The ACIT, Central Circle-1(3), Ahmedabad V. Ahmedabad South Indian Association Charitable Trust, Ahmedabad

ITA 2331/AHD/2004

• Counselvise Citation: [2009] 114 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7717 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 year(s) 11 month(s) 24 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 24-07-2009
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 23-06-2009
• Assessment Year: 2001-2002
• Appeal Filed On: 30-07-2004
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: RAJEEV AGARWALDR
• Assessee Lawyers: PF JAIN
• Keywords: Depreciation; Charitable institution; Capital receipt
• Section: 264; 27

Judgement Text

IN THE INC O ME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, A - BENCH, AHMEDABAD . BEFORE : SHRI T.K.SHARMA, JUDICIAL MEMBER , AND SHRI D.C.AG RAWAL , ACCOU NTANT MEMBER. ITA NO. 2331/AHD/2004 (A.Y. 2001 - 02) ITA NO.84/AHD/2006 (A.Y. 2002 - 03) & C.O.NO.36/AHD/2006 ITA NO.2782/AHD/ 2007(A.Y. 2003 - 04) & C.O.NO.243/AHD/2007 ITA NO.3208/AHD/2007 (A.Y. 2004 - 05) & C.O.NO.244/AHD/2007 THE ACIT, CC 1(3), AHMEDABAD. VERSUS AHMEDABAD SOUTH INDIAN ASSOCIATION CHARITABLE TRUST, 1 - A, SUNRISE PARK, OPP.DRIVE - IN - CINEMA, THALTEJ, AHMEDABAD. (APP ELLANT) (RESPONDENT) FOR THE APPELLANT: SHRI RAJEEV AGARWAL,DR FOR THE RESPONDENT SHRI P.F.JAIN, AR ORDER PER BENCH : THESE APPEALS FILED BY THE REVENUE AND THE CROSS OBJECTIONS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE INVOLVE COMMON ISSUES. THEREFORE, THESE W ERE HEARD TOGETHER AND ARE NOW DISPOSED OF BY THIS COMMON ORDER FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE. 2. FIRST WE TAKE UP THE APPEALS OF THE REVENUE. 3. GROUND NO.1 OF REVENUES APPEALS, WHICH IS COMMON, IS AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT(A) IN DELETING THE AD DITION MADE ON ACCOUNT OF RECEIPTS TOWARDS ADVERTISEMENT IN SOUVENIR, OF RS.53,71,154 IN A.Y. 2001 - 02 , RS.35,94,965 IN A.Y. 2002 - 03 , RS.20,55,424 IN A.Y. 2003 - 04 , AND RS.66,71,700 IN A.Y. 2004 - 05 . 4. DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS THE ASS ESSING OFFICER NOTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS SHOWN THE ABOVE AMOUNT AS ADDITION TO THE TRUST FUNDS. THIS WAS THE MONEY RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE FROM ADVERTISEMENT IN SOUVENIR. THE ASSESSING OFFICER OBSERVED THAT THE COLLECTION OF MONEY FROM ADVERTISEMENT IS NOT FOR THE OBJECT OF THE TRUST AND IT IS NOT A VOLUNTARY CONTRIBUTION. HE ACCORDINGLY HELD IT AS REVENUE RECEIPT OUT OF WHICH 85% WAS REQUIRED TO BE APPLIED FOR CHARITABLE PURPOSES AND ACCORDINGLY MADE THE 2 IMPUGNED ADDITION. ON APPEAL, THE LEARNED CIT(A) DELETED THE SAID ADDITION BY FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF BOMBAY HIGH COUR T IN CIT V. V. TRUSTEES OF VISHA NIMA CHARITY TRUST ( 138 ITR 564 ) AND THE DECISION IN CIT V. S.V.VANIK JAIN SANGH (260 ITR 367). 5. BEFORE US, THE LEARNED DR SUBMITTED THAT THERE IS NO SPECIFIC DIRECTION FROM THE CONTRIBUTORS THAT THE DONATION WOULD BE FOR THE PURPOSE OF CORPUS OF THE TRUST. IN FACT THE ASSESSEE HAS ISSUED THE SOUVENIR GIVING THE ADVERTISEMENT OF THE PARTIES WITH WHICH THEY HAVE DERIVED BENEFIT AND HENCE, CONTRIBUTION M ADE BY THEM FOR ADVERTISEMENT WOULD BE REVENUE RECEIPT AND NOT CAPITAL RECEIPT. AGAINST THIS, THE LEARNED AR OF THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THIS ISSUE IS SQUARELY COVERED BY THE DECISION OF HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT AND GUJARAT HIGH COURT REFERRED TO BY TH E LEARNED CIT(A) IN HIS ORDER. 6. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD. IN OUR CONSIDERED VIEW, THERE IS NO CASE FOR INTERFERENCE IN THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT(A) IN THIS REGARD. NOT ONLY THE ISSUE IS COVERED BY T HE DECISION OF HONBLE BOMBAY AND GUJARAT HIGH COURTS IN THE CASE OF CIT V. V. TRUSTEES OF VISHA NIMA CHARITY TRUST ( 138 ITR 564 ) AND CIT V. S.V.VANIK JAIN SANGH (260 ITR 367) RESPECTIVELY, ON REASONING ALSO , NO CASE IS MADE OUT N FAVOUR OF THE REVENUE. FI RSTLY BECAUSE, THE ASSESSEE IS ONLY RUNNING EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTION AND IT IS NOT A PLACE OR INSTITUTION FOR PUBLICITY/ADVERTISEMENT. PRINTING SOUVENIR IS ONLY AN ACTIVITY INCIDENTAL TO THE ANNUAL PROGRAMME OF THE INSTITUTION AND CONTRIBUTORS DO NOT PLACE ADVERTISEMENT IN THE SOUVENIR OF THE TRUST WITH THE INTENTION OF GETTING ANY PUBLICITY FOR THEM OR FOR THEIR PRODUCT S FOR ENHANCING THE MARKET VALUE BUT THE CONTRIBUTION S ARE MADE ONLY FOR THE PURPOSE OF HELPING THE INSTITUTION . NO CASE IS MADE OUT BY TH E REVENUE TO SHOW THAT THE CONTRIBUTORS/PARTIES PLACING ADVERTISEMENT HAVE DERIVED ANY BENEFIT FROM SUCH ADVERTISEMENT PUBLISHED IN THE SOUVENIR OF THE TRUST. THE CIRCULATION OF THE SOUVENIR DID NOT REACH TO PUBLIC AT LARGE, THE FREQUENCY/PERIODICITY DO NO T REFLECT THAT ADVERTISEMENT IN THE SOUVENIR WOULD HELP THE ADVERTISERS IN INCREASING THE MARKETABILITY OF THEIR PRODUCTS. THEREFORE, RECEIPTS FROM THE ADVERTISEMENT CANNOT BE TAKEN AS REVENUE RECEIPT IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE. IN FACT THE ASSESSEE TRUS T IS NOT RENDERING ANY SERVICES BY WAY OF PLACING 3 ADVERTISEMENT IN THEIR SOUVENIR FOR WHICH IT COULD HAVE RECEIVED MONEY BEING IN THE NATURE OF REVENUE RECEIPT. THE NATURE AND SCOPE OF RECEIPT AMPLY SUGGESTS THAT I T IS A CAPITAL RECEIPT. SIMILAR VIEW HAS B EEN TAKEN BY THE HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN CIT V. V. TRUSTEES OF VISHA NIMA CHARITY TRUST ( 138 ITR 564 ), WHEREIN IT IS HELD - THAT THE ASSESSEE - TRUST WAS FORMED PRIMARILY BY THE MEMBERS OF A PARTICULAR CASTE, ALTHOUGH THE OBJECTS THEREOF WERE OBJECTS O F GENERAL PUBLIC CHARITY. THE APPEAL ISSUED BY THE TRUSTEES MADE IT CLEAR THAT THE OBJECT OF THE TRUST WAS TO HAVE A PERMANENT HOME FOR PROVIDING SHELTER TO THOSE WHO CAME TO BOMBAY FOR A SHORT DURATION. THE MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC TO WHOM THE APPEAL WAS ADD RESSED CAME FROM COMPARATIVELY PROSPEROUS RURAL AREAS AND WHO LIKED TO STRENGTHEN THE RELATIONS ALREADY EXISTING AMONGST THE MEMBERS OF THE CASTE AND AT THE SAME TIME HELP A NOBLE CAUSE. IN THE APPEAL, THERE WAS NO REFERENCE TO THE ADVERTISEMENTS IN THE SO UVENIR BEING LIKELY TO CONTRIBUTE TO THE ADVANCEMENT OF THE BUSINESS OF THE PERSONS FROM WHOM THE ADVERTISEMENTS WERE SOUGHT. IT WAS UNLIKELY ON THE FACTS OF THE CASE THAT THE PERSONS TO WHOM THE APPEAL FOR TICKETS AND ADVERTISEMENTS WAS ISSUED WOULD HAVE GIVEN AN ADVERTISEMENT IN THE SOUVENIR OR PURCHASED TICKETS FOR THE CHARITY SHOW FOR ANY PURPOSE OTHER THAN THE CHARITY, AND AS A VOLUNTARY CONTRIBUTION. THEREFORE, THE CONTRIBUTIONS MADE BY WAY OF TICKETS AND FOR ADVERTISEMENTS WERE, ON THE FACTS OF THE C ASE, MERELY VOLUNTARY CONTRIBUTIONS AND WERE EXEMPT UNDER SUB - S. (1) OF S. 12, EVEN ASSUMING THAT THE RECEIPTS CONSTITUTED THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE AND NOT THE CORPUS THEREOF. FURTHER, THE CONTRIBUTIONS COULD NOT BE REGARDED AS INCOME DERIVED BY THE ASSE SSEE - TRUST FROM PROPERTY HELD UNDER TRUST AS CONTEMPLATED UNDER S. 11. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, WE CONFIRM THE IMPUGNED ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT(A) AND DISMISS GROUND RAISED BY THE REVENUE IN THIS REGARD FOR ALL THE AYS UNDER CONSIDERATION. 7. GROUND NO.2 , WHICH IS COMMON IN ALL THE APPEALS OF THE REVENUE, IS AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT(A) IN DELETING THE DISALLOWANCE OF THE CLAIM OF DEPRECIATION OF - RS.50,40,973 IN A.Y. 2001 - 02, RS.46,44,480 IN A.Y. 2002 - 03, RS.56,50,363 IN A.Y. 2003 - 04, AND RS.79 ,10,987 IN A.Y. 2004 - 05 . 8. THE ASSESSING OFFICER DISALLOWED THE CLAIM OF DEPRECIATION ON THE GROUND THAT DEPRECIATION U/S.32 IS ALLOWABLE IN RESPECT OF COMPUTATION OF PROFITS 4 AND GAINS COMPUTED UNDER THE INCOME - TAX ACT ONLY. IT CANNOT BE ALLOWED WHILE CO MPUTING APPLICATION OF INCOME U/SS.11,12 AND 13. IN APPEAL, THE LEARNED CIT(A) ALLOWED THE CLAIM FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF HONBLE GUJARAT HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT V. SHETH MANILAL RANCHHODDAS VISHRAM BHAVAN TRUST (198 ITR 598). 9. BEFORE US, THE LEA RNED DR SUBMITTED THAT ALLOWING DEPRECIATION IN RESPECT OF ASSETS FOR WHICH INVESTMENT IN THEM HAS BEEN TREATED AS APPLICATION WOULD AMOUNT TO DOUBLE DEDUCTION I.E., ONCE 100% INVESTMENT AS APPLICATION AND SUBSEQUENTLY PART OF IT IN SEVERAL YEARS AS DEPREC IATION. NO LAW WOULD ALLOW DOUBLE DEDUCTION ON ANY INCOME UNLESS IT IS SPECIFICALLY PROVIDED IN THE ACT. IN CERTAIN SECTIONS OF THE ACT WEIGHTED DEDUCTION IS ALLOWED I . E., DEDUCTION OF MORE THAN 100% OF INVESTMENT IS ALLOWED WHEN SO SPECIFICALLY PROVIDED I N THE STATUTE. ACCORDING TO THE LEARNED DR, DEPRECIATION WOULD BE PERMISSIBLE ONLY IF INVESTMENT IN THE ASSET IS MADE OUT OF CORPUS OF THE TRUST AND NOT AS APPLICATION OF RECEIPTS. IN THE PRESENT CASE, ACCORDING TO THE LEARNED DR, CREATION OF ASS E T HAS BEE N ON ACCOUNT OF APPLICATION OF INCOME AND THEREFORE, PROVIDING DEPRECIATION FURTHER WOULD AMOUNT TO DOUBLE DEDUCTION. 10. AGAINST THIS, THE LEARNED AR OF THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT HONBLE GUJARAT HIGH COURT IN THE CASE CIT V. SHETH MANILAL RANCHHODDAS VI SHRAM BHAVAN TRUST (198 ITR 598) HAS ALLOWED DEDUCTION ON ACCOUNT OF DEPRECIATION BY HOLDING THAT INCOME OF THE TRUST SHOULD BE COMPUTED IN NORMAL COMMERCIAL MANNER. HONBLE HIGH COURT HAS FOLLOWED THE DECISIONS OF MADRAS HIGH COURT IN CIT .V RAO BAHADUR C ALAVALA CUNNAN CHETTY CHARITIES [1982] 135 ITR 485, OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT IN CIT V. SOCIETY OF THE SISTERS OF ST. ANNIE (1984] 146 ITR 28 AND OF MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT IN CIT V. RAIPUR PALLOTTINE SOCIETY [1989] 180 ITR 579 AND HELD THAT ONCE INCOME IS COMPUTED IN COMMERCIAL SENSE THEN DEPRECIATION IS TO BE ALLOWED. THE LEARNED AR OF THE ASSESSEE THEN REFERRED TO THE DECISION OF HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION) V. FRAJEE CAWASJEE INSTITUTE [1993) 109 CTR (BOM) 463] AND CIT V. INSTITUTE OF BANKING PERSONNEL SELECTION [(2003) 264 ITR 110 (BOM)] FOR THE SAME PROPOSITON . 11. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS OF THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE 5 MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. I N THE CASE OF CIT V. SHETH MANILAL RANCH HODDAS VISHRAM BHAVAN TRUST (198 ITR 598) (GUJ) , THE FACTS ARE THAT T HE ASSESSEE WAS A TRUST REGISTERED UNDER THE PUBLIC TRUSTS' ACT., THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE IS MAINLY FROM IMMOVABLE PROPERTY. IN THE RETURNS OF INCOME FILED FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 1971 - 72 AND 1972 - 73, THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED DEPRECIATION AND CALCULATED ITS INCOME ACCORDINGLY. THE INCOME - TAX OFFICER HAS REJECTED THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE AS HE WAS OF THE VIEW THAT THE INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY WAS TO BE CALCULATED ACCORDING TO SECTIONS 22 TO 27 OF THE ACT. IN APPEAL, THE APPELLATE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER HELD OTHERWISE. THE REVENUE THEN WENT TO THE TRIBUNAL. THE TRIBUNAL DISMISSED THE APPEAL. SAME THING HAPPENED FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 1972 - 73 ALSO. AT THE INSTANCE OF REVENUE THE FOLLOWING T WO QUESTIONS WERE REFERRED TO THE HONBLE CURT FOR THEIR DECISION. ' 1. WHETHER, ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE TRIBUNAL WAS RIGHT IN LAW IN HOLDING THAT, WHILE COMPUTING INCOME UNDER SECTION 11(1)(A) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961, D EPRECIATION HAS TO BE ALLOWED ? 2. WHETHER THE TRIBUNAL WAS RIGHT IN LAW IN HOLDING THAT, HAVING REGARD TO THE SCHEME OF THE ACT, 'INCOME' REFERRED TO IN SECTION 11(1)(A) OF THE ACT IS TO BE COMPUTED NOT IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF THE ACT BUT IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE NORMAL RULES OF ACCOUNTANCY UNDER WHICH THE DEPRECIATION HAS TO BE ALLOWED WHILE COMPUTING SUCH INCOME UNDER SECTION 11(1)(A) OF THE ACT? ' HONBLE HIGH COURT ANSWERED THE QUESTIONS IN THE AFFIRMATIVE HOLDING THAT INCOME FROM THE PR OPERTY HELD UNDER THE TRUST SHOULD B E COMPUTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE NORMAL RULES OF ACCOUNTANCY IN WHICH DEPRECIATION ON HOUSE PROPERTY IS TO BE ALLOWED. IT HAS FURTHER BEEN HELD THEREIN THAT THAT THE EXPRESSION ' INCOME ' HAS TO BE UNDERSTOOD IN THE PO PULAR OR GENERAL SENSE AND NOT IN THE SENSE IN WHICH THE INCOME IS ARRIVED AT FOR THE PURPOSE OF ASSESSMENT TO TAX BY APPLICATION OF SOME ARTIFICIAL PROVISIONS EITHER GIVING OR DENYING DEDUCTION . THE PROVISION OF INCOME - TAX ACT IS TO COMPUTE INCOME UNDE R DIFFERENT HEADS CANNOT BE INTRODUCED TO FIND OUT THE INCOME DERIVED FROM THE PROPERTY HELD UNDER THE TRUST. SIMILAR VIEW WAS TAKEN BY THE HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT V. INSTITUTE OF BANKING PERSONNEL SELECTION 6 [(2003) 264 ITR 110 (BOM)] . 12. HOWEVER, IT IS NOT VERY CLEAR LY LAID DOWN IN THESE DECISIONS REFERRED TO IN THE FOREGOING PARAGRAPH AS TO WHETHER DEPRECIATION , IN RESPECT OF ASSETS IN WHICH INVESTMENT WAS ALLOWED AS APPLICATION EARLIER, WOULD BE FURTHER CONSIDERED AS APPLICATION IN SUBS EQUENT YEAR FOR THE PURPOSE OF TREATING 85% OF RECEIPTS AS APPLICATION AND 15 % OF THE RECEIPTS FOR BEING CARR IED FORWARD I.E., WHETHER DEPRECIATION WOULD BE FURTHER TREATED AS APPLICATION FOR CHARITABLE PURPOSES. . NOTWITHSTANDING , THAT THE INCOME IN T HE PROPERTY HELD BY THE TRUST SHOULD BE COMPUTED IN THE NORMAL COMMERCIAL SENSE AND THEREFORE DEPRECIATION IS REQUIRED TO BE DEDUCTED TO COMPUTE INCOME ACCORDINGLY, BUT WHAT IS COM P UTED FOR THE PURPOSE S OF TAXING U/S.11 IS THE DEFICIENCY BETWEEN 85% AND AC TUAL AMOUNT APPLIED FOR CHARITABLE PURPOSES . FOR EXAMPLE - WHERE A TRUST APPLIES ONLY, SAY 60% OF ITS RECEIPTS AS APPLICATION TO CHARITABLE PURPOSES THEN 25% OF THE RECEIPTS WOULD BE TREATED AS DEFICIENCY WHICH SHOULD BE SUBJECTED TO TAX AND 15% IS ALLOWE D TO BE CARR IED FORWARD. IN OUR CONSIDERED VIEW, HONBLE BOMBAY AND GUJARAT HIGH COURT IN THE ABOVE REFERRED CASES WERE CONCERNED WITH THE COMPUTATION OF INCOME OF THE TRUST IN THE NORMAL COMMERCIAL SENSE AND HAD NOT CONSIDERED WHETHER THE AMOUNT OF DEPREC IATION WOULD BE CONSIDERED AS APPLICATION TO ARRIVE AT 85% OF THE RECEIPTS IN ADDITION TO INVESTMENT IN THE ASSET ALREADY ALLOWED AS APPLICATION IN AN EARLIER YEAR. THE ALLOWANCE OF DEPRECIATION AS FURTHER APPLICATION OF RECEIPTS IN SUBSEQUENT YEAR WOULD APPARENTLY BE A DOUBLE APPLICATION WHICH, IN OUR HUMBLE VIEW, WOULD BE APPARENTLY INCONSISTENT AS NOT SO PROVIDED IN THE LA W AND HENCE UN TE N ABLE APPARENTLY ILLOGICAL. NOTWITHSTANDING OUR VIEW, WE RESPECTFULLY FOLLOW THE DECIS IO N OF HONBLE HIGH COURT IN T HE CASE OF CIT V. SHETH MANILAL RANCHHODDAS VISHRAM BHAVAN TRUST (198 ITR 598) , AND HOLD THAT DEPRECIATION WOULD BE FURTHER ALLOWED TO THE TRUST IN A SUBSEQUENT YEAR I N RESPECT OF THE PROPERTY WHEN WE CALCULATE ITS INCOME IN A COMMERCIAL SENSE. WE, THEREF ORE, UPHOLD THE IMPUGNED ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT(A) AND DISMISS THE GROUND RAISED BY THE REVENUE IN THIS REGARD. 13. GROUNDS NO.3 AND 4 IN EACH OF THE APPEALS FILED BY THE REVENUE ARE GENERAL IN NATURE AND NEED NO SPECIFIC ADJUDICATION. 7 14. IN THE RESULT , ALL THE APPEALS OF THE REVENUE ARE DISMISSED . 15. NOW ADVERTING TO THE CROSS OBJECTIONS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE, THE ONLY ISSUE WHICH IS COMMON IN ALL THE CROSS OBJECTIONS IS THAT THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS DISMISSED THE GROUND RELATING TO THE CLAIM OF THE ASS ESSEE U/S.10(23C)(VI) OF THE ACT PRESUMABLY BECAUSE HE COULD NOT HAVE DECIDED THE ISSUE IN RESPECT OF WHICH ORDER HAS TO BE PASSED BY CCIT/DGIT WHO ARE HIGHER IN RANK THEN HIMSELF. 16. TH E LEARNED AR OF THE ASSESSEE BEFORE US SUBMITTED THAT THE TRUST WAS REGISTERED U/S.12AA AND IT HAD FILED AN APPLICATION IN FORM NO.56D WITH THE CCIT/DGIT(EXEMPTION) BUT ITS APPLICATION HAS NOT BEEN SO FAR DECIDED BY THE AUTHORITIES. WITHOUT CONSIDERING THE ABOVE, THE LEARNED CIT(A)HAS REJECTED THIS ISSUE. THEREFORE, AUTHO RITIES SHOULD HAVE TAKEN ACTION ON ITS APPLICATION WITHIN A REASONABLE TIME AND IF NO SUCH ACTION IS TAKEN THEN IT SHOULD BE DEEMED THAT APPLICATION OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED IN ITS FAVOUR. ON THE OTHER HAND, LEARNED DR SUBMITTED THAT THER E IS NO APPEAL A GAINST AN ORDER WHICH IS NOT IN EXISTE NCE . 16. AFTER HEARING THE LEARNED AR OF THE ASSESSEE AND LEARNED DR , WE FIND THAT THE ISSUE REGARDING NON - GRANTING EXEMPTION U/S.10(23C)(VI) OF THE ACT CANNOT BE ADJUDICATED BY THE TRIBUNAL , AS NO ORDER UNDER THAT SECTION HAS BEEN PASSED. SECTION 253 DOES NOT PROVIDE AN APPEAL AGAINST THE ORDER US/.10(23C)(VI) OF THE ACT. IF THE CONCERNED AUTHORITIES HAVE NOT PASSED ANY ORDER ON THE APPLICATION OF THE ASSESSEE FILED IN FORM 56D AS YET, OPTION IS AVAILABLE WITH THE ASSESSEE TO CHOOSE REMEDY PROVIDED UNDER LAW. WITH THIS REMARK, WE DISMISS THE ENTIRE CROSS OBJECTION S OF THE ASSESSEE. 17. IN THE RESULT, ALL THE CROSS OBJECTIONS OF THE ASSESSEE ARE DISMISSED. THIS ORDER IS PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON DT.24.07.09 SD/ - SD/ - (T.K.SHARMA) JUDICIAL MEMBER (D.C.AGRAWAL) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER. DATE: 24.07.09 (H.K.PADHEE) SENIOR PRIVATE SECRETARY. 8 COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. THE ASSESSEE 2. THE ASSESSING OFFICER 3. THE CIT CONCERNED. 4. THE CIT(A) CONCERNED. 5. THE DR, AHMEDABAD 6. GUARD FILE (IN DUPLICATE) TRUE COPY, BY ORDER, DEPUTY.REGISTRAR.