Punjab Khadi Mandal, Jalandhar V. The Income Tax Officer, Jalandhar

ITA 265/ASR/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 133 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 0612 (ITAT-AMRITSAR)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 month(s) 25 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 29-06-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Appeal Filed On: 04-05-2016
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: A N MISHRA
• Assessee Lawyers: INDER JIT SHARMA CAS; SSH ADITYA SHARMA
• Keywords: Charitable institution

Judgement Text

1 ITA NO.265(ASR)/2016 A.Y.2011-12 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AMRITSAR BENCH; AMRITSAR. (CAMP AT JALANDHAR) BEFORE SH. A.D. JAIN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SH. T.S. KAPOOR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO.265(ASR)/2016 ASSESSMENT YEAR:2011-12 PAN: AAATP7010P M/S. PUNJAB KHADI MANDAL, VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER, ADAMPUR DOABA. RANGE IV(1), JALANDHAR. JALANDHAR. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY: S/SH.ADITYA SHARMA & INDERJIT SHARMA, CAS. RESPONDENT BY: SH. A.N. MISHRA, DR DATE OF HEARING: 24/06/2016 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 29/06/2016 ORDER PER A.D. JAIN, JM: THIS IS THE ASSESSEES APPEAL FOR THE ASSESSMENT Y EAR 2011-12, AGAINST THE ACTION OF THE LD. CIT(A) IN CONFIRMING THE DISA LLOWANCE OF EXEMPTION OF THE SOCIETY UNDER SECTION 10(23B) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT , 1961. 2. THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASES ARE THAT THE ASSESS EE SOCIETY, WHICH DERIVED INCOME FROM THE OBJECTS AS SPECIFIED IN THE MEMORAN DUM OF ASSOCIATION APART FROM RENTAL INCOME AND INTEREST INCOME, FILED ITS R ETURN OF INCOME FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION ON 25.09.2011 DECLARING THEREIN LOSS OF RS.21,80,430/-. 2 ITA NO.265(ASR)/2016 A.Y.2011-12 THE DECLARED LOSS HAD BEEN ARRIVED AT AFTER TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION THE INTEREST INCOME AND RENTAL INCOME DECLARED BY THE A SSESSEE SOCIETY AT RS.6,84,461/- AND RS.8,26,324/-, RESPECTIVELY. THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE SOCIETY IS STATED TO BE EXEMPT UNDER SECTION 10(23 B) OF THE ACT, WHICH FACT HAD NOT BEEN DISPUTED BY THE AO. AS THE AO, INCOME DERI VED BY THE ASSESSEE SOCIETY BY WAY OF INTEREST ON ITS SURPLUS FUNDS PAR KED WITH BANKS AND INCOME DERIVED BY WAY OF LETTING OUT ITS BUILDINGS ON REN T DOES NOT FORM PART OF THE ACTIVITIES OF THE MANDAL AND AS SUCH, THE INCOME BY WAY OF INTEREST AND RENT DOES NOT QUALIFY FOR EXEMPTION U/S 10(23B) OF THE A CT. THE AO ASKED THE ASSESSEE SOCIETY AS TO WHY EXEMPTION U/S 10(23B) OF THE ACT SHOULD NOT BE RESTRICTED TO THE EXTENT OF INCOME DERIVED BY THE A SSESSEE SOCIETY FROM ITS ACTIVITIES AS A UNIT OF KHASI AND GRAMUDYOG MANDAL. IN RESPONSE, THE ASSESSEE SOCIETY REITERATED ITS STAND THAT THE INCOME EARNE D BY THE ASSESSEE SOCIETY FROM ALL SOURCES IS EXEMPT U/S 10(23B) OF THE ACT, AS THE ASSESSEE SOCIETY IS SOLELY EXISTING FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF KHADI OR VI LLAGE INDUSTRIES AND NOT FOR THE PURPOSES OF PROFIT. IT HAS ALSO BEEN SUBMITTED THAT ITS ENTIRE INCOME IS ATTRIBUTABLE TO THE BUSINESS OF PRODUCTION, SALE, O R MARKETING OF KHADI PRODUCTS OR PRODUCTS OF VILLAGE INDUSTRIES. HOWEVER, THE EXP LANATION SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE SOCIETY DID NOT FIND FAVOUR WITH THE A.O. THE AO, THEREFORE, TREATED INTEREST INCOME AND RENTAL INCOME FROM THE SOURCES OTHER THAN THAT OF THE BUSINESS OF PRODUCTION, SALE, OR MARKETING OF KHADI PRODUCTS OR PRODUCTS OF VILLAGE INDUSTRIES. AS PER THE AO, THE INTEREST INC OME IS ASSESSABLE UNDER THE HEAD INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES AND RENTAL INCOME IS ASSESSABLE UNDER THE 3 ITA NO.265(ASR)/2016 A.Y.2011-12 HEAD INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY AND CANNOT BE SAI D TO BE ATTRIBUTABLE TO THE BUSINESS OF PRODUCTION, SALE, OR MARKETING OF KHADI PRODUCTS AND PRODUCTS OF VILLAGE INDUSTRIES, WHICH IS THE MAIN SOURCE OF INC OME OF THE ASSESSEE-SOCIETY. THE AO, THEREFORE, ASSESSED INTEREST INCOME EARNED BY THE ASSESSEE SOCIETY UNDER THE HEAD INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES AND RENT AL INCOME UNDER THE HEAD INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY AND COMPUTED THE BU SINESS LOSS AT RS.36,91,215/-. THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE WAS ASSE SSED AT AN INCOME OF RS.12,62,888/-, AS AGAINST THE DECLARED LOSS OF RS. 21,80,430/-. 3. BY VIRTUE OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER, THE LD. DISMISS ED THE ASSESSEES APPEAL, OBSERVING AS FOLLOWS: 5.2. I HAVE CONSIDERED THE OBSERVATIONS OF THE AO AS MAD E BY HIM IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. I HAVE ALSO CONSIDERED THE WRITTE N SUBMISSIONS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE VIDE LETTER DATED 19.01.2016 ON THE IS SUE UNDER REFERENCE. I HAVE FURTHER CONSIDERED VARIOUS JUDICIAL PRONOUNCEM ENTS RELIED UPON BY THE ASSESSEE AS WELL AS OTHER MATERIAL BROUGHT BY T HE ASSESSEE SOCIETY ON RECORD. ON CAREFUL CONSIDERATION OF THE RIVAL CONTE NTIONS I AM OF THE OPINION THAT THE INTEREST INCOME AND RENTAL INCOME EARNED B Y THE ASSESSEE SOCIETY CANNOT BE SAID TO BE ATTRIBUTABLE TO MAIN ACTIVITY OF THE ASSESSEE SOCIETY I.E. BUSINESS OF PRODUCTION, SALE, OR MARKETING OF KHADI PRODUCTS OR PRODUCTS OF VILLAGE INDUSTRIES. I AM ALSO OF THE OP INION THAT THE INTEREST INCOME AND RENTAL INCOME EARNED BY THE ASSESSEE SOC IETY HAVE CORRECTLY BEEN BROUGHT TO TAX BY THE A.O. UNDER THE HEADS IN COME FROM OTHER SOURCES AND INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY RESPECTIVEL Y. I AM FURTHER OF THE OPINION THAT THE BUSINESS LOSS INCURRED BY THE ASSE SSEE SOCIETY IN THIS CASE CAN ALSO NOT TO ADJUSTED AGAINST INCOME UNDER OTHER HEADS AS THERE IS NO SUCH PROVISION IN THE ACT DUE TO THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE SOCIETY IS CLAIMING EXEMPTION U/S 10(23B) OF THE ACT IS NOT AL LOWABLE TO THE ASSESSEE IN RESPECT OF INTEREST INCOME AND INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY AS THESE INCOMES HAVE BEEN HELD TO BE NOT ATTRIBUTABLE TO MA IN BUSINESS ACTIVITY OF THE ASSESSEE SOCIETY, I.E., BUSINESS OF PRODUCTION, SALE, OR MARKETING OF KHADI PRODUCTS OR VILLAGE INDUSTRIES. UNDER SUCH C IRCUMSTANCES, THE ACTION OF THE AO IN NOT TREATING INTEREST AND RENTAL INCOM E ATTRIBUTABLE TO THE MAIN ACTIVITIES OF THE ASSESSEE SOCIETY, I.E., BUSINESS OF PRODUCTION, SALE, OR MARKETING OF KHADI PRODUCTS OR VILLAGE INDUSTRIES, IS NOT ALLOWING SET OFF OF BUSINESS LOSS AGAINST INCOME UNDER OTHER HEADS AND THEREAFTER ASSESSING 4 ITA NO.265(ASR)/2016 A.Y.2011-12 THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE SOCIETY AT RS.12,62,888/ - AS AGAINST DECLARED LOSS OF RS.21,80,430/- CANNOT BE SAID TO BE UNJUSTI FIED. 5.3. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE STATED FACTS AND CIRCUMST ANCES OF THE CASE, I AM OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT THE AO IS FULLY JUSTIFIED IN NOT TREATING INTEREST AND RENTAL INCOME ATTRIBUTABLE TO THE MAIN ACTIVITIES OF THE ASSESSEE SOCIETY, I.E. BUSINESS OF PRODUCTION, SALE , OR MARKETING OF KHADI PRODUCTS OR VILLAGE INDUSTRIES, IS NOT ALLOWING SE T OFF OF BUSINESS LOSS AGAINST INCOME UNDER OTHER HEADS AND THEREAFTER ASS ESSING THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE SOCIETY AT RS.12,62,888/- AS AGAINST D ECLARED LOSS OF RS.21,80,430/-. THE ENTIRE ACTION OF THE AO IS, THE REFORE, UPHELD IN THIS CASE. 4. BEFORE US, ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE, IT HAS BEE N CONTENDED THAT DENYING EXEMPTION AVAILABLE TO THE ASSESSEE SOCIETY U/S 10( 23B) OF THE ACT IS INCORRECT. IT WAS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT CHARGING THE AMOUNT R ECEIVED FROM LET OUT SHOPS OF THE SOCIETY AS INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY IS WRO NG. THE LD. COUNSEL SUBMITTED THAT AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF LAW, TREATI NG INTEREST EARNED BY THE ASSESSEE FROM BANKS AS CHARGEABLE TO TAX UNDER INCO ME FROM OTHER SOURCES IS WRONG AND UNJUSTIFIED. 5. THE LD. DR, ON THE OTHER HAND, STRONGLY RELIED ON THE IMPUGNED ORDER. 6. HAVING HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS IN THE LIGHT OF THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD, IT IS SEEN THAT THE ASSESSEE IS A SOCIET Y REGISTERED UNDER THE SOCIETIES REGISTRATION ACT, 1860, CARRYING ON THE B USINESS OF PRODUCTION AND SALE OF KHADI AND SALE OF GRAMUDYOG (VILLAGE INDUST RY). IT CLAIMED EXEMPTION FROM TAX UNDER SECTION 10(23B) OF THE ACT. SECTION 10(23B) OF THE ACT READS AS FOLLOWS: (23B) ANY INCOME OF AN INSTITUTION CONSTITUTED AS A PUBLIC CHARITABLE TRUST OR REGISTERED UNDER THE SOCIETIES REGISTRATIO N ACT, 1860 (21 OF 1860), OR UNDER ANY LAW CORRESPONDING TO THAT ACT I N FORCE IN ANY PART OF 5 ITA NO.265(ASR)/2016 A.Y.2011-12 INDIA, AND EXISTING SOLELY FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF K HADI OR VILLAGE INDUSTRIES OR BOTH, AND NOT FOR PURPOSES OF PROFIT, TO THE EXTENT SUCH INCOME IS ATTRIBUTABLE TO THE BUSINESS OF PRODUCTIO N, SALE, OR MARKETING, OF KHADI OR PRODUCTS OF VILLAGE INDUSTRIES: PROVIDED THAT (I) THE INSTITUTION APPLIES ITS INCOME, OR ACCUMULA TES IT FOR APPLICATION, SOLELY FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF KHADI OR VILLAGE INDU STRIES OR BOTH; AND (II) THE INSTITUTION IS, FOR THE TIME BEING, APPROV ED FOR THE PURPOSE OF THIS CLAUSE BY THE KHADI AND VILLAGE INDUSTRIES COMMISSI ON: PROVIDED FURTHER THAT THE COMMISSION SHALL NOT, AT ANY ONE TIME, GRANT SUCH APPROVAL FOR MORE THAN THREE ASSESSMENT YEARS BEGINNING WITH THE ASSESSMENT YEAR NEXT FOLLOWING THE FINANCIAL YEAR I N WHICH IT IS GRANTED: PROVIDED ALSO THAT WHERE THE INSTITUTION HAS BEEN A PPROVED BY THE KHADI AND VILLAGE INDUSTRIES COMMISSION AND SUBSEQUENTLY THAT COMMISSION IS SATISFIED THAT (I) THE INSTITUTION HAS NOT APPLIED OR ACCUMULATED ITS INCOME IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS CONTAINED IN THE FIR ST PROVISO; OR (II) THE ACTIVITIES OF THE INSTITUTION ARE NOT BEIN G CARRIED OUT IN ACCORDANCE WITH ALL OR ANY OF THE CONDITIONS SUBJECT TO WHICH SUCH INSTITUTION WAS APPROVED, IT MAY, AT ANY TIME AFTER GIVING A REASON ABLE OPPORTUNITY OF SHOWING CAUSE AGAINST THE PROPOSED WITHDRAWAL TO TH E CONCERNED INSTITUTION, BY ORDER, WITHDRAW THE APPROVAL AND FO RWARD A COPY OF THE ORDER WITHDRAWING THE APPROVAL TO SUCH INSTITUTION AND TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER. EXPLANATION.FOR THE PURPOSES OF THIS CLAUSE, (I) KHADI AND VILLAGE INDUSTRIES COMMISSION MEANS THE KHADI AND VILLAGE INDUSTRIES COMMISSION ESTABLISHED UNDER THE KHADI AND VILLAGE INDUSTRIES COMMISSION ACT, 1956 (61 OF 1956); (II) KHADI AND VILLAGE INDUSTRIES HAVE THE MEAN INGS RESPECTIVELY ASSIGNED TO THEM IN THAT AC T. 6 ITA NO.265(ASR)/2016 A.Y.2011-12 7. THE AO TREATED THE INTEREST ON DEPOSITS WITH BA NK AND RENT RECEIVED FROM LETTING OUT THE SHOPS TO BE INCOME EARNED BY T HE ASSESSEE, WHICH WAS TAXABLE. THE LD. CIT(A) CONFIRMED THIS ACTION OF TH E A.O. 8. THE REASON FOR THE AUTHORITIES BELOW HAVING TAKE N THE SAID VIEW WAS THAT THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE IS NOT ATTRIBUTABLE TO T HE BUSINESS OF THE ASSESSEE. REMARKABLY, WHEREAS THE AO SAYS THAT IT IS NOT DEPR IVED FROM SUCH BUSINESS, THE LD. CIT(A) OBSERVED THAT IT IS NOT ATTRIBUTABLE TO THE SAME. 9. THE LD. CIT(A) RESTRICTED THE EXEMPTION OF INCOM E UNDER SECTION 10(23B) OF THE ACT ONLY TO THAT PORTION OF THE INCOME OF TH E ASSESSEE, AS WAS DERIVED FROM THE BUSINESS OF PRODUCTION AND SALE OF KHADI AND SALE OF GRAMUDYOG. 10. THE STAND OF THE ASSESSEE IS THAT THE LEGISLATU RE HAS PROVIDED EXEMPTION TO ANY INCOME OF THE SOCIETY WHICH IS ATTRIBUTABLE TO THE BUSINESS OF PRODUCTION, SALE, OR MARKETING, OF KHADI OR PRODUCT S OF VILLAGE INDUSTRIES. 11. AS PER SECTION 10(23B) OF THE ACT, EXEMPTION HA S BEEN PROVIDED TO ANY INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE WHICH IS ATTRIBUTABLE TO TH E BUSINESS OF PRODUCTION, SALE, OR MARKETING OF KHADI OR PRODUCTS OF VILLAGE INDUSTRIES, PROVIDED THAT THE INSTITUTION CONCERNED APPLIES ITS INCOME, OR ACCUM ULATES IT FOR APPLICATION, SOLELY FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF KHADI OR VILLAGE INDU STRIES, OR BOTH. 7 ITA NO.265(ASR)/2016 A.Y.2011-12 12. IT IS TRITE THAT ATTRIBUTABLE TO IS WIDER IN AMPLITUDUE THAN DERIVE FROM. THIS DISTINCTION REQUIRES TO BE HIGHLIGHTED, SINCE THE EXPRESSION EMPLOYED IN THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 10(23C) IS ATTRIBUTABLE TO AND NOT DERIVED FROM. 13. IN CAMBAY ELECTRIC SUPPLY INDUSTRIAL COMPANY L IMITED VS. CIT, GUJRAT, 113 ITR 84 (SC), THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT HAS HELD THAT: AS REGARDS THE ASPECT EMERGING FROM THE EXPRESSION ATTRIBUTABLE TO OCCURRING IN THE PHRASE PROFITS AND GAINS ATTRIBUT ABLE TO THE BUSINESS OF THE SPECIFIED INDUSTRY (HERE GENERATION AND DISTRIB UTION OF ELECTRICITY) ON WHICH THE LD. SOLICITOR-GENERAL RELIED, IT WILL BE PERTINENT TO OBSERVED THAT THE LEGISLATURE HAS DELIBERATELY USED THE EXPRESSIO N ATTRIBUTABLE TO AND NOT THE EXPRESSION DERIVED FROM. IT CANNOT BE DIS PUTED THAT THE EXPRESSION DERIVED FROM. HAD THE EXPRESSION DER IVED FROM BEEN USED, IT COULD HAVE WITH SOME FORCE BEEN CONTENDED THAT A BALANCING CHARGE ARISING FROM THE SALE OF OLD MACHINERY AND BUILDING S CANNOT BE REGARDED AS PROFITS AND GAINS DERIVED FROM THE CONDUCT OF TH E BUSINESS OF GENERATION AND DISTRIBUTION OF ELECTRICITY. IN THIS CONNECTION , IT MAY BE POINTED OUT THAT WHENEVER THE LEGISLATURE WANTED TO GIVE A RESTRICTE D MEANING IN THE MANNER SUGGESTED BY THE LEARNED SOLICITOR-GENERAL, IT HAS USED THE EXPRESSION DERIVED FROM, AS, FOR INSTANCE, IN SEC TION 80J. IN OUR VIEW, SINCE THE EXPRESSION OF WIDER IMPORT, NAMELY, ATTR IBUTABLE TO, HAS BEEN USED, THE LEGISLATURE INTENDED TO COVER RECEIPTS FR OM SOURCES OTHER THAN THE ACTUAL CONDUCT OF THE BUSINESS OR GENERATION AND DI STRIBUTION OF ELECTRICITY. 14. IN CIT VS. MEGHALAYA STEELS LIMITED, RECENTL Y RENDERED BY THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN CIVIL APPEAL NO.7622 OF 2014, THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT HAS, AGAIN, HELD TO THE EFFECT THAT AN ANALYSIS OF ALL THE DECISIONS CITED ON BEHALF OF THE REVENUE BECOMES NECESSARY, THAT IN T HE CASE OF CAMBAY ELECTRIC SUPPLY INDUSTRIAL COMPANY LIMITED VS. CIT, GUJRAT (SUPRA), THE SUPREME COURT HELD THAT SINCE AN EXPRESSION OF WIDER IMPORT HAD BEEN USED, NAMELY ATTRIBUTABLE TO, INSTEAD OF DERIVED FROM, THE L EGISLATURE INTENDED TO COVER 8 ITA NO.265(ASR)/2016 A.Y.2011-12 RECEIPTS FROM SOURCES OTHER THAN THE ACTUAL CONDUCT OF THE BUSINESS OF GENERATION AND DISTRIBUTION OF ELECTRICITY; THAT IN SHORT, A STEP REMOVED FROM THE BUSINESS OF THE INDUSTRIAL UNDERTAKING WOULD ALSO B E SUBSUMED WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE EXPRESSION ATTRIBUTABLE TO; THAT S INCE IN THAT CASE (AMITABH BACHAN), THE COURT WAS DIRECTLY CONCERNED WITH THE EXPRESSION DERIVED FROM , THIS JUDGMENT WAS RELEVANT ONLY INSOFAR AS IT MAKES A DISTINCTION BETWEEN THE EXPRESSION DERIVED FROM, AS BEING SOMETHING DIREC TLY FROM, AS OPPOSED TO ATTRIBUTABLE TO, WHICH CAN BE SAID TO INCLUDE SOM ETHING WHICH IS INDIRECT AS WELL. 15. IN THE LIGHT OF THE ABOVE, CLEARLY, THE ASSESSE E IS ENTITLED TO THE EXEMPTION CLAIMED UNDER SECTION 10(23B) OF THE ACT. IT NEEDS TO BE EMPHASIZED HERE THAT THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 10(23B) CALL FOR ACCUMULA TION AND APPLICATION SOLELY FOR THE PROMOTION OF KHADI OR VILLAGE INDUSTRIES, O R BOTH. FURTHER, THE SCOPE OF EXEMPTION BY ALLOWING ACCUMULATION OF INCOME AND ST IPULATES THAT THE ACCUMULATED FUNDS SHOULD BE USED FOR DEVELOPMENT OF KHADI AND VILLAGE INDUSTRIES. THE INTENTION OF THE LEGISLATURE IS CLE AR WHEN IT ALLOWS ANY INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE TO BE EXEMPT. IN THE PRESENT CASE, THE VACANT SPACE AVAILABLE, WHICH WAS EARLIER USED FOR KHADI RELATED ACTIVITIES , WERE EMPLOYED TO GENERATE THE REVENUE FOR THE ASSESSEE SOCIETY TO SUPPORT ITS FLAGGING FINANCIAL POSITION. THE LETTING OUT WAS SOLELY TO GENERATE INCOME, WHIC H WAS TO BE AND WAS INVESTED IN THE BUSINESS OF PROMOTION OF KHADI AND VILLAGE INDUSTRIES. THUS, THERE WAS NO UTILIZATION OF FUNDS BEYOND THE OBJECT S SPECIFIED IN THE INCOME TAX 9 ITA NO.265(ASR)/2016 A.Y.2011-12 ACT, 1961. TOO, THE ASSESSEE IS DULY REGISTERED WI TH THE KHADI & VILLAGE INDUSTRIES COMMISSION, ENSURING THE CARRYING ON OF THE OBJECTS OF DEVELOPMENT OF KHADI AND VILLAGE INDUSTRIES AND ALSO ENSURING T HAT NO OTHER ACTIVITIES ARE PURSUED. IN THIS DIRECTION, IT IS RELEVANT THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS RECEIVED APPROVAL OF KVIC. 16. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, IN OUR CONSIDERED OPINIO N, THE EXEMPTION CLAIMED IS AVAILABLE TO THE ASSESSEE AND THE ASSESSEE IS WHOLL Y ENTITLED FOR SUCH EXEMPTION UNDER SECTION 10(23B) OF THE ACT. THE SA ME IS ALLOWED TO THE ASSESSEE. THE ORDER UNDER APPEAL IS REVERSED AND TH E GRIEVANCE OF THE ASSESSEE IS ACCEPTED. 17. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS AL LOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 29TH JUNE, 2016. SD/- SD/- (T. S. KAPOOR) (A.D. JAIN) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED: 29/06/2016. /SKR/ COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: (1) THE ASSESSEE:PUNJAB KHADI MANDAL, ADAMPUR D OABA, DISTT. HSPR. (2) THE ITO, RANGE IV(1), JALANDHAR. (3) THE CIT(A), JLR (4) THE CIT, JLR (5) THE SR DR, I.T.A.T. TRUE COPY BY ORDER