Vishweshwaraiah Technological University, Belgaum V. Asst. Commissioner of Income tax Cir. 1 (1), Belgaum

ITA 267/PAN/2013

• Counselvise Citation: 26724114 RSA 2013
• Duration Of Justice: 6 month(s) 4 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 28-03-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Next Hearing Date: 20-03-2014
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 23-09-2013
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SONAL SONKAVDE LD
• Assessee Lawyers: P DINESH
• Keywords: Difference of opinion; Benefit of exemption; Reason to believe; Change of opinion
• Section: 143(3); 142(1); 234B; 12A; 147

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PANAJI BENCH, PANAJI BEFORE SHRI P. K. BANSAL, HONBLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI D.T. GARASIA, HONBLE JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO. 267 /PNJ/2013 (ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010 - 11 ) VISHWESHWARAIAH TECHNOLOGICAL UNIVERSITY, JNANA SANGAM CAMPUS, SANTI BASTWAD ROAD, BELGAUM - 590 014. P AN: AAAJV00 64F (APPELLANT) VS. THE ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE - 1, BELGAUM. (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI P. DINESH, (ADV.) RESPONDENT BY : SMT. SONAL SONKAVDE, LD. DR. DATE OF HEARING : 20/3 /2014 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 28 /3 /2014 O R D E R PER: D.T. GARASIA THIS APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A), BELGAUM ORDER DATED 29.08.2013 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010 - 11. 2. THE FOLLO WING GROUNDS ARE RAISED IN THIS APPEAL . 1. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME - TAX(A) ERRED IN UPHOLDING THE ASSESSMENT AS MADE BY THE ASSESSING AUTHORITY. 2. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER (A) OUGHT TO HAVE APPRECIATED THAT THE APPELLANT BEING A NON - TAXABLE ENTITY, THERE WAS NO OBLIGATION ON ITS PART TO FILE THE RETURN OF INCOME AND CONSEQUENTLY HE OUGHT TO HAVE REFRAINED FROM UPHOLDING THE VALIDITY OF THE REOPENING OF THE ASSESSMENT U/S. 147 OF THE ACT. 3. THE CONDITIONS PRECEDENT BEING ABSENT, THE REOPENING OF THE ASSESSMENT U/S. 147 IS BAD IN LAW. 4. THERE BEING NO OMISSION MUCH LESS AN OMISSION OF DECLARATION OF INCOME IN THE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEAR IN THE RETURN OF INCOME FILED BY THE APPELLANT, THE REOPENING OF THE ASSESSMENT U/S. 147 WAS WITHOUT JURISD ICTION AND CONSEQUENTLY THE REASSESSM E NT IS LIABLE TO BE ANNULLED. 2 . ITA NO. 267/PNJ/2013 (A.Y.2 010 - 11) 5. THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED ASSESSING AUTHORITY HAVING BEEN PASSED WITHOUT GIVING ADEQUATE OPPORTUNITY TO THE APPELLANT, THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME - TAX (APPEALS) OUGHT TO HAVE REMAN DED THE CASE FOR FRESH ADJUDICATION AFTER PROVIDING ADEQUATE OPPORTUNITY TO THE APPELLANT AND HAVING FAILED TO DO SO, THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER (A) IS LIABLE TO BE SET ASIDE. 6. WITHOUT PREJUDICE THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER (A) ERRED IN HOLDING THAT THE APPELLANT IS DIFFERENT FROM THE GOVERNMENT/ STATE AND CONSEQUENTLY NOT PROTECTED UNDER ARTICLE 289(1) OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA AND ACCORDINGLY LIABLE TO BE PROCEEDED UNDER THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961. 7. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER (A) OUGHT TO HAVE A PPRECIATED THAT UNDER THE VISHWESHWARAIAH TECH NOLOGICAL UNIVERSITY ACT, 1994 IT IS PROVIDED THAT THE APPELLANT IS A CORPORATE ENTITY AND ACCORDINGLY IT HAS DISTINCT IDENTITY OF ITS OWN AND THEREFORE COULD NOT BE CONSIDERED TO BE STATE, 8. THE LEARNED COM MISSIONER (A) FAILED TO APPRECIATE THAT THE CONSTITUTION OF THE APPELLANT WAS NOT UNDER ANY ENACTMENT TO CONSIDER AS DIFFERENT FROM GOVERNMENT SINCE IT IS BEING GOVERNED AND MONITORED ONLY BY THE EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE APPOINTED BY THE GOVERNMENT AND ALL ITS ACTIVITIES AND FINANCIAL AFFAIRS ARE UNDER THE CONTROL OF THE GOVERNMENT AND ITS ACCOUNTS ARE TABLED IN THE ASSEMBLY FOR WHICH LEGISLATURE APPROVAL WHICH WOULD GO TO SHOW THAT THE APPELLANT IS A PART OR WING OF THE GOVERNMENT AND THUS THE APPELLANT ENJOYS THE IMMUNITY FROM THE TAXATION BY VIRTUE OF ART.289(1) OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA. 9. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER (A) OUGHT TO HAVE APPRECIATED THAT THERE WAS DIRECT CONTROL OF THE GOVERNMENT AND ACCORDINGLY OUGHT TO HAVE FOLLOWED THE JUDGMENT IN THE CASE O F SIKKIM MANIPAL UNIVERSI TY VS. ACIT REPORTED IN 148 TT J (KOL) 645 AND HELD THAT THE APPELLANT WAS ENTITLED TO THE EXEMPTION AS CLAIMED. 10 .THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER (A) OUGHT TO HAVE APPRECIATED THAT THE CASE LAW CITED BY THE ASSESSING AUTHORITY WERE DIST INGUISHABLE AND ON THE OTHER HAND THE CASES CITED BY THE APPELLANT DIRECTLY APPLY TO THE ISSUE BEFORE HIM. 1 L.WITHOUT PREJUDICE, THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER (A) OUGHT TO HAVE APPRECIATED THAT THE APPELLANT WAS, EVEN ASSUMING LIABLE TO BE CONSIDERED FOR TAXATI ON UNDER THE ACT, WAS EXEMPTE D FOR THE RELEVANT YEARS U/S. 10 (23C)(IIIAB) OF THE ACT. 12.THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER (A) OUGHT TO HAVE APPRECIATED THAT THE APPELLANTS CLAIM FOR SEC.80G OF THE ACT WAS BEING ALLOWED BY THE REVENUE AFTER CON SIDERING ITS ELIGIBI LITY U/S. 10 (23C) OF THE ACT ALL ALONG AFTER SATISFYING WITH ITS ACCOUNTS OPERATIONS WHICH WOULD CLEARLY SHOW THAT TH E APPELLANT WAS EXEMPTED U/S. 10 (23C) OF THE ACT AND ON MERE CHANGE OF OPINION THE ASSESSING AUTHORITY ERRED IN HOLDING THE APPELLANT WAS T AXABLE UNDER THE ACT. 13. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER (A) OUGHT TO HAVE APPRECIATED THAT THE FAILURE OF THE APPELLANT TO OBTAIN THE REGISTRATION U/S.12A OF THE ACT WAS NOT CONCLUSIVE TO HOLD THAT THE APPELLANT WAS NOT ENTITLED TO THE BENEFIT U/S.10 (23C)(IIIAB ) OF THE ACT. 14.THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER (A) OUGHT TO HAVE APPRECIATED THAT THE APPELLANT WAS WHOLLY OR SUBSTANTIALLY FUNDED BY THE STATE GOVERNMENT WHICH SATISFIE S THE CONDITION PROVIDED U/S. 10 (23C)(IIIAB) OF THE ACT AND ACCORDINGLY THE APPELLANT WAS EN TITLED TO THE BENEFIT OF EXEMPTION AS CLAIMED BY IT. 3 . ITA NO. 267/PNJ/2013 (A.Y.2 010 - 11) 15.THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER (A) OUGHT TO HAVE APPRECIATED THAT THE ENTIRE FUNDING FOR THE ESTABLISHMENT OF THE UNIVERSITY HAVING BEEN CONTRIBUTED BY THE GOVERNMENT WHEN THE UNIVERSITY WAS ES TABLISHED, TH E CONDITION U/S, 10 (23C)(IIIAB) OF THE ACT HAD BEEN SATISFIED AND WHILE TAKING INTO ACCOUNT OF THE CONTRIBUTION THE ASSESSING AUTHORITY HAD OMITTED TO CONSIDER THE SAME AND ACCORDINGLY THE DENIAL OF EXEMPTION U/S. 10 (23C ) (IIIAB) OF THE ACT WAS OPPOSED TO LAW AND HE OUGHT TO HAVE DIRECTED THE ASSESSING AUTHORITY TO ALLOW THE EXEMPTION AS CLAIMED. 16. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER(A) OUGHT TO HAVE APP RECIATED THAT THE CONTRIBUTION/ FUNDING BY THE GOVERNMENT NEED NOT BE DIRECTLY OUT OF ITS CONSOLIDATED FUND AND EVE N THE DIRECTION TO COLLECT CET FEES WHICH WAS OTHERWISE PART OF GOVERNMENT FUND WAS ALSO CONTRIBUTION BY THE GOVERNMENT AND THERE WAS SUBSTANTIAL CONTRIBUTION BY THE GOVERNMENT TO JUSTIFY THE CLAIM OF EXEMPTION U/S. LO(23C)(IIIAB) OF THE ACT AS MADE BY THE APPELLANT. 17.THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER (A) ERRED IN HOLDING THAT THE APPELLANT WAS PROFIT MOTIVATED BY MERELY RELYING ON THE FINANCIAL SURPLUS YEAR AFTER YEAR WITHOUT APPRECIATING THAT THE FEES STRUCTURE WAS PROVIDED ONLY BY THE GOVERNMENT WHICH IS RUNNIN G THE UNIVERSITY THROUGH ITS EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE AND THE FEE STRUCTURE WAS DETERMINED BY THE GOVERNMENT ACCORDING TO ITS POLICY AND EVERY RUPE E COLLECTED IS MEANT FOR THE UP LIFTMENT OF THE UNIVERSITY AND THUS THE MERE SURPLUS WOULD NOT REFLECT PROFIT MOTI VE AS ALLEGED BY THE ASSESSING AUTHORITY AND CONFIRMED BY THE GOVERNMENT. 18.THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER (A) FAILED TO CONSIDER THE FACT THAT SIMILAR GOVERNMENT UNIVERSITIES WERE NOT TAXED UNDER THE ACT AND HE HAD GONE WRONG IN TREATING THE APPELLANT AT PAR W ITH PRIVATE UNIVERSITIES TO JUSTIFY THE ASSESSMENT ON IT AND ACCORDINGLY THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER (A) IS OPPOSED TO LAW AND LIABLE TO BE SET ASIDE. 19. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER (A) OUGHT TO HAVE CONSIDERED THE VARIOUS SUBMISSIONS MADE BY THE APPELLANT AND OUGHT TO HAVE REFRAINED FROM UPHOLDING THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT AS MADE BY THE ASSESSING AUTHORITY. 20. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER (A) OUGHT TO HAVE FOLLOWED THE JUDGMENT OF THE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF NATIONAL LAW SCHOOL UNIVERSITY WHICH WAS I N ALL FORCE WITH THE CA SE OF THE APPELLANT AND ALSO JUDICIAL P RONOUNCEMENT OF THE HONBLE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA. 21 . WITHOUT PREJUDICE THE COMMISSIONER (A) ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE INTEREST LEVIED U/S.234A AND 234B OF THE ACT BY THE ASSESSING AUTHORITY. 22. WITHOUT PREJUDICE THE ADDITIONS ARE EXCESSIVE, ARBITRARY AND UNREASONABLE AND OUGHT TO BE REDUCED SUBSTANTIALLY. 3. THE SHORT FACTS OF THE CASE ARE AS UNDER: 3.1 THE APPELLANT, VISVESVARAYA TECHNOLOGICAL UNIVERSITY (VTU), A UNIVERSITY ESTA B LISHED UNDER SECTION 3 OF THE VTU ACT 1994, WITH EFFECT FROM 01.04.1998 VIDE KARNATAKA GOVERNMENTS NOTIFICATION NO. ED 2 VTU 98 DATED: 25.03.1998 HAVING JURISDICTION ALL OVER THE STATE OF KARNATAKA WITH 4 . ITA NO. 267/PNJ/2013 (A.Y.2 010 - 11) PRIMARY OBJECTIVE OF ENSURING PROPER AND SYSTEMATIC INSTRUCTION, TEACHING, TRAINING AND RESEARCH IN DEVELOPMENT OF ENGINEERING TECHNOLOGY AND ALLIED SCIENCES HAD NOT FILED ITS RETURNS OF INCOME FOR ANY ASSESSMENT YEAR AS IT CONSIDERED THAT IT WAS COVERED UNDER SECTION 10(23C)(IIIB) OF THE ACT AND HENCE ITS INCOME WAS NOT LIABLE TO TAX. THE ASSESSING OFFICER ISSUED NOTICE UNDER SECTION 142(1) OF THE ACT ON 11.11.2010 CALLING FOR THE RETURN OF INCOME FOR A.Y.2010 - 11. CONSEQUENTLY, IN RESPONSE TO NOTICE U/S.142(1) ISSUED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER, THE APPELLANT FILED ITS RETURN FOR A . Y . 2010 - 11 ON 06 - 01 - 2011 DECLARING NIL INCOME. ON GOING THROUGH THE SAID RETURN OF INCOME, IT WAS NOTICED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT THE ASSESSEE UNIVERSITY HAD CLAIMED EXEMPTION /S.10(23C(IIIAB) OF THE ACT AND FILED NIL RETURN OF INCOME. HOWEVER, IT WAS FOUND BY THE A.O THAT THE ASSESSEE WA S NOT ELIGIBLE FOR EXEMPTION U/S. 10(23C)(IIIAB) AND SINCE THE A.O WAS SATISFIED AND HAD REASON TO BELIEVE THAT INCOME CHARGEABLE TO TAX HAD ESCAPED ASSESSMENT WITHIN THE MEANING OF SEC.147, A N OTICE U/S.148 OF THE ACT WAS ISSUED ON 21 - 12 - 2011 WHICH WAS DULY SERVED ON THE APPELLANT ASSESSEE. 3.2. ON VERIFICATION OF RECORDS, IT WAS OBSERVED BY THE A.O THAT THE ASSESSEE UNIVERSITY WAS NEITHER REGISTERED U/S 12A NOR U/S 10(23C)(VI) OF THE INCOME T AX ACT, 1961 AND IT WAS FURTHER REVEALED FROM THE RECORDS THAT THE ASSESSEE UNIVERSITY HAD APPLIED FOR REGISTRATION U/S 12A OF THE ACT ON 01/06/2012 BEFORE THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BELGAUM. THE APPLICATION FOR REGISTRATION U/S 12A HAD BEEN REJECTED BY THE COMMISSIONER OF I NCOME TAX, BELGAUM VIDE F.NO.12/12A/CIT/BGM/2012 - 13/2843 DATED 26/12/2012. FURTHER, THE ASSESSEE UNIVERSITY HAD APPLIED FOR REGISTRATION U/S 10(23C)(VI) BEFORE THE CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, PANAJI GOA VIDE APPLICATION DATED 26/05/2012 FILED ON 01/ 06/2012. THE CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, PANAJI, GOA VIDE HIS ORDER IN F. NO. CCLT/PNJ/10 (23C)/136(2)/2O12 - 13 DATED 14/09/2012 HAD REJECTED THE APPLICATIO N OF THE ASSESSEE. IN VIEW IS THIS, THE A.O CONCLUDED THAT 5 . ITA NO. 267/PNJ/2013 (A.Y.2 010 - 11) THE ASSESSEE UNIVERSITY WAS NOT RE GIS TERED U/S 12A NOR U/S 10(23C) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961. 3.3. IT WAS OBSERVED BY THE A.O THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD CLAIMED ITS ENTIRE INCOME O F RS. 84,19,17,246/ - AS EX EMPT U/S 10(23C)(IIIAB) OF THE I .T . ACT, 1961 FOR THE ASSESSMENT Y EAR UNDER CONSIDERATION . THE A.O ALSO NOTICED THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT ELIGIBLE FOR AIMING EXEMPTION OF INCOME U/S 10(23C)(IIIAB) AS HAD BEEN HELD BY THE A.O IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDERS FOR THE AY . 2004 - 05 TO 2008 - 09 U/S 143( 3) R.W.S 147 AND FOR THE A.Y. 2009 - 10 U/S 143(3) OF THE ACT CONCLUDED ON 29/12/2011. 3.4. TO FIND OUT WHETHER THE ASSESSEE UNIVERSITY WAS WHOLLY OR SUBSTANTIALLY FINANCED BY THE GOVERNMENT, IT WAS SEEN BY THE A.O FROM THE EXAMINATION OF THE INCOME AND EXPENDITURE ACCOUNT AND RECEIPTS AND PAYMENTS ACCOUNT FILED BY ASSESSEE ALONGWITH THE RETURN OF INCOME THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS IN RECEIPT OF GOVERNMENT GRANTS AND TO TAL R ECEIPTS AS MENTIONED IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER WERE AS UNDER: SL. NO. FINANCIAL YEAR AMOUNT OF GRANT RECEIVED (RS) TOTAL RECEIPTS (INCOME) (RS.) PERC ENTAGE OF GOVERNMENT GRANT 1. 2009 - 10 6,17,34,000 1267190166/ - 4.87% IT WAS OBSERVED BY THE A.O THAT QUANTUM OF GRANTS RECEIVED FROM THE GOVT. WAS VERY SMALL IN C OMPARISON TO ITS HUGE GROSS RECEIPTS. RELYING ON THE DECISIO N OF THE HONBLE HIGH COURT OF K ARNATAKA AT BANGALORE, IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. IIM BANGAL ORE ITA NO. 529 OF 2008, ORDER D ATED 24.08.2010 AND INCOME TAX OFFICER AND ANOTHER VS. M/S. NATIONAL EDUCATION SOCIETY IN I.T.A. NO. 808/2009, THE A.O CONCLUDED THAT THE ASSESSEE UNIVERSITY WAS NOT SUBSTANTIALLY FI N AN CED BY THE GOVERNMENT. ACCORDINGLY, THE PROVISIONS OF SEC 1O(23C)(II IAB) DID NOT APPLY THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE UNIVERSITY OF RS. 84,19,17,246/ - WAS FOUND TO BE NOT EXEMPT UNDER THE SAID SECTION. THE A.O OBSERVED THAT THE 6 . ITA NO. 267/PNJ/2013 (A.Y.2 010 - 11) ASSESSEES AP PEAL FILED BEFORE THE CIT(A) FOR THE EARLIER YEARS HAD BEEN DECIDED AND DISMISSED BY THE CIT(A), BELGAUM VIDE ORDER DATED 04/09/2012. 3.5. IN THE END THE A.O CONCLUDED THAT IT WAS PATENTLY CLEAR THAT THE INCOME OF THE ASS ESSEE UNIVERSITY WAS NOT EXEMPT U/ S 10(23C)(IIIAB) OR 10(23C)(II IAD), OR 10(23C)(VI) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961. THE ASSESSEE UNIVERSITY ALSO DID NOT HAVE REGISTRATION U/S. 12A OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 AND THEREFORE, IN VIEW OF THE DISCUSSION CONTAINED IN THE ASSESSMENT ORD ER, THE INCO ME OF THE ASSESSEE UNIVERSITY WAS BROUGHT TO TAX IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF INCOME TAX ACT, 1961. THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE APPELLANT ASSESSEE FOR A.Y.2010 - 11 WAS ASSESSED AT RS.84,19,17,246/ - VIDE AN ORDER UNDER SE CTION 143(3) R.W.S. 147 DATED 30 T H JANUARY 2013 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT AND A DEMAND OF RS.37,36,96,952 WAS RAISED. 4. THE MATTER CARRIED TO CIT(A) AND CIT(A) HAS DISMISSED THE APPEAL. 5. DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING, LEARNED DR SUBMITTED BEFORE US THAT THE ISSUE IN CONTROVERSY IS COVERED BY THE DECISION OF ASSESSEES OWN CASE DECIDED BY HONBLE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT IN INCOME TAX APPEAL NOS. 5007 - 12/2013 ARISING OUT OF ITA NOS.65TO 70/PNJ/2012, FOR ASS E SSMENT YEAR 2004 - 05 TO 2009 - 10 WHEREIN THE HONBLE HIGH COURT HAS DISMISSED THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE VIDE OR DER DAT ED 21.06.2013. LEARNED AR DID NOT OBJECT TO THE CONTENTION OF THE DR. 6. HAVING HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT ISSUE IN CONTROVERSY IS COV ERED BY THE DECISION OF HONBLE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BE NCH IN INCOME TAX APPEAL NOS.5007 - 12/2013 BETWEEN M/S. VISVESVARAYA TECHNOLOGICAL UNIVERSITY VS. ACIT, WHEREIN THE HONBLE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA , DHARWAD BENCH HAS HELD AS UNDER: 60. HAVING REGARD TO THE FACT THAT THE UNIVERS ITY IS A BODY CORPORATE HAVING PERPETUAL SUCCESSION AND A COMMON SEAL WITH A POWER TO ACQUIRE AND HOLD PROPERTY AND TO ENTER INTO CONTRACT IN ITS NAME AS CONTEMPLATED UNDER SECTION 3 OF THE ACT OF 7 . ITA NO. 267/PNJ/2013 (A.Y.2 010 - 11) 1994, AND IN THE LIGHT OF THE MEANING OF THE WORD STATE I N ARTICLE 289 OF THE CONSTITUTION, WE ARE OF THE OPINION, THAT THE UNIVERSITY IS NOT A STATE WITHIN THE MEANING OF ARTICLE 289(1) OF THE CONSTITUTION AND IT CANNOT BE EXEMPTED FROM TAXATION AS ENVISAGED THEREUNDER. THE WORD STATE EMPLOYED IN THIS ARTI CLE CANNOT BE EXTENDED SO AS TO INCLUDE THE UNIVERSITY. 61. IN THE RESULT, THE INCOME TAX APPEALS FILED BY THE UNIVERSITY ARE DISMISSED. ALL THE QUESTIONS FORMULATED BY US ARE ANSWERED IN FAVOUR OF THE REVENUE AND AGAINST THE ASSESSEE. HOWEVER, THERE SHAL L BE NO ORDER AS TO COSTS. WE RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE ORDER OF HON,BLE KA RNATAKA HIGH COURT, WE DISMISS THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE. 4. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRON O UNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 2 8 .3 .2014. S D / - S D / - ( P.K. BANSAL) (D.T. GARASIA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER PLACE : PANAJI / GOA DATED : 2 8 .3 .2014 P.S. - *PK* COPY TO : ( 1 ) APPELLANT ( 2 ) RESPONDENT ( 3 ) CIT CONCERNED ( 4 ) CIT(A) CONCERNED ( 5 ) D.R ( 6 ) GUARD FILE TRUE COPY, BY ORDER