The ACIT,GNR Circle, Gandhinagar V. Gujarat State Tribal Development Residential Educational Institution Society, Gandhinagar

ITA 2300/AHD/2012

• Counselvise Citation: [2013] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 67834 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 13 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 25-10-2013
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 14-10-2013
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 12-10-2012
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: O P BATHEJA
• Assessee Lawyers: M G PATEL
• Keywords: Capital asset
• Section: 143(3); 234B; 12A; 11

Judgement Text

ITA NO 2300/ AHD/2012 . A.Y. 2008- 09 1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL A BENCH, AHMEDABAD (BEFORE SHRI N.S. SAINI, A.M. & SHRI KUL BHARAT, J.M.) I.T. A. NO. 2300 /AHD/2012 (ASSESSMENT Y EAR: 2008-09) THE A.C.I.T. GNR CIRCLE- GANDHINAGAR (APPELLANT) VS. GUJARAT STATE TRIBAL DEVELOPMENT RESIDENTIAL EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTIONAL SOCIETY, 1 ST , FLOOR, BIRSA MUNDA BHAVAN, SECTION 10A, GANDHINAGAR (RESPONDENT) PAN: AAAAT3689H APPELLANT BY : SHRI O.P. BATHEJA, SR. D. R. RESPONDENT BY : SHRI M.G. PATEL. A.R. ( )/ ORDER DATE OF HEARING : 14-10-20 13 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 25 -10-2013 PER SHRI N.S. SAINI, A.M. 1. THIS IS AN APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE AGAINST THE ORDER OF CIT(A), GANDHINAGAR DATED 30.07.2012. 2. THE SOLE ISSUED INVOLVED IN THIS APPEAL OF THE REVE NUE IS THAT THE CIT(A) ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN DELETING THE ADDITION MADE ON ACCOUNT OF DISALLOWANCE MADE U/S.10(23C)(IV) OF THE I.T. ACT. ITA NO 2300/ AHD/2012 . A.Y. 2008- 09 2 3. THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE I S REGISTERED UNDER 12A OF THE ACT. THE ASSESSEE FILED RETURN OF INCOME SHOWIN G NIL INCOME. THE RECEIPTS OF THE ASSESSEE COMPRISED OF INTEREST RS. 54,09,285/- AND OTHER INCOME RS. 3,82,81,879 AGGREGATING TO RS. 4,36,91,2 64/-. THE A.O. FOUND THAT AMOUNT UTILIZED FOR CHARITABLE AND RELIGIOUS P URPOSES IN INDIA AS CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE WAS RS. 3,94,95,258/-. AN A MOUNT ACCUMULATED OR SET APART @ 15% AS CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE AMOUNTED TO RS. 41,96,006/- AGGREGATING TO RS. 4,36,91,264/-. THEREFORE THE A. O. ACCEPTED THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE AT NIL IN AN ASSESSMENT ORDER FRAME D UNDER SECTION 143(3) DATED 30.11.2010. 4. THEREAFTER THE ASSESSEE FILED AN APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT(A) AND SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS CLAIMED ELIGIBILITY UNDER SEC TION 10(23C)(IIIAB) BUT THE ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED UNDER SECTION 143(3) OF THE ACT HAS REMAINED SILENT ON THE ISSUE. IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT IN FUTU RE A SIMILAR RESTRICTIVE APPROACH OF COMPUTATION SOLELY ON THE BASIS OF SECT ION 12A OF THE ACT BY IGNORING TGSTDREIS ELIGIBILITY U/S. 10(23C)(IIIAB) OF THE ACT MAY HAVE ADVERSE IMPACT. 5. THE CIT(A) AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSION OF THE ASSESSEE OBSERVED THAT REGARDING THE CLAIM OF ELIGIBILITY U/S. 10(23C )(IIIAB) OF THE ACT THE ISSUE WAS DISCUSSED IN GREAT DETAIL BY HIS PREDECES SOR IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07 IN APPEAL NO. CIT/ GNR/152/2008-09 DATED 18.05.2009 WHEREIN IT WAS HELD AS UNDER:- 2.3.2 COMING TO THE ISSUE AS TO WHETHER U/S.L0(23C)(IIIAB ) IS APPLICABLE TO THE APPELLANT OR NOT, I THINK AMPLE EVIDENCES HAVE BEEN PRODUCED BY THE AUT HORISED REPRESENTATIVE TO ESTABLISH THAT THE ASSESSEE SOCIETY IS RUNNING EDUCATIONAL INSTITU TIONS. THEY HAVE GIVEN DETAILS OF THE SANCTION ITA NO 2300/ AHD/2012 . A.Y. 2008- 09 3 ORDERS OF THE STATE PRIMARY SCHOOL AUTHORITIES AS W ELL AS THE SECONDARY SCHOOL AUTHORITIES, THEY HAVE GIVEN DETAILS OF THE STRENGTH OF THE SCHOOLS B EING RUN BY THEM, THE EXPENDITURE INCURRED IN VARIOUS SCHOOLS, THE APPOINTMENT OF TEACHERS, THE D ETAILS OF PENDING VACANCIES, THE DETAILS OF THE BUILDING UNDER CONSIDERATION ETC. ALTHOUGH SECT ION 10(23C)(IIIAB) DOES NOT QUALIFY 'OTHER EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTIONS' WITH THE CONDITION OF BEI NG ATTACHED WITH ANY UNIVERSITY OR BOARD, IN THE INSTANT CASE, THE SCHOOLS ARE DULY ATTACHED TO THE GUJARAT SECONDARY EDUCATION BOARD. THE SECTION ALSO DOES NOT DISTINGUISH BETWEEN THE LEVEL S OF STUDIES I.E. BETWEEN PRIMARY, SECONDARY OR COLLEGE EDUCATION. MOST OF THE OBJECTIONS RAISED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER CONCERNING LACK OF FACILITIES LIKE LAND OR BUILDING OR TEACHERS WOULD NOT IN ITSELF LEAD TO THE CONCLUSION THAT THE APPELLANT IS NOT RUNNING EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTIONS. IF THE APPELLANT IS ABLE TO MANAGE RUNNING OF THE SCHOOLS, INSPITE OF NONAVAILABILITY OF THESE FA CILITIES, OBVIOUSLY, IT HAS PUT INTO PLACE CERTAIN OTHER SYSTEMS TO RUN CLASSES AND TEACH THE STUDENTS TO MAKE THEM EDUCATED, I THINK THE APPELLANT'S AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE HAS ABLE TO C OUNTER MOST OF THE GROUNDS / OBJECTIONS RAISED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN ITS COMMENTS OR COUNTER COMMENTS. CONCLUSION THAT THE APPELLANT IS NOT RUNNING EDUCAT IONAL INSTITUTIONS. IF THE APPELLANT IS ABLE TO MANAGE RUNNING OF THE SCHOOLS, INSPITE OF NONAVAILA BILITY OF THESE FACILITIES, OBVIOUSLY, IT HAS PUT INTO PLACE CERTAIN OTHER SYSTEMS TO RUN CLASSES AND TEACH THE STUDENTS TO MAKE THEM EDUCATED, I THINK THE APPELLANT'S AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE H AS ABLE TO COUNTER MOST OF THE GROUNDS / OBJECTIONS RAISED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN ITS C OMMENTS OR COUNTER COMMENTS. 2.3.3. THEREFORE, CONSIDERING ALL THE FACTS OF THE CASE, I AM CONVINCED THAT THE ASSESSEE IS COVERED BY THE CONDITIONS OF SECTION 10(23C)(IIIAB) AND THEREFORE THE INCOME, IF ANY, IS CONSEQUENTIALLY EXEMPT.' THE ISSUE WAS TAKEN TO THE HON. ITAT BY THE DEPARTM ENT, WHICH HAS UPHELD THE ORDER OF THE CIT (APPEALS) VIDE ORDER DATED 25/11/2011 IN ITA NO 2313/AHD/2009 AND OBSERVED THAT IT IS EVIDENT THAT THE ASSESSEE IS RUNNING EDUCATIONAL IN STITUTIONS SUCH AS SCHOOLS, ETC. IMPARTING FORMAL EDUCATION, AS PRESCRIBED UNDER THE ACT. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, I FIND NO REASON TO DEVIATE F ROM THE DECISIONS GIVEN FOR THE EARLIER YEAR IN THE APPELLANT'S OWN CASE AND HOLD THAT THE ASSESSEE IS COVERED BY THE CONDITIONS OF SECTION 10(23C)(IIIAB) AND THEREFORE THE INCOME, IF ANY, IS CONSEQUENTLY EXEMPT. 6. BEFORE US, BOTH THE PARTIES AGREED THAT THE ISSUE W AS COVERED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE BY THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL IN ASSESS EES OWN CASE FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07 PASSED IN ITA NO. 2313/A/20 09 ORDER DATED 25.11.2011. 7. AFTER HEARING THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSING TH E ORDERS OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES AND THE MATERIALS AVAILABLE ON RECORD WE FIND THAT IN THE INSTANT CASE THE RETURN OF INCOME FILED BY THE ASSESSEE SHO WING NIL INCOME WAS ACCEPTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN AN ASSESSMENT FRAMED UNDER SECTION 143(3) OF THE ACT BY GRANTING EXEMPTION UNDER SECTI ON 11 OF THE ACT. THE ASSESSEE FILED APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT(A) ON THE GROU ND THAT THE ASSESSING ITA NO 2300/ AHD/2012 . A.Y. 2008- 09 4 OFFICER HAS NOT CONSIDERED THE ELIGIBILITY OF THE A SSESSEE ON THE BASIS OF TGSTDREIS UNDER SECTION 1023C(IIIAB) OF THE ACT. TH E LD. CIT(A) ALLOWED THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE BY FOLLOWING THE ORDER OF HIS PREDECESSOR FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07. 8. WE FIND THAT THE TRIBUNAL IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-0 7 IN ITA NO. 2131/AHD/2009 VIDE ORDER DATED 25.1.2012 CONFIRMED THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) OBSERVING AS UNDER:- THIS APPEAL IS FILED BY THE REVENUE AGGRIEVED BY TH E ORDER OF THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(APPEALS), GANDHINAGAR IN APPEAL NO.CIT(A)GNR/L52/2008-09 DATED 18.05.2009 FOR THE A SSESSMENT YEAR 2006-2007 PASSED UNDER SECTION 250 R.W.S. 143(3) OF THE I.T. ACT, 1961. 2. THE REVENUE HAS RAISED THREE GROUNDS IN ITS APPE AL WHEREIN THE CRUX OF THE ISSUE IS THAT THE ID. CIT(A) ERRED IN DIRECTING THE AO TO AL LOW THE EXEMPTION UNDER SECTION 10(23C)(IIIAB) OF THE I.T. ACT. 3. THE ASSESSEE IS A 100% GOVERNMENT OF GUJARAT CON TROLLED SOCIETY CONSTITUTED UNDER THE BOMBAY PUBLIC TRUST ACT, 1950 AND THE SOCIETIES REGISTRATION ACT, 1860 ON 03.10.2000 REGISTRATION NO. F/676/GANDHINAGAR AND G UJ/719/GANDHINAGAR, IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE DIRECTIONS OF THE CENTRAL GOVER NMENT AND RECEIVED GRANTS FROM THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT UNDER THE FIRST PROVISO TO ARTIC LE 275(1) OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA. THE ASSESSEE FILED ITS RETURN OF INCOME ON 2 2.12.2006. THE CASE WAS TAKEN UP FOR SCRUTINY ASSESSMENT WHEREBY THE ASSESSMENT WAS COMP LETED UNDER SECTION 143(3) OF THE ACT ON 27.11.2008. DURING THE COURSE OF THE ASSESSM ENT PROCEEDINGS, THE ID. A.O. CAME TO A CONCLUSION THAT THE ASSESSEE DOES NOT RUN ANY COMPOSITE OR INTEGRATED COURSE OF ORGANIZED, AND SYSTEMATIC TRAINING AND IS NOT AFFIL IATED OR REGISTERED WITH ANY RECOGNIZED AUTHORITY. THEREFORE, THE TRUST CANNOT B E HELD TO BE A UNIT OR EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTION AS ENVISAGED IN THE ACT. RELYING ON THE DECISION OF THE HON'BLE GUJARAT HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF SOURASHTRA EDUCATION FOUNDATIO N -VS- CIT CITED IN (2005) 273 ITR 139 (GUJ.), THE AO DENIED THE EXEMPTION UNDER SECTI ON 10(23C)(IIIAB) OF THE ACT. THE RELEVANT PORTION OF THE ORDER IS REPRODUCED HEREINB ELOW FOR REFERENCE: 7.' IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE PROVISIONS, A UNIVERSITY O R OTHER EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTION EXISTING SOLELY FOR EDUCATIONAL PURPOSES IS EXEMPT FROM TAX. THE EXPRESSION 'OTHER EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTION' IN THE SECTION WOULD MEAN AN INSTITUTION IMPARTING FORMAL EDUCATION IN AN ORGANIZED AND SYSTEMATIC MANNER. TH E ASSESSEE DOES NOT RUN ANY COMPOSITE OR INTEGRATED COURSE OF ORGANIZED AND SYS TEMATIC TRAINING AND IS NOT AFFILIATED OR REGISTERED WITH ANY AUTHORITY. THE TR UST CAN CERTAINLY BE CONSIDERED AS QUALIFYING U/S. LL(L)(A) BUT THE TERM 'OTHER EDUCAT IONAL INSTITUTION' CONTEMPLATED BY SECTION 10(22) [NOW SECTION 10(23C)] IS A NARROWER CONCEPT. THE ASSESSEE IS NOT IMPARTING FORMAL EDUCATION IN AN ORGANIZED AND SYST EMATIC MANNER, THEREFORE IT DOES NOT COME UNDER THE EXPRESSION 'OTHER EDUCATIONAL IN STITUTION'. THEREFORE, THE ASSESSEE ITA NO 2300/ AHD/2012 . A.Y. 2008- 09 5 IS NOT ENTITLED TO EXEMPTION U/S. 10(23C) (IIIAB). THIS VIEW IS SUPPORTED BY HON'BLE GUJARAT HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF SAURASHTRA EDUCAT ION FOUNDATION VS CIT IN [2005] 273 ITR 139. THEREFORE, THE ASSESSEE'S CONTENTION I S REJECTED. 8. SUBJECT TO THE ABOVE DISCUSSION, INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE IS COMPUTED AS UNDER:- GRANT RECEIVED DURING THE YEAR AS SHOWN RS.30,30,00,000/- ADD: RS. 8,36,8977- INCOME AS SHOWN IN INCOME & EXPENDITURE ACCOUNT RS. 30,38,36,8977- LESS: INCOME APPLIED AS SHOWN RS. 7,07,07,0837- INCOME APPLIED ON CAPITAL ASSETS RS. 4,72,26,8757- RS. 4,55,75,5337- RS. 70,35,03,4377- EXEMPTION ALLOWED U/S LL(L)(A) @ 15% TOTAL INCOME RS.20 ,03,33,4607- 9. ASSESSED U/S. 143(3) OF THE ACT ON TOTAL INCOME AT RS. 20,03,33,460/-. ISSUE DEMAND NOTICE AND CHALLAN ACCORDINGLY. CHARGE INTEREST U/S 234B O F THE ACT. THE ASSESSEE HAS FURNISHED INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME FOR WHICH PENALTY PROCEEDINGS UNDER SECTION 271(L)(C) R.W.S. 274 OF THE ACT ARE INITIATED SEPARATELY.' 4. THE ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MATTER BEFORE THE ID. C IT(A). BEFORE THE ID. CIT(A), THE ASSESSEE PRODUCED VARIOUS DOCUMENTS TO ESTABLISH TH AT THE ASSESSEE WAS RUNNING SCHOOLS AND OTHER INSTITUTIONS, AS PER THE SCHEMES PRESCRIBED UNDER THE ACT AND THEREFORE ENTITLED TO DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 10(23 C)(IIIAB) OF THE ACT. THE ID. CIT(A) FORWARDED THE SUBMISSIONS AND THE DOCUMENTS PRODUCE D BEFORE HIM BY THE ASSESSEE TO THE ID. AO FOR OBTAINING REMAND REPORT. AFTER AN EL ABORATE DISCUSSION ON THE ISSUE AND AFTER OBTAINING THE REMAND REPORT FROM THE AO, THE ID. CIT(A) CAME TO THE FOLLOWING CONCLUSION: '2,3.2. COMING TO THE ISSUE AS TO WHETHER U/S.LO(23 C)(IIIAB) IS APPLICABLE TO THE APPELLANT OR NOT, I THINK AMPLE EVIDENCES HAVE BEEN PRODUCED BY THE AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE TO ESTABLISH THAT THE ASSESSEE SOCIETY IS RUNNING EDUC ATIONAL INSTITUTIONS. THEY HAVE GIVEN DETAILS OF THE SANCTION ORDERS OF THE STATE PRIMARY SCHOOL AUTHORITIES AS WELL AS THE SECONDARY SCHOOL AUTHORITIES, THEY HAVE GIVEN DETAI LS OF THE STRENGTH OF THE SCHOOLS BEING RUN BY THEM, THE EXPENDITURE INCURRED IN VARIOUS SC HOOLS, THE APPOINTMENT OF TEACHERS, THE DETAILS OF PENDING VACANCIES, THE DETAILS OF THE BU ILDING UNDER CONSIDERATION ETC. ALTHOUGH SECTION 10(23C)(IIIAB) DOES NOT QUALIFY 'OTHER EDUC ATIONAL INSTITUTIONS' WITH THE ; CONDITION OF BEING ATTACHED WITH ANY UNIVERSITY OR BOARD, IN THE INSTANT CASE, THE SCHOOLS ARE DULY ATTACHED TO THE GUJRAT SECONDARY EDUCATION BOARD. T HE SECTION ALSO DOES NOT DISTINGUISH BETWEEN THE LEVELS OF STUDIES I.E. BETWEEN PRIMARY, SECONDARY OR COLLEGE EDUCATION. MOST OF THE OBJECTIONS RAISED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER CONC ERNING LACK OF FACILITIES LIKE LAND OR BUILDING OR TEACHERS WOULD NOT IN ITSELF LEAD TO TH E CONCLUSION THAT THE APPELLANT IS NOT RUNNING EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTIONS. IF THE APPELLANT IS ABLE TO MANAGE RUNNING OF THE SCHOOLS, ITA NO 2300/ AHD/2012 . A.Y. 2008- 09 6 INSPITE OF NON-AVAILABILITY OF THESE FACILITIES, OB VIOUSLY, IT HAS PUT INTO PLACE CERTAIN OTHER SYSTEMS TO RUN CLASSES AND TEACH THE STUDENTS TO MA KE THEM EDUCATED, I THINK THE APPELLANT'S AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE HAS ABLE TO COUNTER MOST OF THE GROUNDS / OBJECTIONS RAISED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN ITS COMMENTS OR COUNTER CO MMENTS. 2.3.3. AS FAR AS THE OTHER MATERIAL CONDITIONS TO T HE SECTION 10(23C)(IIIAB) IS CONCERNED, IT IS AN UNCONTESTED FACT THAT THE SOCIETY IS NOT OPER ATING FOR PROFIT AND ALSO THE SCHOOLS ARE BEING RUN SOLELY WITH THE GOVERNMENT GRANTS. 2.3.3. THEREFORE, CONSIDERING ALL THE FACTS OF THE CASE, 1 AM CONVINCED THAT THE ASSESSEE IS COVERED BY THE CONDITIONS OF SECTION 10(23C)(IIIAB) AND THEREFORE THE INCOME, IF ANY, IS CONSEQUENTIALLY EXEMPT. 2.3.4. ALTHOUGH, CONSEQUENT TO THE ABOVE DECISION, THE AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE'S CONTENTION RAISED IN ITS WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS DATED 13/02/2009 THAT IT HAD RECEIVED GRANTS OF ONLY RS.20,30,00,000/- AND NOT RS.10,00,00,000/-PLI TS RS.20,30,00,000/- AS STATED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, WILL NOT MAKE MATERIAL DIFFERENCE TO THE COMPUTATION OF TAXABLE INCOME, YET THE AUTHORISED R EPRESENTATIVE'S ASSERTION THAT TILL THE GRANTS RECEIVED FROM GOVERNMENT OF INDIA ARE PLACED IN THE HANDS OF THE STATE GOVERNMENT AND THE STATE GOVERNMENT TRANSFERS THE SAME TO GSTD REIS AND THE TOTAL OF SUCH GRANTS COMES TO RS.23,00 00,000/-, SHOULD BE VERIFIED AT T HE TIME OF GIVING APPEAL EFFECT AND THE ASSESSING OFFICER MAY MAKE SPECIFIC COMMENTS ON THE ISSUE FOR FUTURE REFERENCE.' 5. DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL , THE ID. D.R. SUPPORTED THE ARGUMENTS OF THE ID. A.O. AND SUBMITTED THE DECISIO N OF THE HON'BLE GUJARAT HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF SOURASHTRA EDUCATION FOUNDATIO N -VS- CIT CITED IN (2005) 273 ITR 139 (GUJ.) AND PRAYED THAT THE ORDER OF THE ID. A.O . SHOULD BE RESTORED. 6. THE ID. A.R. FORCIBLY SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSE E IS A 100% GOVERNMENT ORGANIZATION IMPARTING EDUCATION TO THE TRIBALS IN THE REGION, A S PER THE DIRECTIONS OF THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT FROM WHOM THE GRANTS ARE RECEIVED. THE I D. A.R. FURTHER SUBMITTED ONE VOLUMINOUS PAPER BOOK RUNNING FROM 1 TO 220 PAGES W HICH CONTAIN THE FOLLOWING DOCUMENTS: 1. CERTIFICATES OF REGN. AS SOCIETY ARID TRUST AND MEMORANDUM OF ASSOCIATION 2. FIRST TWO GRANT ORDERS OF GOVT. OF INDIA 3. ADITANAR EDUCATIONAL INSTN. V. ADDL. CIT 224 ITR 0310 [1997] SC 4. REGISTRATION CERTIFICATES OF EKIAVYA MODEL R ESIDENTIAL SCHOOLS (EMRS) WITH DISTT. EDUCATION OFFICERS AND STATE EDUCATION BOARD 5. SAURASHTRA EDUCATION FOUNDATION V. CIT 273 I TR 0139 [2005] GUJ 6. YEARWISE / STANDARDWISE POSITION OF STUDENTS (KUMAR / KANYA) FROM 2000-2001 TO 2008-2009 7. DETAILS OF OWNED / RENTED / IN GOVT. MODEL S CHOOLS FOR 2005-2006 8. DETAILS OF SCHOOL WISE EXPENDITURE FOR FINA NCIAL YEAR 2005-2006 9. DETAILS OF ACADEMIC STAFF FOR VARIOUS SCHOO LS 10. APPOINTMENT LETTERS TO ACADEMIC STAFF 11. GRANT ORDERS - GOVT. OF GUJARAT TO GSTDREIS 12 GRANT ORDER-GOVT. OF INDIA TO GOVT. OF GUJA RAT 13. GRANT ORDERS - GOVT. OF INDIA TO GOVT. OF GU JARAT 14. GUIDELINES FOR ADMISSION ISSUED BY GSTDREIS TO EMRS PRINCIPALS AND ADVERTISEMENT FOR ADMISSION 15. SCHOOL REGISTER ISSUED BY GUJARAT SECONDARY AND HIGHER SECONDARY EDUCATION BOARD, EXAMINATION WING, VADODARA FOR 02 SCHOOLS 16. DELEGATION OF OF POWERS TO OFFICIALS AND PRINC IPALS OF EMRS ITA NO 2300/ AHD/2012 . A.Y. 2008- 09 7 17. COMMUNICATION FROM GSTDREIS TO PRINCIPALS OF EMRS 18. PHOTOGRAPHS OF STUDY TOURS AND SPORTS MEET OF EMRS 19. MINUTES OF MEETING OF 04.10.2005 AT GSTDREIS WITH PRINCIPALS OF EMRS FOR EXAMINATION RESULTS, ETC. 20. SUBMISSION OF MEMBER SECRETARY GSTDREIS TO A CIT, GANDHINAGAR CIRCLE, GANDHINAGAR CLAIMING EXEMPTION U/S. 10(23C)(IIIAB) OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961 21. ACKNOWLEDGEMENT NO. 2307000527 DATED 22.12.20 06 AND ANNUAL INCOME-TAX RETURN OF GSTDREIS FOR AY 2006-2007 6.1 THE ID. A.R. FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT ALL THE DOC UMENTS WERE FURNISHED BEFORE THE ID. CIT(A) WHO HAS PASSED REASONABLE ORDER, AFTER OBTAI NING A REMAND REPORT FROM THE A.O, THEREFORE, IT WAS PRAYED THAT THE ORDER OF THE ID. CIT(A) MAY BE UPHELD. 7. WE HAVE HEARD RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND CAREFULLY PE RUSED THE MATERIALS PRODUCED BEFORE US. AFTER PERUSING THE PAPER BOOK, IT IS EVIDENT TH AT THE ASSESSEE IS RUNNING EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTIONS SUCH AS SCHOOLS, ETC. IMPARTING FORMAL EDUCATION, AS PRESCRIBED UNDER THE ACT. THE ID. CIT(A) HAD ELABORATELY DEALT WITH THE MATTE R AFTER PERUSING VARIOUS DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE AND AFTER OBTAINING REMAN D REPORT HAD COME TO THE ABOVE- MENTIONED CONCLUSION CITED (SUPRA). THE REVENUE DID NOT COME OUT WITH ANY CONVINCING ARGUMENT OR EVIDENCE AGAINST THE DOCUMENTS PRODUCED BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE US. IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, WE HAVE NO OTHER OPTION BUT TO CONFI RM THE ORDER OF THE ID. CIT(A). IT IS ORDERED ACCORDINGLY. 8. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE I S DISMISSED. 10. THEREFORE WE DISMISS THE GROUND OF APPEAL OF THE RE VENUE. 11. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DISMISS ED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE COURT ON FRIDAY OF 25 TH OCTOBER, 2013 AT AHMEDABAD SD/- SD/- (KUL BHARAT) (N.S. SAINI) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AHMEDABAD. TRUE COPY RAJESH COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: - 1. THE APPELLANT. 2. THE RESPONDENT. 3. THE CIT (APPEALS) 4. THE CIT CONCERNED. 5. THE DR., ITAT, AHMEDABAD. 6. GUARD FILE.