DCIT (Exemption), New Delhi V. India Trade Promotion Org., New Delhi

ITA 1919/DEL/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 116 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 1160 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 5 month(s) 5 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 13-09-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: H
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 08-04-2016
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: APARNA KARAN
• Assessee Lawyers: ANJU GOEL
• Keywords: Capital asset; Depreciation; Charitable institution; Benefit of exemption; Capital expenditure; Set aside
• Section: 54; 12; 154; 11; 12A; 264

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (DELHI BENCH D : NEW DELHI) BEFORE SHRI KULDIP SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO.1919/DEL./2016 (ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2009-10) ITA NO.3359/DEL./2016 (ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2009-10) ITA NO.2508/DEL./2016 (ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2010-11) ADIT (E), INV. CIRCLE (1), VS. INDIA TRADE PROMOTI ON ORGANISATION, NEW DELHI. PRAGATI BHAWAN, PRAGATI MAIDAN, NEW DELHI 110 001. (PAN : AAATI2955C) ITA NO.3135/DEL./2016 (ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2011-12) JDIT (E), RANGE 1, VS. INDIA TRADE PROMOTION ORGAN ISATION, NEW DELHI. PRAGATI BHAWAN, PRAGATI MAIDAN, NEW DELHI 110 001. (PAN : AAATI2955C) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : SMT. ANJU GOEL, CA REVENUE BY : SMT. APARNA KARAN, CIT DR DATE OF HEARING : 27.08.2019 DATE OF ORDER : 13.09.2019 O R D E R PER KULDIP SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER : ITA NOS. 1919, 3359, 2508 &3135 /DEL./2016 2 SINCE COMMON QUESTIONS OF FACTS AND LAW HAVE BEEN R AISED IN THE AFORESAID APPEALS, THE SAME ARE BEING DISPOS ED OFF BY WAY OF CONSOLIDATED ORDER TO AVOID REPETITION OF DISCUSSIO N. ITA NO.1919/DEL./2016 (AY 2009-10) ITA NO.2508/DEL/2016 (AY 2010-11) ITA NO.3135/DEL/2016 (AY 2011-12) 2. APPELLANT, ADIT (E), INV. CIRCLE (1), NEW DELHI AND JDIT (E), RANGE 1, NEW DELHI (HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS THE REVENUE ) BY FILING THE PRESENT APPEALS SOUGHT TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDERS DATED 09.03.2016, 15.02.2016 & 10.03.2016 PASSED BY THE C OMMISSIONER OF INCOME - TAX ( APPEALS ) - 40, NEW DELHI QUA THE A SSESSMENT YEARS 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2011-12 RESPECTIVELY ON THE IDEN TICAL GROUNDS EXCEPT THE DIFFERENCE IN AMOUNT INTER ALIA THAT :- 1. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CA SE AND IN LAW, LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN IGNORING THE FA CT THAT THE ACTIVITIES OF THE ASSESSEE DO NOT QUALITY FOR CHARITABLE PURPOSE IN VIEW OF THE PROVISIONS OF SEC TION 2 (15) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961, HENCE THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE DOES NOT QUALIFY FOR EXEMPTION U/S 11/ 12 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961. 2. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCE OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, 1D CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN ALLOWING THE APP EAL OF THE ASSESSEE BY IGNORING THE FACT THAT WHEN DEDU CTION IS ALLOWED IN RESPECT OF CAPITAL EXPENDITURE, NO DEPRECIATION IS ALLOWED ON THE SAME ASSETS AS THIS WILL LEAD TO DOUBLE. 3. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CAS E AND IN LAW, LD. CIT (A) HAS ERRED IN ALLOWING THE ITA NOS. 1919, 3359, 2508 &3135 /DEL./2016 3 APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE BY IGNORING THE FACT THAT AS SESSEE IS FOLLOWING MERCANTILE SYSTEM OF ACCOUNTING AND RE NTAL INCOME HAS NOT ACCOUNTED IN THE BOOKS. THE INCOME A S PER MERCANTILE METHOD OF ACCOUNTING HAS TO BE OFFER ED TO TAX ON ACCRUAL BASIS. SUCH INCOME WHICH HAS ACCR UED BUT NOT RECEIVED IS SHOWN AS RECEIVABLE OR UNDER TH E HEAD SUNDRY DEBTOR AS THE CASE MAY BE IN THE BALANC E SHEET. SUCH INCOME IS ENTITLED AS AND TO BE WRITTE N OF SUBSEQUENTLY WHEN IT ACTUALLY BECOMES BAD, AS PER PROVISIONS OF THE ACT. 3. BRIEFLY STATED THE FACTS NECESSARY FOR ADJUDICAT ION OF THE ISSUE AT HAND ARE : INDIA TRADE PROMOTION ORGANISATION (ITPO ), THE ASSESSEE IS AN ORGANISATION INCORPORATED UNDER SECTION 25 OF TH E COMPANIES ACT, 1956 AS NOT-FOR-PROFIT ORGANISATION, REGISTERED UND ER SECTION 12A OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961 (FOR SHORT THE ACT) TO CARRY ON THE OBJECTS OF PROMOTING THE INDIAN TRADE THROUGH MEDIUM OF ORGANI ZING TRADE FAIRS, EXHIBITIONS ETC. IN INDIA AND ABROAD AND HAS ALSO E XEMPTED FROM INCOME- TAX U/S 10(23)(IV) OF THE ACT FROM 1989-90 ONWARDS. IT IS WHOLLY OWNED APEX TRADE PROMOTION BODY OF GOVERNMENT OF INDIA AN D SENIOR OFFICERS OF GOVERNMENT ARE APPOINTED AS DIRECTORS A ND MEMBERS SO AS TO ENSURE THAT THE GOVERNMENT RULES & REGULATIONS A RE COMPLIED. ASSESSING OFFICER (AO), FOLLOWING THE EARLIER ASSES SMENT ORDERS, PROCEEDED TO CONCLUDE THAT THE ASSESSEE IS COVERED BY THE PROVISO TO SECTION 2 (15) OF THE ACT INASMUCH AS ITS ACTIVITIE S ARE IN THE NATURE OF BUSINESS AND THUS HELD TO BE NOT CHARITABLE IN NATU RE AND THEREBY DENIED THE BENEFIT OF SECTIONS 11 & 12 OF THE ACT DESPITE THE FACT THAT IT IS REGISTERED ORGANISATION U/S 12AA AND NOTIFIED U/S 10(23C)(IV) OF THE ITA NOS. 1919, 3359, 2508 &3135 /DEL./2016 4 ACT AS THE ASSESSEE IS HAVING INCOME FROM SPACE REN T, HOARDINGS (DISPLAY SITE), SITE OF PUBLICATION, SALE OF TICKETS, ETC. SO, THE AO PROCEEDED TO HOLD THAT THE ASSESSEE CANNOT BE CONSIDERED FOR EXE MPTION OF ITS INCOME AS EVEN AFTER AMENDMENT U/S 2(15) OF THE ACT, ITS A CTIVITIES ARE NOT CHARITABLE IN NATURE. 4. AO DISALLOWED THE DEPRECIATION OF RS.2,11,52,612 /-, RS.1,69,34,321/- & RS.1,37,55,543 IN AYS 2009-1 0, 2010-11 & 2011-12 RESPECTIVELY ON THE OPENING BALANCE OF FIXE D ASSETS AS ON 01.04.2008 ON THE GROUND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS ALRE ADY CLAIMED THE AMOUNT SPENT ON PURCHASE OF FIXED ASSETS AS APPLICA TION OF FUNDS AS AND WHEN THE ASSETS WERE PURCHASED. AO ALSO MADE ADDIT ION OF RS.1,68,73,663/-, RS.2,01,86,003/- & RS.1,83,00,000 /- IN AYS 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2011-12 RESPECTIVELY TO THE INCOME OF TH E ASSESSEE ON ACCOUNT OF SPACE RENT INCOME ON THE BASIS OF DISCLO SURE IN NOTES TO ACCOUNTS. 5. ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MATTER BY WAY OF APPEALS BE FORE THE LD. CIT (A) WHO HAS DELETED THE ADDITIONS BY PARTLY ALLOWIN G THE APPEALS. FEELING AGGRIEVED, THE REVENUE HAS COME UP BEFORE T HE TRIBUNAL BY WAY OF FILING THE PRESENT APPEALS. 6. WE HAVE HEARD THE LD. AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVES OF THE PARTIES TO THE APPEAL, GONE THROUGH THE DOCUMENTS RELIED UP ON AND ORDERS PASSED BY THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES BELOW IN THE LIGHT OF TH E FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. ITA NOS. 1919, 3359, 2508 &3135 /DEL./2016 5 GROUND NO.1 OF AYS 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2011-12 7. AO BY INVOKING THE AMENDED PROVISIONS OF SECTION 2 (15) OF THE ACT DENIED THE BENEFIT OF EXEMPTION U/S 11 & 12 OF THE ACT TO THE ASSESSEE ORGANISATION ON THE GROUND THAT THE ASSESS EE DOES NOT QUALIFY FOR CHARITABLE PURPOSES. HOWEVER, LD. CIT (A) BY R ELYING UPON THE DECISION RENDERED BY HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE RENDERED IN WP (C) 1872 / 2013 PROCEEDED TO HOLD THAT THE ASSESSEE IS ENTITLED FOR BENEFIT OF EXEMPTION CLAIMED U/S 10(23 C)(IV) OF THE ACT. OPERATIVE PART OF THE AFORESAID DECISION RENDERED B Y HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE (SUPRA) IS EXTRACTED FOR READY PERUSAL AS UNDER :- 58. IN CONCLUSION, WE MAY SAY THAT THE EXPRESSION 'CHARITABLE PURPOSE', AS DEFINED IN SECTION 2(15) CANNOT BE CON STRUED LITERALLY AND IN ABSOLUTE TERMS. IT HAS TO TAKE COL OUR AND BE CONSIDERED IN THE CONTEXT OF SECTION 10(23C)(IV) OF THE SAID ACT. IT IS ALSO CLEAR THAT IF THE LITERAL INTERPRETATION IS GIVEN TO THE PROVISO TO SECTION 2(15) OF THE SAID ACT, THEN THE PROVISO WOULD BE AT RISK OF RUNNING FOWL OF THE PRINCIPLE OF EQUALITY ENSHRI NED IN ARTICLE 14 OF THE CONSTITUTION INDIA. IN ORDER TO SAVE THE CONSTITUTIONAL VALIDITY OF THE PROVISO, THE SAME WOULD HAVE TO BE READ DOWN AND INTERPRETED IN THE CONTEXT OF SECTION 10(23C)(IV) B ECAUSE, IN OUR VIEW, THE CONTEXT REQUIRES SUCH AN INTERPRETATION. THE CORRECT INTERPRETATION OF THE PROVISO TO SECTION 2(15) OF T HE SAID ACT WOULD BE THAT IT CARVES OUT AN EXCEPTION FROM THE C HARITABLE PURPOSE OF ADVANCEMENT OF ANY OTHER OBJECT OF GENER AL PUBLIC UTILITY AND THAT EXCEPTION IS LIMITED TO ACTIVITIES IN THE NATURE OF TRADE, COMMERCE OR BUSINESS OR ANY ACTIVITY OF REND ERING ANY SERVICE IN RELATION TO ANY TRADE, COMMERCE OR BUSIN ESS FOR A CESS OR FEE OR ANY OTHER CONSIDERATION. IN BOTH THE ACTI VITIES, IN THE NATURE OF TRADE, COMMERCE OR BUSINESS OR THE ACTIVI TY OF RENDERING ANY SERVICE IN RELATION TO ANY TRADE, COM MERCE OR BUSINESS, THE DOMINANT AND THE PRIME OBJECTIVE HAS TO BE SEEN. IF THE DOMINANT AND PRIME OBJECTIVE OF THE INSTITUTION , WHICH CLAIMS TO HAVE BEEN ESTABLISHED FOR CHARITABLE PURPOSES, I S PROFIT ITA NOS. 1919, 3359, 2508 &3135 /DEL./2016 6 MAKING, WHETHER ITS ACTIVITIES ARE DIRECTLY IN THE NATURE OF TRADE, COMMERCE OR BUSINESS OR INDIRECTLY IN THE RENDERING OF ANY SERVICE IN RELATION TO ANY TRADE, COMMERCE OR BUSIN ESS, THEN IT WOULD NOT BE ENTITLED TO CLAIM ITS OBJECT TO BE A ' CHARITABLE PURPOSE'. ON THE FLIP SIDE, WHERE AN INSTITUTION IS NOT DRIVEN PRIMARILY BY A DESIRE OR MOTIVE TO EARN PROFITS, BU T TO DO CHARITY THROUGH THE ADVANCEMENT OF AN OBJECT OF GENERAL PUB LIC UTILITY, IT CANNOT BUT BE REGARDED AS AN INSTITUTION ESTABLISHE D FOR CHARITABLE PURPOSES. 59. THUS, WHILE WE UPHOLD THE CONSTITUTIONAL VALIDI TY OF THE PROVISO TO SECTION 2(15) OF THE SAID ACT, IT HAS TO BE READ DOWN IN THE MANNER INDICATED BY US. AS A CONSEQUENCE, THE I MPUGNED ORDER DATED 23.01.2013 IS SET ASIDE AND A MANDAMUS IS ISSUED TO THE RESPONDENT TO GRANT APPROVAL TO THE PETITIONER UNDER SECTION 10(23C)(IV) OF THE SAID ACT WITHIN SIX WEEKS FROM T HE DATE OF THIS JUDGMENT. THE WRIT PETITION STANDS ALLOWED AS ABOVE . THE PARTIES ARE LEFT TO BEAR THEIR OWN COSTS. 8. SO, FOLLOWING THE DECISION RENDERED BY HONBLE D ELHI HIGH COURT IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE (SUPRA), THE LD. CIT (A) HAS RIGHTLY DECIDED THE ISSUE IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE HOLDING THAT THE AS SESSEE CANNOT BE DENIED THE BENEFIT OF EXEMPTION U/S 10(23C)(IV) OF THE ACT . SO, GROUND NO.1 IN AYS 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2011-12 IS DETERMINED AGAINS T THE REVENUE. GROUND NO.2 IN AYS 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2011-12 9. AO MADE DISALLOWANCE OF RS.2,11,52,612/-, RS.1,6 9,34,321/- & RS.1,37,55,543 IN AYS 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2011-12 RESPECTIVELY ON THE GROUND THAT WHEN DEDUCTION IS ALLOWED IN RESPEC T OF CAPITAL EXPENDITURE, NO DEPRECIATION IS ALLOWED ON THE SAME ASSETS AS IT WOULD LEAD TO DOUBLE DEDUCTION. HOWEVER, THE LD. CIT (A) ALLOWED THE DEPRECIATION BY RELYING UPON THE DECISION RENDERED BY HONBLE DELHI ITA NOS. 1919, 3359, 2508 &3135 /DEL./2016 7 HIGH COURT IN ITA NO.7 / 2013 ORDER DATED 27.11.201 3 RENDERED IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE . 10. HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE AFORESAID DECIS ION IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE (SUPRA) VIDE ORDER DATED 06.09.2013 DISMISSED THE APPEAL PREFERRED BY THE REVENUE CHALLENGING THE ORDER OF T HE TRIBUNAL; THE OPERATIVE PART OF THE ORDER IS EXTRACTED FOR READY PERUSAL AS UNDER :- 14. FROM THE YEAR 1984 ONWARDS, THERE HAVE BEEN A NUMBER OF DECISIONS OF VARIOUS HIGH COURTS TAKING A SIMIL AR AND IDENTICAL VIEW, AS THAT OF SOCIETY OF THE SISTERS OF ST. ANNE (SUPRA). THESE ARE AS UNDER:- INCOME TAX VS. MARKET COMMITTEE, PIPLI (2011) 330 I TR 16 (P&H), INCOME TAX VS. TINY TOTS EDUCATION SOCI ETY, (2011) 330 ITR 21 (P&H), COMMISSIONER OF INCOME T AX VS. MANAV MANGAL SOCIETY, (2010) 328 ITR 421 (P&H) , COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX VS. SHETH MANILAL RANCHHODDAS VISHRAM BHAVAN TRUST, (1992) 198 ITR 598 (GUJ.), COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX VS. RAIPUR PALLOTTINE SOCIETY, (1989) 180 ITR 579 (M.P.), COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX VS. INSTITUTE OF BANKING , (2003) 264 ITR 110 (BOM), AND CIT VS. SHAKUNTALA THARAL CHARITABLE FOUNDATION, (2013) 358 ITR 452 (M P). 15. KERALA HIGH COURT WAS ALSO CONSCIOUS OF THE SA ID DECISIONS AND THE FACT THAT SECTION 11(1)(A) HAD BEEN INTERPRETED IN A DIFFERENT MANNER. IT WAS IN THESE CIRCUMSTAN CES THAT THE KERALA HIGH COURT IN THE LAST PORTION OF PARAGRAPH 6, AS QUOTED ABOVE, HAS STATED THAT THE ASSESSEE WOULD BE ENTIT LED TO WRITE BACK DEPRECIATION AND IF DONE, THE ASSESSING OFFIC ER WOULD MODIFY THE ASSESSMENT DETERMINING THE HIGHER INCOME AND ALLOW RECOMPUTATION OF DEPRECIATION WRITTEN BACK FOR THE PURPOSE OF APPLICATION OF INCOME FOR CHARITABLE PURPOSES IN FU TURE OR SUBSEQUENT YEARS. THIS MAY LEAD TO ITS OWN DIFFICU LTIES AND PROBLEMS AS SUDDENLY THE ENTIRE DEPRECIATION WRITT EN OFF WOULD HAVE TO BE ADDED FIRST AND THEN IN ONE YEAR SUBSTA NTIAL APPLICATION OF INCOME WOULD BE REQUIRED. THIS MAY BE IMPRACTICAL AND WOULD DISTURB THE WORKING OF MANY A CHARITABLE INSTITUTIONS. THE LEGAL INTERPRETATION WHICH HAS CONTINUED SINCE 1984, IF DISTURBED AND IMPLEMENTED , WOULD NOT APPROPRIATELY RESOLVED. CONSISTENCY AND CERTAINTY IS MORE APPROPRIATE. ITA NOS. 1919, 3359, 2508 &3135 /DEL./2016 8 16. THE EQUALLY PLAUSIBLE AND CONSISTENT INTERPRET ATION OF CLAUSE (A) OF SECTION 11(1) OF THE ACT IS THAT INC OME DERIVED FROM PROPERTY MUST BE CALCULATED AS PER THE PRINCIPLES OF THE ACT. THE SAID CLAUSE IS NOT A COMPUTATION PROVISION AND DOE S NOT DISTURB THE INCOME EARNED OR AVAILABLE BUT POSTULATES TH AT THE INCOME AS COMPUTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROVIS IONS OF THE ACT TO THE EXTENT OF 86% MUST BE APPLIED. APPLICAT ION OF INCOME MAY INCLUDE PURCHASE OF A CAPITAL ASSET. THE SAID PURCHASE IS VALID AND TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION FOR THE PURPOSE OF ENSURING COMPLIANCE, I.E., APPLICATION OF MONEY OR FUNDS AND IS NOT A FACTOR WHICH DETERMINES AND DECIDES THE QUANTUM OF INCOME DERIVED FROM PROPERTY HELD UNDER TRUST. COMPUTATIO N OF INCOME IS SEPARATE AND DISTINCT AND HAS TO BE MADE ON COMM ERCIAL BASIS BY APPLYING PROVISIONS OF THE ACT. 11. SO, FOLLOWING THE DECISION RENDERED BY HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE (SUPRA), THE LD. CIT (A) HAS RIGHTLY ALLOWED THE DEPRECIATION IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE AND THEREBY DELETED THE DISALLOWANCE MADE BY THE AO. SO, WE FIND NO ILLEGA LITY OR PERVERSITY IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER ON THIS ISSUE. CONSEQUENTLY, GR OUND NO.2 IN AYS 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2011-12 IS DETERMINED AGAINST TH E REVENUE. GROUND NO.3 IN AYS 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2011-12 12. AO MADE ADDITION OF RS.1,68,73,663, RS.2,01,86,003 & RS.1,83,00,000 IN AYS 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2011-12 RESPECTIVELY ON A/C OF SPACE RENT INCOME ON THE BASIS OF DISCLOSURE IN NOT ES TO ACCOUNTS OF THE ASSESSEE. HOWEVER, LD. CIT(A) DELETED THE ADDITION ON THE GROUND THAT SINCE SPACE RENT ACCOUNT IS DISPUTED BY TWO GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS VIZ. NATIONAL SCIENCE CENTRE AND CRAFTS MUSEUM BY CONTESTING THE OWNERSHIP OF LAND ATTRACTING RENT BY THE ASSESSEE AND CLAIMED THAT THEY ARE ITA NOS. 1919, 3359, 2508 &3135 /DEL./2016 9 IN POSSESSION OF THE LAND AND AS SUCH IT IS UNCERTA IN, NO ADDITION CAN BE MADE. 13. LD. CIT (A) HAS THRASHED THE FACTS IN DETAIL AN D BY APPLYING THE DECISION RENDERED BY VARIOUS HONBLE HIGH COURTS AN D HONBLE SUPREME COURT, DECIDED THE ISSUE IN FAVOUR OF THE A SSESSEE ON THE GROUND THAT SINCE THE DISPUTE HAS NOT BEEN RESOLVED TILL DATE, THE ADDITION IS NOT SUSTAINABLE. 14. ASSESSEE HAS BROUGHT ON RECORD DOCUMENTS AND LE TTER OF DISCUSSION TO RESOLVE THE DISPUTES BETWEEN NATIONAL SCIENCE CENTRE & CRAFTS MUSEUM AND INDIA TRADE PROMOTION ORGANISATIO N (ITPO) FOR NON-PAYMENT OF RENT, AVAILABLE AT PAGES 93 TO 130 O F THE PAPER BOOK, WHICH HAVE BEEN DULY EXAMINED BY THE LD. CIT(A). W E ARE OF THE CONSIDERED VIEW THAT WHEN INCOME ON ACCOUNT OF SPAC E RENT HAS NOT BEEN ACCRUED, AS IN THE INSTANT CASE DUE TO DISPUTE, THE RE CANNOT BE ANY RENT EVEN THOUGH ENTRY IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT HAVE BEEN MADE ON ACCOUNT OF NOTIONAL INCOME. SO, WHEN THE INCOME WOULD BE R ECEIVED ITS TAXABILITY CAN BE EXAMINED BY THE REVENUE. LD. DR FOR THE REVENUE HAS NOT BROUGHT ON RECORD ANY DOCUMENT IF THE DISPU TE BETWEEN THE PARTIES QUA THE SPACE RENT HAS BEEN RESOLVED. SO, IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED VIEW THAT THERE IS NO ILLE GALITY OR PERVERSITY IN THE FINDINGS RETURNED BY THE LD. CIT (A), CONSEQUEN TLY GROUND NO.3 IN AYS 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2011-12 IS DETERMINED AGAINS T THE REVENUE. ITA NOS. 1919, 3359, 2508 &3135 /DEL./2016 10 ITA NO.3359/DEL/2016 (AY 2009-10) 15. SO FAR AS APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE CHALLENGI NG THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 09.03.2016 PASSED BY THE LD. CIT (A) IN WHICH ORDER PASSED U/S 154 / 143 (3) OF THE ACT WAS CHALLENGED, IS CON CERNED, SINCE THE ISSUE ADJUDICATED AND DECIDED IN ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 0 9.04.2012 PASSED U/S 143 (3) AND ORDER DATED 09.07.2012 PASSED U/S 1 54 OF THE ACT HAVE BEEN SQUARELY COVERED IN THE GROUNDS DISCUSSED IN T HE PRECEDING PARAS, NO SEPARATE FINDINGS ARE REQUIRED TO BE RETURNED, H ENCE, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE IS HEREBY DISMISSED. 16. RESULTANTLY, ALL THE FOUR APPEALS BEING ITA NOS.1919/DEL./2016, 3359/DEL./2016, 2508/DEL./2016 & 3135/DEL./2016 ARE HEREBY DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON THIS 13 TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER , 2019. SD/- SD/- (PRASHANT MAHARISHI) (KULDIP SINGH) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED THE 13 TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2019 TS COPY FORWARDED TO: 1.APPELLANT 2.RESPONDENT 3.CIT 4.CIT(A)-22, NEW DELHI. 5.CIT(ITAT), NEW DELHI. AR, ITAT NEW DELHI.