SHRI RAM NAGAR TRUST NO.1, MUMBAI V. DDIT(E)I(1), MUMBAI

ITA 2150/MUM/2015

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 132 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 3556 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 1 month(s) 17 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 31-05-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: Not Allotted
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 13-04-2015
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: S K MUTSADDI; ARVIND V SONDE
• Keywords: Capital asset; Charitable institution; Capital receipt
• Section: 143(3); 12A; 12; 11; 139

Judgement Text

E IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL E BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI RAMIT KOCHAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ./ I.T.A. NO. 2150 /MUM/2015 ( / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2010-11) SHRI RAM NAGAR TRUST NO. 1, 315-G, NEW CHARNI ROAD, MUMBAI 400 004. / V. DDIT (EXEMP) I (1), PIRAMAL CHAMBERS, LALBAUG, PAREL, MUMBAI 400 012. ./ PAN : AAATR0427J ( / APPELLANT ) .. ( / RESPONDENT ) ASSESSEE BY SHRI ARVIND V. SONDE & SHRI S.K. MUTSADDI REVENUE BY : SHRI RITESH MISRA (D.R.) / DATE OF HEARING : 03-03-2016 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 31-05-2016 / O R D E R PER RAMIT KOCHAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER THIS APPEAL, FILED BY THE ASSESSEE-TRUST, BEING IT A NO. 2150/MUM/2015, IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 07-01-2015 PASSED BY LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)- 1, MU MBAI (HEREINAFTER CALLED THE CIT(A) ), FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010-11, TH E APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE LEARNED CIT(A) ARISING FROM THE ASSESSME NT ORDER DATED 25-03-2013 PASSED BY THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER (HEREINAFTE R CALLED THE AO) U/S 143(3) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT,1961(HEREINAFTER CALLE D THE ACT). ITA 2150/MUM/2015 2 2. THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE-TRU ST IN THE MEMO OF APPEAL FILED WITH THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL , MUMBAI (HEREINAFTER CALLED THE TRIBUNAL) READ AS UNDER:- 1. ON FACTS AND IN CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) {CIT (A} AND A SSESSING OFFICER (AO) HAS ERRED IN HOLDING THAT FORM NO.10 FILED IN RE SPECT OF ACCUMULATION OF INCOME ALONG WITH RESOLUTION WAS NOT IN TIME AS SPECIFIED U/S.139(1) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT. IN DOING SO, BOTH THE CIT(A) AS WELL AS THE AO HAVE ERRED IN NOT GRANTING THE APPELL ANT BENEFIT OF ACCUMULATION OF INCOME AS CONTAINED IN SECTION 11 (2) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT. 2. ON FACTS AND IN CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) {CIT (A) AND A SSESSING OFFICER (AO) HAS ERRED IN HOLDING THAT THE RESOLUTION PASSED FO R ACCUMULATION OF INCOME PERMISSIBLE U/S 11(2) OF THE INCOME TAX A CT SUFFERED FROM ABSOLUTE GENERALITY AND COMPLETE LACK OF SPECIFIC P URPOSE. IN DOING SO, BOTH THE CIT(A) AS WELL AS THE AO HAVE ERRED IN NOT G RANTING THE APPELLANT BENEFIT OF ACCUMULATION OF INCOME AS CONTAINE D IN SECTION 11 (2) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT. 3. ON FACTS AND IN CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) {CIT(A)} AND A SSESSING OFFICER (AO) HAS ERRED IN REJECTING THE APPELLANT'S PLEA FOR GRANTING DEDUCTION OF 15% OF THE GROSS TOTAL INCOME U/S 11(1)(A)OF THE INCOM E TAX ACT. 4. ON FACTS AND IN CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) {CIT(A)} ERRE D IN HOLDING THAT THE AMOUNT OF RS.2 CRORES RECEIVED BY THE APPELLANT FRO M OM VISHAL NAGAR CO-OP. HOUSING SOCIETY LTD. IS NOT A CAPITAL RE CEIPT, AND THEREFORE, IS A PART OF INCOME OF THE APPELLANT TRUST. IN DOING SO, THE CIT(A) HAS GROSSLY ERRED IN HOLDING THAT THE SAID AM OUNT OF RS.2 CRORES IS LIABLE TO BE TAXABLE AS INCOME OF THE APPELLANT TR UST ON THE GROUNDS OF COMMERCIAL PRINCIPLES AND NOT EXEMPT FROM THE CHARG E OF INCOME TAX AS CLAIMED BY THE APPELLANT, SINCE IT BEING IN THE NATU RE OF A CAPITAL RECEIPT. 3. THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSE E-TRUST IS REGISTERED AS A CHARITABLE ORGANIZATION WITH DIT (E), MUMBAI U/S 12 A OF THE ACT VIDE REGISTRATION NO. TR/327 AND WITH THE CHARITY COMMIS SIONER, MUMBAI VIDE REGISTRATION NO. E-3142(BOM). THE ASSESSEE-TRUST C LAIMS TO BE ENGAGED IN ITA 2150/MUM/2015 3 CHARITABLE ACTIVITIES IN THE FIELD OF EDUCATION AND MEDICAL RELIEF. THE ASSESSEE- TRUST CLAIMED EXEMPTION U/S 11 OF THE ACT. 4. DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS U/S 143(3) READ WITH SECTION 143(2) OF THE ACT, IT WAS OBSERVED BY THE A.O. THAT THE ASSESSEE-TRUST HAS CLAIMED ACCUMULATION U/S 11(2) OF THE ACT FOR RS.1, 89,10,525/- DURING THE PREVIOUS YEAR RELEVANT TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR. IT WAS FURTHER SEEN BY THE AO THAT RESOLUTION PASSED BY THE ASSESSEE-TRUST DATED 24 TH SEPTEMBER, 2010 ENCLOSED WITH THE FORM NO. 10 READS AS UNDER:- IT IS RESOLVED THAT AMOUNT OF RS. 1,89,10,525/ THE EXCES S OF INCOME OVER THE EXPENDITURE FOR THE YEAR ENDING 31.03.2010 B E CARRIED FORWARD FOR FUTURE PROJECT. IT WAS OBSERVED BY THE A.O. THAT THE ACCUMULATION U /S 11(2) OF THE ACT IS SOUGHT TO BE MADE FOR VARIOUS GENERAL PURPOSES AND NO SPECIFIC AND CONCRETE PROJECTS ARE CONTEMPLATED FOR UTILIZATION OF THESE ACCUMULATED FUNDS BUT THE PURPOSE OF ACCUMULATION IS VAGUE. MOREOVER, NO SPE CIFIC FUND IS CREATED IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT SETTING ASIDE THESE FUNDS FOR A SPECIFIC PROJECT. THE A.O. RELIED ON THE RATIO OF DECISION IN THE CASE OF DIT (E) V. TRUSTEES OF SINGHANIA CHARITABLE TRUST, (1993)199 ITR 819(CALCUTTA HC) WH EREIN THE HONBLE CALCUTTA HIGH COURT HELD THAT THE ACCUMULATION IS P ERMISSIBLE ONLY IF DETAILED SPECIFIC PURPOSE FOR ACCUMULATION IS SPECIFIED BY T HE TAXPAYER-TRUST. IT WAS FURTHER OBSERVED BY THE AO THAT THE FORM NO. 10 AS REQUIRED UNDER RULE 17 OF INCOME TAX RULES, 1962 HAS NOT BEEN FURNISHED BEFOR E THE A.O. WITHIN THE STIPULATED TIME I.E. BEFORE THE EXPIRY OF THE TIME LIMIT PRESCRIBED U/S 139(1) OF THE ACT, AND THE RESOLUTION WAS PASSED ON 24 TH SEPTEMBER, 2010 THAT IS AFTER THE END OF THE FINANCIAL YEAR AND HENCE, THEREFORE THE AO OBSERVED THAT IT IS NOT A VALID RESOLUTION. THE ASSESSEE-TRUST WAS SHO W CAUSED BY THE AO AS TO WHY THIS INCOME OF RS. 1,89,10,525/- NOT BE TAXED AS INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE- TRUST FOR THE YEAR UNDER ASSESSMENT DENYING THE BEN EFIT OF ACCUMULATION U/S ITA 2150/MUM/2015 4 11(2) OF THE ACT. FURTHER, THE ASSESSEE-TRUST WAS ASKED TO PRODUCE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT INCLUDING THE LEDGER, CASH BOOK/BANK BOOK & TRIAL BALANCE ETC. FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010-11 FOR VERIFICATION. THE ASSESSEE-TRUST WAS ALSO ASKED TO FURNISH THE COPIES OF ALL RETURNS OF INCOM E FILED FROM THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07 ONWARDS ALONG WITH ALL ENCLOSURES. TH E ASSESSEE-TRUST IN REPLY SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE-TRUST IS IN THE PROCESS OF BUILDING OF HOSPITAL WHICH IS THE MAJOR PROJECT TAKEN UP BY THE ASSESSEE -TRUST FOR WHICH THE MONEY IS BEING ACCUMULATED U/S 11(2) OF THE ACT AND IN SUPPORT THE ASSESSEE- TRUST ALSO ENCLOSED THE RELEVANT DOCUMENTS TO SHOW THE ASSESSEE-TRUST HAS STARTED THE BASIC ACTIVITY FOR ITS PROJECT TO SET U P THE HOSPITAL AT JOGESHWARI. THE A.O. CONSIDERED THE REPLIES OF THE ASSESSEE-TRU ST INCLUDING THE RESOLUTION PASSED WHICH READ AS : IT IS RESOLVED THAT AMOUNT OF RS. 1,89,10,525/ THE EXCES S OF INCOME OVER THE EXPENDITURE FOR THE YEAR ENDING 31.03.2010 B E CARRIED FORWARD FOR FUTURE PROJECT. THE AO HELD THAT THE PURPOSE OF THE ASSESSEE-TRUST IS GENERAL IN NATURE AND CANNOT BE CONSTRUED BY ANY STRETCH OF IMAGINATION T O BE DEFINITE AND CONCRETE PURPOSE OR PURPOSES. THE A.O. HELD THAT THAT THE AS SESSEE-TRUST IS NOT ABLE TO SUBSTANTIATE ITS ABOVE PURPOSES OF ACCUMULATION WIT H ANY CONCRETE PLAN OF ACTION SUPPORTED WITH DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCES AND THE PURPOSES THUS REMAINED NON-CONCRETE AND COULD NOT BE CONSIDERED D EFINITE , RELYING ON THE JUDGMENT OF HONBLE CALCUTTA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF DIT (E) V. TRUSTEES OF SINGHANIA CHARITABLE TRUST, (1993)199 ITR 819(CALCU TTA HC). THE ASSESSEE- TRUST HAS NOT REPLIED ABOUT THE SUBMISSION OF FORM NO. 10 AS REQUIRED UNDER RULE 17 OF INCOME TAX RULES, 1962 WITHIN THE STIPUL ATED TIME AND THE RESOLUTION FOR THE PURPOSES HAS BEEN PASSED ON 24 TH SEPTEMBER, 2010 THAT IS AFTER THE END OF THE FINANCIAL YEAR. HENCE, THE A. O. DENIED THE BENEFIT OF ACCUMULATION U/S 11(2) OF THE ACT TO THE ASSESSEE-T RUST FOR NOT BEING FOR DEFINITE AND CONCRETE PURPOSES AND TAXED THE AMOUN T OF RS. 1,89,10,525/- AS ITA 2150/MUM/2015 5 INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE-TRUST VIDE ASSESSMENT ORDERS DATED 25/03/2013 PASSED U/S 143(3) OF THE ACT. 5.AGGRIEVED BY THE ASSESSMENT ORDERS DATED 25/03/20 13 OF THE A.O. PASSED U/S 143(3) OF THE ACT , THE ASSESSEE-TRUST FILED I TS FIRST APPEAL BEFORE THE LEARNED CIT(A). 6. BEFORE THE LEARNED CIT(A) THE ASSESSEE-TRUST SUB MITTED THAT FORM NO. 10 WAS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE-TRUST BELATEDLY BEFORE THE A.O DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS U/S 143(3) READ WITH SECT ION 143(2) OF THE ACT. A COPY OF THE RESOLUTION ALONG WITH THE FORM NO. 10 S EEKING ACCUMULATION OF RS.1,89,10,525/- WAS ALSO FILED BEFORE THE LEARNED CIT(A). THE ASSESSEE-TRUST SUBMITTED THAT IT WAS IN THE PROCESS OF BUILDING A MULTI-SPECIALTY HOSPITAL AND EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTION IN THE FIELD OF MEDICINE IN THE PLOT OF LAND OWNED AT JOGESHWARI AND THE MONIES IN QUESTION WERE ACCUMULA TED IN RESPECT OF THIS PROJECT WHICH WOULD TAKE SUBSTANTIAL LONG TIME PEND ING THE DECISION OF THE COURT CASES. THE ASSESSEE-TRUST ALSO FURNISHED THE PLANS AND PROJECT REPORT WITH RESPECT TO THE PROJECT BEFORE THE AO AND ALSO BEFORE THE LEARNED CIT(A). THE ASSESSEE-TRUST SUBMITTED THAT THE OBJECT CLAUSE OF THE ASSESSEE-TRUST WAS TO CONDUCT HOSPITALS AND EXTEND MEDICAL FACILITY TO THE NEEDY AND POOR SECTIONS OF THE PEOPLE AND RUN EDUCATIONAL INSTITUT ION FOR STUDENTS BY GIVING ASSISTANCE TO THEM. THE COPY OF OBJECT CLAUSE OF TH E TRUST DEED WAS SUBMITTED BEFORE THE LEARNED CIT(A). IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT TH E ASSESSEE-TRUST HAD DEMONSTRATED THE PURPOSE OF RUNNING OF A HOSPITAL A ND MEDICAL EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTION AT JOGESHWARI. THE ASSESSEE-TRUST SUBM ITTED THAT THE WORD FUTURE PROJECT IN THE RESOLUTION IS NECESSARILY A ND MANDATORILY TO BE LINKED WITH THE FUTURE PROJECT OF THE ASSESSEE-TRUST , AS ALSO TO THE MAIN OBJECTS OF THE ASSESSEE-TRUST. THE ASSESSEE-TRUST HAS RELIED O N THE DECISION OF MITSUI & COMPANY ENVIRONMENT TRUST, (2008)303 ITR 111 (DELHI HC) , BHARTIYA KALYAN ITA 2150/MUM/2015 6 PRATISHTHAN, (2007) 299 ITR 406 (DELHI) AND M.P. GA NDHI TRUST,(2006) 8 SOT 808 (MUMBAI) . THE LEARNED CIT(A) HELD THAT ACCUMULATION U/S 11(2) OF THE ACT IS SUBJECT TO FULFILLMENT OF CONDITIONS SPECIFIED U/S 11(2)(A) AN D 11(2)(B) OF THE ACT. THE CONDITION U/S 11(2)(A) REQUIRES A NOTICE IN WRITIN G TO THE A.O. IN PRESCRIBED MANNER AS SPECIFIED IN RULE 17 OF INCOME TAX RULES, 1962 IN FORM NO 10. THE LEARNED CIT(A) OBSERVED THAT THE RESOLUTION OF THE TRUST ON THIS ISSUE IS ALSO VAGUE AND GENERAL IN NATURE. THE PRESCRIBED FORM N O. 10 WAS NOT FILED WITH THE RETURN OF INCOME AND WAS FILED BELATEDLY DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS U/S 143(3) OF THE ACT READ WITH SECTION 143(2) OF THE ACT . THE RESOLUTION FOR FURTHER ACCUMULATION OF FUNDS U/S 11 OF THE ACT FOR THIS PURPOSE IS PASSED ON 24 TH SEPTEMBER, 2010 I.E. THE AFTER THE END OF THE FINANCIAL YEAR AND IS GENERAL AND VAGUE WHICH DOES NOT SPECIFY THE SPECIFIC PURPOSES FOR WHICH ACCUMULATION OF FUNDS U/S 11 OF THE ACT WAS MADE BUT STATES THE SAME FOR FUTURE PROJECT . THE LEARNED CIT(A) REFERRED TO THE DECISION OF HONBLE CALCUTTA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF DIT (E) V. TRUSTEES OF SINGHANIA CHARITABLE TRUST(SUPRA) WHEREBY IT WAS HE LD THAT LONG TERM ACCUMULATION SHOULD BE FOR DEFINITE AND CONCRETE PU RPOSE AND MERE REPRODUCTION OF MAIN OBJECT IS NOT VALID. THE ASSE SSEE-TRUST ALTERNATIVELY CONTENDED THAT RS. 2 CRORES RECEIVED ON ACCOUNT OF SETTLEMENT OF DISPUTE IS A CAPITAL RECEIPT AND IS NOT LIABLE FOR TAXATION. TH E ASSESSEE-TRUST SUBMITTED ON THIS ISSUE AS UNDER:- THE ASSESSEE TRUST WHILE WITHDRAWING THE APPEAL HA S ALSO FILED AN AFFIDAVIT DATED 12.01.2010 TO THAT EFFECT WITH T HE ADDL. COMMISSIONER, KONKAN DIVISION. THE COPY OF THE SAID AFFIDAVIT FILED BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE ADDL. CIT OF KONKAN DIVI SION, WITHDRAWING THE CASE IS PLACED AT PAGES 63 TO 70 OF THE COMPILATION AND IT IS PERTINENT TO NOTE THAT SUCH T YPE OF RECEIPT, AB- INITIO, IS A NON TAXABLE CAPITAL RECEIPT UNDER INCO ME-TAX ACT, 1961. AS SUCH, IT SHOULD HAVE BEEN TRANSFERRED TO CORPUS ACCOUNT. ITA 2150/MUM/2015 7 HOWEVER, THE ACCOUNTING TREATMENT SHOULD NOT BE A D ECISIVE FACTOR IN DETERMINING THE TAXABILITY OF SUCH RECEIPT IN TH E HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE. THE LEARNED CIT(A) CONSIDERED THE REPLIES OF THE AS SESSEE-TRUST AND HELD THAT THE ASSESSEE-TRUST HAS ADMITTEDLY TREATED THE AMOUN T OF RS. 2 CRORES AS ITS INCOME DURING THE YEAR AND THAT IS HOW IT HAS CLAIM ED FOR ITS FURTHER ACCUMULATION OF THE AMOUNT U/S 11(2) OF THE ACT . T HE AMOUNT WAS RECEIVED ON ACCOUNT OF SALE/SURRENDER OF ENTITLEMENTS/RIGHTS OF THE ASSESSEE-TRUST. THE LEARNED CIT(A) HELD THAT SUCH RECEIPTS RELATES TO A CAPITAL ASSET BECAUSE U/S 11,12 & 13 OF THE ACT, THERE IS NO SUCH DISTINC TION FOR COMPUTATION OF INCOME OF THE TRUST RATHER THE CAPITAL RECEIPT/CORP US RECEIPTS ARE SEPARATELY DEALT UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 11 & 12 OF TH E ACT ITSELF, WHICH ALSO CONFIRMS THAT THE CAPITAL RECEIPTS ARE ALSO PART OF THE INCOME OF THE TRUST IN THE SIMILAR MANNER AS ARE THE EXPENDITURE ON CAPITA L OUTLAY TREATED AS APPLICATION OF INCOME UNDER THE SAME PROVISIONS. TH E LEARNED CIT(A) HELD THAT THE ASSESSEE-TRUST HAS CORRECTLY ACCOUNTED THE RECE IPT OF RS. 2 CRORES WHICH ARE OF REVENUE NATURE AS ITS INCOME. THE INCOME F OR THE PURPOSES OF SECTION 11 OF THE ACT IS TO BE COMPUTED IN THE COMMERCIAL M ANNER WITHOUT CLASSIFICATION UNDER VARIOUS HEADS. THE LEARNED CI T(A) RELIED ON THE DECISION IN THE CASE OF CIT V. RAO BAHADUR CALAVALA CUNNAN C HETTY CHARITIES (MAD), (1982)135 ITR 485(MADRAS HC) AND IN THE CASE OF CIT V. PROGAMME FOR COMMUNITY ORGANISATION (1997) 228 ITR (KER.) AND HE LD THAT THE DEDUCTIONS UNDER OTHER MACHINERY PROVISIONS UNDER SEPARATE HEA D OF INCOME ARE NOT AVAILABLE U/S 11, 12 AND 13 OF THE ACT AND ACCORDIN GLY THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE-TRUST WAS DISMISSED BY THE LEARNED CIT(A) VIDE ORDERS DATED 07-01- 2015. 7. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDERS DATED 07-01-2015 OF THE LEARNED CIT(A) THE ASSESSEE-TRUST IS IN APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. ITA 2150/MUM/2015 8 8. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE-TRUST SUBMITTED THAT THERE WAS A DISPUTE WITH RESPECT TO THE NALA (DRAIN) PLOT OF LAND ADJOINING THE ASSESSEE- TRUST AND OM VISHAL NAGAR CO-OPERATIVE HOUSING SOCI ETY LTD. LANDS WHEREBY THE COLLECTOR MUMBAI SUBURBAN DISTRICT PASSED AN OR DER DATED 15-12-2008 WHEREBY CORRECTION OF BOUNDARY WAS ORDERED AND NAL A (DRAIN) PLOT OF LAND WAS ADDED TO THE LAND OWNED BY OM VISHAL NAGAR CO-O PERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETY LTD.. THE ASSESSEE-TRUST FILED AN APPEAL AG AINST THE COLLECTORS ORDER WITH ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER , KONKAN DIVISION AND STAY OF THE COLLECTORS ORDER WAS GRANTED. THE STAY WAS GRANTED BY THE ADDI TIONAL COMMISSIONER , KONKAN DIVISION TO THE COLLECTORS ORDER WHICH ADVER SELY AFFECTED THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE RESIDENTIAL AREA BY OM VISHAL NA GAR CO-OPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETY LTD. . THE COPY OF THE COLLECTOR ORDER AND STAY GRANTED BY ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER, KONKAN DIVISION ARE PLACED IN PAPER BOOK PAGE 50-62, ALONG WITH ENGLISH TRANSLATION WHICH IS PLACED IN THE FIL E. LATER ON THE ADVICE OF THE ADVOCATE , AND AFTER NEGOTIATIONS OF THE ASSESSEE-T RUST WITH OM VISHAL NAGAR CO-OPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETY LTD. , THE ASSESSEE-TR UST HAS WITHDRAWN THE APPEAL AND FILED AFFIDAVIT TO WITHDRAW ITS CLAIM AS WELL LITIGATION WITH RESPECT TO THE NALA PLOT OF LAND ALLOTTED BY COLLECTOR IN FAVOUR OF OM VISHAL NAGAR CO- OPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETY LIMITED, IN LIEU THERE-O F COMPENSATION OF RS. 2,00,00,000/- WAS RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE-TRUST FR OM THE SAID OM VISHAL NAGAR CO-OPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETY LTD. AND THE ASS ESSEE-TRUST DECIDED TO ACCUMULATE THE MONEY FOR FUTURE PROJECT IN COMPLIAN CE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 11(2) OF THE ACT. A RESOLUTION WAS PASSED ON 24 TH SEPTEMBER, 2010 (COPY PLACED AT PAPER BOOK PAGE NO. 72) WHEREIN IT WAS DECIDED TO ACCUMULATE MONEY FOR FUTURE PROJECTS. IT WAS THE SAY OF THE L EARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE-TRUST THAT FORM 10 WAS NOT FILED WITH THE RETURN OF INCOME FILED U/S 139(4A) OF THE ACT BEFORE THE EXPIRY OF THE TIME LI MIT PRESCRIBED U/S 139(1) OF THE ACT AS STIPULATED UNDER RULE 17 OF INCOME TAX R ULES, 1962 , WHILE THE SAID FORM NO 10 WAS DULY FILED LATER BEFORE THE A.O . BEFORE THE COMPLETION OF ITA 2150/MUM/2015 9 THE ASSESSMENT U/S 143(3) OF THE ACT . THE PROJECT REPORT OF THE HOSPITAL WAS ALSO FILED BEFORE THE AUTHORITIES BELOW AND THE SAM E IS PLACED AT PAPER BOOK , PAGE 76-102. IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT URBAN DEVELOPMEN T DEPARTMENT , MUMBAI HAS UNDER THE MAHARASHTRA REGIONAL AND TOWN PLANNING ACT,1966 HAS ACCORDED APPROVAL FOR EARMARKING THE LAND OWNED BY THE ASSESSEE-TRUST FOR HOSPITAL AND MEDICAL EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTION VIDE NOTIFICATION DATED 08- 12-2008 BY DE-RESERVING THE SAID LAND FROM NO DEVE LOPMENT ZONE. IT IS THE SAY OF THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE-TRUST T HAT THE A.O. HAS DISALLOWED ACCUMULATION OF FUND BY THE ASSESSEE-TRUST U/S 11(2 ) OF THE ACT ON THREE GROUNDS VIZ. DELAY IN FILING FORM 10, RESOLUTION WA S PASSED AFTER END OF THE ASSESSMENT YEAR AND THE RESOLUTION IS GENERAL AND V AGUE WHICH DOES NOT SPECIFY THE SPECIFIC PURPOSES FOR WHICH THE FUNDS A RE BEING ACCUMULATED. THE LEARNED CIT(A) UPHELD THE ADDITIONS TO THE INCOME O F RS.1,89,10,525/- OF THE ASSESSEE-TRUST ON ALL THE THREE GROUNDS ON WHICH TH E AO MADE THE ADDITIONS. SINCE THE APPEAL WAS WITHDRAWN WITH THE ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER, KONKAN DIVISIONS FOR WHICH PAYMENT OF RS. 2 CRORES WAS REC EIVED IN LIEU OF RIGHT TO SUE AND HENCE THE INCOME IS NOT CHARGEABLE TO TAX BECAU SE IT IS A CAPITAL RECEIPT ON ACCOUNT OF LITIGATION BEING WITHDRAWN AS THE RIG HT TO SUE IS NOT A CAPITAL ASSET AND CANNOT BE TRANSFERRED AS CONTEMPLATED UN DER TRANSFER OF PROPERTY ACT,1882. THERE WAS NO PROPERTY OR RIGHT IN THE PR OPERTY WHICH WAS TRANSFERRED BY THE ASSESSEE-TRUST AND MERELY ON WIT HDRAWAL OF APPEAL/LITIGATION , THE AMOUNT OF RS 2 CRORES WAS P AID BY OM VISHAL CO- OPERATIVE HOUSING LIMITED AS THE STAY GRANTED BY T HE ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER , KONKAN DIVISION ON THE ORDERS OF THE COLLECTOR WAS ADVERSELY AFFECTING THE RESIDENTIAL PROJECT BEING DEVELOPED B Y THE SAID SOCIETY . THE LEARNED COUNSEL RELIED ON THE DECISION OF HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT V. J. DALMIA (1984) 149 ITR 215(DEL. HC ). THE OTHER CASE LAWS RELIED UPON BY THE ASSESSEE ARE PLACED IN THE FORM OF CASE LAW PAPER BOOK. FURTHER, THE LD. COUNSEL RELIED UPON THE DECISION I N THE CASE OF DIT(E) V. JASUBHAI FOUNDATION (2015) 58 TAXMANN.COM 218(BOMBA Y) AND CONTENDED ITA 2150/MUM/2015 10 THAT THERE IS NO TRANSFER OF CAPITAL ASSET AND NO C APITAL GAINS HAVE ARISEN. IT IS ALSO SUBMITTED THAT FORM 10 WAS FILED WITH THE A .O. BEFORE COMPLETION OF THE ASSESSMENT AND HENCE IT SHOULD BE ADMITTED. TH E LD. COUNSEL FURTHER RELIED UPON THE DECISION IN THE CASE OF CIT V. HOTE L AND RESTAURANT ASSOCIATION, [2003] 261 ITR 190 (DEL) TO CONTEND TH AT THE ACCUMULATION IS FOR THE PURPOSES OF TRUST AND THERE IS NO NEED TO SPECI FY THE PURPOSES OF THE ACCUMULATION WHICH CAN BE FOR THE OBJECTS OF THE A SSESSEE-TRUST. IT WAS ALSO THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE-TRUSTS COUNSEL THAT IF TWO VIEWS ARE POSSIBLE, THEN VIEW FAVORABLE TO THE TAX-PAYER IS TO BE FOLLO WED AS HELD BY HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN CIT V. VEGETABLE PRODUCTS LTD. [19 73] 88 ITR 192 (SC). IT WAS ALSO CONTENDED THAT IT IS HELD BY SEVERAL DECIS IONS OF THE HONBLE COURTS THAT FORM NO 10 CAN BE FILED FOR THE FIRST TIME EVE N BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE-TRUST ALSO RELIED UPON THE DECISION IN THE CASE OF DIT V. MITSUI & CO. ENVIRONMENTAL, (2008) 3 03 ITR111(DELHI HC) WHEREBY THE HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT DULY CONSIDERE D THE JUDGMENT OF HONBLE CALCUTTA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF DIT(E) V . TRUSTEES OF SINGHANIA CHARITABLE TRUST(SUPRA) . THE ASSESSEE-TRUST ALSO R ELIED UPON THE DECISION IN THE CASE OF BHARTIYA KALYAN PRATISTHAN V. DIT(E), ( 2007)299 ITR 406 (DEL) , ALSO DECISION IN THE CASE OF M.P. GANDHI TRUST V. A DIT(E),(2006) 8 SOT 808 (MUM. TRIB), ALSO DECISION IN THE CASE OF SHREE SEE THARAMAN ANJANEYA VEDA KENDRA V. ADIT(E), (2002)83 ITD 235 (COCHIN),ALSO D ECISION IN THE CASE OF CIT V. NAGPUR HOTEL OWNERS ASSOCIATION, [2001] 247 ITR 201 (SC), ALSO DECISION IN THE CASE OF CIT V. VEGETABLE PRODUCTS LTD. [1973 ] 88 ITR 192 (SC), ALSO DECISION IN THE CASE OF CIT V. MOTI RAM GOPI CHAND CHARITABLE TRUST, [2014] 360 ITR 598 (ALL.), ALSO DECISION IN THE CASE OF AS SOCIATION OF APEX SOCIETY OF HANDLOOM V. ADIT(2013) 30 TAXMANN.COM 22 (DEL. HC) AND ALSO DECISION IN THE CASE OF ACIT V. STOCK EXCHANGE , AHMEDABAD (201 2) 25 TAXMANN.COM 469(GUJ.). ITA 2150/MUM/2015 11 9. THE LD. D.R., ON THE OTHER HAND, RELIED ON THE O RDERS OF AUTHORITIES BELOW AND SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE-TRUST HAS NOT FILED FORM 10 ALONG WITH THE RETURN OF INCOME,THE PURPOSES OF ACCUMULATION I S VAGUE AND GENERAL AND THE RESOLUTION FOR ACCUMULATION OF FUNDS IS PASSED AFTER THE CLOSURE OF THE FINANCIAL YEAR. 10. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND ALSO PE RUSED THE MATERIAL PLACED ON RECORD INCLUDING THE CASE LAWS RELIED UPO N BY BOTH THE PARTIES WE HAVE OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE-TRUST IS REGISTERED AS A CHARITABLE TRUST WITH DIT (E), MUMBAI U/S 12A OF THE ACT UNDER REGISTRATI ON NO. TR/327 AND WITH THE CHARITY COMMISSIONER, MUMBAI VIDE REGISTRATION NO. E 3142 (BOM). THE ASSESSEE-TRUST CLAIMS TO BE ENGAGED IN CHARITABLE A CTIVITIES IN THE FIELD OF EDUCATION AND MEDICAL RELIEF. IT IS OBSERVED THAT T HE ASSESSEE-TRUST VIDE RESOLUTION PASSED ON 24 TH SEPTEMBER, 2010 HAD ACCUMULATED AN AMOUNT OF RS. 1,89,10,525/- BEING THE EXCESS OF INCOME OVER T HE EXPENDITURE FOR THE YEAR ENDING 31 ST MARCH, 2010 TO BE CARRIED FORWARD FOR FUTURE PROJ ECT AND IN THE SAID RESOLUTION, IT WAS SHOWN THAT THE ACCUMULA TION OF FUNDS IS SOUGHT TO BE MADE FOR FUTURE PROJECTS AND NO SPECIFIC AND C ONCRETE PROJECTS ARE CONTEMPLATED FOR UTILIZATION OF THESE ACCUMULATED F UNDS. THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE-TRUST IS THAT IT HAS EAR-MARKED AND AC CUMULATED FUNDS FOR THE PURPOSES OF SETTING UP HOSPITAL PROJECT COMPRISING OF HERBAL ENVIRONMENT AND IT WILL BE EQUIPPED WITH HOSPITAL , DIAGNOSTIC AND RESEARCH LABORATORIES, WELLNESS CENTRE, EDUCATIONAL TRAINING FACILITIES AS WELL AS CONVENTION CENTRE AT JOGESHWARI WHICH IS A MAJOR PROJECT COSTING AROUND 1466 CRORES ON A TEN ACRE OF PLOT OWNED BY THE ASSESSEE-TRUST FOR WHICH PROJE CT REPORT IS SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSSEE-TRUST AND IS PLACED IN PAPER BOOK PAG E 76-102. THE ASSESSEE- TRUST HAS ALSO CONTENDED THAT THE ACCUMULATION OF F UNDS U/S 11(2) OF THE ACT OF RS.1,89,10,525/- HAS BEEN DONE IN ACCORDANCE WIT H THE OBJECT CLAUSE OF THE ASSESSEE-TRUST AND SETTING UP HOSPITALS , DISPENSAR IES, HEALTH CENTRES , GIVING MEDICAL ASSISTANCE IS ONE OF THE OBJECTS OF THE ASS ESSEE-TRUST SPECIFIED IN THE ITA 2150/MUM/2015 12 TRUST DEED WHICH IS PLACED IN PAPER BOOK PAGE 106-1 14.IT IS ALSO OBSERVED THAT URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT , MUMBAI HAS UNDE R THE MAHARASHTRA REGIONAL AND TOWN PLANNING ACT,1966 HAS ACCORDED AP PROVAL FOR EARMARKING THE LAND OWNED BY THE ASSESSEE-TRUST FOR HOSPITAL AND MEDICAL EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTION VIDE NOTIFICATION DATED 08-12-2008 BY DE-RESERVING THE SAID LAND FROM NO DEVELOPMENT ZONE. IN VIEW OF THE DECISION OF HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT V. HOTEL AND RESTAURANT AS SOCIATION, (2003) 261 ITR 190(DEL. HC) THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE-TRUST W AS THAT THE ASSESSEE-TRUST IS ENTITLED FOR THE BENEFIT OF ACCUMULATION OF FUND S U/S 11(2) OF THE ACT FOR FULFILLMENT OF OBJECTS AS SPECIFIED IN ITS TRUST DE ED AND SPECIFIC PURPOSE OF ACCUMULATION NEED NOT BE SPECIFIED. THE ASSESSEE- TRUST HAS ALSO RELIED ON VARIOUS OTHER CASE LAWS WHICH ARE PLACED IN THE FOR M OF CASE LAW PAPER BOOK WHICH IS PLACED IN FILE TO SUPPORT ITS CONTENTIONS THAT THE ACCUMULATION OF THE FUNDS U/S 11(2) OF THE ACT CAN BE MADE FOR ACHIEVIN G THE OBJECTS OF THE TRUST AND EVEN THERE CAN BE PLURALITY OF OBJECTS TO BE AC HIEVED ARE ALSO ALLOWED AND THERE IS NO NEED TO MENTION SPECIFIC PURPOSES. THE ASSESSEE-TRUST CONTENTION IS THAT THE FUTURE PROJECT REFERRED TO IN THE RES OLUTION IS FOR THE HOSPITAL PROJECT BEING SET-UP BY THE ASSESSEE-TRUST ON 10 AC RES OF PLOT AT JOGESHWARI FOR WHICH PROGRESS HAS BEEN ACHIEVED BY THE ASSESSE E-TRUST. THE ASSESSEE- TRUST RELIED UPON THE FOLLOWING DECISIONS TO SUPPOR T ITS CONTENTIONS:- 1. DECISION IN THE CASE OF DIT V. MITSUI & CO. ENVIRON MENTAL, (2008) 303 ITR111(DEL. HC), 2. IN THE CASE OF BHARTIYA KALYAN PRATISTHAN V. DIT(E) ,(2007) 299 ITR 406 (DEL. HC) 3. IN THE CASE OF M.P. GANDHI TRUST V. ADIT,(2006) 8 S OT 808 (MUM), 4. IN THE CASE OF SHREE SEETHARAMAN ANJANEYA VED KENDR A V. ADIT, (2002) 83 ITD 235 (COCHIN) ITA 2150/MUM/2015 13 THE ASSESSEE-TRUST HAS ALSO BELATEDLY FURNISHED THE FORM 10 BEYOND THE TIME LIMIT STIPULATED UNDER RULE 17 OF INCOME TAX RULES, 1962 WHICH WAS SUBMITTED DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDIN GS U/S 143(3) READ WITH SECTION 143(2) OF THE ACT , HOWEVER, BEFORE THE COM PLETION OF THE ASSESSMENT U/S 143(3) OF THE ACT, ALTHOUGH FORM NO 10 COULD NO T BE FILED BY THE ASSESSEE- TRUST ALONG WITH RETURN OF INCOME FILED U/S 139 (4A ) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT,1961 BEFORE THE EXPIRY OF THE TIME AS ALLOWED U /S 139(1) OF THE ACT AS PRESCRIBED UNDER RULE 17 OF INCOME TAX RULES,1962. THE ASSESSEE TRUST HAS FURTHER RELIED UPON THE FOLLOWING JUDICIAL DECISION S TO SUPPORT ITS PROPOSITION THAT FORM NO 10 CAN BE FILED AT ANY TIME BEFORE THE CONCLUSIONS OF THE ASSESSMENT U/S 143(3) OF THE ACT :- 1. CIT V. NAGPUR HOTEL OWNERS ASSOCIATION, [2001] 247 ITR 201 (SC), 2. CIT V. MOTI RAM GOPI CHAND CHARITABLE TRUST, [2014] 360 ITR 598 (ALL.), 3. ASSOCIATION OF CORPORATION & APEX SOCIETIES OF HAND LOOMS V. ADIT, (2013) 30 TAXMANN. COM 22 (DELHI HIGH COURT) 4. ACIT V. STOCK EXCHANGE AHMEDABAD (2012) 25 TAXMANN. COM 469(GUJ.) 5. HARYANA LABOUR WELFARE BOARD V. CIT (P&H), (2013) 2 19 TAXMAN 158(P&H HC) 6. CIT V. MAYUR FOUNDATION, (2005) 274 ITR 562 (GUJ.) IN OUR CONSIDERED VIEW AND IN THE LIGHT OF THE ABOV E CITED JUDICIAL PRECEDENTS WHICH COULD NOT BE CONTROVERTED BY THE LEARNED DR AND MORE SO IN THE DECISION OF THE DIT V. MITSUI & CO. ENVIRONMENTAL, (2008) 303 ITR111(DELHI HC) WHEREBY THE HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT DULY CONSI DERED THE JUDGMENT OF HONBLE CALCUTTA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF DIT(E) V . TRUSTEES OF SINGHANIA CHARITABLE TRUST(SUPRA) RELIED UPON BY THE REVENUE, THE ASSESSEE-TRUST IN OUR ITA 2150/MUM/2015 14 CONSIDERED VIEW IS ENTITLED FOR THE BENEFIT OF ACCU MULATION OF FUNDS U/S.11(2) OF THE ACT TO THE TUNE OF RS.1,89,10,525/- BEING EX CESS OF INCOME OVER EXPENDITURE TOWARDS THE PROPOSES OF SETTING UP OF H OSPITAL PROJECT AT JOGESHWARI ALTHOUGH THE PURPOSES SPECIFIED IN THE R ESOLUTION IS FOR FUTURE PROJECTS BUT THE SAME NEED TO BE READ IN THE CONJU NCTION WITH AND IN THE LIGHT OF THE HOSPITAL PROJECT WHICH WAS UNDERWAY AND WAS BEING SET UP BY THE ASSESSEE-TRUST ON THE TOUCHSTONE OF PREPONDERANCE O F PROBABILITIES, THAT THE NON-SUBMISSION OF FORM 10 ALONG WITH RETURN OF INCO ME AS REQUIRED UNDER RULE 17 OF INCOME TAX RULS,1962 IS DULY ADDRESSED B Y THE ASSESSEE-TRUST BY FILING THE FORM NO 10 BEFORE THE CONCLUSION OF THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS U/S 143(3) READ WITH SECTION 143(2) OF THE ACT AND MERE LY BECAUSE THE RESOLUTION IS PASSED AFTER THE END OF THE PREVIOUS YEAR RELEVA NT TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR WILL NOT BE SUFFICIENT TO DISENTITLE THE ASSESSEE-T RUST OF ITS CLAIM FOR ACCUMULATION OF FUND U/S 11(2) OF THE ACT AS THE AS SESSEE-TRUST HAS DEMONSTRATED THAT IT WAS IN-FACT IN THE PROCESS OF SETTING UP HOSPITAL ON ITS 10 ACRE PLOT OF LAND AT JOGESHWARI FOR WHICH MAHARASHT RA GOVERNMENT HAS ALLOWED THE EARMARKING OF LAND FOR HOSPITAL PROJECT AS SET-OUT ABOVE FOR WHICH ACCUMULATION OF FUNDS U/S 11(2) OF THE ACT WAS PROP OSED KEEPING IN VIEW PREPONDERANCE OF PROBABILITIES AND HUMAN CONDUCT AN D ALSO IT IS WELL SETTLED PROPOSITION OF LAW THAT WHEN TECHNICALITIES ARE PIT TED AGAINST THE SUBSTANTIAL JUSTICE, THE COURSE WHICH ADVANCES SUBSTANTIAL JUST ICE IS TO BE PREFERRED .WE ARE ALSO CONSCIOUS OF THE FACT THAT EXEMPTION PROVI SIONS ARE TO BE STRICTLY CONSTRUED TO ESTABLISH THE ENTITLEMENT OF THE TAX-P AYER FOR THE GRANT OF EXEMPTION BUT ONCE THE TAX-PAYER ESTABLISHES ITS EL IGIBILITY TO FALLS WITHIN THE EXEMPTION PROVISION THEN IT IS TO BE LIBERALLY CONS TRUED TO GRANT FULL BENEFIT AS PROVIDED UNDER THE LAW. IN OUR CONSIDERED VIEW, THE ASSESSEE-TRUST HAS DULY ESTABLISHED ITS CLAIM FOR ELIGIBILITY FOR GRANT OF THE BENEFIT OF ACCUMULATION U/S 11(2) OF THE ACT WHICH CANNOT DUE TO THE REASONS CI TED BY THE AUTHORITIES BELOW BE DENIED TO THE ASSESSEE-TRUST. IN OUR CONS IDERED VIEW, THE ASSESSEE- TRUST IS ENTITLED FOR THE BENEFIT OF ACCUMULATION O F FUNDS U/S 11(2) OF THE ACT ITA 2150/MUM/2015 15 TO THE TUNE OF RS.1,89,10,525/- AS CLAIMED BY THE A SSESSEE-TRUST AS PER OUR DETAILED REASONING AND DISCUSSIONS AS SET OUT ABOVE . SINCE, WE HAVE DECIDED THE ISSUE OF ALLOWABILITY OF THE CLAIM OF DEDUCTION OF THE ASSESSEE-TRUST OF BENEFIT OF ACCUMULATION OF FUNDS U/S 11(2) OF THE A CT IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE-TRUST IN THE INSTANT APPEAL AS SET OUT ABO VE, WE ARE REFRAINING FROM DECIDING THE ISSUE OF CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE-TRUST T HAT THE SAID AMOUNT OF RS.2 CRORES WAS RECEIVED IN LIEU OF FOREGOING RIGHT TO S UE AND IS CAPITAL RECEIPT NOT EXIGIBLE TO TAX AND THE SAID GROUND OF APPEAL / QUE STION IS KEPT OPEN. IN VIEW OF OUR ABOVE DISCUSSIONS AND REASONING AS SET OUT A BOVE, WE SET ASIDE THE APPELLATE ORDERS DATED 07-01-2015 OF THE LEARNED CI T(A) AND CONSEQUENTIALLY THE ASSESSMENT ORDERS DATED 25-03-2013 PASSED BY TH E AO U/S. 143(3) OF THE ACT AND ALLOW THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL RAISED BY THE A SSESSEE-TRUST AS INDICATED ABOVE BY HOLDING THAT THE ASSESSEE TRUST IS ENTITLE D FOR BENEFIT U/S 11(2) OF THE ACT OF THE ACCUMULATION OF FUNDS TO THE TUNE OF RS. 1,89,10,525/- AS CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE-TRUST IN THE RETURN OF INCOME FILED WITH REVENUE AND ALSO IN FORM NO 10 FILED BEFORE THE AO. WE ORDER ACCORDINGL Y. 11.IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE TRUST IN ITA N0. 2150/MUM/2015 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010-11 IS AL LOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 31 ST MAY , 2016. # $% &' 31-05-2016 ( ) SD/- SD/- (SAKTIJIT DEY) (RAMIT KOCHAR) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER $ MUMBAI ; & DATED 31-05-2016 [ ITA 2150/MUM/2015 16 .9../ R.K. R.K. R.K. R.K. , EX. SR. PS !'#$%&%# / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. / THE APPELLANT 2. / THE RESPONDENT. 3. : ( ) / THE CIT(A)- CONCERNED, MUMBAI 4. : / CIT- CONCERNED, MUMBAI 5. =>( 99?@ , ?@ , $ / DR, ITAT, MUMBAI E BENCH 6. (BC D / GUARD FILE. / BY ORDER, = 9 //TRUE COPY// / ( DY./ASSTT. REGISTRAR) , $ / ITAT, MUMBAI