Tamil Nadu Industrial Guidance & Export Promotion Bureau, CHENNAI V. ADIT, CHENNAI

ITA 2476/CHNY/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2015] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 96433 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 1 month(s) 26 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 27-11-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Next Hearing Date: 01-10-2015
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 01-10-2014
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: A V SREEKANTH
• Assessee Lawyers: B SURESH
• Keywords: Reopening of assessment; Opportunity of being heard; Condonation of delay; Reassessment proceedings
• Section: 143(3); 12A; 147; 148; 11

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL , C B ENCH, CHENNAI . , ! # $ , % & BEFORE SHRI A.MOHAN ALANKAMONY ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI CHALLA NAGENDRA PRASAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER ./ I.T.A.NOS.2475 & 2476/MDS/2014 ( / ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2007-08 & 2008-09) TAMIL NADU INDUSTRIAL GUIDANCE & EXPORT PROMOTION BUREAU, 19-A, RUKMANI LAKSHMIPATHY ROAD, EGMORE, CHENNAI-600 008. VS ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS)-IV, CHENNAI. PAN: AACCT7538B ( /APPELLANT) ( /RESPONDENT) / APPELLANT BY : MR. B.SURESH, C.A. /RESPONDENT BY : MR. A.V.SREEKANTH, JCIT /DATE OF HEARING : 1 ST OCTOBER, 2015 /DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 27 TH NOVEMBER, 2015 / O R D E R PER CHALLA NAGENDRA PRASAD, JM: THESE TWO APPEALS ARE FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINS T THE ORDERS OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPE ALS)-VII, CHENNAI DATED 17.07.2014 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2007- 08 AND 2008-09. SINCE THE ISSUES INVOLVED IN THES E TWO APPEALS ARE COMMON, THEY ARE DISPOSED OFF BY THIS O RDER FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE. 2. THE ASSESSEE IN ITS GROUND NO.2 CHALLENGES THE JURISDICTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN REOPENING OF 2 ITA NOS. 2475 & 2476/MDS/2014 ASSESSMENT UNDER SECTION 147 OF THE ACT CONTENDING THAT ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS ARE BAD IN LAW AS IT WAS WIT HOUT DISPOSAL OF THE OBJECTIONS RAISED BY A SPEAKING ORD ER. AT THE TIME OF HEARING, COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT ASSESSEE IS NOT PRESSING THIS GROUND AND AN ENDORSE MENT WAS MADE TO THAT EFFECT. THUS, WE DISMISS THIS GROU ND AS NOT PRESSED. 3. IN THE OTHER GROUNDS OF APPEAL, THE ASSESSEE CHALLENGES THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) IN SUSTAINING THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN DENYING EXEMPTION UNDER SECTION 11 OF THE ACT FOR T HE REASON THAT FORM NO.10 HAS NOT BEEN FILED ALONG WITH THE R ETURN OF INCOME. 4. BRIEF FACTS ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE IS A SOCIETY C REATED BY GOVERNMENT OF TAMIL NADU FOR INDUSTRIAL PROMOTION AND EXPORT ACTIVITIES. THE SOCIETY GOT REGISTERED UNDE R SECTION 12A OF THE ACT ON 16.08.1993. RETURNS FOR THE ASSE SSMENT YEARS 2007-08 AND 2008-09 WERE FILED ON 30.09.2008 ADMITTING NIL INCOME. THE RETURN OF INCOME FOR THE 3 ITA NOS. 2475 & 2476/MDS/2014 ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08 WAS FILED BELATEDLY ON 30. 09.2008, ADMITTING 'NIL' INCOME. THE RETURN WAS PROCESSED DETERMINING THE SHORTFALL OF RS.82,60,297/-. THE ASSESSEE HAS NEITHER EXERCISED ANY OPTION AS PER EXPLANATION TO SECTION 11 (I) NOR ACCUMULATES ITS INCOME BY FILING FORM 10 WITHIN THE TIME LIMIT ALLOWED U/S.139( 1) OF THE ACT. HENCE. THE SAID SHORTFALL WAS TAXED AND AN AMOUNT OF ` 37.67,558/- WAS RAISED AS DEMAND U/S.143(I) OF THE ACT ON 2 2.03.2010 . THE ASSESSEE PREFERRED APPEAL AGAINST THE ORDER UNDER SECTION 143( 1) OF THE ACT BEFORE THE COMMISSIONER OF LNCOME TAX (APPEAL). THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO FILED A PETITION DATED 20.04.2011 FILED ON 28.04.2011 FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY BEFORE THE DIT (E), CHENNAI, STATING THAT THEY HAD FAILED TO FILE FORM 10 BY OVERSIGHT. ALONG WITH THE PETITION FOR CONDONATION THE ASSESSEE HAS ENCLOSED FORM 10 DATED 11.04.2011 & COPY OF RESOLUTION DATED 31. 03.2007 OF THE EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE MEET ING. THE SAID CONDONATION PETITION WAS REJECTED BY THE DLT(E), CHENNAI VIDE ORDER DATED 21.L2.2011 FOR THE REASONS THAT THE PURPOSE OF ACCUMULATION MENTIONED IN FORM 10 WAS 4 ITA NOS. 2475 & 2476/MDS/2014 NOT SPECIFIC, AND NO SPECIFIC REASONS FOR THE DELAY WAS ASSIGNED. THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE AGAINST INTIMA TION UNDER SECTION 143(1) DATED 22.03.2010 WAS ALLOWED B Y THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) VIDE ORDER DA TED 12.03.2012 ON THE GROUND THAT ARRIVAL OF SHORTFALL DUE TO NON- FILING OF FORM NO.10 WAS OUTSIDE THE PURVIEW OF SEC TION 143(1) OF THE ACT. THE GIVING EFFECT TO THE ABOVE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) WAS PASSED ON 16.04.2012. AS THE PETITION FOR CONDONATION WAS FIL ED BEFORE THE DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS) WAS REJECTE D AND NO FORM 10 WAS FILED TILL THE TIME LIMIT FOR COMPLETIO N OF SCRUTINY ASSESSMENT FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08 VIZ 31.0 3.2009, A NOTICE U/S.148 OF THE ACT DATED 08.08.2012 WAS IS SUED AND SERVED ON THE ASSESSEE ON 22.08.2012. IN RESPONSE T O THE ABOVE NOTICE, ASSESSEE FILED ITS RETURN OF INCOME O N 20.09.2012 ALONG WITH FORM NO.10 DATED NIL AND COPY OF EXTRACTS OF MINUTES OF MEETING OF THE MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE ON 13.02.2008. THE REASSESSMENT WAS COMPL ETED ON 17.01.2014 BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER DENYING EXEM PTION UNDER SECTION 11 OF THE ACT FOR BOTH THE ASSESSMENT YEARS HOLDING THAT AS THE RETURNS WERE FILED BELATEDLY AN D FORM 5 ITA NOS. 2475 & 2476/MDS/2014 NO.10 WAS NOT ENCLOSED ALONG WITH THE RETURN WITHI N THE TIME SPECIFIED UNDER SECTION 139(1) OF THE ACT AND ALSO SINCE CONDONATION PETITION FILED BY THE ASSESSEE WAS REJ ECTED BY THE DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS), THE CLAIM FOR EXEMPTION UNDER SECTION 11 WAS DENIED. THE ASSESSE E PREFERRED APPEAL BEFORE THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) WHO CONFIRMED THE ORDERS OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN DENYING EXEMPTION UNDER SECTION 11 OF THE ACT FO R BOTH THE ASSESSMENT YEARS HOLDING THAT BELATEDLY SUBMITTING FORM NO.10 WITHOUT CONDONATION PETITION FOR DELAY NEED NOT BE CONSIDERED AND THEREFORE, HE UPHELD THE ACTION OF T HE ASSESSING OFFICER IN DENYING EXEMPTION UNDER SECTIO N 11 OF THE ACT. 5. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITS THAT THOUGH FOR M NO.10 WAS NOT FILED ALONG WITH RETURN OF INCOME, IT WAS SUBSEQUENTLY FILED BEFORE THE DIRECTOR OF INCOME TA X (EXEMPTIONS) AND REQUESTED FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING OF FORM NO.10. COUNSEL SUBMITS THAT EVEN BEFORE REO PENING OF ASSESSMENTS FORM NO.10 WAS FILED BEFORE DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS), THEREFORE THERE IS NO REAS ON FOR REOPENING OF ASSESSMENTS ON THE GROUND THAT FORM NO .10 IS 6 ITA NOS. 2475 & 2476/MDS/2014 NOT FILED ALONG WITH RETURN OF INCOME. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITS THAT THERE IS NO SCRUTINY ASSESSME NTS MADE UNDER SECTION 143(3) OF THE ACT FOR BOTH THE ASSESSMENT YEARS. IN RESPONSE TO NOTICE UNDER SECTI ON 148 THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED RETURN OF INCOME ALONG WITH FORM NO.10 AND THE BOARD RESOLUTION FOR ACCUMULATION OF INCOME. COUNSEL SUBMITS THAT ASSESSING OFFICER SHOULD HAVE CONSIDERED THE FORM NO.10 ALONG WITH THE RETURN FI LED IN RESPONSE TO NOTICE UNDER SECTION 148. PLACING RELI ANCE ON THE DECISION OF DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF ASS OCIATION OF CORPORATION & APEX SOCIETIES OF HANDLOOMS VS. ADIT (351 ITR 287), COUNSEL SUBMITS THAT ASSESSEE CAN FURNISH FORM NO.10 FOR THE PURPOSE OF SECTION 11(2) FOR ACCUMULA TION OF INCOME EVEN DURING THE REASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. CO UNSEL FURTHER SUBMITS THAT THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN T HE CASE OF CIT VS. NAGPUR HOTEL OWNERS ASSOCIATION (247 ITR 20 1) HELD THAT FORM NO.10 COULD BE FURNISHED BY THE ASSE SSEE UPTO THE STAGE OF COMPLETION OF ASSESSMENT UNDER SE CTION 143(3) OF THE ACT. HE SUBMITS THAT SINCE IN THE ASS ESSEES CASE THERE WAS NO SCRUTINY ASSESSMENT UNDER SECTIO N 143(3) OF THE ACT AND ASSESSMENT WAS MADE UNDER SECTION 14 3(3) 7 ITA NOS. 2475 & 2476/MDS/2014 READ WITH SECTION 147 OF THE ACT, THE ASSESSING OFF ICER SHOULD NOT HAVE DENIED EXEMPTION UNDER SECTION 11 FOR THE REASON THAT FORM NO.10 WAS NOT FURNISHED ALONG WITH THE RE TURN OF INCOME ORIGINALLY FILED UNDER SECTION 139(1) OF THE ACT. 6. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE VEHEMENTLY SUPPORTS THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS). 7. HEARD RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUSED ORDERS OF LO WER AUTHORITIES AND THE DECISIONS RELIED ON. THE MAIN ISSUE TO BE DECIDED IS WHETHER THE ASSESSEE CAN FILE FORM NO.10 IN THE COURSE OF REASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS OR NOT. THUS ISS UE HAS COME UP BEFORE THE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF ASSOCIATION OF CORPORATION & APEX SOCIETIES OF HAND LOOMS VS. ADIT (SUPRA) AND THE HIGH COURT HELD THAT FOR M NO.10 COULD BE FILED BY THE ASSESSEE TRUST DURING THE RE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. WHILE HOLDING SO, THE HONBLE DELHI HI GH COURT HELD AS UNDER:- THESE APPEALS WERE ADMITTED FOR HEARING BY AN ORDER DATED 04.09.2012 ON THE FOLLOWING SUBSTANTIAL QUESTIONS O F LAW :- '(I) WAS THE TRIBUNAL CORRECT IN HOLDING THAT THE SUM OF RS. 9.80 CRORES, WHICH ACCRUED TOWARDS INTEREST ON FIXE D DEPOSITS, MADE BY THE ASSESSEE (TO SECURE THE BANK GUARANTEE AMOUNT, FURNISHED TO THE STATE OF BIHAR) BEAR THE CHARACTER OF INCOME IN THE ASSESSEE'S HANDS FOR THE RELEVANT YEARS UNDER APPEAL? (II) WAS THE TRIBUNAL CORRECT IN REJECTING THE CLAI M FOR 8 ITA NOS. 2475 & 2476/MDS/2014 ACCUMULATION OF INCOME ON THE GROUND THAT FORM-L0 H AD NOT BEEN FURNISHED ALONG WITH THE RETURN BUT WAS FILED DURING THE COURSE OF THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS?' THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE APPELLANT TOOK UP ARGUM ENTS ON THE SECOND QUESTION FIRST. HE SUBMITTED THAT INSOFA R AS ITA NO.523/2012 IS CONCERNED (WHICH PERTAINS TO ASSESSM ENT YEAR 2001-02). THE FORM-IO PRESCRIBED UNDER RULE 17 OF THE INCOME TAX RULES, 1962 WAS FILED ONLY AT THE STAGE OF THE APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. IN RESPECT OF THE OTHER THREE APPEALS, WHICH PERTAIN TO ASSESSMENT YEARS 1998-99, 1999- 2000, 2000-0 I THE SAID FORM-IO HAS BEEN FURNISHED DURING THE COURSE OF RE-ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS PURSUANT TO PROCEEDINGS INITIATED UNDER SECTION 147 OF THE INCO ME TAX ACT. 1961 (HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS THE SAID RULE S). 2. IT IS AN ADMITTED POSITION, IN VIEW OF SEVERAL D ECISIONS OF THE COURTS INCLUDING THE DECISION OF THE SUPREME CO URT IN THE CASE OF CLT V. NAGPUR HOTEL OWNERS ASSOCIATION 247 ITR 201 ,THAT THE SAID FORM-I0 COULD BE FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE UP TO THE STAGE OF COMPLETION OF THE ASSES SMENT UNDER SECTION 143(3) OF THE SAID ACT. THE ONLY POIN T IN ISSUE IN THE PRESENT CASE IS WHETHER THE FORM-I 0 COULD BE FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR THE PURPOSES OF SECTI ON II OF THE SAID ACT DURING THE RE-ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. 3. THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE REVENUE CONTENDED TH AT FORM-I 0 COULD BE PRODUCED BY THE ASSESSEE ONLY UP TO THE COMPLETION OF THE ORIGINAL ASSESSMEN T PROCEEDINGS UNDER SECTION 143(3). HE SUBMITTED THAT THE RE-ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS ARE FOR THE BENE FIT OF THE REVENUE AND THE ASSESSEE CANNOT TAKE ADVANTAGE OF THE SAME. THEREFORE, IN THE COURSE OF RE- ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS THE ASSESSEE WOULD NOT BE ENTITLED TO FURNISH THE SAID FORM -I0 TO SEEK THE BENEFIT OF SECTION 11 OF THE SAID ACT. 4. ON THE OTHER HAND. THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE/APPELLANT SUBMITTED THAT ASSESSMENT INCLUDED RE-ASSESSMENT AS WAS EVIDENT FROM SECTION 2(8) OF THE SAID ACT. THEREFORE WHETHER THE ASSESSMENT WAS AN ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT OR AS A PART OF A REASSESSMENT IT WOULD NOT MAKE ANY DIFFERENCE AND THAT THE ASSESSEE WOULD BE ENTITLED TO FILE THE SAID FORM 10 IN EITHER OF THE TWO PROCEEDINGS AND THE REVENUE WOULD HAVE TO TAKE THE SAID FORM THAT INTO ACCOUNT. 5. HAVING CONSIDERED THE ARGUMENTS ADVANCED BY THE COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES. ON THIS ASPECT OF THE MATT ER WE FED THAT IT WOULD BE NECESSARY TO SET OUT THE REASONING ADOPTED 9 ITA NOS. 2475 & 2476/MDS/2014 BY THE SUPREME COURT IN NAGPUR HOTEL OWNERS ASSOCIA TION (SUPRA). THE SUPREME COURT HELD AS UNDER :- 'IT IS ABUNDANTLY CLEAR FROM THE WORDING OF SUB- SECTION (2) OF SECTION 11 THAT IT IS MANDATORY FOR THE PERSON CLAIMING THE BENEFIT OF SECTION 11 TO INTIMATE TO THE ASSESSING AUTHORITY THE PARTICULARS REQUIRED, UNDER RULE 17 IN FORM NO. 10 OF THE RULES. IF DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE ASSESSING OFFICER DOES NOT HAVE THE NECESSARY INFORMATION, QUESTION OF EXCLUDING SUCH INCOME FROM ASSESSMENT DOES NOT ARISE AT ALL. AS A MATTER OF FACT, THIS BENEFIT OF EXCLUDING THIS PARTICULAR PART OF THE INCOME FROM THE NET OF TAXATION ARISES. FROM SECTION 11 AND IS SUBJECTED TO THE CONDITIONS. SPECIFIED THEREIN. THEREFORE, IT IS NECESSARY THAT THE ASSESSING AUTHORITY MUST HAVE THIS INFORMATION AT THE TIME HE COMPLETES THE ASSESSMENT. IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY SUCH INFORMATION, IT WILL NOT BE POSSIBLE FOR THE ASSESSING AUTHORITY TO GIVE THE ASSESSEE THE BENEFIT OF SUCH EXCLUSION 'AND ONCE THE ASSESSMENT IS SO COMPLETED, IN OUR OPINION, IT WOULD BE FUTILE TO FIND FAULT WITH THE ASSESSING AUTHORITY FOR HAVING INCLUDED SUCH INCOME IN THE ASSESSABLE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. THEREFORE, EVEN ASSUMING THAT THERE IS. NO VALID LIMITATION PRESCRIBED UNDER THE ACT AND THE RULES EVEN THEN, IN OUR OPINION, IT IS REASONABLE TO PRESUME THAT THE INTIMATION REQUIRED UNDER SECTION 1] HAS TO BE FURNISHED BEFORE THE ASSESSING AUTHORITY COMPLETES THE CONCERNED ASSESSMENT BECAUSE SUCH REQUIREMENT IS MANDATORY AND WITHOUT THE PARTICULARS OF THIS INCOME, THE ASSESSING AUTHORITY CANNOT ENTERTAIN THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE UNDER SECTION 11 OF THE ACT, THEREFORE, COMPLIANCE WITH THE REQUIREMENT OF THE ACT WILL HAVE TO BE ANY TIME BEFORE THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. FURTHER, ANY CLAIM FOR GIVING THE BENEFIT OF SECTION 11 ON THE BASIS OF INFORMATION SUPPLIED SUBSEQUENT TO THE COMPLETION OF ASSESSMENT WOULD MEAN THAT THE ASSESSMENT ORDER WILL HAVE TO BE REOPENED. IN OUR OPINION, THE ACT DOES NOT CONTEMPLATE SUCH RE-OPENING OF THE ASSESSMENT. IN THE CASE IN HAND IT IS EVIDENT FROM THE RECORDS OF THE CASE THAT THE RESPONDENT DID NOT FURNISH THE REQUIRED 10 ITA NOS. 2475 & 2476/MDS/2014 INFORMATION TILL AFTER THE ASSESSMENTS FOR THE RELEVANT YEARS WERE COMPLETED. IN THE LIGHT OF THE ABOVE, WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT THE STAND OF THE REVENUE THAT THE HIGH COURT ERRED IN ANSWERING THE FIRST QUESTION IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE IS CORRECT, AND WE REVERSE THAT FINDING AND ANSWER THE SAID QUESTION IN THE NEGATIVE AND AGAINST THE ASSESSEE. IN VIEW OF OUR ANSWER TO THE FIRST QUESTION, WE AGREE WITH MR. VERMA THAT IT IS NOT NECESSARY TO ANSWER THE SECOND QUESTION ON THE FACTS OF THIS CASE.' ON GOING THROUGH THE ABOVE EXTRACT WE FIND THAT THE SUPREME COURT OBSERVED THAT IT WAS NECESSARY THAT THE ASSESSING AUTHORITY MUST HAVE THE INFORMAT ION UNDER FORM-I0 AT THE TIME HE COMPLETES THE ASSESSMENT AND IN ITS ABSENCE IT IS NOT POSSIBLE FO R THE ASSESSING AUTHORITY TO GIVE BENEFIT OF SUCH EXCLUSION. FURTHERMORE, ONCE THE ASSESSMENT IS SO COMPLETED IT WOULD BE FUTILE TO FIND FAULT WITH THE ASSESSING AUTHORITY FOR HAVING INCLUDED SUCH INCOME IN THE ASSESSABLE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. THE SUPREME COURT HELD CATEGORICALLY THAT WITHOUT THE PARTICULARS OF THIS INCOME AS GIVEN IN FORM-I O. THE ASSESSING AUTHORITY CANNOT ENTERTAIN THE CLAIM OF T HE ASSESSEE UNDER SECTION 11 OF THE ACT AND THEREFORE. COMPLIANCE WITH THE REQUIREMENT OF THE A CT WILL HAVE TO BE AT ANY TIME BEFORE THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS ARE COMPLETED. THE SUPREME COURT ALSO OBSERVED THAT ANY CLAIM FOR GIVING THE BENEFIT OF SECTION LION THE BASIS OF INFORMATIO N SUPPLIED SUBSEQUENT TO THE COMPLETION OF ASSESSMENT WOULD MEAN THAT THE ASSESSMENT ORDER WIL L HAVE TO BE REOPENED. THE SUPREME COURT NOTICED THAT THE ACT DID NOT CONTEMPLATE SUCH RE-OP ENING OF THE ASSESSMENT. 6. THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE REVENUE RELIED ON THIS PORTION OF THE FINDING OF TILT' SUPREME COURT TO CONTEND THAT DURING RE-ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE SAID FORM-10 COULD NOT BE FURNISHED BY AN ASSESSEE. HOWEVER, WE HAVE TO KEEP IN MIND THE FACT THAT WHIIE REOPENING OF AN ASSESSMENT CANNOT BE ASKED FOR BY THE ASSESSEE ON THE GROUND THAT HE HAD NOT FURRNISHED THE FORM-1 0 DURING THE ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THIS DOES NOT MEAN THAT WHE N 11 ITA NOS. 2475 & 2476/MDS/2014 THE REVENUE RE-OPENS THE ASSESSMENT BY INVOKING SECTION 1 47 OF THE SAID ACT. THE ASSESSEE WOULD BE REMEDILESS AND WOULD BE BARRED FROM FURNISHING FORM 10 DURING THOSE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. CONSEQUENTLY. INSOFAR AS THE SECOND QUESTION IS CONCERNED AND WITH REGARD TO THE APPEAL NOS.524 TO 526/2012. THE SAME HAS TO BE ANSWERED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE AND AGAINST THE REVENUE. HOWEVER, WITH REGARD TO ITA NO.523/2012 BECAUSE THE FORM 10 WAS FILED ONLY BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL THE QUES TION HAS TO BE DECIDED IN THAT APPEAL AGAINST THE ASSESS EE AND IN FAVOUR OF THE REVENUE. 7. IN VIEW OF THE FACT THAT WE HAVE DECIDED THE QUE STION 'NO.2 AS ABOVE, THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE APPELLANT DOES NOT PRESS FOR A DECISION ON QUESTION NO.1. 8. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE DECISION OF THE DELHI HIGH COURT WHICH IS SQUARELY APPLICABLE TO THE FACTS OF THE PR ESENT CASE, THE ASSESSEE CAN FILE FORM NO.10 IN THE COURSE OF REASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. SINCE THE LOWER AUTHORI TIES HAVE NOT CONSIDERED FORM NO.10 WHICH WAS FILED ALONG WIT H THE RETURN OF INCOME IN RESPONSE TO NOTICE UNDER SECTIO N 148 AND COMPLETED THE ASSESSMENT DENYING EXEMPTION UNDER SE CTION 11, WE SET ASIDE THE ASSESSMENTS FOR BOTH THE ASSES SMENT YEARS AND RESTORE THE MATTERS TO THE FILE OF THE A SSESSING OFFICER WITH A DIRECTION TO MAKE FRESH ASSESSMENTS TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION THE FORM NO.10 FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ALONG WITH THE RETURNS OF INCOME FILED IN RESPONSE TO THE NOTICE 12 ITA NOS. 2475 & 2476/MDS/2014 UNDER SECTION 148 OF THE ACT, AFTER PROVIDING ADEQU ATE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE. 9. THE ASSESSEE RAISED ONE MORE GROUND IN RESPECT O F ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER WITH REGARD TO CORPUS DONATION TREATING AS INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. SINCE WE HAVE SET ASIDE THE ASSESSMENTS FOR FRESH CONSIDERATION I N VIEW OF THE FORM NO.10 FILED BY THE ASSESSEE, WE FEEL IT AP PROPRIATE TO REMIT THIS ISSUE ALSO BACK TO THE FILE OF THE AS SESSING OFFICER WHO SHALL CONSIDER THIS ISSUE AFRESH IN ACC ORDANCE WITH LAW. 10. IN THE RESULT, BOTH THE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE ARE ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 27 TH NOVEMBER, 2015. SD/- SD/- ( . ) ( ( *+ ) ( A.MOHAN ALANKAMONY ) ( CHALLA NAGENDRA PRASAD ) - / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER * - / JUDICIAL MEMBER * /CHENNAI, / /DATED 27 TH NOVEMBER, 2015 SOMU 12 32 /COPY TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. 4 () /CIT(A) 4. 4 /CIT 5. 2 7 /DR 6. /GF .