M/s IK Gujral Punjab Technical University, Kapurthala V. CIT(E), Chandigarh

ITA 1646/CHANDI/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 118 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 5026 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 2 month(s) 1 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 05-02-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 27-11-2018
• Assessment Year: misc
• Appeal Filed On: 04-12-2017
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: ASHISH GUPTA
• Keywords: Charitable institution; Additional evidence
• Section: 148; 12; 11; 12A; 12AA

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CHANDIGARH BENCH A , CHANDIGARH , ! ' # $ % & ' , ' BEFORE SMT.DIVA SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SMT.ANNAPURNA GUPTA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ./ ITA NO.1646/CHD/2017 (UNDER SECTION 12AA(1)(B)(II) M/S I.K. GUJRAL PUNJAB TECHNICAL UNIVERSITY, KAPURTHALA. THE D.C.I.T. CIRCLE I (EXEMPTION), CHANDIGARH. ./PAN NO: AACCK4673L /ASSESSEE BY : S/SHRI AJAY VOHRA, SR.ADV. & KUNAL GOKHALE, ADV. / REVENUE BY : SHRI ASHISH GUPTA, CIT (DR) /DATE OF HEARING : 27.11.2018 !'#$% /DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 05.02.2019 /ORDER PER ANNAPURNA GUPTA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER THE PRESENT APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS), CHANDIGARH (IN SHORT CIT(E) DATED 2 9.9.2017 DENYING REGISTRATION AS A CHARITABLE TRUST U/S 12AA OF THE INCOME TAX AT, 1961 (HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS AC T). 2. BRIEF FACTS RELATING TO THE CASE AS FIND MENTIO N IN THE ORDER OF THE LD.CIT(E), ARE THAT THE APPLICANT/ASS ESSEE HAD FILED AN APPLICATION IN FORM NO.10A SEEKING REGISTR ATION U/S 12AA OF THE ACT, ON 23.3.2017. AS PER THE APPLICATI ON, THE GOVERNMENT OF PUNJAB, THROUGH AN ACT ENACTED ON 16.1.1997, CONSTITUTED A UNIVERSITY WITH THE NAME O F PUNJAB ITA NO.1646/CHD/2017 U/S 12AA(1)(B)(III) 2 TECHNICAL UNIVERSITY, WHICH WAS LATER ON CHANGED TO M/S I.K.GUJRAL PUNJAB TECHNICAL UNIVERSITY W.E.F. 20.5. 2015,THE IMPUGNED ASSESSEE BEFORE US. THE STATED AIMS AND OB JECTS OF THE APPLICANT/ASSESSEE WAS THE ADVANCEMENT OF TECH NICAL EDUCATION AND DEVELOPMENT THEREOF IN THE STATE OF P UNJAB AND MATTERS CONNECTED THERETO. THE UNIVERSITY STAR TED ITS ACTIVITY WITH NINE ENGINEERING COLLEGES AND FEW MAN AGEMENT COLLEGES AFFILIATED TO IT. THE APPLICATION FOR GRAN T OF REGISTRATION U/S 12AA WAS REJECTED BY THE LD.CIT(E) VIDE HIS IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 29.9.2017 FOR THE REASONS ENUMERATED AT PARA 5.2 TO 7 OF THE ORDER AS UNDER: 5.2 THE APPLICANT HAS BEEN RECEIVING GRANT FROM PUNJAB GOVERNMENT ON AN INFREQUENT AND INTERMITTENT BASIS. THE APPLICANT HAD SUBMITTED DURING THE PROCEEDINGS SEEKING APPROVAL UNDER SECTION 10(23C)(VI) THAT PUNJAB GOVERNMENT HAD GRANTED LAND MEASURING 78.16 ACRE FOR THE ESTABLISHMENT OF THE UNIVERSITY- AT THE INITIAL STA GE AS CAPITAL GRANTS IN AID. THE STATE GOVERNMENT HAS FURTHER GRANTED LAND AND BUILDING TO THE PUNJAB TECHNICAL UNIVERSITY FOR SETTING UP CONSTITUENT CAMPUSES IN THE ENTIRE STATE OF PUNJAB. THE INITIAL ALLOTMENT OF LAND BY THE PUNJAB GOVERNMENT HAS BEEN CONSTRUED AS SUBSTANTIAL FINANCING BY THE GOVERNMENT. THIS CLAIM RIGHT FROM INCEPTION CLAIMING ITSELF TO BE SUBSTANTIALLY FINANCED BY THE GOVERNMENT WAS INHERENTLY WRONG. 6.1 REFERENCE AT THIS POINT IS ALSO INVITED TO THE ASSESSMENT MADE BY THE AO IN DECEMBER, 2016 FOR A.Y 2009-10 WHEREIN DUE TO THE NON-FILING OF THE RETURN THE CASE WAS TAKEN UP U/S 148 OF I.T.ACT AND THE ENTIRE SURPLUS WAS TREATED AS TAXABLE INCOME IN ABSENCE OF ANY EXEMPTION AVAILABLE TO THE ASSESSEE. IT IS ALSO TO BE NOTED THAT DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS TH E APPLICANT HAD TRIED TO ESTABLISH ITSELF AS THE 'STA TE' INCOME OF WHICH IS EXEMPTED U/S 289(1) OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA. HOWEVER THE A.O. HAS REJECTED THE CLAIM AND TREATED THE APPLICANT AS THE AOP. REFERENCE ON THIS POINT I S TAKEN TO THE DECISION OF HON'BLE IT AT CHANDIGARH IN I.T.A NO. 880 & 881/CHD/2014 IN CASE OF M/S BADDI BAROTIWALA NALAGARH DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, BADDI WHEREIN THE ASSESSEE ENGAGED IN DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITY SPONSORED BY H.P GOVERNMENT CLAIMED ITSELF TO BE THE 'STATE' AND SOUGHT EXEMPTION FROM TAX BUT HON'BLE ITAT HAS ITA NO.1646/CHD/2017 U/S 12AA(1)(B)(III) 3 DENIED IT AS THE AUTHORITY ITSELF HAD CLAIMED EXEMPTION U/S 10/11/12 OF THE ACT. 6.2 THIS ACTION OF THE DEPARTMENT TRIGGERED AN APPLICATION CLAIMING APPROVAL UNDER SECTION 10(23C)(VI). AT THAT JUNCTURE THE CLAIMS HAD BEEN THAT THE APPLICANT WAS A UNIVERSITY ELIGIBLE FOR TH E SAID APPROVAL. IN THE INSTANT CASE, A WELL REASONED AND SPEAKING ORDER WAS PASSED VIDE ORDER DATED 31.03.2017 REJECTING THE APPLICATION FOR APPROVAL U/S 10(23C)(VI) OF THE ACT IN THE CASE OF THE APPLICANT AGAINST WHICH THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL. DESPITE THE PENDENCY OF THE APPEAL THE PRESENT APPLICATION HAS BEEN PRESSED ADOPTING A COMPLETELY DIFFERENT STANCE AND A DIFFERENT CODE FOR EXEMPTIONS. IN THE CASE OF THE APPLICANT THIS IS TH E THIRD CODE THAT IS BEING PRESSED FOR GETTING THEIR INCOME EXEMPT. IT FIRST CLAIMED THAT IT IS WHOLLY O R SUBSTANTIALLY FINANCED BY THE GOVERNMENT. LATER IT SHIFTED TACK TO CLAIM THAT IT IS A UNIVERSITY EXIST ING SOLELY FOR EDUCATION AND NOT FOR PROFITS. THE PRESE NT APPLICATION IMPLIES THAT IT IS A TRUST SEEKING EXEMPTION FOR ITS INCOME FROM PROPERTY AND VOLUNTARY DONATIONS. THIS ACTION NOT ONLY MILITATES AGAINST THE SCHEME OF THE ACT THAT PROVIDES FOR EXEMPTION TO DIFFERENT CATEGORIES OF ASSESSEES BASED ON THEIR STATUS AND ALSO THE SOURCE OF RECEIPTS BUT IS ALSO TAKEN AS AN ATTEMPT TO SUBVERT THE PROCESS OF LAW [THE APPLICANT HAS NOT RELINQUISHED ITS C LAIMS FOR COVERAGE UNDER SECTION 10(23C)(VI) AND IS IN APPEAL AGAINST THE ORDER REJECTING THAT CLAIM]. 7. NOTWITHSTANDING ALL OF THE ABOVE, IT IS REITERATED THAT THE APPLICANT IS NEITHER A SOCIETY REGISTERED UNDER THE SOCIETY'S REGISTRATION ACT, 1860 OR A PUBLIC CHARITABLE TRUST REGISTERED AS SUCH UNDER THE RELEVANT TRUST ACT OR A SECTION 8 / SECTION 25 COMPANY REGISTERED UNDER THE COMPANIES ACT. THESE ARE THE THREE CATEGORIES THAT HAVE BEEN JUDICIALLY HELD TO QUALIFY FOR CLAIMING EXEMPTIONS UNDER SECTION 11 AND 12 AND THEREFORE BEING ELIGIBLE FOR REGISTRATION UNDER SECTION 12AA. CONSIDERING THESE OBSERVATIONS THE APPLICANT IS HELD INELIGIBLE FOR COVERAGE UNDER SECTION 12AA. IT IS ALSO THE CASE THAT THE APPLICATION U/S 10(23C)(VI) OF THE ACT HAS BEEN REJECTED VIDE ORDER DATED 31.03.2017. HI LIGHT OF ALL OF THE ABOVE, I HAVE NO OPTION BUT TO REJECT TH E APPLICATION OF THE ASSESSEE SEEKING REGISTRATION U/S 12 AA OF I.T.ACT. 3. AGAINST THE SAME THE APPLICANT/ ASSESSEE HAS COM E UP IN APPEAL BEFORE US CONTESTING THE DENIAL OF GRANT OF ITA NO.1646/CHD/2017 U/S 12AA(1)(B)(III) 4 REGISTRATION U/S 12AA OF THE ACT RAISING THE FOLLOW ING GROUNDS: 1. THAT THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS), CHANDIGARHIS BAD IN LAW AND IS BEYOND ALL THE CANNONS OF LAW AND JUSTICE. 2. THAT THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS), CHANDIGARH REJECTING THE APPLICATION FOR REGISTRATION U/S 12AA OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, ALTHOUGH HOLDING THE APPELLANT AS EDUCATION INSTITUTION BEING THE CREATION OF THE GOVERNMENT OF PUNJAB UNDER AN ACT MERELY ON THE BASIS OF PROFITS EARNED BY THE APPELLANT IS BAD IN LAW AND NEEDS TO BE SET ASIDE. 3. THAT THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS), CHANDIGARH REJECTING THE APPLICATION FOR REGISTRATION U/S 12AA WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE RECORD AND REPLY FILED BY THE APPELLANT MERELY ON THE GROUND THAT THE APPLICATION FILED BY THE APPELLANT FOR APPROVAL U/S 10(23C)(VI) HAS BEEN REJECTED IS BAD IN LAW AND NEEDS TO BE SET ASIDE. 4. THAT THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS), CHANDIGARH HOLDING THE APPELLANT NEITHER A SOCIETY NOR A PUBLIC CHARITABLE TRUST AND THEREBY REJECTING THE REGISTRATION U/S 12A IS BAD I N LAW AND NEEDS TO BE SET ASIDE. 5. THAT THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD, ALTER AND DELETE ANY OF THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL BEFORE THE FINAL HEARING OF THE APPEAL. 4. DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING BEFORE US, THE LD. COUNSEL FOR ASSESSEE POINTED OUT THAT THE PRIMARY REASON FO R THE DENIAL OF REGISTRATION WAS THE FACT THAT THE ASSESS EES APPLICATION FOR APPROVAL U/S 10(23C)(VI) OF THE ACT ,AS A UNIVERSITY OR INSTITUTION EXISTING SOLELY FOR THE P URPOSE OF EDUCATION AND NOT FOR THE PURPOSE OF PROFITS, WAS R EJECTED BY THE LD.CIT(E), VIDE HIS ORDER DATED 31.3.2017. IT WAS POINTED OUT THAT THIS ORDER WAS UPHELD BY THE I.T.A .T. VIDE THEIR ORDER DATED 23.2.2018,IN APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IN ITA NO.910/CHD/2017. COPY OF THE ORDER WAS PLACE D ITA NO.1646/CHD/2017 U/S 12AA(1)(B)(III) 5 BEFORE US. IT WAS THEREAFTER POINTED OUT THAT THE I .T.A.T. HAD UPHELD THE ORDER OF THE LD.CIT(E), ON FINDING THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD GENERATED HUGE SURPLUSES WHICH WAS BEI NG PARKED IN FDRS AND NOT BEING UTILIZED FOR ITS STAT ED PURPOSE AND THAT ITS ACTIVITIES WERE AKIN TO THAT OF ANOTHE R UNIVERSITY IN THE AREA, NAMELY LOVELY PROFESSIONAL UNIVERSITY WHICH WAS OPERATING ON COMMERCIAL LINES AND OFFERING ITS INCOME FOR TAXATION. IT WAS POINTED OUT THAT THE I.T.A.T. HAD NOTED THAT NO CHARITABLE ACTIVITY WAS BEING CARRIED OUT B Y THE APPLICANT/ASSESSEE. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR ASSESSEE CO NTENDED THAT THESE FINDINGS OF THE I.T.A.T. WERE BASED ON F ACTUAL SUBMISSIONS WHICH WERE MADE BEFORE THE I.T.A.T. BUT STATED THAT CERTAIN MATERIAL FACTS WERE NOT BROUGHT BEFORE THE I.T.A.T. TO COUNTER THESE FINDINGS. IT WAS CONTENDE D THAT THE FAULT AND MISTAKE LAY ENTIRELY AT THE DOOR OF THE A SSESSEE WHO HAD FAILED TO PRODUCE MATERIAL EVIDENCES TO SUP PORT ITS STAND THAT IT WAS SOLELY ENGAGED IN THE ACTIVITIES OF IMPARTING EDUCATION AND WAS NOT FOR THE PURPOSE OF GENERATING PROFITS. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR ASSESSEE CO NTENDED THAT THE FACT OF THE MATTER WAS THAT THE APPLICANT/ ASSESSEE WAS PURSUING ITS STATED OBJECT OF IMPARTING EDUCATI ON AND HAD ACCUMULATED SURPLUSES FOR UTILIZING IN ITS EXTE NSIVE EXPANSION PROGRAMME. IT WAS POINTED OUT THAT FOR BE ING GUIDED IN THE SAID PURPOSE IT HAD APPROACHED EDUCA TIONAL CONSULTANTS INDIA LIMITED(IN SHORT REFERRED TO AS EDCIL),AN ENTERPRISE OF MINISTRY OF HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPME NT OF THE GOVERNMENT OF INDIA) FOR PREPARING A DETAILED P ROJECT REPORT FOR SUGGESTING ACADEMIC PROGRAMMES AND ASSOC IATED ITA NO.1646/CHD/2017 U/S 12AA(1)(B)(III) 6 INFRASTRUCTURE FOR STARTING ACADEMIC PROGRAMMES FRO M 2016- 17. IT WAS POINTED OUT THAT EDCIL WAS APPROACHED IN JUNE, 2015 AND THEY HAD SUBMITTED THEIR DETAILED PROJECT REPORT ON 1.6.2016. ACCORDINGLY, AN ACTION PLAN HAD BEEN PREP ARED BY THE APPLICANT UNIVERSITY FOR STARTING ACADEMIC SESS ION 2016- 17 KEEPING IN VIEW THE SUGGESTIONS ELABORATED IN TH E DRAFT DETAILED PROJECT REPORT AND PROGRAMMES ALREADY RUN AT THE CAMPUS OF THE COLLEGES. COPY OF THE ACTION PLAN PRE PARED BY THE APPLICANT UNIVERSITY IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE DET AILED PROJECT REPORT SUBMITTED BY EDCIL WAS PLACED BEFORE US AT PAPER BOOK PAGE NOS. 83 TO 126A. IT WAS POINTED OUT THEREFROM THAT THE PLANNED OUTLAY FOR THE TOTAL PRO JECT COST WAS RS.2660 CRORES. OUR ATTENTION WAS DRAWN TO PAPE R BOOK PAGE NO.70 WHICH CONTAINED THE FINANCIAL PLAN ENUME RATED BY THE DETAILED PROJECT REPORT SUBMITTED BY EDCIL. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR ASSESSEE FURTHER CONTENDED THAT IT HAD ALSO INCURRED EXPENSES ON WELFARE RELATED ACTIVITIES, DE TAILS OF WHICH WERE FILED AT PAPER BOOK PAGE NO.36 AND HAD A LSO OFFERED FREE SCHOLARSHIP SCHEME TO THE STUDENTS FRO M ECONOMICALLY WEAKER SECTION OF THE SOCIETY AS WELL AS STUDENTS SUFFERING FROM DISABILITY. THE DETAILS OF THE SAME WERE PLACED AT PAPER BOOK PAGES 37 AND 38. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR ASSESSEE FURTHER CONTENDED THAT A COMPARATIVE C HART SHOWING FEES CHARGED BY THE APPLICANT SOCIETY AND L OVELY PROFESSIONAL UNIVERSITY FOR VARIOUS COURSES, HAD AL SO BEEN FILED SHOWING THAT THE FEES CHARGED BY THE APPLICAN T SOCIETY WAS FAR LESS THAN THAT CHARGED BY LOVELY UNIVERSITY AND ITS ACTIVITIES, THEREFORE, COULD NOT BE SAID TO BE AKIN TO THAT ITA NO.1646/CHD/2017 U/S 12AA(1)(B)(III) 7 LOVELY PROFESSIONAL UNIVERSITY, THUS HOLDING IT TO BE COMMERCIAL IN NATURE. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR ASSESSEE CONTENDED THAT THESE EVIDENCES, THE ASSESSEE FOR F AULT OF ITS OWN WAS UNABLE TO FILE BEFORE THE ITAT IN APPEAL RE LATING TO DENIAL OF APPROVAL U/S 10(23C)(VI) OF THE ACT. IT W AS CONTENDED THAT THEY ADEQUATELY ADDRESSED ALL THE SHORTCOMINGS POINTED OUT BY THE ITAT WHILE UPHOLDIN G THE ORDER OF THE LD.CIT(E) IN THE SAID PROCEEDINGS AND WERE THEREFORE NOW BEING FILED BEFORE US TO ADDRESS THE FINDINGS IN THAT CASE BASED ON WHICH REGISTRATION U/S 12AA H AD BEEN DENIED TO THE ASSESSEE/APPLICANT. IT WAS FURTHER PO INTED OUT THAT THESE EVIDENCES COULD NOT BE FILED BEFORE THE LDCIT(E) IN THE IMPUGNED PROCEEDINGS, SINCE NO OPPORTUNITY W AS GIVEN FOR DOING SO. AN APPLICATION UNDER RULE 29 OF THE I NCOME TAX RULES, 1963 WAS FILED FOR ADMISSION OF THE ADDITION AL EVIDENCES AND RELIANCE WAS PLACED ON THE DECISION O F THE HON'BLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. TEX T HUNDRED INDIA PVT. LTD., 239 CTR 263 AND IN THE CAS E OF CIT VS. VIRGIN SECURITIES & CREDITS PVT. LTD., 332 ITR 396 TO STATE THAT THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES ADDUCED BY THE APPELLANT BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL IF CRUCIAL TO THE DISPOSAL OF T HE APPEAL OUGHT TO BE ADMITTED. LD.COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE F URTHER CONTENDED THAT THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CA SE OF VISHVESVARAYA TECHNOLOGICAL UNIVERSITY VS ACIT 384 ITR 37 (SC), HAD HELD THAT THE DENIAL OF APPROVAL U/S 10(2 3C)(VI) OF THE ACT ALONE CANNOT BE TAKEN TO HOLD THAT THE ASSE SSEES ACTIVITIES WERE NOT CHARITABLE IN NATURE. THE LD. C OUNSEL FOR ASSESSEE STATED THAT THE LD.CIT(E) HAS FAILED TO TA KE NOTE OF ITA NO.1646/CHD/2017 U/S 12AA(1)(B)(III) 8 THIS DECISION OF THE HON'BLE APEX COURT ALSO. HE, T HEREFORE, PLEADED THAT THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES BE ADMITTED A ND THE ISSUE BE RESTORED BACK TO THE CIT(E) TO BE DECIDED IN THE LIGHT OF THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE FILED AND JUDICIAL DECISIONS RELIED UPON BY THE ASSESSEE IN THIS REGARD. 5. THE LD. DR, ON THE OTHER HAND, VEHEMENTLY OBJECT ED TO THE ADMISSION OF ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES STATING THAT THE I.T.A.T. HAD UPHELD THE ORDER OF THE LD.CIT(E) DEN YING THE APPROVAL U/S 10(23C)(VI) OF THE ACT FOR OTHER REASO N ALSO BESIDES THOSE POINTED OUT BY THE LD. COUNSEL FOR AS SESSEE AS ABOVE. DRAWING OUR ATTENTION TO PARA 12, 13 AND 14 OF THE ORDER THE LD. DR STATED THAT THE I.T.A.T. HAD ALSO POINTED OUT THAT THE APPLICANT UNIVERSITY HAD DELEGATED FRA NCHISEES IN RESPECT OF DISTANCE EDUCATION TO PRIVATE PLAYER S AND HAD PAID HUGE AMOUNTS TO THEM AND HAD FAILED TO PROVIDE THE DETAILS OF SERVICES OFFERED BY THEM, WHICH FACT HAD BEEN POINTED OUT BY THE AUDITORS IN THEIR REPORT ALSO. L D.DR VEHEMENTLY OBJECTED THEREFORE TO THE ADMISSION OF A DDITIONAL EVIDENCES AND THE RESTORATION OF THE MATTER TO THE LD.CIT(E),AS PRAYED FOR BY THE LD.COUNSEL FOR THE A SSESSEE. 6. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUSED THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW AND ALSO THE DECISI ONS TO WHICH OUR ATTENTION WAS DRAWN DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING. ADMITTEDLY, THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN DENIED REGISTRATI ON PRIMARILY FOR THE REASON THAT IT WAS DENIED APPROV AL U/S 10(23C)(VI) OF THE ACT. THE APPROVAL HAD BEEN DENIE D ON FINDING THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS GENERATING HUGE SURPL USES, ITA NO.1646/CHD/2017 U/S 12AA(1)(B)(III) 9 PARKING IN IT FDRS AND NOT UTILIZING FOR ITS STATED PURPOSE AND FOR NOT CARRYING OUT ACTIVITIES FOR THE WELFARE OF STUDENTS AND ALSO FOR RUNNING IT ON COMMERCIAL LINES AS IN T HE CASE OF ONE M/S LOVELY PROFESSIONAL UNIVERSITY . THE LD. C OUNSEL FOR ASSESSEE HAS CONTENDED AND CONCEDED THAT ON ACCOUN T OF FAILURE ON THE PART OF THE ASSESSEE TO PRODUCE MATE RIAL EVIDENCES BEFORE THE LD.CIT(E) AND EVEN BEFORE THE I.T.A.T., THE APPROVAL WAS DENIED TO IT AND HAS NOW PRODUCED BEFORE US THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES TO ADDRESS THE ADVERSE FINDINGS OF THE I.T.A.T. WHILE AFFIRMING THE ORDER OF THE CI T(E) IN PROCEEDINGS U/S 10(23C)(VI) OF THE ACT. THE LD. COU NSEL FOR ASSESSEE HAS NOW PRODUCED EVIDENCES SHOWING THAT IT HAD APPROACHED EDCIL FOR A DETAILED PROJECT REPORT FOR THE EXPANSION OF ITS STATED ACTIVITIES IN THE FIELD OF EDUCATION, WHICH HAD BEEN SUBMITTED IN THE YEAR 2016, INVOLVIN G OUTLAY OF RS.2660 CRORES. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR ASSESSEE HAS ALSO ADDUCED EVIDENCE TO SHOW THAT IT WAS ENGAGED IN WEL FARE RELATED ACTIVITIES OF THE STUDENTS AND HAS ALSO FIL ED DETAIL SHOWING THAT FEES CHARGED BY IT WAS LESS THAN THAT CHARGED BY LOVELY PROFESSIONAL UNIVERSITY. FURTHER WE HAVE ALS O NOTED FROM THE ORDER OF THE CIT(E),THAT NO SHOW CAUSE NO TICE WAS ISSUED TO THE APPLICANT /ASSESSEE BEFORE REJECTING ITS IMPUGNED APPLICATION FOR THE AFORESTATED REASONS. T HE LD.DR WAS ALSO UNABLE TO BRING TO OUR NOTICE ANY SUCH FAC T. CONSIDERING THE ENTIRE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES THER EFORE, WE AGREE THAT THE EVIDENCES ARE MATERIAL FOR DECIDING THE ISSUE OF WHETHER THE ASSESSEE WAS CARRYING OUT CHARITABLE AC TIVITIES OR NOT, AND TO ADDRESS THE ADVERSE FINDINGS OF THE ITA T IN APPELLATE ITA NO.1646/CHD/2017 U/S 12AA(1)(B)(III) 10 PROCEEDINGS RELATING TO GRANT OF APPROVAL U/S 10(23C)(VI),WHICH HAS BEEN THE BASIS FOR DENYING RE GISTRATION IN THE PRESENT CASE. WE THEREFORE ADMIT THE ADDITIO NAL EVIDENCES FILED BY THE ASSESSEE. FURTHER SINCE THES E ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES NEED TO BE EXAMINED AND VERIFI ED, WE CONSIDER IT FIT TO RESTORE THE ISSUE OF GRANT OF RE GISTRATION U/S 12A OF THE ACT, BACK TO THE LD.CIT(E) TO DECIDE THE SAME AFRESH AFTER CONSIDERING THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES F ILED BY THE ASSESSEE AND IN THE LIGHT OF THE JUDICIAL PRECEDENT AND DECISIONS IN THIS REGARD. WE MAY DIRECT THAT THE MA TTER BE DISPOSED OFF WITHIN THE PERIOD OF FOUR MONTHS FROM THE RECEIPT OF OUR ORDER. 7. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALL OWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT. SD/- SD/- # $ % & ' (DIVA SINGH ) ANNAPURNA GUPTA) ! ' /JUDICIAL MEMBER () ' /ACCOUNTANT MEMBER # /DATED: 5 TH FEBRUARY, 2019 * * !&'()*)$ / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. + / THE APPELLANT 2. ',+ / THE RESPONDENT 3. - / CIT- 4. - ( )/ THE CIT(A) 5. )./' 0 , 0% , 123/4 / DR, ITAT, CHANDIGARH 6. /35 / GUARD FILE !& / BY ORDER, / ASSISTANT REGISTRAR