M/s. Sahara Utsarga Welfare Society , Kolkata V. DCIT(E), Circle - 1 , Kolkata

ITA 1804/KOL/2019

• Counselvise Citation: [2021] 109 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 8589 (ITAT-KOLKATA)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 5 month(s) 8 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 08-01-2021
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Appeal Filed On: 30-07-2019
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: RANU BISWAS
• Assessee Lawyers: A K TULSIYAN
• Keywords: Depreciation; Charitable institution; Set aside
• Section: 250; 274; 13; 11

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL KOLKATA B BENCH, KOLKATA (BEFORE SRI J. SUDHAKAR REDDY, HONBLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, HONBLE JUDICIAL MEMBER) [VIRTUAL COURT HEARING] ITA NO. 1804/KOL/2019 ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2011-12 M/S. SAHARA UTSRGA WELFARE SOCIETY..........................................APPELLANT MICHAEL NAGAR KALIBARI SARANI KOLKATA 700 133 [PAN : AADTS 6744 E] VS. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (E), CIRCLE-1, KOLKATA..................RESPONDENT APPEARANCES BY: SHRI A.K. TULSIYAN, CA, APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE. SMT. RANU BISWAS, ADDL. CIT, D/R, APPEARING ON BEHALF OF THE REVENUE. DATE OF CONCLUDING THE HEARING : OCTOBER 21 ST , 2020 DATE OF PRONOUNCING THE ORDER : JANUARY 8 TH , 2021 ORDER PER J. SUDHAKAR REDDY, AM :- THIS APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) 25, KOLKATA, (HEREINAFTER THE LD.CIT(A)), PASSED U/S. 250 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (THE ACT), DT. 27/05/2019 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2011-12. 2. WE HAVE HEARD RIVAL CONTENTIONS. ON CAREFUL CONSIDERATION OF THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, PERUSAL OF THE PAPERS ON RECORD, ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW AS WELL AS CASE LAW CITED, WE HOLD AS FOLLOWS:- 3. GROUND NO. 1 IS ON THE ISSUE AS TO WHETHER 15% ACCUMULATION FOR THE PURPOSE OF CLAIMING EXEMPTION U/S 11 OF THE ACT, IS TO BE CALCULATED ON THE NET RECEIPT OR THE GROSS RECEIPTS OF THE ASSESSEE. THIS ISSUE IS NO MORE RES-INTEGRA. THIS BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE ASSESSEES OWN CASE IN ITA NO. 927/KOL/2019; ASSESSMENT YEAR 2013-14, ORDER DT. JULY 13 TH , 2020, HELD AS FOLLOWS:- 3. THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. PROGRAMME FOR COMMUNITY ORGANISATION REPORTED IN [2001] 248 ITR 0001 (SC) HAS HELD AS FOLLOWS:- CHARITABLE TRUST- ACCUMULATION OF INCOME- CHARITABLE TRUST IS ENTITLED TO ACCUMULATE 25 PER CENT OF ITS INCOME DERIVED FROM PROPERTY HELD UNDER TRUST AND NOT 25 PER CENT OF THE INCOME REMAINING AFTER APPLICATION OF INCOME FOR CHARITABLE PURPOSES THEREFORE, ASSESSEE-TRUST WAS ENTITLED TO ACCUMULATE 25 PER CENT OF DONATIONS RECEIVED BY IT AND NOT MERELY 25 PER CENT OF UNSPENT BALANCE. THE B BENCH OF THE ITAT IN THE ASSESSEES OWN CASE IN ITA NO. 2436/KOL/2018, ORDER DT. 22/01/2020, FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2012-13, ON THE SAME ISSUE HELD AS FOLLOWS:- ..... WE NOTE THAT IN THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 11(1) IT HAS BEEN CLEARLY MENTIONED 15% OF THE INCOME, HENCE IT IS GROSS INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE TRUST AND NOT THE NET INCOME. THEREFORE, BASED ON THIS FACTUAL POSIT ION AS MENTIONED IN SECTION 11(1) AS NOTED ABOVE, WE DIRECT THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO ALLOW 15% EXEMPTION ON GROSS RECEIPTS. 4. RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE SAME, WE HOLD THAT THE ASSESSEE IS ENTITLED TO THE ACCUMULATION OF 15% ON THE GROSS RECEIPT AS PER P ACT. 4. CONSISTENT WITH THE VIEW TAKEN THEREIN, WE ALLOW THIS CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE. 5. GROUND NO. 2 IS AGAINST THE LD. CIT(A) CONFIRMING THE DISALLOWANCE OF CLAIM U/S 11(2) OF THE ACT, OF RS.90,00,000/ 5.1. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE ACCUMULATION U/S 11(2) OF THE ACT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED TO THE ASSESSEE AS IT THE ACT. HE ARGUED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER AS WELL AS THE LD. CIT(A) WE REJECTING THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE ON THE GROUND THAT THE SPECIFIC EXPENSE FOR WHICH IT IS SET ASIDE, WAS NOT MENTIONED AND A GENERAL STATEMENT WAS MADE AS THE PURPOSE FOR WHICH ACCUMULATION IS MADE U/S 11(2) OF THE ACT. HE RELIED ON THE JUDGM HONBLE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF 394 ITR 236 AND SUBMITTED THAT AS PER THE PROPOSITION LAID DOWN THEREIN, EVEN WHEN THE AMOUNT IS SET ASIDE FOR GENERAL PURPOSE, EXEMPTION SHOULD BE GRANTED. 5.2. THE LD. D/R, OPPOSED THESE CONTENTIONS OF THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE AND RELIED ON PARA 8 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. 6. AFTER HEARING RIVAL CONTENTIONS, WE FIND THAT THE HONBLE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF GOKULA EDUCATION FOUNDATION 19. THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE APPELLANTS NO. 10 WAS FOUND TO BE NOT ACCEPTABLE, THEN IN IT APPEAL NO. 300 OF 2015 THE PURPOSE IS TOO GENERAL AND TOO VAGUE. HENCE, THE ASSESSEE WOULD N UNDER SECTION 11(2) OF THE ACT. IN FURTHERANCE TO HIS SUBMISSION, HE RELIED UPON THE DECISION OF THE APEX COURT IN CASE OF CIT V. NAGPUR HOTEL OWNERS' ASSOCIATION (2001) 247 ITR 0201 AND CONTENDED THAT IN THE SAID DECISION, 10 WAS NOT FILED BY THE ASSESSEE. THE BENEFIT COULD NOT BE CLAIMED NOR COULD BE GRANTED UNDER SECTION 11(2) OF THE ACT. 20. WHEREAS, LEARNED COUNSEL APPEARING FOR THE ASSESSEE CONTENDED THAT THE APPEAL IS A CONTINUOUS PROCEEDING AND HENCE, IF THE CIT(A) HAS PERMITTED THE ASSESSEE TO FILE REVISED FORM NO. 10, SUCH COULD NOT BE SAID AS PROHIBITED BY LAW. HE ALSO SUBMITTED THA AFORESAID DECISION OF THE APEX COURT IN THE CASE OF NAGPUR HOTEL OWNERS' ASSOCIATION (SUPRA) CAME TO BE CONSIDERED BY A DIVISION BENCH OF THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT IN THE CASE OF CIT V. MAGUR FOUNDATION, (2005) 274 ITR 562 AND THE HIGH COURT OF GUJAR AFTER CONSIDERING THE AFORESAID DECISION OF THE APEX COURT, FOUND THAT ADDITIONAL GROUND CAN BE ENTERTAINED WHEN THE APPEAL IS PENDING EVEN BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. HENCE, HE. SUBMITTED THAT IT IS NOT A CASE WHERE NO FORM NO. 10 WHATSOEVER WAS FILED. 2 M/S. SAHARA UTSRGA WELFARE SOCIETY WE NOTE THAT IN THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 11(1) IT HAS BEEN CLEARLY MENTIONED 15% OF THE INCOME, HENCE IT IS GROSS INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE TRUST AND NOT THE NET INCOME. THEREFORE, BASED ON ION AS MENTIONED IN SECTION 11(1) AS NOTED ABOVE, WE DIRECT THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO ALLOW 15% EXEMPTION ON GROSS RECEIPTS. RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE SAME, WE HOLD THAT THE ASSESSEE IS ENTITLED TO THE ACCUMULATION OF 15% ON THE GROSS RECEIPT AS PER P ROVISIONS OF SECTION 11 OF THE CONSISTENT WITH THE VIEW TAKEN THEREIN, WE ALLOW THIS CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE. GROUND NO. 2 IS AGAINST THE LD. CIT(A) CONFIRMING THE DISALLOWANCE OF CLAIM U/S 11(2) OF THE ACT, OF RS.90,00,000/ - BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE ACCUMULATION U/S 11(2) OF THE ACT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED TO THE ASSESSEE AS IT FILED FORM NO. 10B, AS REQUIRED UNDER THE ACT. HE ARGUED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER AS WELL AS THE LD. CIT(A) WE REJECTING THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE ON THE GROUND THAT THE SPECIFIC EXPENSE FOR WHICH IT IS SET ASIDE, WAS NOT MENTIONED AND A GENERAL STATEMENT WAS MADE AS THE PURPOSE FOR WHICH ACCUMULATION IS MADE U/S 11(2) OF THE ACT. HE RELIED ON THE JUDGM HONBLE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. GOKULA EDUCATION FOUNDATION (2017) AND SUBMITTED THAT AS PER THE PROPOSITION LAID DOWN THEREIN, EVEN WHEN THE AMOUNT IS SET ASIDE FOR GENERAL PURPOSE, EXEMPTION SHOULD BE GRANTED. THE LD. D/R, OPPOSED THESE CONTENTIONS OF THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE AND RELIED ON PARA 8 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. AFTER HEARING RIVAL CONTENTIONS, WE FIND THAT THE HONBLE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT IN GOKULA EDUCATION FOUNDATION (SUPRA), HAS HELD AS UNDER:- 19. THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE APPELLANTS - REVENUE DID CONTEND THAT IF THE REVISED FORM NO. 10 WAS FOUND TO BE NOT ACCEPTABLE, THEN IN IT APPEAL NO. 300 OF 2015 THE PURPOSE IS TOO GENERAL AND TOO VAGUE. HENCE, THE ASSESSEE WOULD N OT BE ENTITLED TO CLAIM BENEFIT UNDER SECTION 11(2) OF THE ACT. IN FURTHERANCE TO HIS SUBMISSION, HE RELIED UPON THE DECISION OF THE APEX COURT IN CASE OF CIT V. NAGPUR HOTEL OWNERS' ASSOCIATION (2001) 247 ITR 0201 AND CONTENDED THAT IN THE SAID DECISION, THE APEX COURT FOUND THAT IF FORM NO. 10 WAS NOT FILED BY THE ASSESSEE. THE BENEFIT COULD NOT BE CLAIMED NOR COULD BE GRANTED UNDER SECTION 11(2) OF THE ACT. 20. WHEREAS, LEARNED COUNSEL APPEARING FOR THE ASSESSEE CONTENDED THAT THE APPEAL IS A CONTINUOUS PROCEEDING AND HENCE, IF THE CIT(A) HAS PERMITTED THE ASSESSEE TO FILE REVISED FORM NO. 10, SUCH COULD NOT BE SAID AS PROHIBITED BY LAW. HE ALSO SUBMITTED THA AFORESAID DECISION OF THE APEX COURT IN THE CASE OF NAGPUR HOTEL OWNERS' ASSOCIATION (SUPRA) CAME TO BE CONSIDERED BY A DIVISION BENCH OF THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT IN THE CASE OF CIT V. MAGUR FOUNDATION, (2005) 274 ITR 562 AND THE HIGH COURT OF GUJAR AFTER CONSIDERING THE AFORESAID DECISION OF THE APEX COURT, FOUND THAT ADDITIONAL GROUND CAN BE ENTERTAINED WHEN THE APPEAL IS PENDING EVEN BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. HENCE, HE. SUBMITTED THAT IT IS NOT A CASE WHERE NO FORM NO. 10 WHATSOEVER WAS FILED. ITA NO. 1804/KOL/2019 ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2011-12 M/S. SAHARA UTSRGA WELFARE SOCIETY WE NOTE THAT IN THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 11(1) IT HAS BEEN CLEARLY MENTIONED 15% OF THE INCOME, HENCE IT IS GROSS INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE TRUST AND NOT THE NET INCOME. THEREFORE, BASED ON ION AS MENTIONED IN SECTION 11(1) AS NOTED ABOVE, WE DIRECT THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE SAME, WE HOLD THAT THE ASSESSEE IS ENTITLED TO THE ROVISIONS OF SECTION 11 OF THE CONSISTENT WITH THE VIEW TAKEN THEREIN, WE ALLOW THIS CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE. GROUND NO. 2 IS AGAINST THE LD. CIT(A) CONFIRMING THE DISALLOWANCE OF CLAIM U/S THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE ACCUMULATION U/S 11(2) OF THE FILED FORM NO. 10B, AS REQUIRED UNDER THE ACT. HE ARGUED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER AS WELL AS THE LD. CIT(A) WE RE WRONG IN REJECTING THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE ON THE GROUND THAT THE SPECIFIC EXPENSE FOR WHICH IT IS SET ASIDE, WAS NOT MENTIONED AND A GENERAL STATEMENT WAS MADE AS THE PURPOSE FOR WHICH ACCUMULATION IS MADE U/S 11(2) OF THE ACT. HE RELIED ON THE JUDGM ENT OF THE GOKULA EDUCATION FOUNDATION (2017) AND SUBMITTED THAT AS PER THE PROPOSITION LAID DOWN THEREIN, EVEN WHEN THE AMOUNT IS SET ASIDE FOR GENERAL PURPOSE, EXEMPTION SHOULD BE GRANTED. THE LD. D/R, OPPOSED THESE CONTENTIONS OF THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE AND AFTER HEARING RIVAL CONTENTIONS, WE FIND THAT THE HONBLE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT IN REVENUE DID CONTEND THAT IF THE REVISED FORM NO. 10 WAS FOUND TO BE NOT ACCEPTABLE, THEN IN IT APPEAL NO. 300 OF 2015 THE PURPOSE IS OT BE ENTITLED TO CLAIM BENEFIT UNDER SECTION 11(2) OF THE ACT. IN FURTHERANCE TO HIS SUBMISSION, HE RELIED UPON THE DECISION OF THE APEX COURT IN CASE OF CIT V. NAGPUR HOTEL OWNERS' ASSOCIATION (2001) 247 THE APEX COURT FOUND THAT IF FORM NO. 10 WAS NOT FILED BY THE ASSESSEE. THE BENEFIT COULD NOT BE CLAIMED NOR COULD BE GRANTED 20. WHEREAS, LEARNED COUNSEL APPEARING FOR THE ASSESSEE CONTENDED THAT THE APPEAL IS A CONTINUOUS PROCEEDING AND HENCE, IF THE CIT(A) HAS PERMITTED THE ASSESSEE TO FILE REVISED FORM NO. 10, SUCH COULD NOT BE SAID AS PROHIBITED BY LAW. HE ALSO SUBMITTED THA T THE AFORESAID DECISION OF THE APEX COURT IN THE CASE OF NAGPUR HOTEL OWNERS' ASSOCIATION (SUPRA) CAME TO BE CONSIDERED BY A DIVISION BENCH OF THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT IN THE CASE OF CIT V. MAGUR FOUNDATION, (2005) 274 ITR 562 AND THE HIGH COURT OF GUJAR AT, AFTER CONSIDERING THE AFORESAID DECISION OF THE APEX COURT, FOUND THAT ADDITIONAL GROUND CAN BE ENTERTAINED WHEN THE APPEAL IS PENDING EVEN BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. HENCE, HE. SUBMITTED THAT IT IS NOT A CASE WHERE NO FORM NO. 10 WHATSOEVER WAS FILED. 21. IN THE DECISION OF THE APEX COURT IN THE CASE OF NAGPUR HOTEL OWNERS' ASSOCIATION (SUPRA), THE FACTS WERE THAT THE ASSESSEE DID NOT FILE FORM NO. 10 AT ALL, WHICH IS NOT THE FACT SITUATION IN THE PRESENT CASE. THE FACTS SITUATION IN THE PRESENT CASE ARE TH NO. 10 WAS ALREADY FILED AND THE REVISED FORM NO. 10 FILED FOR SUB FALLING UNDER THE MAIN HEAD OF THE OBJECTS OF THE TRUST, WAS ACCEPTED BY THE COMMISSIONER (A) IN THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE APPEAL. IF THE MATTER IS CONSIDERED IN L THE ABOVE REFERRED DECISION OF THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT IN THE CASE OF MAYUR FOUNDATION (SUPRA) AND IS CONSIDERED THAT THE APPEAL IS A CONTINUOUS PROCEEDING, IT CANNOT BE SAID THAT THE CIT(A) HAD NO AUTHORITY TO ACCEPT REVISED FORM NO. 10 NOR CAN REVISED FORM NO. 10 COULD NOT AT ALL BE CONSIDERED FOR ALLOWING THE CLAIM MADE UNDER SECTION 11(2) OF THE ACT. 22. IN VIEW OF THE AFORESAID, WE FIND THAT THE TRIBUNAL WAS RIGHT IN ALLOWING THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE UNDER SECTION 11 (2) OF AFFIRMATIVE IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE REVENUE. 23. RESULTANTLY, NO INTERFERENCE WOULD BE REQUIRED TO BE MADE TO THE IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED BY THE TRIBUNAL. HENCE, THE APPEALS ARE DISMISSED. 7. R ESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE PROPOSITIONS OF LAW LAID DOWN WE ALLOW THIS GROUND OF APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE. 8. GROUND NO. 3, IS ON THE ISSUE AS TO WHETHER, DEPRECIATION COULD BE CONSIDERED AS APPLICATION OF FUNDS. THIS ISSUE IS NO MORE R THE CASE OF RAJASTHAN AND GUJARATI CHARITABLE FOUNDATION, [2018] ADJUDICATED THE ISSUE IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE ALLOW THIS GROUND OF THE ASSESSEE. 6. GROUND NO . 4 IS GENERAL IN NATURE. 7. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. KOLKATA, THE SD/- [S.S. GODARA] JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED : 08.01.2021 {SC SPS} 3 M/S. SAHARA UTSRGA WELFARE SOCIETY IN THE DECISION OF THE APEX COURT IN THE CASE OF NAGPUR HOTEL OWNERS' ASSOCIATION (SUPRA), THE FACTS WERE THAT THE ASSESSEE DID NOT FILE FORM NO. 10 AT ALL, WHICH IS NOT THE FACT SITUATION IN THE PRESENT CASE. THE FACTS SITUATION IN THE PRESENT CASE ARE TH NO. 10 WAS ALREADY FILED AND THE REVISED FORM NO. 10 FILED FOR SUB - HEAD OF THE PURPOSES FALLING UNDER THE MAIN HEAD OF THE OBJECTS OF THE TRUST, WAS ACCEPTED BY THE COMMISSIONER (A) IN THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE APPEAL. IF THE MATTER IS CONSIDERED IN L THE ABOVE REFERRED DECISION OF THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT IN THE CASE OF MAYUR FOUNDATION (SUPRA) AND IS CONSIDERED THAT THE APPEAL IS A CONTINUOUS PROCEEDING, IT CANNOT BE SAID THAT THE CIT(A) HAD NO AUTHORITY TO ACCEPT REVISED FORM NO. 10 NOR CAN REVISED FORM NO. 10 COULD NOT AT ALL BE CONSIDERED FOR ALLOWING THE CLAIM MADE UNDER SECTION 11(2) OF THE ACT. 22. IN VIEW OF THE AFORESAID, WE FIND THAT THE TRIBUNAL WAS RIGHT IN ALLOWING THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE UNDER SECTION 11 (2) OF THE ACT. HENCE, THE QUESTION IS ANSWERED IN THE AFFIRMATIVE IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE REVENUE. 23. RESULTANTLY, NO INTERFERENCE WOULD BE REQUIRED TO BE MADE TO THE IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED BY THE TRIBUNAL. HENCE, THE APPEALS ARE DISMISSED. ESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE PROPOSITIONS OF LAW LAID DOWN IN THE ABOVE CASE WE ALLOW THIS GROUND OF APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE. GROUND NO. 3, IS ON THE ISSUE AS TO WHETHER, DEPRECIATION COULD BE CONSIDERED AS APPLICATION OF FUNDS. THIS ISSUE IS NO MORE R ES- INTEGRA. THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN RAJASTHAN AND GUJARATI CHARITABLE FOUNDATION, [2018] 402 ITR 441 ADJUDICATED THE ISSUE IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE . RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE SAME, WE ALLOW THIS GROUND OF THE ASSESSEE. . 4 IS GENERAL IN NATURE. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. KOLKATA, THE 8 TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2021. [J. SUDHAKAR REDDY] ACCOUNTANT ITA NO. 1804/KOL/2019 ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2011-12 M/S. SAHARA UTSRGA WELFARE SOCIETY IN THE DECISION OF THE APEX COURT IN THE CASE OF NAGPUR HOTEL OWNERS' ASSOCIATION (SUPRA), THE FACTS WERE THAT THE ASSESSEE DID NOT FILE FORM NO. 10 AT ALL, WHICH IS NOT THE FACT SITUATION IN THE PRESENT CASE. THE FACTS SITUATION IN THE PRESENT CASE ARE TH AT FORM HEAD OF THE PURPOSES FALLING UNDER THE MAIN HEAD OF THE OBJECTS OF THE TRUST, WAS ACCEPTED BY THE COMMISSIONER (A) IN THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE APPEAL. IF THE MATTER IS CONSIDERED IN L IGHT OF THE ABOVE REFERRED DECISION OF THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT IN THE CASE OF MAYUR FOUNDATION (SUPRA) AND IS CONSIDERED THAT THE APPEAL IS A CONTINUOUS PROCEEDING, IT CANNOT BE SAID THAT THE CIT(A) HAD NO AUTHORITY TO ACCEPT REVISED FORM NO. 10 NOR CAN IT BE SAID THAT REVISED FORM NO. 10 COULD NOT AT ALL BE CONSIDERED FOR ALLOWING THE CLAIM MADE UNDER 22. IN VIEW OF THE AFORESAID, WE FIND THAT THE TRIBUNAL WAS RIGHT IN ALLOWING THE CLAIM OF THE ACT. HENCE, THE QUESTION IS ANSWERED IN THE 23. RESULTANTLY, NO INTERFERENCE WOULD BE REQUIRED TO BE MADE TO THE IMPUGNED ORDER IN THE ABOVE CASE -LAW, GROUND NO. 3, IS ON THE ISSUE AS TO WHETHER, DEPRECIATION COULD BE CONSIDERED AS INTEGRA. THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN 402 ITR 441 (SC), . RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE SAME, WE SD/- [J. SUDHAKAR REDDY] ACCOUNTANT MEMBER COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. M/S. SAHARA UTSRGA WELFARE SOCIETY MICHAEL NAGAR KALIBARI SARANI KOLKATA 700 133 2. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (E), CIRCLE 3. CIT(A)- 4. CIT- , 5. CIT(DR), KOLKATA BENCHES, KOLKATA. 4 M/S. SAHARA UTSRGA WELFARE SOCIETY M/S. SAHARA UTSRGA WELFARE SOCIETY DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (E), CIRCLE -1, KOLKATA CIT(DR), KOLKATA BENCHES, KOLKATA. ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT, KOLKATA BENCHES ITA NO. 1804/KOL/2019 ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2011-12 M/S. SAHARA UTSRGA WELFARE SOCIETY TRUE COPY BY ORDER ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT, KOLKATA BENCHES