OF THE HON'BLE SU PREME COURT OF INDIA IN THE CASE OF CIT VS NAGPUR HOTEL OWNERS' AS SOCIATION (2001) 247 ITR 201 WHICH STATES THAT FORM 10 CAN BE FILED EVEN WHEN THE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEAR IS UNDER APPEAL. THE RELE VANT EXCERPT OF THE CASE READS AS FOLLOWS :- .THE ASSESSMENT IS IN APPEAL, IT SHOULD BE TREAT ED AS PENDING, SO THAT IT COULD BE FOLLOWED AT THE STAGE OF APPEAL BY WAY OF ADDITIONAL GROUNDS. NOT ALL TIME LIMITED ARE MANDAT ORY, SINCE NOT PROVED CASE, AS IN THE CASE OF TIME LIMIT FOR FILIN G AUDIT REPORT, THE COURTS HAVE FOUND THAT THEY ARE OFTEN DIRECTORY TO SUCH A VIEW AS NECESSARY FOR FURTHERING CAUSE OF JUSTICE '. V. ERROR IN COMPUTING THE ACCUMULATION U/S 11(1)(A) 19. THE CIT(A) IS NOT CORRECT IN LAW IN NOT DISPOSING O F ADDITIONAL GROUND ADDUCED BY THE APPELLANT WHERE IT HAS BEEN POINTED OUT THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER ERRED IN COMPUTING 15% FROM ACCUM ULATION AVAILABLE U/S 11(1)(A) AS 15% OF THE GROSS RECEIPTS AND NOT AS 15% OF GROSS RECEIPTS LESS REVENUE EXPENDITURE. THIS HA S RESULTED IN LESSER AMOUNT OF FREE ACCUMULATION COMPARED TO THE QUANTUM AS ENVISAGED UNDER LAW. 20. IF THE CORRECT METHODOLOGY HAD BEEN FOLLOWED, THE T AXABLE INCOME OF THE APPELLANT WOULD HAVE BEEN MUCH LESS ASSUMINGLY EVEN WITHOUT ALLOWING DEPRECIATION AND DELETION OF UNUTILISED AC CUMULATION OF AY 2005-06 AND THUS CAUSING UNDUE HARDSHIP AND DENIAL OF JUSTICE TO THE APPELLANT. VI. RETROSPECTIVE DENIAL OF EXEMPTION U/S LO(23C)(V I} 21. THE ASSESSING OFFICER ERRED IN NOT GRANTING THE ALT ERNATIVE EXEMPTION U/S 11 OF THE ACT CITING REJECTION OF CONDONATION O F DELAY IN FILING FORM 10. THE APPELLANT FILED ITS ORIGINAL RETURN OF INCO ME ON BONAFIED BELIEF THAT IT IS ENTITLED TO THE BENEFITS OF SECTION 10(2 3C)(VI) OF THE ACT. WITH THE RETROSPECTIVE CANCELLATION OF REGISTRATION U/S 10(23C)(VI), THE APPELLANT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED THE ALTERNATIVE EXEMPTION 5 ITA NO.1546, 1547 & 1591/CHNY/2018 AVAILABLE TO IT WITHOUT ANY FURTHER COMPLIANCE. 22. WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE ABOVE AND IN ALTERNATIVE, AN APPEAL AGAINST THE CANCELLATION OF REGISTRATION GRANTED U/S 10(23C )(VI) IS PENDING BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. 3. THE REVENUE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS O F APPEAL:- 1. THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT(A) IS CONTRAR Y TO THE LAW AND FACTS OF THE CASE. 2. THE CIT(A) ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITION O F 9.36 CRORES ON THE GROUND THAT THE SAME AMOUNT WAS TAXED FOR THE A.Y.2006-07 WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE FACT THAT ASSESSMENT FOR THE A.Y.2006-07 HAS NOT REACHED FINALITY AND THE SAME IN APPEAL BE FORE THE HONBLE ITAT AND THE ADDITION OF RS.9.36 CRORES M ADE FOR AY 2012-13 IS INTERDEPENDENT ON THE OUTCOME OF THE APP EAL FOR THE AY 2006-07. 4. BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE EXTRACTED IN ITA NO. 114 6/CHNY/2018 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2011-12 ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE T RUST WAS ESTABLISHED IN THE YEAR 1983 WITH THE OBJECT OF IMP ARTING EDUCATION. THE ASSESSEE TRUST IS CARRYING ON ITS OBJECTS THROU GH ESTABLISHMENT OF EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTIONS INCLUDING AN ENGINEERIN G COLLEGE, POLYTECHNIC COLLEGE, ARTS & SCIENCE COLLEGE, A MATR ICULATION SCHOOL AND CBSE SCHOOL. THE TRUST IS REGISTERED UNDER SECT ION 10(23C)(VI) OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961 (HEREINAFTER REFERRED T O AS THE ACT) VIDE THE ORDER OF CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX NO.C CIT- III/187/10(23C)/07-08 DATED 30.04.2008 W.E.F ASSESS MENT YEAR 2003-04. THE TRUST IS ALSO REGISTERED U/S.12A OF TH E ACT, VIDE ORDER DATED 31.10.1983. THE ASSESSEE TRUST FILED ITS RETU RN OF INCOME FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2011-12 & 2012-13 ON 28.09.2012 ADMITTING 6 ITA NO.1546, 1547 & 1591/CHNY/2018 NIL TOTAL INCOME, AFTER CLAIMING EXEMPTION UNDER SE CTION 10(23C)(VI) OF THE ACT. AN INQUIRY WAS CONDUCTED UNDER SECTION 131 OF THE ACT ON 23.11.2012 AND BASED ON VARIOUS INPUTS, THE CCIT C ANCELLED THE REGISTRATION GRANTED UNDER SECTION 10(23C)(VI) OF THE ACT VIDE HIS ORDER DATED 14.03.2013 WITH RETROSPECTIVE EFFECT FR OM ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07. AGAINST THE ORDER OF CCIT, THE ASSESS EE HAD FILED WRIT PETITION BEFORE THE HONBLE HIGH COURT OF MADRAS PR AYING FOR RESTORATION OF REGISTRATION OF THE TRUST WHICH IS P ENDING FOR ADJUDICATION. THEREAFTER, NOTICE U/S.148 WAS ISSUED ON 01.08.2014 TO REOPEN THE ASSESSMENT FOR BOTH ASSESSMENT YEARS. I N RESPONSE TO THE NOTICE, THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED RETURN OF INCOME AND SIMULTANEOUSLY REQUESTED FOR REASONS FOR REOPENING OF ASSESSMENT AND SUCH REASONS WERE NOT FURNISHED. THE ASSESSMENT HAS BEEN COMPLETED U/S.143 (3) R.W.S 147 OF THE ACT ON 24.03 .2016 DETERMINING THE TOTAL INCOME AT RS 19,71,33,840/-, WHEREIN THE AO HAD DENIED THE BENEFIT OF EXEMPTION CLAIMED UNDER S ECTION 10(23C)(VI) OF THE ACT ON THE GROUND THAT ASSESSEE IS NOT ENTITLED FOR ANY EXEMPTION BECAUSE OF CANCELLATION OF REGISTRAT ION GRANTED BY THE CCIT VIDE ORDER DATED 14.03.2013. 5. BEING AGGRIEVED BY THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, ASSESSE E PREFERRED AN APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT(A). BEFORE THE CIT(A), THE ASSESSEE HAS 7 ITA NO.1546, 1547 & 1591/CHNY/2018 CHALLENGED THE REOPENING OF ASSESSMENT ALONG WITH DENIAL OF EXEMPTION CLAIMED UNDER SECTION 10(23C)(VI) OF THE ACT. THE LEARNED CIT(A), FOR THE DETAILED REASONS RECORDED IN THE APPELLATE ORDER DATED 28.02.2018, HAS REJECTED THE GROUND TAK EN BY THE ASSESSEE, INSOFAR AS DENIAL OF EXEMPTION CLAIMED UNDER SECTION 10(23C)(VI) OF THE ACT ON THE GROUND THAT ONCE REG ISTRATION GRANTED HAS BEEN WITHDRAWN, THE ASSESSEE CANNOT CLAIM TH E BENEFIT OF EXEMPTION. THE CIT(A) ALSO REJECTED THE EXEMPTION C LAIMED U/S.11 OF THE ACT ON THE GROUND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS FIL ED FORM NO. 10 SETTING APART ACCUMULATION OF INCOME BEYOND STIPULA TED DATE. WHILE DOING SO, THE CIT(A) HAS FOLLOWED THE APPELLATE ORD ER OF CIT(A) IN ITA NO.223/2013-14 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF CIT(A), THE ASSESSEE AS WELL AS REVENU E ARE IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 6. THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED T HAT THE ISSUE INVOLVED IN BOTH THE APPEALS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE SQUARELY COVERED BY THE DECISION OF ITAT., CHENNAI IN ASSESS EES OWN CASE FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07 TO 2010-11, WHERE T HE TRIBUNAL HAS SET ASIDE THE ISSUE TO THE FILE OF THE A.O TO R E-EXAMINE EXEMPTION CLAIMED U/S.11 OF THE ACT. THEREFORE, THE SE APPEALS MAY BE SET ASIDE TO THE FILE OF THE AO TO RECONSIDER TH E ISSUE IN 8 ITA NO.1546, 1547 & 1591/CHNY/2018 ACCORDANCE WITH THE DIRECTIONS OF THE TRIBUNAL GIV EN FOR THE EARLIER ASSESSMENT YEARS. 7. THE LEARNED DR, ON THE OTHER HAND, FAIRLY ACCEPT ED THAT THE TRIBUNAL HAS SET ASIDE THE ISSUE TO THE A.O. FOR TH E EARLIER ASSESSMENT YEARS AND FURTHER THE FACTS BEING IDENTI CAL FOR THE YEARS UNDER CONSIDERATION, THESE APPEALS MAY BE SET ASIDE TO THE FILE OF ASSESSING OFFICER WITH SIMILAR DIRECTION TO RECONSI DER THE ISSUE OF EXEMPTION CLAIMED U/S.11 OF THE ACT. AS REGARDS TH E APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2012-13, THE LE ARNED DR SUBMITTED THAT SINCE THE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE HA VE BEEN SET ASIDE, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE MAY ALSO BE REMITTED BACK TO THE FILE OF THE A.O. TO LOOK INTO THE ISSUE AFRESH IN THE LIGHT OF THE VARIOUS AVERMENTS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE LIGHT OF THE FINDINGS OF THE TRIBUNAL FOR THE EARLIER ASSESSMENT YEARS. 8. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES, PERUSED THE MATE RIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD AND GONE THROUGH THE ORDERS OF AUTHORITIE S BELOW. WE FIND THAT AN IDENTICAL ISSUE HAS BEEN CONSIDERED BY THE TRIBUNAL FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2006-07 TO 2010-11, WHERE AFTER CO NSIDERING THE RELEVANT FACTS OF THE CASE, THE TRIBUNAL HAS RESTOR ED THE MATTER TO THE FILE OF THE A.O. TO RECONSIDER THE ISSUE RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE 9 ITA NO.1546, 1547 & 1591/CHNY/2018 REGARDING CLAIM OF EXEMPTION U/S.11 OF THE ACT. WE FURTHER NOTED THAT FACTS OF THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT YEARS ARE IDENTICA L TO THE CASE CONSIDERED BY THE TRIBUNAL FOR THE EARLIER ASSESSME NT YEARS AND FURTHER ASSESSMENT OF EARLIER ASSESSMENT YEARS WILL HAVE BEARING ON THE ASSESSMENTS FRAMED BY THE A.O FOR THESE ASSESSM ENT YEARS. THEREFORE, CONSIDERING THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES AND ALSO THE FACT THAT ASSESSEES CLAIM OF EXEMPTION U/S.11 NEEDS TO BE EXAMINED FROM THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07 ONWARDS, THE APPEA LS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR BOTH THE ASSESSMENT YEARS ARE RESTORED TO THE FILE OF THE A.O. TO RECONSIDER THE ISSUE OF EXEMPTION CLAIM ED U/S.11 IN THE LIGHT OF FORM NO.10B FILED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR BOTH THE ASSESSMENT YEARS. WE FURTHER DIRECT THE LEARNED A.O. TO REDO THE ASSESSMENTS KEEPING IN MIND THE FINDINGS RECORDED BY THE TRIBUN AL VIDE ORDER IN ITA NO.590 TO 594/CHNY/2015 DATED 04.03.2019 FOR TH E ASSESSMENT YEARS 2006-07 TO 2010-11, BECAUSE THE FINDINGS GIVE N FOR THE EARLIER YEARS SHALL HAVE BEARING ON THE ASSESSMENTS OF THE SE TWO ASSESSMENT YEARS. WE FURTHER DIRECT THE LEARNED A.O TO TAKE NOTE OF THE WRIT PETITION FILED BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE HONBLE MADRAS HIGH COURT CHALLENGING CANCELLATION OF REGISTRATIO N WITHDRAWN BY THE CCIT U/S.10(23C)(VI) OF THE ACT AND THE OUTCOME OF THE WRIT PETITION BEFORE THE HONBLE HIGH COURT. 10 ITA NO.1546, 1547 & 1591/CHNY/2018 9. AS REGARDS THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE CHALL ENGING THE DELETION OF ADDITION OF RS.9.36 CRORES MADE TO THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2011-12 ON THE GRO UND THAT ONCE SUBSTANTIVE ASSESSMENT HAS BEEN MADE FOR THE ASSES SMENT YEAR 2006-07, PROTECTIVE ADDITION MADE FOR THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT YEAR CANNOT SURVIVE. SINCE THE ASSESSMENT FOR THE A SSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07 HAS BEEN SET ASIDE TO THE FILE OF THE A.O, THE ASSESSING OFFICER WILL EXAMINE THE ISSUE OF TAXABILITY OF PAR TICULAR ADDITION IN APPROPRIATE ASSESSMENT YEARS IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW . ACCORDINGLY, APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS ALSO SET ASIDE TO THE FILE OF THE AO. 10. IN THE RESULT, APPEALS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE F OR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2011-12 AND 2012-13 AND APPEAL FIL ED BY THE REVENUE FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2012-13 ARE ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 27 TH OCTOBER, 2020 SD/- SD/- ( .) ( . ) (DUVVURU RL REDDY) ( G.MANJUNATHA ) ! $ / JUDICIAL MEMBER $ / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ! /CHENNAI, ' /DATED 27 TH OCTOBER, 2020 DS 11 ITA NO.1546, 1547 & 1591/CHNY/2018 )* +* /COPY TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. , () /CIT(A) 4. , /CIT 5. * 1 /DR 6. /GF .