Inland Waterways Authority of India, Gautam Budh Nagar V. Addl. CIT, Noida

ITA 1994/DEL/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2014] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 82014 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 7 month(s) 15 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 21-11-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Next Hearing Date: 12-11-2014
• Assessment Year: 1989-1990
• Appeal Filed On: 05-04-2013
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: S KRISHNAN
• Keywords: Retrospective amendment; Revised return; Revenue expenditure
• Section: 12A

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCHES : C : NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI R.S. SYAL, AM AND SHRI C.M. GARG, JM ITA NOS.1994 TO 2001/DEL/2013 ASSESSMENT YEARS : 1988-89, 1989-90 & 1991-92 TO 19 96-97 INLAND WATERWAYS AUTHORITY OF INDIA, A-13, SECTOR-1, NOIDA, GAUTAM BUDH NAGAR, PAN : AAACI4690M VS. ADDL. CIT, NOIDA RANGE, NOIDA. ( APPELLANT ) ( RESPONDENT ) ASSESSEE BY : SHRI S. KRISHNAN, ADVOCATE DEPARTMENT BY : NONE ORDER PER BENCH : THIS BATCH OF EIGHT APPEALS BY THE ASSESSEE RELATE S TO THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 1988-89, 1989-90 AND 1991-92 TO 19 96-97. SINCE COMMON ISSUES HAVE BEEN RAISED IN THESE APPEA LS, WE ARE, THEREFORE, PROCEEDING TO DISPOSING THEM OFF BY THIS CONSOLIDATED ORDER, FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE. ITA NOS.1994 TO 2001/DEL/2013 2 AYS 1988 AYS 1988 AYS 1988 AYS 1988- -- -89, 1989 89, 1989 89, 1989 89, 1989- -- -90, 1991 90, 1991 90, 1991 90, 1991- -- -92 & 1992 92 & 1992 92 & 1992 92 & 1992- -- -93 9393 93 2. BRIEFLY STATED, THE FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT T HE ASSESSEE IS A GOVERNMENT OF INDIA AGENCY UNDER THE MINISTRY OF SH IPPING, ROAD TRANSPORT AND HIGHWAY. IT CAME INTO EXISTENCE ON 2 7.10.1986 BY AN ACT OF PARLIAMENT. ITS MAIN FUNCTION IS THE DEV ELOPMENT AND REGULATION OF INLAND WATERWAYS FOR THE PURPOSE OF S HIPPING AND NAVIGATION AND MATTERS CONNECTED THERETO. THE ASSE SSEE APPLIED FOR REGISTRATION WITH THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TA X IN THE YEAR 1999. SUCH REGISTRATION WAS GRANTED U/S 12A VIDE O RDER DATED 13.4.1999 W.E.F. 1.4.1998. ORIGINAL RETURN IN THE STATUS OF LOCAL AUTHORITY FOR THE AY 1988-89 WAS FILED BELATEDLY ON 28.12.1990 DECLARING LOSS OF `4.55 CRORE. SUBSEQUENTLY, IN RES PONSE TO NOTICE U/S 148, A REVISED RETURN DECLARING NIL INCOME WAS FILED ON 29.4.1999. THE ASSESSEE SHOWED RECEIPTS OF `501.45 LAKH, WHICH INCLUDED GRANTS FROM THE GOVERNMENT OF INDIA TO THE TUNE OF `500.24 LAKH AND INCOME FROM INTERNAL RESOURCES AT `1.21 LAC. AGAINST THE SAID RECEIPTS, THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED EXP ENDITURE OF `5.34 CRORE WHICH INCLUDED REVENUE EXPENDITURE OF ` 4.09 CRORE. THE ASSESSEE LODGED A CLAIM IN ITS RETURN FILED ON 29.4.1999 THAT NO INCOME WAS CHARGEABLE TO TAX IN VIEW OF THE REGISTR ATION GRANTED TO ITA NOS.1994 TO 2001/DEL/2013 3 IT U/S 12A OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961 (HEREINAFTER ALSO CALLED THE ACT). THE AO, VIDE HIS ORDER OF JANUARY, 2001, DE TERMINED TOTAL INCOME AT `62.03 LAKH. THE ASSESSEES CONTENTION T HAT IT WAS ENTITLED TO REGISTRATION RETROSPECTIVELY AND HENCE, WAS A LOCAL AUTHORITY, DID NOT FIND FAVOR WITH THE AO. SUCH CON TENTION WAS REJECTED ON THE PREMISE THAT THE REGISTRATION WAS G RANTED PROSPECTIVELY ONLY W.E.F. 01.04.1998. EVENTUALLY, HE TREATED THE ASSESSEE AS AN ASSOCIATION OF PERSONS (AOP) AND TAX ED THE AMOUNT OF INCOME SO DETERMINED. THE ASSESSEE APPEALED A GAINST THE ORDER PASSED BY THE AO BY CONTENDING, INTER ALIA, THAT THE GRANTS RECEIVED BY IT WERE NOT OF REVENUE NATURE AND, HENC E, NOT TAXABLE. THE LD. CIT(A) ALLOWED THE ASSESSEES APPEAL. WHEN THE MATTER CAME UP BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL, IT WAS HELD VIDE ORDER DATED 31.7.2006, THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT A LOCAL AUTHO RITY AND, HENCE, THE AO WAS JUSTIFIED IN TREATING IT AS AOP. THE GROUND RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE THAT THE REGISTRATION GRANTE D U/S 12A BY THE LD. CIT SHOULD BE CONSIDERED AS RETROSPECTIVE FROM THE DATE OF INCEPTION OF THE INSTITUTION, ALSO CAME TO BE NEGAT IVE BY THE TRIBUNAL. HOWEVER, THE GROUND ON MERITS ABOUT TREAT ING THE GRANTS RECEIVED FROM THE GOVERNMENT OF INDIA AS NOT TAXABL E, WAS DECIDED ITA NOS.1994 TO 2001/DEL/2013 4 IN ASSESSEES FAVOUR. WHILE GIVING EFFECT TO SUCH TRIBUNAL ORDER, THE AO RECOMPUTED THE INCOME BY HIS ORDER PASSED U/ S 254/143(3) ADDING A FURTHER SUM OF `1,21,612/-, WHICH WAS INC OME EARNED FROM INTERNAL RESOURCES. THE ASSESSEE CHALLENGED SUCH ASSESSMENT ORDER. THE LD. CIT(A) REJECTED THE ASSE SSEES APPEAL. THE MATTER WAS AGAIN AGITATED BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. VIDE ORDER DATED 6.11.2009, THE TRIBUNAL ACCEPTED THE ASSESSEE S CONTENTION ON THE QUESTION OF NON-GRANTING OF ADEQUATE OPPORTU NITY OF HEARING BY THE AO IN THE SECOND ROUND OF PROCEEDINGS GIVING EFFECT TO THE TRIBUNAL ORDER. WITHOUT EXPRESSING ANY OPINION ON THE MERITS OF THE TAXABILITY OF INCOME FROM INTERNAL RESOURCES, THE TRIBUNAL REMITTED THE MATTER TO THE AO FOR DECIDING IT AFRES H, AFTER ALLOWING DUE OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING TO THE ASSESSEE. 3. IN THE INSTANT THIRD ROUND OF PROCEEDINGS, TH E AO DID NOT AGREE WITH THE ASSESSEES CONTENTION ABOUT NON-CHARGEABIL ITY OF INCOME FROM INTERNAL RESOURCES TO THE TUNE OF ` 1.21 LAC. THE ASSESSEES CONTENTION THAT THE INCOME FROM INTERNAL SOURCES WA S NOTHING, BUT A REDUCED PORTION OF THE GRANT GIVEN BY THE GOVERNM ENT OF INDIA FOR THE PURPOSES OF MEETING ITS EXPENSES, WAS JETTI SONED. THE LD. CIT(A) ECHOED THE ASSESSMENT ORDER ON THIS POINT. THE ASSESSEE IS ITA NOS.1994 TO 2001/DEL/2013 5 AGGRIEVED WITH THE IMPUGNED ORDER. THE BASIC FACTS OF THE OTHER THREE YEARS ARE ALMOST SIMILAR BUT FOR THE VARIATIO N IN THE AMOUNT OF OTHER INCOME. 4. WE HAVE HEARD THE LD. AR AND PERUSED THE RELEVAN T MATERIAL ON RECORD. AT THE VERY OUTSET, WE WANT TO MAKE A M ENTION OF THE ADJOURNMENT APPLICATIONS MOVED BY THE REVENUE IN AL L THE CASES FIXED FOR HEARING TODAY BEFORE THIS BENCH, INCLUDIN G THE PRESENT BATCH OF APPEALS. IN FACT, NO ONE APPEARED ON BEHA LF OF THE REVENUE TO EXPLAIN AS TO WHY THE BENCH BE ALLOWED T O CRASH, MORE SO, IN VIEW OF THE MOUNTING PENDENCY OF CASES BEFOR E THE TRIBUNAL. ONE CAN UNDERSTAND THE REASON FOR THE DEPARTMENT SE EKING ADJOURNMENT IN A FEW CASES FOR SOME VALID REASON. B UT, THE ACTION OF THE REVENUE IN PRAYING FOR ADJOURNMENT ON WHOLES ALE BASIS, OF ALL THE CASES ON THE CAUSE LIST, IN SUCH A CASUAL M ANNER AND THAT TOO, WITHOUT EVEN PUTTING IN PERSONAL APPEARANCE, IS NOT APPRECIABLE. WE ARE, THEREFORE, REJECTING THE REVE NUES APPLICATION FOR ADJOURNMENT AND PROCEEDING TO DECID E THE MATTER EX PARTE QUA THE REVENUE, AFTER HEARING THE LD. AR ON THE MERIT S OF THE APPEALS. ITA NOS.1994 TO 2001/DEL/2013 6 5. THE SOLITARY ISSUE PRESSED BY THE LD. AR IS AGAI NST THE CHARGEABILITY OF OTHER INCOME TO TAX. OTHER GROU NDS ABOUT THE RE- OPENING OF ASSESSMENT AND ONE MORE ADDITIONAL GROUN D TAKEN BY THE ASSESSEE ABOUT THE RETROSPECTIVE AMENDMENT TO S ECTION 12AA, WERE NOT PRESSED BY THE LD.AR. SUCH NON-PRESSED GR OUNDS ARE, THEREFORE, DISMISSED. 6. WE ARE LEFT WITH THE ONLY QUESTION ABOUT TH E INCLUSION OR OTHERWISE OF THE OTHER INCOME IN THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. THE STANDPOINT OF THE DEPARTMENT IS THAT OTHER INCOME IS DISTINCT FROM GRANTS AND HENCE IS CHARGEABLE TO TAX. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE ASSESSEE HAS CANVASSED A VIEW THAT SUCH INCOME IS NOTHING BUT A PART OF GRANT, WHICH HAS BEEN HELD BY THE TRIBUNAL TO BE NOT CHARGEABLE TO TAX. IN THIS REGARD, THE A SSESSEE HAS PLACED ON RECORD A CHART OF OTHER INCOMES FOR FIN ANCIAL YEARS 1986-87 UP TO 1991-92 IN WHICH TOTAL OF SUCH OTHER INCOME HAS BEEN GIVEN YEAR-WISE AT `115.72 LAKH. A PERUSAL OF THE CHART DIVULGES THAT IT INCLUDES CONSULTANCY CHARGES, MISC ELLANEOUS RECEIPTS, SALE OF TENDER FORM, PILOTAGE CHARGES AND OTHER INCOME. THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE IS THAT THE DECISION OF TH E TRIBUNAL, GIVEN VIDE ORDER DATED 31.7.2006, TREATING GRANTS RECEIV ED BY THE ITA NOS.1994 TO 2001/DEL/2013 7 ASSESSEE FROM THE GOVERNMENT OF INDIA AS NOT TAXABL E, IS FULLY APPLICABLE TO OTHER INCOMES AS WELL. WE WANT TO TAKE NOTE OF THE FACT THAT THERE IS NO MATERIAL ON RECORD TO THE EFF ECT THAT SUCH ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL HAS BEEN REVERSED OR MODIFIED BY THE HONBLE HIGH COURT. IT WAS EXPLAINED THAT THE ASSESSEE, A G OVERNMENT OF INDIA UNDERTAKING, IS FULLY FINANCED BY THE GOVERNM ENT OF INDIA IN MEETING ALL ITS EXPENSES, WHETHER ADMINISTRATIVE OR OTHERWISE. IT WAS EXPLAINED THAT THE GOVERNMENT GIVES GRANT TO TH E ASSESSEE FOR MEETING ALL SUCH EXPENSES AS REDUCED BY THE AMOUNT OF OTHER INCOME EARNED BY IT, WHICH, IN TURN, IS DEPLOYED F OR MEETING THE EXPENSES. THE POSITION CAN BE ILLUSTRATED WITH THE FIRST GRANT OF `100/- AND THE ASSESSEE INCURRING EXPENSES OF `90/- AND, SIMULTANEOUSLY, EARNING OTHER INCOME TO THE TUNE OF `5/-. THIS LEAVES UN-UTILISED GRANT OF `10 AND OTHER INCOME OF `5/- WITH THE ASSESSEE. WITH THE SUBSEQUENT YEARS EXPENSE STAND ING AT `100/-, THE ASSESSEE GETS GRANT FOR A SUM OF `85/- ONLY, RE PRESENTING THE AMOUNT OF BUDGETED/ACTUAL EXPENDITURE AS REDUCED BY THE UN- UTILISED PORTION OF EARLIER GRANT AND OTHER INCOME . IN THIS WAY, THE PROCESS GOES ON AND ON. ITA NOS.1994 TO 2001/DEL/2013 8 7. WHEN WE ADVERT TO THE FACTS OF THE INSTANT CAS E, IT CAN BE SEEN FROM THE CHART FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE THAT OTHE R INCOME FOR VARIOUS FINANCIAL YEARS FROM 1986-87 TO 1991-92 IS `1,15,72,269.49. THE GOVERNMENT VIDE ITS LETTER DA TED 31.3.1993, A COPY OF WHICH IS PLACED ON PAGE 74 OF THE PAPER B OOK, GAVE GRANT TO THE ASSESSEE FOR DEBITABLE EXPENDITURE OF `22.14 LAC, AFTER ADJUSTING INTERNAL RESOURCES OF `107.86 LAC. PARA 3 OF THIS LETTER MAKES THE POSITION ABUNDANTLY CLEAR, WHICH S TATES THAT THE UNSPENT BALANCE OF PREVIOUS GRANTS HAS BEEN TAKEN I NTO ACCOUNT WHILE SANCTIONING THIS GRANT. PAGE NO.76 OF THE PA PER BOOK IS THE YEAR-WISE BREAK-UP OF INCOME RECEIVED BY THE ASSE SSEE FOR THE FINANCIAL YEARS 1986-87 UPTO 1991-92 TOTALING `107. 86 LAC. IT IS ON THE BASIS OF THIS CALCULATION OF `107.86 LAC THAT T HE GOVERNMENT REDUCED THE AMOUNT OF GRANT FOR MEETING THE CURRENT EXPENDITURE TO `22.14 LAC. 8. NOW, THE QUESTION ARISES AS TO WHETHER THE A MOUNT OF OTHER INCOME EARNED BY THE ASSESSEE, AMOUNTING TO `115. 72 LAKH EARNED DURING FINANCIAL YEARS 1986-87 TO 1991-92 C AN BE CHARGED TO TAX IN THE RESPECTIVE YEARS, WHICH INCLUDES A S UM OF `1.21 LAC FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 1988-89. IF WE SEE OTHER INCOME IS ITA NOS.1994 TO 2001/DEL/2013 9 ISOLATION, IT IS UNDOUBTEDLY INCOME CHARGEABLE TAX IN VIEW OF THE TRIBUNAL HOLDING IN ITS FIRST ORDER DATED 31.7.2006 THAT THE GRANT OF REGISTRATION BY THE CIT IS PROSPECTIVE AND DOES NOT EXTEND TO THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION AND THE CONSEQUENTIAL ASSE SSMENT OF THE ASSESSEE AS AOP. BUT WHEN WE VIEW OTHER INCOME IN THE SETTING AND THE CONTEXT OF THE SCHEME OF THE GOVERNMENT ALL OWING GRANTS FOR MEETING ALL OF THE ASSESSEES EXPENSES AS REDUC ED BY THE AMOUNT OF SUCH OTHER INCOME, IN CONJUNCTION WIT H THE FACT THAT THE TRIBUNAL HAS HELD THE AMOUNT OF GRANT TO BE NOT CHARGEABLE TO TAX, THE IRRESISTIBLE CONCLUSION WHICH FOLLOWS IS T HAT SUCH OTHER INCOME PARTAKES OF THE CHARACTER OF GRANT ONLY. IN OUR CONSIDERED OPINION, THERE IS NO QUALITATIVE DIFFERENCE IN TWO SITUATIONS, VIZ., ONE, WHERE THE AMOUNT OF SUCH OTHER INCOME IS FIR STLY RETURNED BY THE ASSESSEE TO THE GOVERNMENT AND THEN THE FULL AM OUNT OF EXPENDITURE INCLUDING THE AMOUNT OF OTHER INCOME IS RECEIVED BY WAY OF GRANT AND THE SECOND, IN WHICH THE AMOUNT OF EXPENDITURE AS REDUCED BY OTHER INCOME OR UNUTILIZED GRANT, I S RECEIVED AS NET AMOUNT OF GRANT FROM THE GOVERNMENT OF INDIA. INSTE AD OF TWO-WAY TRAFFIC, THE TRANSACTION OF THE RECEIPT OF GRANT HA S BEEN DESIGNED BY THE GOVERNMENT OF INDIA TO MAKE IT ONE-WAY, THAT IS , RELEASING ONLY ITA NOS.1994 TO 2001/DEL/2013 10 THE NET AMOUNT OF GRANT. THE ESSENCE OF THE MATTER IS THAT THE ASSESSEE, BEING A GOVERNMENT OF INDIA UNDERTAKING, HAS TO MEET ALL ITS EXPENSES FROM THE AMOUNTS GIVEN BY THE GOVE RNMENT IN THE FORM OF GRANT. IF SOME OTHER INCOME IS RECEIVE D BY THE ASSESSEE, WHICH IS OTHERWISE PERMISSIBLE AS PER ITS ACTIVITIES AND THE AMOUNT OF GRANT IS ACCORDINGLY REDUCED TO THAT EXTENT, IT CANNOT BE SAID THAT THE AMOUNT OF OTHER INCOME S HOULD BE CHARGED TO TAX AND THE AMOUNT OF GRANT SHOULD BE CO NSIDERED AS AN ITEM OF NON-REVENUE NATURE. BOTH THE AMOUNTS OF GRANT AND OTHER INCOME GO HAND IN HAND. IN OUR CONSIDERED O PINION, THE AMOUNT OF OTHER INCOME CANNOT BE CONSIDERED IN IS OLATION AND DE HORS THE AMOUNT OF GOVERNMENT GRANT, WHICH HAS BEEN OTHERWISE HELD BY THE TRIBUNAL TO BE NOT CHARGEABLE TO TAX. THE REVENUE IS ALSO EMBARKING UPON TAXING THE AMOUNT OF OTHER INC OME ALONE AND NOT THE GOVERNMENT GRANT. WHEN ONE CONSIDERS TH E PECULIAR FACTUAL SCENARIO PREVAILING IN THIS CASE IN ENTIRET Y, IT TRANSPIRES THAT ALL THE EXPENSES OF THE ASSESSEE ARE TO BE BORNE BY THE GOVERNMENT BY MEANS OF GRANT, AS REDUCED BY ITS INT ERNAL ACCRUALS. IF THERE IS NO INTERNAL ACCRUAL, THEN THE AMOUNT OF GRANT IS FULL, BUT IF THERE IS SOME INTERNAL ACCRUAL, THEN T HE AMOUNT OF GRANT ITA NOS.1994 TO 2001/DEL/2013 11 IS PROPORTIONATELY REDUCED PRO TANTO. IN SUCH A SI TUATION, IT IS DIFFICULT TO HOLD THAT THE AMOUNT OF SUCH OTHER IN COME IS DISTINCT FROM GRANTS AND HENCE SHOULD BE CHARGED TO TAX, MOR E SPECIFICALLY, WHEN THE GRANT HAS BEEN HELD TO BE NOT CHARGEABLE T O TAX AND IT IS NOT THE CASE OF THE REVENUE THAT THE AMOUNT OF GRAN T SHOULD ALSO BE CHARGED TO TAX. THUS, THE AMOUNT OF OTHER INCOM E EARNED BY THE ASSESSEE, TO THE EXTENT IT IS ADJUSTED AGAINST THE GRANT, CANNOT BE SEEN IN A DIFFERENT SHADE FROM THE AMOUNT OF GRA NT, WHICH HAS BEEN EARLIER HELD BY THE TRIBUNAL AS NOT CHARGEABLE TO TAX. 9. HOWEVER, THERE IS A NEED TO DRAW A LINE OF D ISTINCTION BETWEEN THE AMOUNT OF OTHER INCOME ADJUSTED BY THE GOVERN MENT AGAINST GRANT AND THE AMOUNT NOT SO ADJUSTED. WHEREAS, THE FIRST AMOUNT IS TO BE CONSIDERED AS PART AND PARCEL OF THE AMOUN T OF GRANT AND HENCE NOT CHARGEABLE TO TAX, THE SECOND AMOUNT CANN OT BE SO CONSIDERED. THE REASON IS SIMPLE THAT THE AMOUNT OF SUCH SECOND PART OF OTHER INCOME DOES NOT BEAR THE CHARACTER OF GRANT SO AS TO AVAIL ANY IMMUNITY FROM TAXATION. SUCH SECOND PA RT, WHICH IS NOT CONSIDERED BY THE GOVERNMENT AS PART OF THE GRA NT, IN OUR CONSIDERED OPINION IS RIGHTLY CHARGEABLE TO TAX IN VIEW OF THE TRIBUNAL TREATING THE STATUS OF THE ASSESSEE AS AOP . IN SO FAR AS ITA NOS.1994 TO 2001/DEL/2013 12 FINANCIAL YEARS 1986-87-89 TO 1991-92 ARE CONCERNED , WE FIND FROM THE CHART FILED BY THE ASSESSEE THAT IT EARNED TOTAL OTHER INCOME AMOUNTING TO `1,15,72,269.49. AS AGAINST T HIS, THE GOVERNMENT OF INDIA HAS ADJUSTED OTHER INCOME AMO UNTING TO `107.86 LAC AGAINST THE AMOUNT OF GRANT RELEASED VI DE ITS LETTER DATED 31.3.93. THUS, THE EXCESS RECEIPT OF `7.860 LAKH, NET OF EXPENSES INCURRED FOR EARNING SUCH INCOME, IF ANY, OTHER THAN THOSE BORNE OUT OF GOVERNMENT GRANT, IS CHARGEABLE TO TAX IN THE RESPECTIVE YEARS ON YEAR TO YEAR BASIS. WE, THEREFO RE, HOLD THAT ONLY THAT PORTION OF SUCH NET INCOME SHOULD BE CHAR GED TO TAX WHICH RELATES TO THE ASSESSMENT YEARS UNDER CONSIDE RATION IN THIS BATCH OF APPEALS. 10. WE, THEREFORE, SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 1988-89, 1989-90, 1991-92 AND 1992 -93 WITH THE DIRECTION TO THE AO FOR CHARGING TO TAX ONLY TH E EXCESS AMOUNT OF OTHER INCOME AT `7.86 LAC AS REDUCED BY THE EX PENSES INCURRED FOR EARNING THEM, OTHER THAN THOSE WHICH HAVE BEEN ADJUSTED AGAINST THE EXEMPT AMOUNT OF GRANT, IN THE RELEVAN T YEAR IN WHICH SUCH EXCESS INCOME WAS EARNED. AS REGARDS THE REMA INING AMOUNT OF `107.86 LAC, WE HOLD THAT THE SAME IS PAR T OF GRANT OF ITA NOS.1994 TO 2001/DEL/2013 13 REFUND BY THE GOVERNMENT OF INDIA AND, THEREFORE, C ANNOT BE CHARGED TO TAX IN LINE WITH THE DECISION TAKEN BY T HE TRIBUNAL IN THE FIRST ROUND HOLDING THAT THE AMOUNT OF GRANT IS NOT A REVENUE RECEIPT AND HENCE IMMUNE FROM TAXATION. AYS 1993 AYS 1993 AYS 1993 AYS 1993- -- -94 TO 1996 94 TO 1996 94 TO 1996 94 TO 1996- -- -97 9797 97 . 11. THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THESE FOUR YEAR S UNDER CONSIDERATION ARE, MUTATIS MUTANDIS , SIMILAR TO THE ABOVE DISCUSSED FOUR YEARS. HERE AGAIN, THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE IS THAT THE AMOUNT OF OTHER INCOME IS PART OF THE GRANT A ND, HENCE, THE SAME NOT CHARGEABLE TO TAX. UNLIKE THE LETTER ISSU ED BY THE GOVERNMENT OF INDIA DATED 31.3.93 SPECIFICALLY POIN TING OUT THE ADJUSTMENT OF INTERNAL RESOURCES OF `107.86 LAC AGA INST THE GRANT UP TO THE FINANCIAL YEARS 1991-92, THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT PRODUCED SUCH LETTER FOR THE INSTANT FOUR YEARS. IT WAS, HO WEVER, CLAIMED THAT THE POSITION REGARDING THE GRANTS IS SIMILAR. UNDER THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, WE SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER AND REMIT THE MATTER TO THE FILE OF AO FOR THESE YEARS WITH A DIR ECTION TO CONSIDER SUCH LETTER BY THE GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, MINISTRY OF SURFACE TRANSPORT, ALLOWING ADJUSTMENT OF INTERNAL RESOURCE S AND PROPORTIONATELY REDUCING THE AMOUNT OF GRANT. TO T HE EXTENT OF ITA NOS.1994 TO 2001/DEL/2013 14 SUCH AMOUNT OF OTHER INCOME WHICH HAS BEEN ADJUST ED BY THE GOVERNMENT AGAINST THE GRANT, THERE CAN BE NO QUEST ION OF CHARGEABILITY. HOWEVER, THE REMAINING AMOUNT, WHIC H IS IN EXCESS OF SUCH ADJUSTED OTHER INCOME, SHOULD BE CHARGED TO TAX IN THE RESPECTIVE YEARS IN THE MANNER AS INDICATED ABOVE. 12. IN THE RESULT, ALL THE APPEALS ARE ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. THE ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 21.11.201 4. SD/- SD/- [ C.M. GARG ] [ R.S. SYAL ] JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED, 21 ST NOVEMBER, 2014. DK COPY FORWARDED TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT (A) 5. DR, ITAT AR, ITAT, NEW DELHI.