Shri Chhatrapati Sambhaji Gram Vikas Pratishthan, Ahmednagar V. Income-tax Officer,

ITA 1973/PUN/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 132 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 1482 (ITAT-PUNE)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 8 month(s) 22 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 29-07-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 07-11-2014
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Charitable institution; Benefit of exemption
• Section: 143(3); 142(1); 234B; 12A; 11

Judgement Text

- IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH SMC , PUNE , BEFORE MS. SUSHMA CHOWLA, JM . / ITA NO S . 1 973 TO 1975 /PN/201 4 / ASSESSMENT YEAR S : 20 0 7 - 08 TO 2009 - 10 SHRI CHHATRAPATI SAMBHAJI GRAM VIKAS PRATISHTHAN, A/P YELAPANE, TAL SHRIGONDA, DIST. AHMEDNAGAR - 413701 . / APPELLANT PAN: A A LTS6909F VS. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 4 , AHMEDNAGAR . / RESPONDENT / APPELLANT BY : SHRI S.N. PURANIK / RESPONDENT BY : SHRI SUHAS KULKARNI / RESPONDENT BY : SHRI SUHAS KULKARNI / DATE OF HEARING : 2 6 . 0 7 .201 6 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 29 . 0 7 .201 6 / ORDER PER SUSHMA CHOWLA, J M : TH I S BUNCH OF APPEAL S FILED BY ASSESSEE ARE AGAINST SEPARATE ORDER S OF CIT (A) - I , PUNE , ALL DATED 30 . 0 6 .20 1 4 RELATING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR S 20 0 7 - 0 8 TO 200 9 - 1 0 AGAINST RESPECTIVE ORDER S PASSED UNDER SECTION 14 3(3) R.W.S. 147 OF T HE INCOME - TAX ACT , 1961 (IN SHORT THE ACT) , RESPECTIVELY . 2 . T HE CAPTIONED APPEALS RELATING TO THE SAME ASSESSEE ON SIMILAR ISSUE WERE HEARD TOGETHER AND ARE BEING DISPOSED OF BY THIS CONSOLIDATED ORDER FOR ITA NO S . 1 973 TO 1975 /PN/20 1 4 SHRI CHHATRAPATI SAMBHAJI GRAM VIKAS PRATISHTHAN 2 THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE. HOWEVER, REFERENCE I S BEING MADE TO THE FACTS IN ITA NO.1 973 /PN/201 4 TO ADJUDICATE THE ISSUE. 3. THE ASSESSEE IN ITA NO. 1 973 /PN/201 4 HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL: - 1. COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) III HAS ERRED IN DENYING EXEMPTION U/S 10(23C) (IIIAD) OF THE ACT, AS D ISCUSSED IN PARA 4.4 OF THE ORDER. APPELLANT PRAYS FOR EXEMPTION OF INCOME U/S 10(23)(IIIAD) AS ASSESSEE COMPLIES THE PROVISIONS OF SAID SECTION. 2. CIT(A) ERRED IN HOLDING THAT ASSESSMENT ORDER IS NOT BAD IN LAW. APPELLANT PRAYS TO HOLD THAT ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED BY ASSESSING OFFICER U/S 143(3), IS BAD IN LAW AS SAME IS WITHOUT ISSUE OF NOTICE U/S.143(2) BEFORE COMPLETION OF ASSESSMENT. (PARA 4.3.4) 3. APPELLANT PRAYS FOR JUST AND EQUITABLE RELIEF. 4. WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO GROUND NO.1 AND 2, APPELLANT PRAYS TO CANCEL THE INTEREST CHARGED U/S 234A, 234B, 234C. 5. APPELLANT PRAYS TO ADD, ALTER, AMEND, TAKE ADDITIONAL GROUND AND/OR WITHDRAWN AS THE OCCASION MAY DEMAND. 6. ORDER U/S. 250 PASSED BY CIT(A) IS ANTEDATED. 7. ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS U/S.143(3 ) AND 148 ARE BAD IN LAW. 4. THE FIRST ISSUE RAISED IN THE PRESENT APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE IS AGAINST THE ORDER OF CIT(A) IN DENYING THE EXEMPTION UNDER SECTION 10(23C) (IIIAD) OF THE ACT . THE SECOND ISSUE RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IS AGAINST THE VALIDITY O F ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER UNDER SECTION 143(3) OF THE ACT, WITHOUT ISSUE OF NOTICE UNDER SECTION 143(2) OF THE ACT. THE NEXT ISSUE RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IS AGAINST THE CHARGING OF INTEREST UNDER SECTION 234A, 234B AND 234C OF THE ACT. 5. BRIEFLY, IN THE FACTS OF THE CASE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER ISSUED NOTICE UNDER SECTION 148 OF THE ACT ON 19.09.2011 ON THE GROUND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT FILED THE RETURN OF INCOME FOR THE INSTANT ASSESSMENT YEAR. FURTHER, NOTICE UNDER SECTION 1 42(1) OF THE ACT WAS ISSUED TO THE ASSESSEE ON 29.08.2012. IN RESPONSE TO THE SAID NOTICE, THE LEARNED AUTHORIZED ITA NO S . 1 973 TO 1975 /PN/20 1 4 SHRI CHHATRAPATI SAMBHAJI GRAM VIKAS PRATISHTHAN 3 REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE ASSESSEE ATTENDED AND STATED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD FILED THE RETURN OF INCOME FOR THE ABOVE ASSESSMENT YEAR ON 16.09.2 010 AND THE SAME MAY BE TREATED AS FILED IN RESPONSE TO THE NOTICE ISSUED UNDER SECTION 148 OF THE ACT. THE SAID LETTER WAS FILED ON 21.01.2013 AND THE ASSESSING OFFICER STATES THAT THE SAID RETURN FILED ON 16.09.2010 WAS TREATED AS FILED IN RESPONSE TO N OTICE UNDER SECTION 148 OF THE ACT. VIDE PARA 2 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, THE ASSESSING OFFICER OBSERVED THAT NOTICE UNDER SECTION 143(2) AND 142(1) OF THE ACT ALONG WITH QUESTIONNAIRE WERE ISSUED AND SERVED UPON THE ASSESSEE. IN RESPONSE, THE ASSESSEE PR ODUCED THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT AND THE DETAILS CALLED FOR. THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON GOING THROUGH THE DATA MADE AVAILABLE BY THE ASSESSEE NOTED THAT THE ASSESSEE TRUST WAS REGISTERED UNDER BPT ACT AND ALSO UNDER THE SOCIETIES ACT. HOWEVER, ON VERIFICATION O F RECORDS, IT WAS FOUND THAT THE ASSESSEE TRUST WAS REGISTERED UNDER SECTION 12A OF THE ACT VIDE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - I , PUNES ORDER DATED 22.10.2010 W.E.F. 01.04.2010. THE OBJECTS OF THE TRUST WERE IN THE FIELD OF EDUCATION AND RUNNING D.ED COLLEG E AND FOR THE BENEFIT OF PUBLIC AT LARGE AND NOT FOR SPECIFIC CLASS OF SOCIETY OR RELIGION. SINCE THERE WAS NO REGISTRATION UNDER SECTION 12A OF THE ACT FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION , THE STATUS OF THE ASSESSEE WAS TAKEN AS AOP. FURTHER, THE ASSESSEE FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION HAD SHOWN SURPLUS OF RS.9,57,331/ - AS PER INCOME & EXPENDITURE ACCOUNT AND SINCE THE TRUST WAS NOT REGISTERED UNDER THE I.T. ACT PRIOR TO 01.04.2010, IT WAS HELD THAT THE TRUST WAS NOT ELIGIBLE FOR CLAIMING EXEMPTION UNDER SECTION 11 OF THE ACT AND THE SAME WAS DISALLOWED AND THE TOTAL INCOME OF ASSESSEE WAS COMPUTED AT RS. 9,57,330/ - . 6. BEFORE THE CIT(A), THE ASSESSEE RAISED ADDITIONAL GROUNDS OF APPEAL . THE FIRST ISSUE RAISED BY WAY OF ADDITIONAL GROUNDS OF APPEAL WAS TH AT THE ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED IN THE CASE WAS BAD IN LAW AS NO NOTICE UNDER ITA NO S . 1 973 TO 1975 /PN/20 1 4 SHRI CHHATRAPATI SAMBHAJI GRAM VIKAS PRATISHTHAN 4 SECTION 143(2) OF THE ACT WAS ISSUED AND SERVED UPON THE ASSESSEE. THE SECOND ISSUE RAISED VIDE ADDITIONAL GROUNDS OF APPEAL WAS THAT WHERE THE ASSESSEE WAS ENGAGED IN EDUCATIONA L ACTIVITY AND THEN, ITS INCOME WAS EXEMPT, IN VIEW OF SECTION 10(23C) (IIIAD) OF THE ACT . THE CIT(A) FORWARDED THE CLAIM OF ASSESSEE TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER, WHO IN TU RN, FURNISHED THE REMAND REPORT. THE ASSESSING OFFICER FILED A LETTER DATED 23.12.201 3 AND THEREAFTER, ANOTHER REPORT ON 21.04.2014 WHICH ARE INCORPORATED UNDER PARA 4.2 AND 4.2.1 AT PAGES 6 TO 14 OF THE APPELLATE ORDER. WITH REGARD TO FIRST ISSUE OF NOTICE UNDER SECTION 143(2) OF THE ACT, IT WAS POINTED OUT THAT IN PARA 2 OF THE ASSESSME NT ORDER ITSELF, IT IS MENTIONED THAT THE NOTICES UNDER SECTION 143(2) AND 142(1) OF THE ACT ALONG WITH QUESTIONNAIRE HAVE BEEN ISSUED AND SERVED UPON THE ASSESSEE . SINCE THE NOTICES UNDER SECTION 143(2) AND 142(1) OF THE ACT WERE ISSUED UPON THE ASSESSEE , WHO IN TURN, WAS ASKED TO FILE THE INFORMATION, THEN THERE IS NO MERIT IN ADDITIONAL GROUND OF APPEAL NO.1 RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE CIT(A). 7. NOW, COMING TO THE SECOND ISSUE RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE THAT IT HAD MADE A CLAIM BEFORE THE ASSESSIN G OFFICER THAT IT WAS ELIGIBLE TO CLAIM THE DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 10(23C) (IIIAD) OF THE ACT . ADMITTEDLY, THE ASSESSEE WAS GIVEN RECOGNITION / REGISTRATION UNDER SECTION 12A OF THE ACT W.E.F. 01.04.2010 VIDE ORDER DATED 22.10.2010. THE YEAR UNDER APPEA LS ARE BEFORE THE DATE OF REGISTRATION OF TRUST UNDER SECTION 12A OF THE ACT. SINCE THE ASSESSEE TRUST WAS NOT REGISTERED, THE ASSESSEE CLAIMS THAT IT FILED ANOTHER PLEA BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT IN THE ALTERNATE, IT SHOULD BE ALLOWED THE DEDUCTIO N UNDER SECTION 10(23C) (IIIAD) OF THE ACT . THE LEARNED AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE CIT(A) STRESSED THAT THE SAID APPLICATION HAS NOT BEEN CONSIDERED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER BEFORE PASSING THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. HOWEVER, THE ISS UE BEING LEGAL, A REQUEST WAS MADE TO ITA NO S . 1 973 TO 1975 /PN/20 1 4 SHRI CHHATRAPATI SAMBHAJI GRAM VIKAS PRATISHTHAN 5 THE CIT(A) TO ADJUDICATE ON THE SAID ISSUE. THE CIT(A) ASKED FOR REMAND REPORT IN THIS REGARD AND THE ASSESSING OFFICER ELABORATELY OBJECTED TO THE CLAIM OF ASSESSEE SINCE THE ASSESSEE IN THE RETURN OF INCOME FILED FO R THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION ITSELF HAD SHOWN SURPLUS AND HAD NOWHERE CLAIMED THE AFORESAID DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 10(23C) (IIIAD) OF THE ACT . THE CIT(A) IN THIS REGARD CONFIRMED THE OBSERVATIONS OF ASSESSING OFFICER BOTH WITH REGARD TO NOTICE ISSUED / OBJECTIONS SERVED UNDER SECTION 143(2) OF THE ACT AND ALSO THE DENIAL OF DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 10(23C) (IIIAD) OF THE ACT . 8. THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL AGAINST THE ORDER OF CIT(A). 9. THE LEARNED AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE ASSESSEE VEHEMENTLY STRESSED THAT BOTH THE ISSUES RAISED BEFORE THE CIT(A) BY WAY OF ADDITIONAL GROUNDS OF APPEAL MERITS TO BE ALLOWED IN ENTIRETY. THE FIRST OBJECTION RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE WAS AGAINST THE DENIAL OF DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 10(23C) (IIIAD) THE ASSESSEE WAS AGAINST THE DENIAL OF DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 10(23C) (IIIAD) OF THE ACT . THE SECOND OBJECTION DECIDED BY THE CIT(A) WAS AGAINST THE NON - ISSUE OF NOTICE UNDER SECTION 143(2) OF THE ACT. 10. THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE REVENUE ON THE OTHER HAND, PLACED RELIANCE ON THE ORDERS OF AUTHORITIES BELOW. 11. ON PERUSAL OF RECORD AND VARIOUS SUBMISSIONS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE, THE FIRST ISSUE WHICH ARISES IN THE PRESENT APPEAL IS THE JURISDICTIONAL ISSUE AS TO WHETHER THE ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED UNDER SECTION 143(3) OF THE ACT IS VALID, FOR NON - ISSUANCE AND SERVICE OF NOTIC E UNDER SECTION 143(2) OF THE ACT. FIRST , I SHALL TAKE UP THE ISSUE ON MERITS I.E. THE CLAIM OF ASSESSEE UNDER SECTION 10(23C) (IIIAD) OF THE ACT . ADMITTEDLY, THE ASSESSEE WAS CARRYING ON BUSINESS OF RUNNING EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTIONS AND HENCE, WAS ENGAGE D IN THE FIELD OF ITA NO S . 1 973 TO 1975 /PN/20 1 4 SHRI CHHATRAPATI SAMBHAJI GRAM VIKAS PRATISHTHAN 6 EDUCATION FOR ALL THE THREE YEARS UNDER CONSIDERATION. THE TOTAL RECEIPTS OF THE ASSESSEE WERE BELOW RS.1 CRORE. THE ASSESSEE WHILE FILING THE RETURN OF INCOME FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION HAD SHOWN SOME SURPLUS INCOME IN ITS HANDS AND HAD CLAIMED THE DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 11 OF THE ACT BEING CHARITABLE TRUST. HOWEVER, THE CIT GRANTED THE RECOGNITION / REGISTRATION UNDER SECTION 12A OF THE ACT VIDE ORDER DATED 22.10.2010 W.E.F. 01.04.2010. IN VIEW OF ABOVE SAID NON - GRANT OF RECOG NITION BY WAY OF REGISTRATION OF THE TRUST BY THE CIT FOR THE EARLIER PERIOD, THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT ENTITLED TO THE BENEFIT OF DEDUCTION AVAILABLE UNDER SECTION 11 OF THE ACT. THE ASSESSEE IN THIS REGARD CLAIMS THAT IT HAD MADE AN ALTERNATE PLEA BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT SINCE IT WAS RUNNING EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTIONS AND ITS RECEIPTS WERE LESS THAN RS.1 CRORE FOR EACH OF THE YEAR, IT WAS ENTITLED TO THE EXEMPTION UNDER SECTION 10(23C) (IIIAD) OF THE ACT . THE ASSESSING OFFICER DID NOT CONSIDER THE CL AIM OF ASSESSEE AT ALL. THE CIT(A) REJECTED THE SAID CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE ON THE PREMISE THAT NO SUCH CLAIM WAS MADE IN THE RETURN OF INCOME. ANOTHER OBJECTION RAISED BY THE CIT(A) WAS THAT THERE WERE 34 OBJECTS OF THE TRUST AND SINCE MAJORITY OF OBJECT S WERE NON EDUCATIONAL, THE ASSESSEES CASE WOULD NOT FALL WITHIN PURVIEW OF SECTION 10(23C) (IIIAD) OF THE ACT . 12. THE FIRST ASPECT OF THE ISSUE TO BE CONSIDERED IN THE CASE IS THAT CAN THE ASSESSEE MAKE A FRESH CLAIM BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER DURI NG THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS BY WAY OF CLAIMING EXEMPTION UNDER SECTION 10(23C) (IIIAD) OF THE ACT . THE ANSWER TO THE SAME IS YES. BUT IN VIEW OF THE RATIO LAID DOWN BY THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN GOETZ (INDIA) LTD. VS. CIT REPORTED IN 284 IT R 323 (SC) , THE ASSESSING OFFIC ER IS NOT EMPOWERED TO ENTERTAIN SUCH A CLAIM. HOWEVER, THE CIT(A) WHO HAS CO - TERMINUS POWERS WITH THE ASSESSING OFFICER, IS COMPETENT TO LOOK INTO THE FRESH CLAIM MADE BY THE ASSESSEE. THUS, WHERE THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT AV AIL THE BENEFIT OF EXEMPTION UNDER SECTION 11 ITA NO S . 1 973 TO 1975 /PN/20 1 4 SHRI CHHATRAPATI SAMBHAJI GRAM VIKAS PRATISHTHAN 7 OF THE ACT AND IT HAD REVISED ITS CLAIM TO BE ELIGIBLE FOR EXEMPTION UNDER SECTION 10(23C) (IIIAD) OF THE ACT , T HE ONUS WAS UPON THE CIT(A) TO ENTERTAIN SUCH A PLEA OF THE ASSESSEE. THE SAME COULD NOT BE REFUS ED ON THE SURMISE THAT NO SUCH CLAIM WAS MADE IN THE RETURN OF INCOME. ADMITTEDLY, THIS WAS THE FRESH CLAIM MADE BY THE ASSESSEE DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS AND THE ASSESSEE ALSO RAISED ADDITIONAL GROUNDS OF APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT(A). THE COMMISSIONER HAS GIVEN A FINDING THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS ENGAGED IN RUNNING EDUCATIONAL AND D.ED INSTITUTIONS AND WAS ENGAGED IN THE FIELD OF EDUCATION. THE COMMISSIONER WHILE GRANTING REGISTRATION NOTED THAT THE OBJECTS OF THE INSTITUTION WERE IN THE FIELD OF EDUCATION AND RUNNING D.ED COLLEGES AND FOR THE BENEFIT OF PUBLIC AT LARGE AND NOT FOR SPECIFIC CLASS OF SOCIETY OR RELIGION. NO DOUBT, THE ASSESSEE HAD SEVERAL OBJECTS IN ITS MEMORANDUM, HOWEVER, THE OBJECTS BEING CARRIED ON WERE IN THE FIELD OF EDUC ATION AND THERE IS NO DENIAL TO THE ABOVE SAID FACT AND IN SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES, THE BENEFIT OF EXEMPTION UNDER SECTION 10(23C) (IIIAD) OF THE ACT COULD NOT BE DENIED TO THE ASSESSEE ONLY BECAUSE IT HAD MENTIONED SEVERAL OBJECTS IN THE MEMORANDUM, WHICH ADMI TTEDLY, WERE NOT BEING CARRIED ON BY IT. I FIND SUPPORT FROM THE RATIO LAID DOWN BY THE HONBLE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY IN CIT VS. VIDYA VIKAS VIHAR (2004) 265 ITR 489 (BOM) , WHEREIN IT WAS HELD THAT IF THE INCIDENTAL OBJECTS WERE NEVER IMPLEMENTED OR ACTED UPON BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEAR, WHERE THE ASSESSEE WAS RUNNING EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTION DURING THE RELEVANT YEAR FOR EDUCATIONAL PURPOSES, THEN THE ASSESSEE WAS ENTITLED TO CLAIM EXEMPTION UNDER SECTION 10(23C) (IIIAD) OF THE ACT . 1 3 . THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL HAS CLAIMED THE EXEMPTION UNDER SECTION 10(23C) (IIIAD) OF THE ACT AND ADMITTEDLY, THE ASSESSEE WAS CARRYING ON ITS ACTIVITIES IN THE FIELD OF EDUCATION BY RUNNING EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTIONS AND HENCE, WAS ENTITLED TO CLAI M EXEMPTION UNDER SECTION 10(23C) (IIIAD) OF THE ACT . ITA NO S . 1 973 TO 1975 /PN/20 1 4 SHRI CHHATRAPATI SAMBHAJI GRAM VIKAS PRATISHTHAN 8 ACCORDINGLY, REVERSING THE ORDER OF CIT(A) IN THIS REGARD AND DIRECT THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO ALLOW THE SAID BENEFIT TO THE ASSESSEE. 14. NOW, COMING TO THE SECOND PLEA OF THE ASSESSEE THAT IN THE ABS ENCE OF ANY NOTICE ISSUED UNDER SECTION 143(2) OF THE ACT, THERE IS NO MERIT IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED IN THE CASE. IN THIS REGARD, RELIANCE WAS PLACED ON THE RATIO LAID DOWN BY THE HONBLE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY IN ACIT VS. GENO PHARMACEUTICALS LTD. ( 2013) 32 TAXMANN.COM 162 (BOM) . IT MAY BE POINTED OUT HEREIN ITSELF THAT THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO RESPOND TO THE NOTICE ISSUED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER UNDER SECTION 148 OF THE ACT FROM 19.09.2011. THE ASSESSEE DID NOT FURNISH ANY RETURN OF INCOME IN RESPO NSE TO THE SAID NOTICE. THEREAFTER, NOTICE UNDER SECTION 142(1) OF THE ACT WAS ISSUED AND THE ASSESSEE PARTICIPATED IN THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS . A S LATE AND ON 21.01.2013 , THE ASSESSEE FURNISHED A LETTER STATING THAT THE RETURN OF INCOME EARLIER FURNIS HED ON 16.09.2010 SHOULD BE TREATED AS FILED IN RESPONSE TO THE NOTICE UNDER SECTION 148 OF THE ACT. THE ASSESSMENT ORDER IN THIS CASE WAS COMPLETED ON 21.01.2013. IN OTHER WORDS, THE ASSESSEE DID NOT CO - OPERATE DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDING S AND NOT FURNISHED ANY RETURN OF INCOME NOR ANY INTIMATION STATING THAT EARLIER RETURN OF INCOME FILED BY IT SHOULD BE TREATED AS FILED IN RESPONSE TO NOTICE UNDER SECTION 148 OF THE ACT. IN THE TOTALITY OF THE ABOVE SAID FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE C ASE, THE ISSUE TO BE ADJUDICATED IS WHETHER THE ASSESSEE CAN TAKE THE PLEA THAT THE ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS INVALID IN LAW. HOWEVER, SINCE THE ISSUE HAS ALREADY BEEN ADJUDICATED ON MERITS IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE, THERE IS NO MERIT IN DECIDING THE PRESENT ISSUE RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE AND HENCE, THE SAME IS DISMISSED. ITA NO S . 1 973 TO 1975 /PN/20 1 4 SHRI CHHATRAPATI SAMBHAJI GRAM VIKAS PRATISHTHAN 9 15. THE LAST ISSUE RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IS AGAINST CHARGING OF INTEREST UNDER SECTION 234A, 234B AND 234C OF THE ACT, WHICH IS CONSEQUENTIAL AND HENCE, THE S AME IS DISMISSED. THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE THUS, PARTLY ALLOWED. 1 6 . THE FACTS AND ISSUE S IN ITA NO S .1 974 /PN/201 4 & 1975/PN/2014 ARE IDENTICAL TO THE FACTS AND ISSUE IN ITA NO. 1973 /PN/201 4 AND THE DECISION IN ITA NO. 1 973 /PN/201 4 S HALL APPLY MUTATIS AND MUTANDIS TO ITA NO S .1 974 /PN/201 4 & 1975/PN/2014 . 1 7 . IN THE RESULT, ALL THE APPEALS OF ASSESSEE ARE PARTLY ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON THIS 29 TH DAY OF JU LY , 201 6 . SD/ - (SUSHMA CHOWLA) / JUDICIAL MEMBER / PUNE ; DATED : 29 TH JU LY , 201 6 . GCVSR / COPY OF THE ORDER IS FORWARDED TO : 1. / THE APPELLANT ; 2. / THE RESPON DENT; 3. ( ) / THE CIT(A) - I , PUNE ; 4. / THE CIT - I , PUNE ; 5. 6. , , , - / DR SMC , ITAT, PUNE; / GUARD FILE . / BY ORDER , // TRUE COPY // / SR. PRIVATE SECRETARY , / ITAT, PUNE