ITO(E), Wd-1(4), Kolkata, Kolkata V. PANCHAJANYA TRUST, Kolkata

ITA 1994/KOL/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 115 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6007 (ITAT-KOLKATA)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 24 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 01-10-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2014-2015
• Appeal Filed On: 07-09-2017
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: S K DAS
• Assessee Lawyers: ROBIN CHOWDHURY
• Keywords: Depreciation; Charitable institution; Retrospective amendment; Capital receipt; Benefit of exemption; Capital expenditure; Capital Gains
• Section: 142(1); 208; 11

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL B, BENC H KOLKATA BEFORE SHRI S.S.GODARA, JM &DR. A.L.SAINI, AM ./ITA NO.1841/KOL/2017 ( / ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2014-15) PANCHJANYA TRUST P-176, KALINDI HOUSING ESTATE, LAKE TOWN, KOLKATA-700089 VS. ITO(EXEMPTION), WARD-1(4), KOLKATA ./ ./PAN/GIR NO.: AABTP 2734 M (ASSESSEE) .. (REVENUE) ./ITA NO.1994/KOL/2017 ( / ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2014-15) ITO(EXEMPTION), WARD-1(4), KOLKATA VS. PANCHJANYA TRUST P-176, KALINDI HOUSING ESTATE, LAKE TOWN, KOLKATA-700089 ./ ./PAN/GIR NO.: AABTP 2734 M (ASSESSEE) .. (REVENUE) ASSESSEE BY : SHRI S.K. DAS, FCA RESPONDENT BY : SHRI ROBIN CHOWDHURY, DR / DATE OF HEARING : 25/07/2019 /DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 01/10/2019 / O R D E R PER DR. A. L. SAINI: THE CAPTIONED CROSS APPEALS FILED BY THE ASSESSE E AND REVENUE, PERTAINING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2014-15, ARE DIRECTED AGAINST TH E ORDER PASSED BY THE PANCHAJANYA TRUST ITA NOS.1841 & 1994/KOL/2017 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2014-15 PAGE | 2 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEAL)-25, KOLKATA, IN APPEAL NO.CIT(A),KOL- 25/10250/2016-17, DATED 21.06.2017, WHICH IN TURN A RISES OUT OF ANASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER U/S 143(3)/1 1 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (IN SHORT THE ACT) DATED 30.11.2016. 2. SINCE THESE APPEALS RELATE TO THE SAME ASSESSEE, IDENTICAL AND COMMON ISSUES ARE INVOLVED, THEREFORE THESE HAVE BEEN CLUBBED AND HEA RD TOGETHER AND A CONSOLIDATED ORDER IS BEING PASSED FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE A ND BREVITY. 3. FIRST WE SHALL TAKE ASSESSEES CASE IN I.T.A. NO . 1841/KOL/2017,FOR A.Y. 2014- 15.THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IS AS FOLLOWS: 1. FOR THAT THE DISALLOWANCE OF CLAIM OF CAPITAL R ECEIPTS ON ACCOUNT OF ADMISSION FEE OF RS. 4,49,180/-, RE-ADMISSION FEES RS.1,00,00 ,000/-, TERM CHARGES RS.21,70,700/- HAVE BEEN WRONGLY MADE WITHOUT NARRA TING ANY COGENT REASONS. 4. BRIEF FACTS QUA THE ISSUE ARE THAT DURING THE CO URSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE ASSESSING OFFICER OBSERVED FROM THE BALANCE SHE ET OF THE ASSESSEE AS AT 31.03.2014, THAT THE GENERAL FUND AT THE DISPOSAL O F THE ASSESSEE WAS RS. 6,14,48,893/- AS COMPARED TO RS. 4,48,70,032/- AS A T 31.03.2013. ON BEING ASKED, THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED EXPLANATION OF THE DIFFERENC E IN AMOUNT OF RS.1,65,78,861/- ( RS. 6,14,48,893-RS. 4,48,70,032), AS FOLLOWS: (I) RS. 39,58,981/- AS SURPLUS OF INCOME OVER EXPE NDITURE. (II). RS 1,00,00,000/-, COLLECTED AS RE-ADMISSION F EES. (III).RS 21,70,700/-TERM CHARGES. (IV).RS. 4,49,180/-, ADMISSION FEES TOTALING RS.1,26,19,880/-. 5. THE AO WAS OF THE VIEW THAT AS PER PROVISIONS OF SECTION 12(1) AND SECTION 11(1)(D), A CORPUS DONATION IS THAT WHICH COMES WIT H A SPECIFIC DIRECTION OF THE DONOR THAT THE SAID DONATION; WOULD BE CORPUS DONAT ION AND ANY OTHER DONATION IS NOT A CORPUS DONATION. A DONATION GIVEN BY ANY DONO R WITH A DIRECTION THAT IT SHALL PANCHAJANYA TRUST ITA NOS.1841 & 1994/KOL/2017 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2014-15 PAGE | 3 BE USED FOR ANY OTHER REVENUE OR CAPITAL EXPENSES F OR RELIEF TO POOR, OR FOR PROVIDING MEDICAL RELIEF ETC. ARE ALL EARMARKED DON ATIONS TO BE USED FOR THAT PARTICULAR PURPOSE AND HENCE FOR A PARTICULAR EXPEN DITURE. CORPUS DONATION IS TO BE INVESTED AND IT CANNOT BE USED FOR ANY EXPENDITURE. INCOME FROM SUCH INVESTMENT IS REQUIRED TO BE APPLIED. HENCE EARMARKED DONATION S OR SPECIFIC EXPENDITURE DONATIONS ARE NOT CORPUS DONATIONS. SUCH EARMARKED DONATIONS/ RECEIPTS/FEES, OR IN WHATEVER NOMENCLATURE IT IS USED, ARE INCOME OF THE TRUST AND HAVE TO BE ROUTED THROUGH INCOME & EXPENDITURE ACCOUNT AND NOT DIRECT LY CHARGED TO BALANCE SHEET. WHEN SUCH EARMARKED DONATIONS ARE DIRECTLY T AKEN TO THE BALANCE SHEET THEN SUCH TREATMENT IS WRONG.SUCH DONATIONS ARE GIV EN FOR A PARTICULAR SPECIFIED EXPENDITURE AND HENCE THEY HAVE TO BE ROUTED THROUG H INCOME & EXPENDITURE ACCOUNT. IF IT IS NOT ROUTED THROUGH INCOME & EXPEN DITURE ACCOUNT THEN SUCH DONATIONS/ FEES MUST BE ADDED BACK TO THE INCOME IN THE COMPUTATION OF INCOME. IF EXPENDITURE OUT OF SUCH DONATION IS TO BE SPREAD OV ER MORE THAN ONE YEAR DURATION, THE SAME HAS TO BE ACCUMULATED AS PER THE RULES PRO VIDED IN SECTION 11 OF THE ACT. FROM THE NATURE OF RECEIPTS, THE AO NOTICED THAT IT IS PRETTY EVIDENT THAT THESE RECEIPTS WERE IN FACT FEES, COLLECTED FROM STUDENTS AND WAS NOT 'VOLUNTARY' IN NATURE AND IS DEFINITELY TO BE ROUTED THROUGH INCOM E AND EXPENDITURE ACCOUNT. THE ASSESSEE ON BEING ASKED THAT WHY THE ABOVE STAT ED AMOUNTS WERE NOT ROUTED THROUGH THE INCOME &EXPENDITURE ACCOUNT. THEN THE A SSESSEE ADMITTED THAT WHAT HE HAS DONE IS WRONG AND FURNISHED A REVISED COMPUT ATION ON 14.10.2016 INCORPORATING THE INCOME OF RS 1,26,19,880/- (RS 1, 00,00,000 + RS 21,70,700 + RS 4,49,180) THAT WAS DIRECTLY CHARGED TO BALANCE SHEE T AS ITS INCOME DURING THE RELEVANT AY 2014-15.THEREFORE, THE GENERAL FUND ATT RIBUTABLE TO RE-ADMISSION FEES, ADMISSION FEES & TERM CHARGES, RECEIVED DURIN G THE YEAR TO THE TUNE OF RS. 1,26,19,880/-, WAS ADDED BACK TO ITS TOTAL INCOME. 6. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER, THE ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MATTER IN APPEAL BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) WHO HAS CONFIRMED T HE ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF THE LD . CIT(A) THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. PANCHAJANYA TRUST ITA NOS.1841 & 1994/KOL/2017 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2014-15 PAGE | 4 7. WE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND CAREFULLY GONE TH ROUGH THE SUBMISSION PUT FORTH ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE ALONG WITH THE DOCUMENTS FURNISHED AND THE CASE LAWS RELIED UPON, AND PERUSED THE FACT OF THE CASE INCLU DING THE FINDINGS OF THE LD CIT(A) AND OTHER MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. WE N OTE THAT LD CIT(A) CONCLUDED THAT ASSESSEE COLLECTED FEES, AND JUST LIKE THE OT HER FEES, THESE ARE REVENUE RECEIPTS; AND THEREFORE MUST BE ROUTED THROUGH THE INCOME & EXPENDITURE ACCOUNT. WE NOTE THAT THE UNDERLYING GROUND RELATES TO WHETH ER ONE TIME AND NON-RECURRING ANNUAL RECEIPTS FROM INCUMBENT STUDENTS BEING ABSOL UTE NATURE OF DEVELOPMENT FEE, COLLECTED BY THE ASSESSEE CLASSIFIED AND ACCOU NTED AS (A) ADMISSION FEE RS. 4,49,180/-, (B) TERM CHARGES RS. 21,70,700/- AND (C ) RE- ADMISSION FEE RS. 1,00,00,000/-, ARE CAPITAL RECEIPT OR REVENUE RECEI PT? THE LD COUNSEL SUBMITS BEFORE US THAT THE SCHOOL OF THE ASSESSEE IS 'UNAIDED SCHOOL', AND IN ORDER TO PROVIDE CONTINUOUS UPGRADE D INFRASTRUCTURE AND FACILITIES TO THE STUDENTS FOR EDUCATION, SPORTS, AUDITORIUM, SWIMMING POOL ETC. THE NECESSARY FUNDS MUST BE RAISED FOR REQUIRED UPGRADATION. THE LD COUNSEL FURTHER SUBMITS THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS TO DEVELOP ADDITIONAL INFRASTRUCTU RE TO PROVIDE QUALITY EDUCATION TO STUDENTS AND ALL THESE ACTIVITIES REQUIRE FUNDS. THERE WAS AN ORIGINAL CORPUS OF THE SCHOOL BUT THEREAFTER THE CORPUS FOR SUCH ACTIV ITY WAS CREATED ONLY THROUGH COLLECTION FROM THE INCUMBENT STUDENTS SINCE THERE WAS NO SCOPE TO THE ASSESSEE FOR COLLECTION OF FUND FROM ANY PHILANTHROPIST. THE REFORE, THE REFERRED RECEIPTS, BY THE UNAIDED SCHOOL OF THE ASSESSEE WERE CAPITAL REC EIPTS AND CORRECTLY CREDITED TO THE GENERAL / CORPUS FUND OF THE ASSESSEE. ON THE OTHER HAND,LD. DR HAS PRIMARILY REITERATED T HE STAND TAKEN BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER WHICH WE HAVE ALREADY NOTED IN OUR EARLIER PARA AND THE SAME IS NOT BEING REPEATED FOR THE SAKE OF BREVITY. 8. WE NOTE THAT ADMISSION FEE, RE-ADMISSION FEE AND THE TERM CHARGES HAS BEEN CONSIDERED BY THE ASSESSEE TRUST AS A CAPITAL RECEI PT. WE NOTE THAT THE COMMERCIALIZATION OF EDUCATION HAS BEEN A PROBLEM AREA IN THE LAST SEVERAL YEARS. ONE OF THE METHODS OF ERADICATING COMMERCIALIZATION OF EDUCATION IN SCHOOLS IS TO PANCHAJANYA TRUST ITA NOS.1841 & 1994/KOL/2017 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2014-15 PAGE | 5 INSIST ON EVERY SCHOOL FOLLOWING PRINCIPLES OF ACCO UNTING APPLICABLE TO NOT- FOR- PROFIT ORGANIZATIONS / NON-BUSINESS ORGANIZATIONS. UNDER THE GENERALLY ACCEPTED ACCOUNTING PRINCIPLES, EXPENSE IS DIFFERENT FROM EX PENDITURE. ALL OPERATIONAL EXPENSES FOR THE CURRENT ACCOUNTING YEAR LIKE SALAR Y AND ALLOWANCES PAYABLE TO EMPLOYEES, RENT FOR THE PREMISES, PAYMENT OF PROPER TY TAXES ARE CURRENT REVENUE EXPENSES. THESE EXPENSES ENTAIL BENEFITS DURING THE CURRENT ACCOUNTING PERIOD. EXPENDITURE, ON THE OTHER HAND, IS FOR ACQUISITION OF AN ASSET OF AN ENDURING NATURE WHICH GIVES BENEFITS SPREAD OVER MANY ACCOUNTING PE RIODS, LIKE PURCHASE OF PLANT AND MACHINERY, BUILDING ETC. THEREFORE, THERE IS A DIFFERENCE BETWEEN REVENUE EXPENSES AND CAPITAL EXPENDITURE. WE MUST KEEP IN M IND THAT ACCOUNTING HAS A LINKAGE WITH LAW. ACCOUNTING OPERATES WITHIN LEGAL FRAMEWORK. THEREFORE, BANKING, INSURANCE, AND ELECTRICITY COMPANIES HAVE THEIR OWN FORM OF BALANCE SHEETS UNLIKE BALANCE SHEETS PRESCRIBED FOR COMPANI ES UNDER THE COMPANIES ACT, 1956. THEREFORE, WE HAVE TO LOOK AT THE ACCOUNTS OF NON-BUSINESS ORGANIZATIONS LIKE SCHOOLS, HOSPITALS ETC. IN THE LIGHT OF THE ST ATUTE IN QUESTION.WE NOTE THAT ON ACCOUNT OF INCREASED COST DUE TO INFLATION, THE MAN AGEMENT IS ENTITLED TO CREATE DEVELOPMENT FUND ACCOUNT. FOR CREATING SUCH DEVELOP MENT FUND, THE MANAGEMENT IS REQUIRED TO COLLECT DEVELOPMENT FEES. WITH THIS CORRECT PRACTICE BEING INTRODUCED, DEVELOPMENT FEES FOR SUPPLEMENTING THE RESOURCES FOR PURCHASE, UPGRADATION AND REPLACEMENTS OF FURNITURE AND FIXTU RES AND EQUIPMENT IS JUSTIFIED. THESE PROPOSITIONS WERE UPHELD BY THE HON`BLE SUPRE ME COURT IN THE CASE OF MODERN SCHOOL VS. UNION OF INDIA, APPEAL NO.2699/20 01, ORDER DATED 27.04.2004. NORMALLY THERE IS NO BAR WHEREIN THE ACCOUNT OF DEV ELOPMENT FUND IS CAPITALIZED. WE NOTE THAT IT IS A WELL SETTLED PRINCIPLE OF LAW THAT NOMENCLATURE GIVEN TO THE DOCUMENTS IS NOT DECISIVE FACTOR BUT THE NATURE AN D SUBSTANCE OF THE TRANSACTION HAS TO BE DETERMINED. WE NOTE THAT ON THE IDENTICA L FACTS THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF YELLAPU UMA MAHESWARI VS. BUDD HA JAGADHEESWARAO, IN SLP NO. 12788 OF 2014, ORDER DATED 08.10.2015, HELD AS FOLLOWS: IT IS WELL SETTLED THAT THE NOMENCLATURE GIVEN TO THE DOCUMENT IS NOT DECISIVE FACTOR BUT THE NATURE AND SUBSTANCE OF THE TRANSACT ION HAS TO BE DETERMINED WITH REFERENCE TO THE TERMS AND DOCUMENTS AND THAT THE A DMISSIBILITY OF A DOCUMENT IS ENTIRELY DEPENDENT UPON THE RECITALS CONTAINED IN T HAT DOCUMENT BUT NOT ON THE PANCHAJANYA TRUST ITA NOS.1841 & 1994/KOL/2017 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2014-15 PAGE | 6 BASIS OF THE PLEADINGS SET UP BY THE PARTY WHO SEEK S TO INTRODUCE THE DOCUMENT IN QUESTION. A THOROUGH READING OF BOTH EXHIBITS B-21 AND B-22 MAKES IT VERY CLEAR THAT THERE IS RELINQUISHMENT OF RIGHT IN RESPECT OF IMMOVABLE PROPERTY THROUGH A DOCUMENT WHICH IS COMPULSORILY REGISTERABLE DOCUME NT AND IF THE SAME IS NOT REGISTERED, BECOMES AN INADMISSIBLE DOCUMENT AS ENV ISAGED UNDER SECTION 49 OF THE REGISTRATION ACT. HENCE, EXHIBITS B-21 AND B-22 ARE THE DOCUMENTS WHICH SQUARELY FALL WITHIN THE AMBIT OF SECTION 17(I)(B) OF THE REGISTRATION ACT AND HENCE ARE COMPULSORILY REGISTERABLE DOCUMENTS AND THE SAM E ARE INADMISSIBLE IN EVIDENCE FOR THE PURPOSE OF PROVING THE FACTUM OF P ARTITION BETWEEN THE PARTIES. WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT EXHIBITS B21 AND B22 ARE NOT ADMISSIBLE IN EVIDENCE FOR THE PURPOSE OF PROVING PRIMARY PURPOSE OF PARTITION. THEREFORE, BASED ON THE ABOVE NOTED PRINCIPLES LAID DOWN BY THE HON`BLE SUPREME COURT, WE ACCEPT THE ADMISSION FEE OF RS. 4,49,180/ -, READMISSION FEE OF RS. 1,00,00,000/-, TERM CHARGES OF RS. 21,70,000/- AS C APITAL RECEIPT AND THEREFORE WE DELETE THE ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER A ND CONFIRMED BY THE LD. CIT(A) AT RS. 1,26,19,880/- (CONSISTING ADMISSION FEE 4,49 ,180/- , READMISSION FEE 1,00,00,000/- & TERM CHARGES RS. 21,70,000/-). 9. NOW WE SHALL TAKE REVENUES APPEAL IN I.T.A. NO. 1994/KOL/2017, FOR A.Y. 2014-15, WHEREIN THE REVENUE HAS RAISED FOLLOWING G ROUNDS OF APPEAL: 1. THAT ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AS WELL AS LAW, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN GRANTING RELIEF TO THE ASSESSEE ON ACCOUNT OF DEPRECIATION AMOUNTING TO RS. 1,03,74,724/-. 2. THAT ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AS WELL AS LAW, CLAIM OF DEPRECIATION ON ASSETS FOR WHICH THE ACQUISITION C OST TO THE ASSESSEE IS NIL, ALLOWS THE ASSESSEE TO ENJOY DOUBLE DEDUCTION. 3. THAT ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE , THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN ACCEPTING ADMINISTRATIVE AND ESTABLISHMENT EXPEN SES AMOUNTING TO RS. 28,22,647/- AS APPLICATION OF INCOME WITHOUT CONSID ERING THE SAME AS EXPENSES FOR RUNNING OFFICE ONLY. 4. THAT ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE , THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN HOLDING THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS SATISFIED THE REQU IREMENT U/S 11(1)(A) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961. 5. THAT THE APPELLANT CRAVES FOR LEAVE TO AMEND, MO DIFY, SUBSTITUTE, AND OR ABRIDGE AND/OR RESCIND ANY OR ALL OF THE GROUNDS DU RING ANY STAGE OF APPEAL. PANCHAJANYA TRUST ITA NOS.1841 & 1994/KOL/2017 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2014-15 PAGE | 7 10. GROUND NOS. 1 AND 2 RAISED BY THE REVENUE RELAT E TO DELETION OF ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF DEPRECIATION AMOUNTING TO RS. 1,03,74,72 4/-. 11. BRIEF FACTS QUA THE ISSUE ARE THAT DURING THE A SSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE ASSESSEE WAS ASKED TO GIVE HIS JUSTIFICATION REGARD ING HIS CLAIM OF DEPRECIATION AS THE SAME WILL TANTAMOUNT TO DOUBLE DEDUCTION AS THE FULL COST OF THE ASSET WAS ALREADY TREATED AS APPLICATION IN THE YEAR IN WHICH IT WAS PROCURED. DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS THE ASSESSEEFILED A REVISED COMPUTATION IN WHICH HE HIMSELF EXCLUDED THE DEPRECIATION AS APPLICATION O F INCOME. THE ABOVE FACTS WERE DISCUSSED IN THE BODY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 30.11.2016 VIDE PARA 4.1, 4.2, 4.3 AND 4.4 OF ASSESSMENT ORDER. THE ASSESSING OFFI CER THEREFORE, DID NOT ALLOW DEPRECIATION CLAIM AMOUNTING TO RS. 1,03,74,724/-, AS APPLICATION OF INCOME. 12. AGGRIEVED BY THE STAND SO TAKEN BY THE ASSESSIN G OFFICER, THE ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MATTER IN APPEAL BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) WHO HAS DELETED THE ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF TH E LD. CIT(A), THE REVENUE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 13. THE LD. DR FOR THE REVENUE HAS PRIMARILY REITER ATED THE STAND TAKEN BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER WHICH WE HAVE ALREADY NOTED IN OU R EARLIER PARA AND THE SAME IS NOT BEING REPEATED FOR THE SAKE OF BREVITY AND ON T HE OTHER HAND THE LD. COUNSEL HAS DEFENDED THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A). 14. WE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND CAREFULLY GONE TH ROUGH THE SUBMISSION PUT FORTH ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE ALONG WITH THE DOCUMENTS FURNISHED AND THE CASE LAWS RELIED UPON, AND PERUSED THE FACT OF THE CASE INCLU DING THE FINDINGS OF THE LD CIT(A) AND OTHER MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. WE NOTE THAT THE ISSUE, WHEN THE ACQUISITION OF ASSET HAD BEEN CLAIMED AS APPLICATIO N OF INCOME, THEN WHETHER DEPRECIATION IS ALLOWABLE? WE NOTE THAT SUB-SECTION (6) TO SECTION 11 OF THE ACT PROVIDES THAT IN CASE WHERE ACQUISITION OF ASSET HA D BEEN CLAIMED AS APPLICATION, THEN DEPRECIATION IS NOT ALLOWABLE. HOWEVER, WE NOT E THAT THIS AMENDMENT INSUB- SECTION (6) TO SECTION 11 OF THE ACT IS PROSPECTIVE IN NATURE AND APPLICABLE FROM PANCHAJANYA TRUST ITA NOS.1841 & 1994/KOL/2017 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2014-15 PAGE | 8 01.04.2015. THAT IS, THE AMENDMENT IN SUB-SECTION ( 6) TO SECTION 11 OF THE ACT, THE DOES NOT APPLICABLE TO THE ASSESSEE UNDER CONSIDERA TION. WE NOTE THAT THE DECISION OF THE HON`BLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT OF CALCUTT A IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. SILIGURI REGULATED MARKET COMMITTEE (2014) 366 ITR 51,IS APP LICABLE TO THE ASSESSEE, WHEREIN THE HONBLE HIGH COURT HAS HELD THAT DEPREC IATION CLAIM IS ALLOWABLE EVEN IF ASSET HAD BEEN CLAIMED AS APPLICATION BY ASSESSE E TRUST . FINDINGS OF THE COURT IS GIVEN BELOW: COURT HAD CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED TH E JUDGMENTS OF THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AND THE BOMBAY HIGH COURT AS ALSO THE JUDGMENT OF T HIS COURT IN THE CASE OF JAYASHREE CHARITY TRUST AN D IN THE CASE OF BHERUKA PUBLIC WELFARE TRUST. IT WAS OP INIONED THAT THE VIEWS EXPRESSED IN THE CASE OF JAYASHREE CHARITY TRUST (SUPRA) ARE LOGICAL AND IN CONSONANCE WITH COMMON SENSE. THE OBJECT OF SECTION 11 OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961, WAS TO FEED THE PUB LIC CHARITY. BY PERMITTING COMPUTATION OF INCOME IN A COMMERCIAL MANNER, THE OBJECT OF FEEDING THE PUBLIC CHARITY WAS ACHIEVED. THE AMOUNT DEDUCTED BY WAY O F DEPRECIATION WAS IN THAT CASE WAS PLOUGHED BACK FOR USER ON ACCOUNT OF CHARITY. IT CANNOT BE DISPUTED THAT A BUILDING USED FOR THE PURPOSE OF CHARITY DIMINISH ES IN VALUE OVER THE TIME LIKE ANY OTHER BUILDING. THEREFORE, PROVIDING FOR SUCH DIMINUTION OF VALUE W OULD KEEP THE CORPUS OF THE TRUST INTACT OTHERWISE THE CORPUS OF THE TRUST ITSELF IN COURSE OF TIME MAY GE T DISSIPATED. (PARA 11) COURT WAS AS SUCH, IN AGREEMENT WITH THE VIEWS EXPR ESSED IN THE CASE OF JAYASHREE CHARITY TRUST (SUPRA ). THERE WAS AS SUCH, NO REASON WHY THE MATTER SHOULD BE REFERRED TO ANY LARGER BENCH, AS SUBMITTED BY MR . BHOWMICK. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FAILS. BOTH THE QUESTIONS WERE ANSWERED IN THE AFFIRMATIVE AND IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE. THE APPEAL WAS THUS DISPOSED OF. AS REGARDS AS TO WHETHER THE INSERTED SUB-SECTION ( 6) COULD HAVE RETROSPECTIVE APPLICATION, JUDICIAL DECISIONS HAVE HELD THAT IT C ANNOT BE INTERPRETED SO. THE INSERTION IS PROSPECTIVE W.E.F 01.04.2015. THE LD C OUNSEL SUBMITTED THE FOLLOWING CASE LAWS:INDRAPRASTHA CANCER SOCIETY (ITA NO. 240 OF 2014) DATED 18.11.2014 DELHI HIGH COURT; DIT (EXEMPTION) VS. AL-AMEEN CHAR ITABLE FUND TRUST (2016) 67 TAXMANN.COM 160 (KARNATAKA HIGH COURT), AND CIT( EXEMPTION), BANGALORE VS. THE KARNATAKA LAW SOCIETY (2017),WHEREIN,IN SUM AND SUBSTANCE, IT WAS HELD AS FOLLOWS: 24. THE CONSTITUTION BENCH OF THE APEX COURT IN VATIKA TOWNSHIP (P.) LTD.'S CASE (SUPRA), HAD LAID DOWN GENERAL PRINCIPLES CONCERNIN G RETROSPECTIVITY IN PARAGRAPHS 33 AND 34, AND THE SAME IS EXTRACTED HEREUNDER: '33. WE WOULD ALSO LIKE TO POINT OUT, FOR THE SAKE OF COMPLETENESS, THAT WHERE A BENEFIT IS CONFERRED BY A LEGISLATION, THE RULE AGA INST A RETROSPECTIVE CONSTRUCTION IS DIFFERENT. IF A LEGISLATION CONFERS A BENEFIT ON SOME PERSONS BUT WITHOUT INFLICTING A CORRESPONDING DETRIMENT ON SOME OTHER PERSON OR ON THE PUBLIC GENERALLY, AND WHERE TO CONFER SUCH BENEFIT APPEARS TO HAVE BEEN THE LEGISLATORS OBJECT, THEN THE PRESUMPTION WOULD BE THAT SUCH A L EGISLATION, GIVING IT A PURPOSIVE CONSTRUCTION, WOULD WARRANT IT TO BE GIVE N A RETROSPECTIVE EFFECT. THIS EXACTLY IS THE JUSTIFICATION TO TREAT PROCEDURAL PR OVISIONS AS RETROSPECTIVE. IN GOVERNMENT OF INDIA V. INDIAN TOBACCO ASSOCIATIO N, THE DOCTRINE OF FAIRNESS PANCHAJANYA TRUST ITA NOS.1841 & 1994/KOL/2017 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2014-15 PAGE | 9 WAS HELD TO BE RELEVANT FACTOR TO CONSTRUE A STATUT E CONFERRING A BENEFIT, IN THE CONTEXT OF IT TO BE GIVEN A RETROSPECTIVE OPERATION . THE SAME DOCTRINE OF FAIRNESS, TO HOLD THAT A STATUTE WAS RETROSPECTIVE IN NATURE, WAS APPLIED IN THE CASE OF VIJAY V. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA. IT WAS HELD THAT WHERE A LAW IS ENACTED FOR THE BENEFIT OF COMMUNITY AS A WHOLE, EVEN IN THE ABSENC E OF A PROVISION THE STATUTE MAY BE HELD TO BE RETROSPECTIVE IN NATURE. HOWEVER, WE ARE CONFRONTED WITH ANY SUCH SITUATION HERE. 34. IN SUCH CASES, RETROSPECTIVELY IS ATTACHED TO B ENEFIT THE PERSONS IN CONTRADISTINCTION TO THE PROVISION IMPOSING SOME BU RDEN OR LIABILITY WHERE THE PRESUMPTION ATTACHES TOWARDS PROSPECTIVITY. IN THE INSTANT CASE, THE PROVISO ADDED TO SECTION 11 OF THE ACT IS NOT BENEFICIAL TO THE ASSE SSEE. ON THE CONTRARY, IT IS A PROVISION WHICH IS ONEROUS TO THE ASSESSEE. THEREFO RE, IN A CASE LIKE THIS, WE HAVE TO PROCEED WITH THE NORMAL RULE OF PRESUMPTION AGAINST RETROSPECTIVE OPERATION. THUS, THE RULE AGAINST RETROSPECTIVE OPERATION IS A FUNDA MENTAL RULE OF LAW THAT NO STATUTE SHALL BE CONSTRUED TO HAVE A RETROSPECTIVE OPERATIO N UNLESS SUCH A CONSTRUCTION APPEARS VERY CLEARLY IN THE TERMS OF THE ACT, OR AR ISES BY NECESSARY AND DISTINCT IMPLICATION. DOGMATICALLY FRAMED, THE RULE IS NO MO RE THAN A PRESUMPTION, AND THUS COULD BE DISPLACED BY OUT WEIGHING FACTORS'. TAKING INTO ACCOUNT, THE FACTUAL POSITION NARRATED ABOVE, WE UPHOLD THE ORDER OF LD CIT(A) AND DISMISS THE GROUND NO.1 AND 2 RAISED BY THE REVENUE. 15. GROUND NOS. 3 AND 4 RAISED BY THE REVENUE RELAT E TO DISALLOWANCE OF ADMINISTRATIVE AND ESTABLISHMENT EXPENSES AMOUNTING TO RS. 28,22,647/-. 16. BRIEF FACTS QUA THE ISSUE ARE THAT DURING THE A SSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS VIDE QUESTION NO. 14 OF THE NOTICE U/S 142(1) DATED 18/0 4/2016, THE ASSESSEE WAS ASKED TO SUBMIT BREAKUP OF ADMINISTRATIVE AND ESTABLISHME NT EXPENSES WITH A SUM UP IN SUMMERY SHEET AND THE OTHER EXPENSES. THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED HIS REPLY TO NOTICE U/S 142(1) ON 27/06/2016. HOWEVER, ASSESSING OFFICE R DID NOT MAKE ANY DISCUSSION IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AND MADE ADDITION OF RS. 28 ,22,647/-. 17. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER , THE ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MATTER IN APPEAL BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) WHO HAS DELE TED THE ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF THE LD . CIT(A), THE REVENUE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 18. THE LD. DR HAS PRIMARILY REITERATED THE STAND T AKEN BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER WHICH WE HAVE ALREADY NOTED IN OUR EARLIER PARA AND THE SAME IS NOT BEING REPEATED PANCHAJANYA TRUST ITA NOS.1841 & 1994/KOL/2017 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2014-15 PAGE | 10 FOR THE SAKE OF BREVITY AND ON THE OTHER HAND THE L D. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS DEFENDED THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A). 19. WE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND CAREFULLY GONE TH ROUGH THE SUBMISSION PUT FORTH ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE ALONG WITH THE DOCUMENTS FURNISHED AND THE CASE LAWS RELIED UPON, AND PERUSED THE FACT OF THE CASE INCLU DING THE FINDINGS OF THE LD CIT(A) AND OTHER MATERIALS AVAILABLE ON RECORD. WE NOTE THAT ADMINISTRATIVE AND ESTABLISHMENT EXPENSES AT RS. 28,22,647/- IS AN ALL OWABLE EXPENDITURE. THE DETAILS OF THE SAME IS AS FOLLOWS: THESE EXPENSES ARE INCURRED BY THE ASSESSEE TO RUN THE TRUST ACTIVITIES, THEREFORE, IT IS CLEARLY AN APPLICATION OF THE INCOME. FOR THAT W E RELY ON THE DECISION OF THE JURISDICTIONAL HON`BLE CALCUTTA HIGH COURT IN THE C ASE OF CIT VS. BIRLA JANAHIT TRUST ( 1994) 208 ITR 372 (CAL)-, WHEREIN IT WAS HE LD AS FOLLOWS: 2. LET US NOW TURN TO QUESTION NO. 2 WHICH IS AS FOLL OWS: 'WHETHER, ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE TRIBUNAL WAS JUSTIFIED IN HOLDING THAT THE NET DIVIDEND SHOULD B E CONSIDERED FOR THE PURPOSE OF SECTION 11 OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT AND THAT THE ADJUS TMENT OF ESTABLISHMENT EXPENSES SHOULD NOT BE DONE TO ARRIVE AT THE FIGURE OF 75 PER CENT OF THE INCOME TO BE APPLIED FOR CHARITABLE PURPOSE?' THE SECOND QUESTION RELATES TO THE ADMINISTRATIVE E XPENSES TO THE TUNE OF RS. 13,459 DEDUCTED BY THE ITO FROM THE GROSS INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. THE ITO TOOK THE BALANCE AS THE INCOME OF THE TRUST AND APPLIED THE RATE OF 75 PER CENT TO THIS BALANCE IN ORDER TO DETERMINE THE AMOU NT THAT SHOULD BE SPENT TO ENABLE THE ASSESSEE TO CLAIM EXEMPTION UNDER SECTIO N 11 OF THE ACT. THE ASSESSEE FILED AN APPEAL TO THE AAC CONTENDING THAT THE ADMI NISTRATIVE EXPENSES SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DEDUCTED FROM THE GROSS INCOME. THE A AC ACCEPTED THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE AND DIRECTED THE ITO TO CONSIDER THE A DMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES AS AN AMOUNT SPENT FOR CHARITABLE PURPOSES. PANCHAJANYA TRUST ITA NOS.1841 & 1994/KOL/2017 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2014-15 PAGE | 11 3. BEING AGGRIEVED, THE REVENUE FILED AN APPEAL TO TH E TRIBUNAL. THE TRIBUNAL HAS OBSERVED THAT THERE IS NOTHING IN SECTION 11 WHICH SAYS THAT THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE-TRUST SHOULD BE TAKEN AT A FIGURE AFTER DE DUCTING ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES FROM THE GROSS INCOME. THE TRIBUNAL UPHELD THE DECI SION OF THE AAC AND DISMISSED THE APPEAL OF THE DEPARTMENT. 4. BEFORE US THE CONTENTIONS URGED BEFORE THE TRIBUNA L HAVE BEEN REITERATED. 5. IT APPEARS FROM THE ORDER OF THE AAC THAT THE ASSE SSEE HAS INCURRED THE EXPENDITURE ON SALARIES AND MISCELLANEOUS EXPENSES FOR THE PURPOSE OF CARRYING OUT THE OBJECTS AND PURPOSES OF THE TRUST AND NOT O NLY TO EARN THE INCOME FROM DIVIDEND. IT IS NOW WELL-SETTLED THAT IN DETERMININ G THE PORTION OF INCOME APPLIED OR ACCUMULATED FOR CHARITABLE OR RELIGIOUS PURPOSE, REGARD SHOULD BE HAD TO THE TRUST INCOME IN COMMERCIAL SENSE OR ACCORDING TO TH E ACCOUNTS OF THE TRUST AND NOT THE TOTAL INCOME AS COMPUTED UNDER THE PROVISIO NS OF THE ACT. OUR ATTENTION HAS BEEN DRAWN TO SEVERAL DECISIONS IN THIS CONNECT ION. IN DEO RADHA MADHAVA LALJI GENDA TRUST V. PROPERTY TAX OFFICER [1980] 12 5 ITR 531 (MP), IT HAS BEEN OBSERVED THAT TAX LIABILITY AND OTHER OUTGOINGS IN RESPECT OF THE TRUST PROPERTY ARE ALL INCIDENTAL EXPENSES RELATING TO AND CONNECTED W ITH THE MAIN OBJECTS OF THE TRUST, WHICH ARE EXCLUSIVELY RELIGIOUS AND CHARITAB LE. IF THE TRUST PROPERTY IS NOT PROPERLY MAINTAINED AND PROPER ACCOUNTS ARE NOT KEP T, THE VERY EXISTENCE OF THE TRUST WOULD BE IN JEOPARDY AND ITS OBJECT AND PURPO SE WOULD BE LOST. IN THIS VIEW OF THE MATTER, SIMPLY BECAUSE A PART OF THE RENTAL INCOME IS SPENT IN THE MAINTENANCE, REPAIRS, PAYMENT OF SALARIES TO EMPLOY EES, TAXES AND LEGAL EXPENSES, ETC., IT COULD NOT BE SAID THAT THE INCOM E DERIVED FROM THE TRUST PROPERTY WAS NOT APPLIED EXCLUSIVELY TO RELIGIOUS AND CHARIT ABLE PURPOSES. 6. IN CIT V. TRUSTEE OF H.EH. THE NIZAM'S SUPPLEMENTA L RELIGIOUS ENDOWMENT TRUST [1981] 127 ITR 378 (AP), IT HAS BEEN HELD THAT WITH REGARD TO THE INC OME OF THE TRUST AS SUCH, IT IS THE ACCOUNTS OF THE TRUST ALONE THAT HAD TO BE TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION. IT WAS HELD THAT EXPENSES INCURRED A ND BY WAY OF PAYMENTS OF INCOME-TAX AND WEALTH-TAX DURING THE RELEVANT YEAR WERE INCIDENTAL TO THE CARRYING OUT OF THE CHARITABLE PURPOSES OF THE TRUS T. SUCH PAYMENTS WERE OUTGOINGS IN THAT PARTICULAR YEAR AND WERE INCIDENT AL TO THE CARRYING OUT OF THE OBJECTS OF THE TRUST. 7. IN CIT V. ESTATE OF V.L. ETHIRAJ [1982] 136 ITR 12 (MAD.), IT WAS HELD THAT INCOME FROM PROPERTIES WOULD HAVE TO BE ARRIVED AT IN THE NORMAL COMMERCIAL MANNER WITHOUT REFERENCE TO THE PROVISIONS WHICH WE RE ATTRACTED BY SECTION 14 OF THE ACT. 8. IN CIT V. JANAKI AMMALAYYA NADAR TRUST [1985] 153 ITR 159 (MAD.), IT WAS HELD THAT PAYMENT OF TAX IS NECESSARY TO PRESERVE T HE PROPERTY OF THE TRUST WHEN A DEMAND IS LAWFULLY MADE. THEREFORE, THE EXPENDITURE INCURRED BY WAY OF PAYMENT OF TAX OUT OF THE CURRENT YEAR'S INCOME HAS TO BE C ONSIDERED AS APPLICATION FOR CHARITABLE PURPOSES. 9. IN CIT V. JAYASHREE CHARITY TRUST [1986] 159 ITR 280 , THIS COURT HELD THAT THE INCOME TO BE CONSIDERED WILL BE THAT WHICH IS A RRIVED AT IN THE CONTEXT OF WHAT IS AVAILABLE IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE SUBJECT T O AN ADJUSTMENT OF ANY EXPENSES EXTRANEOUS TO THE TRUST. 10. IN OUR VIEW, INCOME APPLIED TO MEET EXPENSES, SUCH AS NORMAL EXPENSES OF MANAGEMENT WHICH MAY NOT, STRICTLY SPEAKING, BE CHA RITABLE BUT THEY ARE TERMED AS INCIDENTAL TO THE CARRYING OUT OF CHARITABLE PUR POSES. SUCH EXPENSES SHOULD NOT BE EXCLUDED FROM EXEMPTION. IN JAYASHREE CHARIT Y TRUST'S CASE (SUPRA), THE BOARD'S CIRCULAR NO. 5-P(LXX-6) DATED 19-5-1968 REL IED UPON. IT WAS, INTER ALIA, LAID DOWN IN THE SAID CIRCULAR AS FOLLOWS: 'WHERE THE TRUST DERIVES INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY , INTEREST ON SECURITIES, CAPITAL GAINS, OR OTHER SOURCES, THE WORD 'INCOME' SHOULD BE UNDERSTOOD IN ITS COMMERCIAL SENSE, I.E., BOOK INCOME, AFTER ADDING B ACK ANY APPROPRIATIONS OR APPLICATIONS THEREOF TOWARDS THE PURPOSES OF THE TR UST OR OTHERWISE, AND ALSO AFTER PANCHAJANYA TRUST ITA NOS.1841 & 1994/KOL/2017 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2014-15 PAGE | 12 ADDING BACK ANY DEBITS MADE FOR CAPITAL EXPENDITURE INCURRED FOR THE PURPOSES OF THE TRUST OR OTHERWISE. IT SHOULD BE NOTED, IN THIS CONNECTION, THAT THE AMOUNTS SO ADDED BACK WILL BECOME CHARGEABLE TO TAX UNDER SECT ION 11(3) TO THE EXTENT THAT THEY REPRESENT OUTGOINGS FOR PURPOSES OTHER THAN TH OSE OF THE TRUST. THE AMOUNTS SPENT OR APPLIED FOR THE PURPOSES OF THE TRUST FROM OUT OF THE INCOME COMPUTED IN THE AFORESAID MANNER, SHOULD BE NOT LESS THAN 75 PE R CENT OF THE LATTER, IF THE TRUST IS TO GET THE FULL BENEFIT OF THE EXEMPTION UNDER S ECTION 11(1).' (P. 285) AFTER QUOTING THAT CIRCULAR, THIS COURT OBSERVED AS FOLLOWS: 'THIS CIRCULAR MAKES IT CLEAR THAT THE WORD 'INCOME ' IN SECTION 11(1)( A) MUST BE UNDERSTOOD IN A COMMERCIAL SENSE. THE ENTIRE INCOME OF THE TRUST, IN THE COMMERCIAL SENSE, HAS BEEN SPENT FOR THE PURPOSE OF CHARITY. THERE IS NO REASON TO DENY THE BENEFIT OF EXEMPTION GRANTED BY SECTION 11 TO THAT PORTION OF THE INCOME WHICH HAS BEEN TAKEN AWAY BY DEDUCTION AT SO URCE ON THE GROUND THAT THE AMOUNT HAS NOT BEEN SPENT OR ACCUMULATED FOR THE PU RPOSE OF CHARITY.' (P. 286) 11. IN OUR VIEW, THEREFORE, THE EXPENDITURE ON SALARIE S AND MISCELLANEOUS EXPENSES FOR THE PURPOSE OF CARRYING OUT THE OBJECT S AND PURPOSES OF THE TRUST MUST BE CONSIDERED AS APPLICATION FOR CHARITABLE PU RPOSES. HOWEVER, IN THIS CASE THE QUANTUM OF THE EXPENDITURE FOR CARRYING OUT THE OBJECTS AND PURPOSES OF THE TRUST AND THE EXPENDITURE MADE TO EARN THE INCOME H AD NOT BEEN SEPARATELY ALLOCATED OR DETERMINED. WE, THEREFORE, ANSWER THE SECOND QUESTION BY SAYING THAT THE TRIBUNAL WAS RIGHT IN HOLDING THAT THE ASS ESSEE WILL BE ENTITLED TO THE BENEFIT OF THE EXPENDITURE MADE ON SALARIES AND MIS CELLANEOUS EXPENSES FOR THE PURPOSE OF CARRYING OUT OBJECTS AND PURPOSE OF THE TRUST ONLY; BUT ANY EXPENDITURE INCURRED FOR EARNING THE INCOME FROM DI VIDEND WILL NOT QUALIFY AS AMOUNTS SPENT FOR CARRYING OUT THE OBJECT AND PURPO SE OF THE TRUST. 20. WE NOTE THAT ADMINISTRATIVE AND ESTABLISHMENT E XPENSES AT RS. 28,22,647/- IS AN ALLOWABLE EXPENDITURE, AS HAS BEEN HELD BY THE J URISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA IN THE CASE OF BIRLA JANAHIT TRUST (SUPRA) . THAT BEING SO WE DECLINE TO INTERFERE IN THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LD CIT(A), HIS ORDER ON THIS ISSUE IS HEREBY UPHELD AND GROUNDS OF APPEAL RAISED BY THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED. 21. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS AL LOWED AND THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE COURT ON 01.10.2019 SD/- ( S.S.GODARA ) SD/- (A.L.SAINI) / JUDICIAL MEMBER / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER / DATE: 01/10/2019 ( SB, SR.PS ) PANCHAJANYA TRUST ITA NOS.1841 & 1994/KOL/2017 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2014-15 PAGE | 13 COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. PANCHAJANYA TRUST 2. ITO(EXEMPTION), WARD-1(4), KOLKATA. 3. C.I.T(A)- 4. C.I.T.- KOLKATA. 5. CIT(DR), KOLKATA BENCHES, KOLKATA. 6. GUARD FILE. TRUE COPY BY ORDER ASSIST ANT REGISTRAR ITAT, KOLKA TA BENCHES