M/s Mother India Foundation, New Delhi V. Addl. DIT (E), New Delhi

ITA 2496/DEL/2011

• Counselvise Citation: [2013] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 69485 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 5 month(s) 26 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 08-11-2013
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: E
• Next Hearing Date: 07-10-2013
• Assessment Year: 2005-2006
• Appeal Filed On: 13-05-2011
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: MRS RENUKA JAIN GU PTA
• Keywords: Unexplained cash credit; Income from undisclosed sources; Charitable institution; Additional evidence; Capital expenditure
• Section: 143(3); 80G; 12A; 68

Judgement Text

ITA NO. 2167&2496/DEL/2011 1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH E NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI C.M. GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. NO. 2167/DEL/2011 A.Y. : 2005-06 INCOME TAX OFFICER (E), TRUST WARD-IV, DELHI VS. MOTHER INDIA FOUNDATION, 3455, KRISHNA NIKETAN, DELHI GATE, NEW DELHI - 110002 (PAN/GIR NO. : AAATM9211B) (APPELLANT) (APPELLANT) (APPELLANT) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) (RESPONDENT) (RESPONDENT) (RESPONDENT) I.T.A. NO. 2496/DEL/2011 A.Y. : 2005-06 MOTHER INDIA FOUNDATION, 3455, KRISHNA NIKETAN, DELHI GATE, NEW DELHI - 110002 (PAN/GIR NO. : AAATM9211B) VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER(E), TRUST WARD-IV, DELHI (APPELLANT) (APPELLANT) (APPELLANT) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) (RESPONDENT) (RESPONDENT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : SH. C.S. AGGRAWAL, SR. ADVOCATE WITH SH. GAUTAM JAIN, CA DEPARTMENT BY : MRS. RENUKA JAIN GUPTA, SR. D.R. ORDER ORDER ORDER ORDER PER PER PER PER SHAMIM YAHYA: AMN SHAMIM YAHYA: AMN SHAMIM YAHYA: AMN SHAMIM YAHYA: AMN THESE CROSS APPEALS BY THE REVENUE AND ASSESSEE EMANATE OUT OF THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) DATED 28.2.2011 AND PERTAIN TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06. 2. THE GROUNDS RAISED IN THE REVENUES APPEAL READ AS UNDER:- ITA NO. 2167&2496/DEL/2011 2 1. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CA SE, THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS. 1,82,14,817/- WHEN THE SAME WAS SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE ITSELF IN ITS INCOME AND EXPENDITURE A/C AND THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN DENIED BENEFITS U/S. 11 & 12 OF THE ACT WHICH HAS BEEN UPHELD BY THE LD. CIT(A) AS WEL L. 2. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE C ASE, THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN ALLOWING THE CLAIM OF EXPENDITURE OF RS. 1 ,84,77,745/- WHEN THE ASSESSEE HAD FAILED TO FURNISH COMPLETE DOCUMEN TARY EVIDENCES TO SUBSTANTIATE THE CLAIM TO FULFILL ITS OBJECTIVES. 3. THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD, TO ALTER OR AMEND ANY GROUND OF APPEAL RAISED ABOVE AT THE TIME OF HEARING. 3. THE GROUNDS RAISED IN THE ASSESSEES APPEAL READ AS UNDER:- 1. THAT THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS GROSSLY ERRED BOTH IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN HOLDING THAT, APPELLANT IS NOT ENTITLED TO CLAIM OF EXEMPTION U/S. 11 AND 12 OF THE ACT. 1.1 THAT THE LD. CIT(A) WHILE CONCLUDING THAT APPEL LANT IS NOT ENTITLED TO CLAIM OF EXEMPTION OF THE ACT HAS MISCONSTRUED THE STATUTORY PROVISIONS OF LAW AND, HAS FAILED TO APPRECIATE THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE APPELLANT TRUST AND AS SUCH TH E DENIAL OF EXEMPTION IS NOT IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW AND HENCE U NTENABLE. 1.2 THAT THE FINDING OF THE LD. CIT(A) THAT FACTS BROUGHT IN BY THE AO HAS NOT BEEN REBUTTED BY LD. A.R. THAT VARIOUS TV FILMS ARE BEING MANUFACTURED ARE COMMERCIAL IN NATURE IS FACTUALLY INCORRECT, ITA NO. 2167&2496/DEL/2011 3 OVERLOOKS THE WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS AND, DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE ON RECORD AND THUS, ARBITRARY, INVALID AND UNSUSTAINAB LE. 1.3 THAT THE JUDICIAL PRONOUNCEMENTS RELIED UPON BY THE LD. CIT(A) IN THE CASE OF AMAN SHIV MANDI TRUST VS. C.I.T. REPORTED IN 296 ITR 415 (P&H) AND C.I.T. VS. NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF AERONAUT ICAL ENGINEERING EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY REPORTED IN 181 TAXMANN 205 ARE WHOLLY INAPPLICABLE TO THE FACTS OF THE CASE OF THE APPELL ANT AND THUS COULD NOT HAVE BEEN RELIED UPON TO UPHOLD THE DENIAL OF E XEMPTION US. 11 AND 12 OF THE ACT. 1.4 THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS FAILED TO APPRECIATE T HAT, THE VARIOUS FINDINGS RECORDED BY THE LD. AO IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER OF ASS ESSMENT WERE ALSO FACTUALLY INCORRECT, CONTRARY TO REPLIES FURN ISHED IN THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS AND MATERIAL ON RECORD AND H AD BEEN RECORDED WITHOUT GRANTING ANY OPPORTUNITY MUCH LES S EFFECTIVE OPPORTUNITY AND, THEREFORE, MECHANICAL RELIANCE ON THE SAID FINDINGS TO SUSTAIN THE DENIAL IS ALSO MISCONCEIVED AND MISP LACED AND UNTENABLE. 1.5 THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS OTHERWISE TOO FAILED TO APPRECIATE THAT SINCE APPELLANT TRUST IS A CHARITABLE TRUST AND, IN COME HAD BEEN APPLIED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE OBJECTS SET OUT IN THE TRUST DEE D, THERE WAS NO JUSTIFICATION FOR THE LD. OFFICER TO DENY THE CLAIM OF EXEMPTION UNDER SECTION 11 & 12 OF THE ACT. 1.6 THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS FURTHER FAILED TO APPR ECIATE THAT ONCE REGISTRATION U/S. 12A HAS BEEN GRANTED BY THE LD. CIT(A) AND ITA NO. 2167&2496/DEL/2011 4 THEREAFTER, IT IS BEYOND THE PROVINCE OF THE LD. OF FICER TO REJECT THE CLAIM OF EXEMPTION UNDER SECTION 11 OF THE ACT BY LOOKING INTO OBJECTS OF THE TRUST. 1.7 THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ALSO OVERLOOKED THE FAC T THAT IN THE IMMEDIATELY PRECEDING ASSESSMENT YEAR THE LD. AO AF TER DUE EXAMINATION HAD ACCEPTED THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE IN AS MUCH AS HE HAS NOT HELD THAT, FILMS WERE PRODUCED FOR COMME RCIAL PURPOSES AND THEREFORE DENIAL OF EXEMPTION IS WHOLLY UNJUSTIF IED. 2. THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ALSO ERRED BOTH IN LAW A ND ON FACTS IN HOLDING THAT ORDER OF ASSESSMENT WAS FRAMED BY GRANTING VAL ID AND PROPER OPPORTUNITY TO THE APPELLANT. THE FINDINGS SO REC ORDED IS VITIATED AS IT OVERLOOKS THE FACTUAL MATRIX AND, EVIDENCE ON R ECORD AND THUS MISPLACED. 4. IN THIS CASE PURSUANT TO THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE, THE RETURN OF INCOME WAS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ON 10.5.2006 DECLARING TOTAL INCOME AT NIL, AFTER CLAIMING EXEMPTION OF RS. 1,66,00,108/- U/S. 11 OF THE I.T. ACT. IN RESPONSE TO THE STATUTORY NOTICES THE MANAGING TRUSTEE AND OTHER CA S APPEARED AND FILED THE VARIOUS DETAILS. ASSESSEE WAS FURTHER ASKED TO FUR NISH THE VARIOUS DETAILS/ INFORMATION AND WAS ALSO REQUIRED TO PRODUCE THE B OOKS OF ACCOUNTS AND VOUCHERS. LD. AO NOTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS FURN ISHED ONLY SOME INFORMATION, BUT NO BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS WERE PRODUCED AND VARIOUS INFORMATION / DOCUMENTS HAVING BEARING ON THE FINALIZATION OF ASSESSMENT WE RE ALSO NOT FILED. LD. AO FURTHER ASKED VARIOUS DETAILS AND INFORMATION AND E XPLANATION. LD. AO NOTED THAT ONLY SOME OF THE INFORMATION WERE SUPPLIED AND ASSE SSEES COUNSEL REPEATEDLY ITA NO. 2167&2496/DEL/2011 5 ASKED ADJOURNMENTS. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, LD. AO N OTED THAT ASSESSEE DOES NOT WANT TO FURNISH THE REMAINING INFORMATION / DOCUMEN TS/ CLARIFICATIONS AND ALSO DOES NOT WANT TO PRODUCE THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS. 4.1 LD. AO NOTED THAT AS PER THE TRUST DEED THE T RUST IS CREATED FOR CARRYING OUT THE FOLLOWING OBJECTS OF THE PUBLIC CHARITY AN D FOR THE BENEFITS OF ALL INDIANS WITHOUT ANY DISCRIMINATION OF CASTE, COLOUR, CREED, SECT, SEX, AGE AND / OR OTHER NATURAL OR MANMADE DIFFERENCES. :- (A) TO PROMOTE AND / OR CARRY OUT DIRECTLY OR INDIR ECTLY RESEARCH INTO SCIENTIFIC, CULTURAL AND SPIRITUAL HERITAGE OF INDI A; (B) TO PROMOTE AND / OR CARRY OUT DIRECTLY OR INDIR ECTLY RESEARCH ORIENTED STUDY OF INDIAN HISTORY AND CIVILIZATION; (C) TO CONVEY AND SPREAD KNOWLEDGE AND INFORMATIO N REGARDING (A) & (B) ABOVE THROUGH ALL MEDIA INCLUDING ELECTRONIC ME DIA AND SATELLITE AND TELEVISION CHANNELS EITHER OWNED BY THE TRUST A ND THROUGH MEDIA CHANNELS OWNED BY OTHERS. 4.2 LD. AO FURTHER REFERRED TO THE STATEMENT OF S HRI SHRADHALU RANADE, THE MANAGING TRUSTEE RECORDED ON 15.10.2007 DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. LD. AO NOTED THAT THE TRUST VIZ. IS MOTHER INDIA TRUST CAME INTO EXISTENCE ON 06.11.2002. LD. AO FURTHER NOTED THAT SHRI SHRADHALU RANADE, THE MANAGING TRUSTEE DEPOSED ON 15.10.2007, INTERALIA, THAT THE TRUST WAS CREATED WITH THE OBJECTIVE OF RESEARCHING AND DISSEMINATING ASPECTS OF INDIAN CULTURAL, KNOWLEDGE SYSTEM AND TRADITION OF INDIA IN ORDER TO INSPIRE AND EDUCATE THE YOUTH OF INDIA AND THAT IN PARTICULAR THE OBJECTIVE WAS T O CREATE PROGRAMMES BASED ON ITA NO. 2167&2496/DEL/2011 6 VIDEO MEDIUM FOR DISSEMINATION THROUGH AUDIO VISUAL PLATFORMS. SHRI RANADE FURTHER DEPOSED THAT THE OBJECTIVE WAS FULLY MET IN THE WORK DONE SO FAR AND THAT HIS EXTENSIVE RESEARCH OF CONTENT AND PRODUCT OF HI GH QUALITY VIDEO PROGRAMME AND DISSEMINATION THROUGH THE LECTURES/ WORKSHOPS A ND PRESENTATION THROUGH OUT INDIA; THAT IT WAS FURTHER DEPOSED THAT THEY AR E AT PRESENT IN NEGOTIATION WITH VARIOUS BROAD CASTERS FOR BROADCASTING THESE VIDEO PROGRAMMES; THAT SHRI RANADE FURTHER DEPOSED THAT IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2003-04, TH EY HAD MOSTLY DONE RESEARCH WORK AND SET UP THE BASIC FACILITIES BUT NO PRODUCT ION WERE COMPLETED AND THAT IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2004-05 AND 2005-06 MOST OF THE PRO DUCTIONS WERE DONE AND THAT A COMPLETE LIST OF PROGRAMMES HAS BEEN FURNIS HED VIDE LETTER DATED 5.10.2007 IN A.Y. 2004-05 AND THAT IT IS NOT POSSIB LE TO SEGREGATE THE YEAR WISE PRODUCTION AS NO SUCH RECORD IS KEPT AND THAT THE L IST IS THE COMBINED PRODUCTION FOR BOTH THE YEARS AND UPTO DATE I.E. MAY, 2005.; T HAT SHRI RANADE FURTHER STATED THAT THEREAFTER NO PRODUCTION WAS CARRIED OUT; THAT REGARDING RECEIPT FROM THESE SOURCES IT WAS DEPOSED THAT THERE WAS NO INCOME / R ECEIPT OUT OF THESE PRODUCTION / PROGRAMMES TILL DECEMBER, 2006 AND FRO M JANUARY, 2007 SOME INCOME BY WAY OF ROYALTY IS COMING FROM SALE OF DVD S OF 2 OF THE PROGRAMMES. ON BEING ASKED AS TO WHAT WAS THE REASON TO STOP TH E ACTIVITIES OF THE TRUST, IT WAS DEPOSED BY HIM, INTER-ALIA, THAT ACTIVITIES OF THE TRUST HAVE NOT STOPPED AND ONLY THE PRODUCTION HAS STOPPED. 4.4 LD. AO FURTHER NOTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS FILE D A LIST OF FILMS PRODUCED TILL THEN. THE LIST SHOWED 30 FILMS PRODUCED; THAT THE I NCOME AND EXPENDITURE ACCOUNT OF ASSTT. YEARS 2004-05 AND 2005-06 BOTH S HOW NO INCOME FROM THE PRODUCTION OF THE ABOVE FILMS; HUGE EXPENDITURE TO THE TUNE OF RS. 11,44,718/-; RS. 1,28,96,203; AND RS. 1,89,88,064/- WERE INCURRE D FOR THE PRODUCTION OF THESE ITA NO. 2167&2496/DEL/2011 7 FILMS IN THE ASSTT. YEAR 2003-04, 2004-05 & 2005-06 RESPECTIVELY. THE MAJOR SOURCES OF RECEIPT WAS ONLY DONATION IN ALL THESE Y EARS; THAT THE FILMS WERE STATED TO HAVE BEEN PRODUCED AND KEPT AS ITS IS. LD. AO F URTHER NOTED THAT AS PER THE STATEMENT OF THE MANAGING TRUSTEE THE PRODUCTION WA S DONE IN THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2004-05 AND 2005-06 ALSO BUT NO UTILIZATION OF THESE FILMS TOOK PLACE AS YET EXCEPT SALE OF DVDS OF TWO OF ITS PROGRAMMES SOMETI ME IN JANUARY, 2007; THAT THERE IS NO EVIDENCE OF UTILIZATION OF THESE FILMS / PROGRAMMES FOR CHARITABLE PURPOSE; THAT SHRI RANADE DEPOSED INTER-ALIA, THA T AS A RESULT OF CBIS ACTION DONORS KNOWN TO THEM STOPPED THEIR INVOLVEMENT AND THAT THEY WERE NOT IN A POSITION TO RAISE FUNDS AND TAKE FORWARD THEIR ACT IVITIES; THAT DEPOSITION INDICATES THAT THERE WAS NO APPLICATION OF INCOME DERIVED FRO M PROPERTY HELD UNDER TRUST FOR CHARITABLE PURPOSE; THAT THE FILMS WERE PRODUCE D AND WHAT WAS DONE WITH THOSE IS NOT APPARENT AND IT IS NOT PROVED THAT THE SAME WERE UTILIZED FOR CHARITABLE PURPOSES; THAT THE DEPOSITION OF SH. RAN ADE ON 15.10.2007 INTER-ALIA THAT WE ARE AT PRESENT IN NEGOTIATION WITH VARIOUS BROADCASTERS FOR BROADCAST OF THESE VIDEO PROGRAMMES INDICATE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS A PROGRAMME TO EXPLOIT THESE FILM FOR COMMERCIAL PURPOSES WITH A VIEW TO E ARN PROFIT AND ITS ACTIVITIES ARE NOT FOR CHARITABLE PURPOSE; THAT THIS VIEW IS ALSO FORTIFIED FROM THE EXTRACTS OF THE STATEMENTS OF THE EMPLOYEES OF THE ASSESSEE WHO HAV E DEPOSED IN PURSUANCE OF SUMMONS U/S. 131 OF THE I.T. ACT. 4.5 LD. AO FURTHER OBSERVED THAT THE ABOVE SUBMISSI ONS COULD NOT BE CONFRONTED TO THE ASSESSEE AS IT DID NOT APPEAR ON THE ADJOURNED DATE I.E. 27.11.2007 OR THEREAFTER. LD. AO OBSERVED THAT THE ABOVE EXTRACTS OF STATEMENTS OF THE ASSESSEES EMPLOYEES CLEARLY INDICATE THAT A SSESSEE WANTED TO EXPLOIT ALL THE PROGRAMMES FOR COMMERCIAL PURPOSES; THAT THESE FILMS PRODUCED IN ITA NO. 2167&2496/DEL/2011 8 ASSTT. YEAR 2004-05 AND 2005-06 COULD NOT BE RELEAS ED FOR CHARITABLE PURPOSES EVEN AFTER SEVERAL YEARS OF PRODUCTION IS SUFFICIEN T CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE TO SUGGEST THAT THERE IS NO APPLICATION OF ASSESSEE IN COME DERIVED FROM PROPERTY HELD UNDER TRUST FOR THE CHARITABLE PURPOSE. HENCE , THE LD. AO HELD THAT THE BENEFIT OF SECTION 11 AND 12 OF THE ACT ARE NOT ALL OWED. 4.6 LD. AO FURTHER NOTED THAT THE INCOME AND EXPEND ITURE ACCOUNT SHOWED RECEIPT OF DONATION OF RS. 1,82,14,817/-. THE ASS ESSEE WAS ASKED INTER-ALIA TO FURNISH THE LIST OF DONORS GIVING NAMES, ADDRESSES OF THE DONORS, AMOUNT RECEIVED, MODE OF PAYMENT RECEIVED, GIVING DETAILS OF CHEQUE/ DEMAND DRAFT AND THE DATE OF RECEIPT OF THE DONATION. ASSESSEE SUPPLIED SOME INFORMATION IN THIS REGARD, BUT LD. AO WAS NOT SATISFIED. HE OBSERVED THAT DONATION RECEIVED BY CHEQUE AMOUNTED TO RS. 47,06,368/- AND FOR THE REMAINING D ONATION REPRESENTING CASH DONATION, THERE WAS NO NAME AND ADDRESS OF THE DONO R. THEREFORE, LD. AO OBSERVED THAT THE IDENTITY AND CREDITWORTHINESS OF THE DONORS WERE THUS NOT PROVED. LD. AOS QUERIED FOR INFORMATION IN THIS R EGARD WHICH WERE NOT COMPLIED WITH BY THE ASSESSEE. AS REGARDS THE DONATION BY CHEQUE, LD. AO NOTED THAT ALTHOUGH SH. SHRADHALU RANADE STATED THAT HE KNOWS ALL THE DONORS AND HE CAN ARRANGE THE CONFIRMATION FROM THEM, BUT IT WAS NO T DONE INSPITE OF THE OPPORTUNITIES ALLOWED SUBSEQUENTLY TO FILE THEIR AD DRESSES. AS REGARDS THE CASH DONATION, SH. RANADE DEPOSED INTER-ALIA THAT THE A NONYMOUS DONATION WERE PLACED IN HUNDI AND DONORS IF THEY CHOOSE THEY WRIT E THEIR NAMES AND ADDRESSES ON THE ENVELOPE AND DROP IT IN THE HUNDI. MR. RANAD E FURTHER STATED THAT NO PANCHNAMA WAS PREPARED AS THE HUNDI WAS OPENED BY T HE TRUSTEES. LD. AO FURTHER OBSERVED THAT THIS CONTENTION OF THE ASSESS EE WAS NOT TENABLE, AS IN THE ABSENCE OF THE PANCHNAMA THERE WERE NO CIRCUMSTANTI AL EVIDENCE OF CASH ITA NO. 2167&2496/DEL/2011 9 DONATION. LD. AO FURTHER NOTED THAT DESPITE SEVERA L OPPORTUNITIES NO COMPLIANCE WAS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE. 4.7 FROM THE ABOVE, LD. AO OBSERVED THAT IT WAS APP ARENT THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT BEEN ABLE TO SUBSTANTIATE THE NATURE AND SO URCE OF RECEIPT OF THE AMOUNT UNDER THE HEAD DONATION. THE AMOUNT OF RS. 1,82,14 ,817/- WAS THEREFORE, TREATED AS ASSESSEES INCOME OR UNDISCLOSED SOURCE WITHIN T HE MEANING OF SECTION 68 OF THE I.T. ACT. 4.8 LD. AO FURTHER ASKED THE ASSESSEE TO EXPLAIN TH E NATURE AND DETAILS AND FURNISH EVIDENCE IN RESPECT OF THE VARIOUS EXPENSES CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE. ASSESSEE HAS STATED THAT THE RECORDS WERE NOT TRACE ABLE AND HENCE, INFORMATION COULD NOT BE PLACED. SUBSEQUENTLY, THE ASSESSEE M ERELY FURNISH THE COPY OF VENDOR LEDGER WITHOUT EVIDENCE AND SUPPORTING VOUCH ERS. LD. AO FURTHER OBSERVED THAT THE NECESSARY DETAILS IN THIS REGARD WERE NOT FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE. ON PERUSAL OF THE DETAILS SUBMITTED, LD. AO OBSERVED THAT IN RESPECT OF MOST OF THE EXPENDITURE, THE ASSESSEE HAS STATED VO UCHERS, BILLS WERE NOT READILY AVAILABLE. 4.9 LD. AO FURTHER OBSERVED THAT A SUM OF RS. 6,00, 000/- WAS SHOWN IN THE ASSESSEES BALANCE SHEET AS LOAN FROM DIPTI TRUST. THE ASSESSEE WAS INTER-ALIA ASKED TO FILE THE CONFIRMATIONS WITH PAN AND PARTIC ULARS OF DIPTI TRUST. HOWEVER, NO COMPLIANCE WAS GIVEN. THEREFORE, THE LD. AO OBS ERVED THAT NATURE AND SOURCE OF THIS CREDIT OF RS. 6 LACS REMAINED UNEXPLAINED. 4.10 LD. AO COMPUTED THE INCOME AS UNDER:- - INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES U/S. 68 OF THE I.T. ACT AS DISCUSSED IN PARA (C) ABOVE. RS. 1, 82,14,817/- ITA NO. 2167&2496/DEL/2011 10 - INTEREST ON FIXED DEPOSITS AS DECLARED RS. 1,1 99/- - MISCELLANEOUS INCOME AS DECLARED RS. 2,01,336/ - - UNEXPLAINED CASH CREDIT AS PER PARA (E) ABOVE RS . 6,00,000/- RS. 1,90,17,352/- LESS : (EXPENSES ATTRIBUTABLE TO EARNING OF INCOME AS ABOVE) - AUDIT FEE - 6681/- - BANK CHARGES -3137/- - MEMBERSHIP FEE - 500/- - OUT OF THE CLAIM OF OTHER - 5,00,000/- EXPENSES IN THE ABSENCE OF EVIDENCE AS DISCUSSED IN PARA (D) ABOVE, IT IS ESTIMATED THAT A SUM OF RS. 5 LACS ONLY ARE INCURRED WHOLLY AND EXCLUSIVELY FOR EARNING THE ABOVE INCOME - RS. 5,10,318/- ASSESSABLE INCOME RS. 1,85,07,034/- ROUNDED OFF RS. 1,85,07,030/- 5. AGAINST THE ABOVE ORDER THE ASSESSEE APPEALED BE FORE THE LD. CIT(A). BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) ASSESSEE SUBMITTED A REQUEST TO ADMIT THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES UNDER RULE 46A. THESE WERE FORWARDED TO THE LD. AO FOR HIS REMAND REPORT. UPON RECEIPT OF THE REMAND REPORT FROM TH E LD. AO, REJOINDER FROM THE ASSESSEE WAS ALSO OBTAINED. 5.1 LD. CIT(A) NOTED THAT GROUND NO. 1 AND 2 OF TH E APPEAL WAS REGARDING DENIAL OF VALID AND PROPER OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSES SEE COMPANY. CONSIDERING THE RESPONSE OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY IN THIS REGARD, LD . CIT(A) DISMISSED THE GROUND NO. 1 & 2 OF THE ASSESSEE AND HELD THAT ASSESSMENT ORDER WAS A VALID ORDER AND ITA NO. 2167&2496/DEL/2011 11 PROPER OPPORTUNITIES OF BEING HEARD WERE GIVEN TO T HE ASSESSEE, WHILE PASSING THE ORDER U/S. 143(3) OF THE I.T. ACT. 5.2 FURTHER GROUND NO. 3 & 4 RAISED BY THE ASSESSE E BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) IS AS UNDER:- 3. THAT THE LD. ADDL. DIT(E), RANGE-I, DELHI, HAS GROSSLY ERRED IN HOLDING THAT THE ACTIVITIES OF THE ASSESSEE WERE NO T FOR CHARITABLE PURPOSES. THE AFORESAID FINDINGS ARE IN DISREGARD OF THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS DULY BEEN GRANTE D A CERTIFICATE UNDER SECTION 12A OF THE ACT AND FURTHER A CERTIFIC ATE U/S. 80G OF THE I.T. ACT, HAD ALSO BEEN GRANTED. THE ADVERS E FINDINGS RECORDED ARE ARBITRARY AND CONCLUSION THAT THE AC TIVITIES OF THE ASSESSEE ARE NOT CHARITABLE IS CONTRARY TO THE SETTLED LEGAL PRINCIPLES BESIDES OTHERWISE BEING CONTRARY TO FAC TS ON RECORD. THERE WAS NO MATERIAL THE LD. ADDL. DIT(E) THAT TH E ASSESSEE WAS ENGAGED IN ANY BUSINESS ACTIVITIES AND THE MOTI VE WAS NOT CHARITABLE BUT COMMERCIAL. 4. THAT, THE LD. ADDL. DIT, RANGE-I, DELHI, HAS GRO SSLY ERRED IN HOLDING THAT ASSESSEES INCOME AMOUNTING TO RS. 1,84,17,352/- DERIVED FROM PROPERTY HELD UNDER TRUS T WAS NOT AT ALL APPLIED FOR CHARITABLE PURPOSE AND ERRED IN NOT ALLOWING EXEMPTION UNDER SECTION 11 OF THE I.T. ACT, 1961. IN FACT HE HAS FURTHER ERRED THAT APART FROM APPLYING THE ENTIRE R ECEIPTS THERE WAS AN EXCESS OF EXPENDITURE OVER RECEIPTS AND FURTHER ITA NO. 2167&2496/DEL/2011 12 THE ASSESSEE TRUST HAS ALSO MADE AN APPLICATION OF RS. 25,37,659.00 BY WAY OF NET CAPITAL EXPENDITURE FOR CHARITABLE PURPOSES. 5.3 IN THIS REGARD, LD. CIT(A) NOTED THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE AND THE ADJUDICATION OF THE LD. AO, LD. CIT(A) OBSERVED TH AT ACCORDING TO THE LD. AO THERE IS NO EVIDENCE OF UTILIZATION OF FILM AND PROGRAMM ES FOR THE CHARITABLE PURPOSES. LD. CIT(A) OBSERVED THAT LD. AO HAS HELD THAT ASSES SEE HAS A PROGRAMME TO EXPLOIT THE FILMS FOR COMMERCIAL PURPOSES WITH A VIEW TO EA RN PROFIT AND NOT FOR CHARITABLE PURPOSES. IN THIS REGARD, LD. CIT(A) R EFERRED TO THE OBSERVATION OF THE LD. AO AND THE STATEMENT OF THE ASSESSEES EMPLOYEE S WHO HAVE DEPOSED IN PURSUANCE OF THE SUMMONS ISSUED U/S. 133 OF THE I. T. ACT. 5.4 LD. CIT(A) FURTHER NOTED THE ELABORATE SUBMISS IONS OF THE ASSESSEE IN THIS REGARD. IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THE LD. AO ERRED IN HOLDING THAT THE ASSESSEES INCOME AMOUNTING TO RS. 184175352/- DERIVED FROM PR OPERTY HELD UNDER THE TRUST WAS NOT APPLIED FOR CHARITABLE PURPOSES. IT WAS F URTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE LD. AO WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN DENYING THE EXEMPTION U/S. 11 O F THE I.T. ACT. 5.5 CONSIDERING THE ABOVE, LD. CIT(A) OBSERVED THAT WHILE DISALLOWING THE BENEFIT OF SECTION 11 AND 12 OF THE ACT, LD. AO HA S SPECIFICALLY DISCUSSED IN THE BODY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AND THE LD. AO HAS VER Y SPECIFICALLY AND CATEGORICALLY INCORPORATED VARIOUS FACTS ON RECORD THAT THE OBJECTS OF PRODUCING THE FILMS WAS NOT A CHARITABLE PURPOSE. IN THIS RE GARD, LD. CIT(A) REFERRED TO THE STATEMENTS OF FOUR PERSONS RECORDED BY THE LD. AO. LD. CIT(A) CONCLUDED THAT AFTER CONSIDERING THE ASSESSEES REPLY AND FINDING OF THE LD. AO, HE WAS OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION, THAT FACTS BROUGHT ON BY THE LD . AO HAS NOT BEEN REBUTTED BY ITA NO. 2167&2496/DEL/2011 13 THE ASSESSEES COUNSEL THAT VARIOUS TV FILMS THAT A RE BEING MANUFACTURED ARE COMMERCIAL IN NATURE. THEREFORE, THE LD. CIT(A) HE LD THAT ACTION OF THE AO DESERVES TO BE CONFIRMED. LD. CIT(A) FURTHER REFER RED TO THE FOLLOWING JUDICIAL PRONOUNCEMENT NAMELY AMAN SHIV MANDIR TRUST VS. C .I.T. 296 ITR 415 (P&H) WHEREIN IT WAS HELD AS UNDER:- HELD, DISMISSING THE APPEAL, THAT IT WAS NOT DISPUT ED THAT NOTHING WAS SPENT DURING THE LAST GIVE YEARS ON ANY CHARITA BLE PURPOSE. IT WAS ALSO FOUND THAT THE APPLICATION FILED BY THE AS SESSEE WAS DELAYED BY MORE THAN FOUR YEARS. NOT ONLY THIS, HUGE A MOUNTS OF FIXED DEPOSITS WERE FOUND IN THE NAME OF THE TRUSTEE, WHO HAD LATER APPROACHED THE SETTLEMENT COMMISSION OBVIOUSLY ADMI TTING HIS GUILT. KEEPING IN VIEW THE TOTALITY OF CIRCUMSTANCES AND T HE INTENTION AND CONDUCT OF THE ASSESSEE INCLUDING THE MANAGING TRU STEE, THE CLAIM MADE BY THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT FOUND TO BE GENUINE. THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT ENTITLED TO REGISTRATION UNDER SECTION 12A. 5.6 LD. CIT(A) CONCLUDED AS FOLLOWS IN THIS REGARD: - FURTHER, RELIANCE IS PLACED ON THE JUDGMENT OF THE HONBLE UTTARAKHAND HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF C.I.T. (DEHRA DUN) VS. NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF AERONAUTICAL SOCIETY, REPORTED AT 2009 TIOL-314-HC- UTTRAKHAND, WHEREIN, THE HONBLE HIGH COURT HAS HEL D THAT CHARITY IS SOUL OF THE CHARITABLE PURPOSE EXPRESSION, MERE TR ADE AND COMMERCE IN EDUCATION CANNOT BE SAID TO BE A CHAR ITABLE PURPOSE. THE RATIO OF THE ABOVE SAID JUDGMENT OF THE HONBLE UTTRAKHAND HIGH COURT CLEARLY HITS THE PRESENT AS ASSESSEE WAS NOT ABLE TO EXPLAIN AS ITA NO. 2167&2496/DEL/2011 14 TO HOW IT IS INVOLVED IN THE CHARITABLE ACTIVITY. BY PRODUCING VARIOUS FILMS WHAT KIND OF CHARITY HAS BEEN DONE? IT HAS NO T BEEN FULLY EXPLAINED AND PROPERLY PROVED BY THE ASSESSEE. I N VIEW OF THE RELIANCE ON THE ABOVE SAID JUDGMENTS OF THE HONBLE PUNJAB AND HARYANA & UTTARAKHAND HIGH COURT, IN MY CONSIDERED OPINION ACTION OF THE LD. AO DESERVES TO BE CONFIRMED AND GROUND N O. 3 AND 4 ARE DISMISSED. 5.7 THEREAFTER, LD. CIT(A) CONSIDERED THE GROUND NO . 5 OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE DONATION OF RS. 18,41,75,352/- WA S WRONGLY TREATED AS ASSESSEES INCOME FROM UNDISCLOSED SOURCES WITHIN THE MEANING OF SECTION 68 OF THE I.T. ACT. IN THIS REGARD, LD. CIT(A) NOTED THE ASSESSEES SUBMISSIONS THAT ANONYMOUS DONATION IN TH E ASSTT. YEAR 2005-06 CANNOT BE HELD TO BE INCOME FROM UNEXPLAINED SOURCES U/S. 68, IN VIEW O THE JUDGMENT OF THE HONBLE HIGH COUR T OF DELHI IN THE CASE OF DIT(E) VS. KESHAV SOCIAL AND CHARITABLE FOUND ATION, REPORTED IN (2005) 278 ITR 152 WHEREIN IT HAS BEEN HELD AS UNDE R:- IN S.R.M.M. C.T.M. TIRUPPANI TRUST VS. C.I.T. (1998) 230 ITR 636 (SC), IT HAS BEEN HELD THAT UNDER SECTION 11(1 ) OF THE ACT, EVERY CHARITABLE OR RELIGIOUS TRUST IS ENTIT LED TO DEDUCTION OF CERTAIN INCOME FROM ITS TOTAL INCOME OF THE PREVIOUS YEAR. THE INCOME SO EXEMPT IS THE INCOM E WHICH IS APPLIED BY THE CHARITABLE TRUST TO ITS CHA RITABLE OR ITA NO. 2167&2496/DEL/2011 15 RELIGIOUS PURPOSES IN INDIA. THIS IS, OF COURSE , SUBJECT TO ACCUMULATION UP TO A SPECIFIED MAXIMUM WHICH, IN THE PRESENT CASE, WAS 25 PERCENT. IN THE APPEAL THAT WE ARE CONCERNED WITH, IT HAS BEEN FOUND AS A MATTER OF FAC T THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD APPLIED MORE THAN 75 PER CENT OF T HE DONATIONS FOR CHARITABLE PURPOSES AS PER ITS OBJECT S. TO OBTAIN THE BENEFIT OF THE EXEMPTION UNDER SECTION 11 OF THE ACT, THE ASSESSEE IS REQUIRED TO SHOW THAT THE DONATIONS WERE VOLUNTARY. IN THE PRESENT CASE, THE ASSESSEE H AD NOT ONLY DISCLOSED ITS DONATIONS, BUT HAD ALSO SUBMITTED A LIST OF DONORS. THE FACT THAT THE COMPLETE LIST OF DONORS WA S NOT FILED OR THAT THE DONORS WERE NOT PRODUCED, DOES NO T NECESSARILY LEAD TO THE INFERENCE THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS TRYING TO INTRODUCE UNACCOUNTED MONEY BY WAY OF DON ATION RECEIPTS. THIS IS MORE PARTICULARLY SO IN THE FACTS OF THE CASE WHERE ADMITTEDLY MORE THAN 75 PER CENT OF THE DONATIO NS WERE APPLIED FOR CHARITABLE PURPOSES. SECTION 68 OF THE ACT HAS NO APPLICATION TO THE FA CTS OF THE CASE BECAUSE THE ASSESSEE HAD IN FACT DISCLOSED THE DONATIONS OF RS. 18,24,200/- AS ITS INCOME AND IT C ANNOT BE DISPUTED THAT ALL RECEIPTS, OTHER THAN CORPUS DONAT IONS, ITA NO. 2167&2496/DEL/2011 16 WOULD BE INCOME IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE. THER E WAS, THEREFORE, FULL DISCLOSURE OF INCOME BY THE ASSESSE E AND ALSO APPLICATION OF THE DONATIONS FOR CHARITABLE PURPOSE S. IT IS NOT IN DISPUTE THAT THE OBJECTS AND ACTIVITIES OF T HE ASSESSEE WERE CHARITABLE IN NATURE, SINCE IT WAS DU TY REGISTERED UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 12A OF THE ACT. 5.8 LD. CIT(A) FURTHER NOTED THAT ASSESSEE HAS FUR NISHED A STATEMENT OF DONATION RECEIVED IN WHICH OUT OF TOTAL 54 DONA TIONS RECEIVED BY CHEQUES, NAMES AND FULL ADDRESS OF 33 DONORS WERE G IVEN. LD. CIT(A) NOTED THAT IN 20 CASES ONLY NAMES WERE AVAILABLE AND IN ONLY ONE CASE NEITHER THE NAME OR ADDRESS WAS AVAILABLE. IT WAS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT SECTION 115 BBC PROVIDING FOR TAXATI ON OF ANONYMOUS DONATIONS WAS INSERTED BY FINANCE ACT, 2006 ONLY WIT H EFFECT FROM 1 ST APRIL, 2007. LD. CIT(A) CONCLUDED IN THIS REGARD AS UNDER:- GROUND NO. 5 IS AGAINST THE ADDITION OF RS. 1,82, 14,817/- U/S. 68 OF THE I.T. ACT. IN THIS REGARD, LD. AR HA S PLACED HIS RELIANCE ON THE JUDGMENT OF HONBLE HIGH COURT IN T HE CASE OF DIT(E) VS. KESHAV SOCIAL AND CHARITABLE FOUNDATIO N, REPORTED IN (2005) 278 ITR 152. WHILE ADMITTING TH E ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES ASSESSEE WAS ABLE TO GIVE FULL DETAILS OF THE DONORS. FURTHERMORE, ASSESSEES RELIANCE ON THE ITA NO. 2167&2496/DEL/2011 17 JUDGMENT OF THE HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT IS APPRECIAT ED AS WELL AS PROVISIONS OF SECTION 115BBC OF THE I.T. AC T CANNOT BE ATTRACTED BECAUSE IT HAS BEEN INSERTED BY FINANC E ACT, 2006 W.E.F. ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08, BY WHICH ANONYMOUS DONATION CAN BE TAXED W.E.F. ASSESSMENT YE AR 2007-08. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE DISCUSSION, IN MY CONSIDERED OPINION, ACTION OF THE AO MAKING ADDITIO N OF RS. 1,82,14,817/- DESERVES TO BE DELETED. GROUND NO. 5 IS ALLOWED. 5.9 THEREAFTER, LD. CIT(A) CONSIDERED THE ISSUE OF DISALLOWANCE OF THE CLAIM OF THE EXPENDITURE. LD. CIT(A) NOTED THE AOS OBSERVATIONS AND ASSESSEES SUBMISSION IN THIS REGARD. LD. CIT(A) CO NCLUDED AS UNDER:- I HAVE GONE THROUGH THE FINDING OF THE AO IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AND DETAILS SUBMITTED BY LD. AR HAS SHOWN THAT VARIOUS DETAILS WERE PRODUCED DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS ITSELF, AND ALL THE PAYMEN TS WERE MADE BY ACCOUNT PAYEE CHEQUE AND LEDGER WAS ALSO PRODUCED. SO, MAKING DISALLOWANCE OF THESE EXPENSES HAS NO BASIS. SO, IN MY CONSIDERED OPINION GROUNDS NO. 6, 9 AND 10 ARE ALLOWED. 6. AGAINST THE ABOVE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A), REVEN UE AND ASSESSEE BOTH ARE IN CROSS APPEAL BEFORE US. ITA NO. 2167&2496/DEL/2011 18 7. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE COUNSEL AND PERUSED THE R ECORDS. REVENUE HAS RAISED THE GROUND THAT LD. CIT(A) ERRE D IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS. 182,11,817/-, WHEN THE SAME WAS SHOW N BY THE ASSESSEE ITSELF IN ITS INCOME AND EXPENDITURE A/C AND THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN DENIED BENEFITS U/S. 11 & 12 OF THE ACT W HICH HAS BEEN UPHELD BY THE LD. CIT(T) AS WELL. FURTHER, IT HAS BEEN URGED THAT LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN ALLOWING THE CLAIM OF EXPENDITURE O F RS. 184,77,745/- WHEN THE ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO FURNISH COMPLETE D OCUMENTARY EVIDENCE TO SUBSTANTIATE THE CLAIM TO FULFILL ITS OBJECTIVE. 7.1 THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE GROUND THAT LD. CI T(A) HAS ERRED IN HOLDING THAT ASSESSEE IS NOT ENTITLED TO CLAIM EXEMPT ION U/S. 11 & 12 OF THE I.T. ACT. 7.2 IN OUR CONSIDERED OPINION, LD. CIT(A) HAS PASSE D A CONTRADICTORY ORDER. LD. CIT(A) HAS HELD THAT ASSESSEE HAS NOT BE EN ABLE TO REBUT THE AOS FINDING THAT VARIOUS TV FILMS THAT ARE BEING M ANUFACTURED ARE COMMERCIAL IN NATURE. LD. CIT(A) HAS FURTHER HELD T HAT ASSESSEE WAS NOT ABLE TO EXPLAIN AS TO HOW IT IS INVOLVED IS CHARIT ABLE ACTIVITY. LD. CIT(A) HAS AFFIRMED AOS FINDING THAT ASSESSEE IS NOT ENTI TLED TO THE BENEFIT OF SECTION 11 & 12 OF THE ACT. ITA NO. 2167&2496/DEL/2011 19 7.3 AFTER HAVING HELD AS ABOVE LD. CIT(A) HAS GONE ON TO HOLD THAT AOS ACTION OF MAKING ADDITION OF RS. 18214817/- DE SERVES TO BE DELETED. THE LD. CIT(A) HELD SO AFTER PLACING RE LIANCE ON THE CASE LAW OF SRMM CTM TIRUPPANI TRUST VS. C.I.T. (SUPRA). IN TH IS CASE LAW IT HAS BEEN HELD THAT UNDER SECTION 11(1) OF THE ACT EVERY CHARITABLE OR RELIGION TRUST IS ENTITLED TO DEDUCTION OF THE CERT AIN INCOME FROM ITS TOTAL INCOME OF PREVIOUS YEAR. THE INCOME SO EXEMPT IS THE INCOME WHICH IS APPLIED BY THE CHARITABLE TRUST TO ITS CHA RITABLE OR RELIGIOUS PURPOSES IN INDIA. FURTHERMORE, IT WAS OBSERVED THAT IN THAT CASE IT WAS FOUND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD APPLIED MORE 75% OF THE DONATION FOR CHARITABLE PURPOSES AS PER ITS OBJECTS. IN THE BA CKGROUND OF THE AFORESAID PREMISES, IT WAS HELD THAT IN THE CASE LAW ABOVE THAT THE DONATIONS RECEIVED WERE EXEMPT AS THEY WERE HELD TO HAVE BEEN APPLIED FOR CHARITABLE PURPOSE. 8. IN THE PRESENT CASE BEFORE US COMPLETE DETAILS OF THE DONATIONS RECEIVED IS NOT ON RECORD. THE DONATIONS AND THE I NCOME SO GENERATED HAS BEEN HELD BY THE LD. CIT(A) TO HAVE NOT BEEN AP PLIED FOR CHARITABLE PURPOSES. IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, WE FIND THAT IT IS CONTRADICTORY ON THE PART OF THE LD. CIT(A) TO HOLD THAT THE DONATIO NS ARE DISCLOSED AND EXEMPT AND AT THE SAME TIME HOLD THAT ASSESSEE IS NOT ENTITLED FOR EXEMPTION U/S. 11 & 12 OF THE ACT IN AS MUCH AS IT IS NOT ENGAGED IN ANY CHARITABLE ACTIVITY. 9. APART FROM ABOVE, LD. CIT(A) HAS HELD THAT THE AS SESSEE SHOULD BE ALLOWED THE CLAIM OF EXPENDITURE OF RS. 18477745/ -. THIS IS QUITE CONTRADICTORY APPROACH AS WHEN IT HAS BEEN HELD BY THE LD. CIT(A) THAT ASSESSEE IS NOT ENGAGED IN ANY CHARITABLE ACTI VITY, THERE IS NO QUESTION OF ALLOWING ANY EXPENDITURE INCURRED IN T HIS REGARD. FROM THE ITA NO. 2167&2496/DEL/2011 20 ABOVE, IT IS CLEAR THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS PASSED A CONTRADICTORY ORDER. IN THIS REGARD, WE FIND THAT HONBLE APEX COURT IN THE CASE OF KAPURCHAND SHRIMAL VS. CIT, 131 ITR 451, HAS HELD T HAT IT IS THE DUTY OF THE APPELLATE AUTHORITY TO CORRECT THE LACUNAE IN T HE ORDER OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW AND IF NEEDED REMAND THE MATTER. HENCE, IN THE BACKGROUND OF THE AFORESAID DISCUSSIONS AND PRECED ENT, WE REMIT THE ISSUE RAISED IN THE CROSS APPEALS TO THE FILE OF TH E LD. CIT(A) TO CONSIDER THE ISSUE AFRESH AND PASS A COGENT ORDER. 10. IN THE RESULT, BOTH THE CROSS APPEALS FILED BY THE REVENUE AS WELL AS ASSESSEE ARE ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 08/11/2013. SD/- SD/- [ [[ [C.M. GARG C.M. GARG C.M. GARG C.M. GARG] ]] ] [SHAMIM YAHYA] [SHAMIM YAHYA] [SHAMIM YAHYA] [SHAMIM YAHYA] JUDICIAL MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATE 08/11/2013 SRBHATNAGAR SRBHATNAGAR SRBHATNAGAR SRBHATNAGAR COPY FORWARDED TO: COPY FORWARDED TO: COPY FORWARDED TO: COPY FORWARDED TO: - -- - 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT (A) 5. DR, ITAT TRUE COPY BY ORDER, ASSISTANT REGISTRAR, ITAT, DELHI BENCHES