Shree Soni Nyat Samast Vadi , Dwarka V. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions), Ahmedabad

ITA 277/RJT/2019

• Counselvise Citation: [2024] 101 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 5840 (ITAT-RAJKOT)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 year(s) 7 month(s) 18 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 08-07-2024
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Next Hearing Date: 25-06-2024
• Assessment Year: 2019-2020
• Appeal Filed On: 20-11-2019
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Charitable institution; Benefit of exemption
• Section: 12; 11; 12AA; 13

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, RAJKOT BENCH, RAJKOT BEFORE DR. ARJUN LAL SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DINESH MOHAN SINHA, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA No.277/RJT/2019 ( नधा रण वष / Assessment Year: (2019-20) (Hybrid Hearing) Sony Nyat Samast Vadi Dwarka, “SONY NYAT SAMAST VADI DWARKA”, Jodha Manek Road, Jamnagar, Gujarat-361335 Vs. CIT (Exemption), Ahmedabad थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No.: AAJTS1917R (Assessee) (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri Dushyant Maharshi, AR Respondent by : Shri Shramdeep Sinha, CIT-DR Date of Hearing : 26/06/2024 Date of Pronouncement : 09/07/2024 आदेश / O R D E R PER DR. A. L. SAINI, AM: Captioned appeal filed by the assessee, is directed against the order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption), Ahmedabad under Section 12AA(1)(b)(ii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, wherein the application filed by the assessee in Form No. 10A,for approval under Section 12AA of the Income Tax Act, 1961, was rejected holding that Trust was created for a particular community/caste, that is, “Soni Nyat” and the assessee has also failed to satisfy the genuineness of its activities. 2. The grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are as follows: “1.The grounds of appeal mentioned hereunder are without prejudice to one another. 2.Order of Ld. CIT (Exemption) is entirely contradictory to the law and fact of the case to the extent he rejecting 12AA application of assessee. Page | 2 ITA No.277/RJT/2019 A.Y. 2019-20 3. It is a settled law that at the stage of grant of registration, CIT(A) is not required to enquire whether the condition of section 11 to 13 is fulfilled or not. Condition of section 13(1)(b) do not apply to registration u/s 12AA and therefore the registration u/s 12AA refused by CIT is bad in law. 4. Assessee craves to leave to add, amend, alter or withdraw any or more grounds of appeal or before the hearing of the appeal.” 3. Succinct facts qua the issue are that an application for registration of the trust u/s 12AA of the Income Tax Act, 1961, was filed by the assessee-trust on 27.03.2019, in form No. 10A under Rule 17A of the I.T. Rules, 1962. Therefore, the ld. CIT(E) issued a show cause notice to the assessee, on 5 th August 2019, and asked the assessee-trust to furnish detailed note on the activity actually carried out by the trust as well as certain details and documents as mentioned in the notice.However, in response to the said notice, neither the assessee attended the office of the ld CIT(E) nor furnished any details/documents nor sought adjournment. Therefore, ld. CIT(E) issued another show cause notice to the assessee on 31 st August 2019. In response to the said notice, the assessee submitted its reply before ld. CIT(E), on 16.09.2019. 4. The Ld. CIT(E ) had gone through the reply and submissions of the assessee and on verification of the details available on records, as well as Self-Certified copy of Public Trust Register [PTR], the ld CIT(E) noticed from the objects of the trust that objects are restricted to particular community i.e. “Soni Nyat”. The objects of the trust show that the trust is established for the benefit of a particular community i.e. "Soni Nyat" and not for general public. Therefore, ld CIT(E ) noted that the trust is created for the benefit of a particular community i.e. "Soni Nyat" which does not ensure for the benefit of the public, and thus, provisions of Section13(1)(b)of the I.T.Act,1961 are fully applicable in the assessee`s case. Further, the assessee has not furnished any documentary evidences to change in the object of the trust. In view of the above, the assessee Page | 3 ITA No.277/RJT/2019 A.Y. 2019-20 does not satisfy the conditions for grant of approval as sought. The ld. CIT(E ) also noted that assessee-trust does not have intention even to start charitable/religious activities. Section 12AA makes, it very clear that before granting registration under this section, the Commissioner has to satisfy himself about the genuineness of the activities of the trust or institution and also he has to verify that these activities are in consonance with the objects of the trust or institution. The ld CIT(E) also placed reliance on the judgement of Hon`ble Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Income-tax, Ujjain Vs Dawoodi Bohara Jamat, Civil Appeal No. 2492 of 2014. The facts considered in Para 14 of the judgment by the Hon'ble Apex Court are reproduced for sake of convenience: "Section 12AA lays down the procedure to be followed by the Commissioner for grant or refusal of application for registration made under Section 12A. According to procedure so laid down, the Commissioner shall call for documents and information and conduct an enquiry to satisfy himself of the genuineness of the trust and upon reaching satisfaction of the charitable or religious nature of the objects and the authenticity of the activities of the trust, he would grant registration. If he is not satisfied of the aforesaid, the request made in the application may be declined." 5. Considering the above facts, the ld CIT(E) held that assessee trust has created for a particular community, that is, “Soni Nyat”, and also, the assessee has failed to file documentary evidences to satisfy about the genuineness of its activities and to verify these activities that the same are in consonance with its objects. Hence, the application filed in Form No. 10A for the approval u/s. 12AA of the I.T. Act, 1961, was rejected by ld CIT(E). 6. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. CIT(E) the assessee is in appeal before us. 7. Learned Counsel for the assessee, argued that provisions of Section 13(1)(b) of the Act, is not applicable in case of assessee-trust, under consideration, as the assessee- trust is not created and working for Page | 4 ITA No.277/RJT/2019 A.Y. 2019-20 benefit of any particular caste or community. This trust is open for the benefit of public, and to prove this, the learned counsel for the assessee, submitted before the bench, the objects of the trust. The ld. counsel, also argued that provisions of section 13(1)(b) of the Act, attracts only at the time of granting exemption and not at the time of granting registration. The ld. counsel, also pointed out that provisions of section 13(l)(b) of the Act, applies, only to the trusts or institutions established after the commencement of the Income Tax Act 1961, hence, Ld. Counsel contended that instructions may be given to the ld CIT(E) to grant the registration to the assessee- trust. 8. On the other hand, the Ld. D.R. for the Revenue, argued that before Ld. CIT(E), the assessee-trust has failed to submit the relevant documents and details to prove the genuineness of the activities. Before the Ld. CIT(E), the assessee also failed to submit the objects of the Trust mentioned in the Public Trust Register (PTR). Since, the assessee has not submitted the essential documents before the Ld. CIT(E), therefore, Ld. CIT(E) has rejected the application of the assessee in From No. 10A, for approval under Section 12AA of the Act. Regarding, the provision of Section 13(1)(b) of the Act, the Ld. D.R. submitted that these provisions are squarely applicable to the Assessee-Trust under consideration, as the main object of the trust is restricted to particular community, that is “Soni Nyat”. Besides, the Assessee- Trust has not been carrying out any activity since long even for particular community, that is “Soni Nyat”.Since the Assessee-Trust has not been doing any activity and has not submitted essential documents / evidences before the Ld. CIT(E), therefore, Assessee-Trust is not entitled for registration under Section 12AA of the Act, for that Ld. D.R. for the Revenue put reliance on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Bachhaj Nahar vs. Nilima Mandal Page | 5 ITA No.277/RJT/2019 A.Y. 2019-20 & Anr. in Civil Appeal No., 5798-5799 of 2008, wherein it was held that a Court cannot make out a case not pleaded. 9. We heard both sides in detail and also perused the records of the case including the paper book filed by the assessee. We note that Assessee- Trust, no doubt was created for a particular caste and community, that is “Soni Nyat”, however, after going through, the below mentioned, objects of the assessee-trust, we note that the trust is for welfare of the general persons, as evident by the aims and objectives of the, Trust which are reproduced below: “1) To make arrangements for dropping off pilgrims of Parajiya Soni community and other castes coming from outside in this institution. 2) To co-operate in the religious and other events organized by each caste and to work in cooperation with other organizations for social improvement. 3) To provide financial assistance to the needy members of the organization. 4) Providing medical to needy members of the organization. 5) This organization provides school books, notebooks, scholarships, loans and incentives to children in the field of education. 6) The organization may perform other activities within the limits of the constitution as determined by the members from time to time.” 10. We find that as per copy of the Public Trust Register (PTR), submitted before us, we note that assessee-trust was registered with Charity Commissioner in 1937, that is, before commencement of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Therefore, we find merit in the submissions that provisions of Section 13(1)(b) of the Act, does not apply to the assessee- trust, under consideration, for that reliance can be placed on the judgment of SMC Bench in the case of Rajkot Visha Shrimali Jain Samaj vs. ITO 111 ITD 238 (Rajkot), wherein it was held as follows: “6. With regard to non-application of provisions of section 13(1)(b), I found that the assessee-trust was incorporated on 1-9-1960 prior to the coming into force of Income-tax Act, 1961. The provisions of section 13(1)(b) are therefore not applicable to the assessee-trust. Documentary evidence with regard to Page | 6 ITA No.277/RJT/2019 A.Y. 2019-20 incorporation of the assessee-trust on 11-8-1960, was very much before the Assessing Officer. The legal issue even though raised for the first time before the CIT(A) is liable to be accepted in view of the verdict of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of National Thermal Power Co. Ltd. v. CIT [1998] 229 ITR 383 wherein it was held that where additional ground raises a purely legal plea which goes to the very root of the matter, the same deserves to be admitted. Whether provisions of section 13(1)(b) are applicable to the assessee is purely a legal issue. As the entire facts relating to incorporation of the assessee-trust were already on record, I do not find any merit in the action of the CIT for declining to accept the legal ground and to adjudicate the same. From the assessment order itself, I found that on page No. 2, it has been clearly mentioned that the said trust was incorporated in SY 2016. This fact was also mentioned in the copy of Memorandum and Articles of Trust submitted to the Assessing Officer. The Assessing Officer has not controverted this fact which is already on record. I therefore do not find any merit in the action of the lower authorities for declining the exemption claimed under section 11, by invoking provisions of section 13(1)(b) of the Income-tax Act. 7. Hon'ble Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case of CIT v. Shri Maheshwari Agrawal Marwari Panchayat [1982] 136 ITR 556 held that the Trust established before commencement of1961 Act for benefit of a particular religious community, bar under section 13(1)(b) would not be applicable, and the trust will be entitled to exemption in respect of its entire income.” 11. On the identical facts, the Hon’ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh in the case of CIT vs. Arya Vysya Kalyana Nilaya Sangam, 159 ITR 324 (AP), held as follows: “A few facts may be noticed:—One K. China Venkata Subbaiah of Nellore executed a will on October 20, 1918. Under the will, he settled in trust his movable and immovable properties for the development mainly of a choultry for the Vysya community visiting Nellore. Under the will, three trustees were appointed to administer the trust property. The trustees were, inter alia, directed to utilise the trust fund for the maintenance and development of the choultry. After the death of K. China Venkata Subbaiah, trustees had entered upon their duties. It is common ground that the trustees had been administering the fund established by the deceased under his will dated October 20,1918. In course of time, the existing choultry building needed repairs and development. Accordingly, the trustees co-opted some more persons and obtained further contributions from the members of the deceased's family for improving the trust (building). It appears, the trustees have added also more objects to the existing trust created by late K. China Venkata Subbaiah and these objects were to provide building for functions, arrangement of philosophical lectures, to provide facilities for travellers, to establish a library, to encourage cow protection and to give free food and education to Vysya students. Pursuant to the above objects, the trustees are maintaining a hostel for poor Vysya students. The trust was registered under Page | 7 ITA No.277/RJT/2019 A.Y. 2019-20 the Societies Registration Act on December 5, 1967. It is called as Arya Vysya Kalyana Nilaya Sangam. The Revenue did not doubt the charitable character of the trust up to and including the assessment year 1975-76. It is admitted that the income of the assessee-trust had never been taxed prior to the assessment year under consideration. It would appear that for the assessment year under consideration, a fresh look has been given and the Income-tax Officer felt that this trust must be considered to have come into existence on December 5, 1967, on which date it was registered under the Societies Registration Act. Inasmuch as the trust enured for the benefit of the Vysya community, the Income-tax Officer thought that it was for the benefit of a particular religious community as envisaged by section 13(1)(b) of the Act and, consequently, the income derived by such a trust for the benefit of a particular religious community was not exempt under the Act. In that view, the Income-tax Officer brought to assessment the income of Rs. 21,982. The assessee contested the assessment basically on the ground that its income is not liable to be taxed in view of the provisions contained in section 11 of the Act. In appeal before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, the assessee urged that no new trust has come into existence on December 5 1967, as held by the Income-tax Officer. It was explained that the trust initially came into existence on October 20, 1918, under the will executed by the late K. China Venkata Subbaiah and the trust was all along under administration. It was pointed out that the trust properties were augmented in course of time and the trust fund was also used for the objects which are of charitable character. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner accepted the assessee's contentions that no new trust has come into existence by reason of registration of the trust on December 5, 1967, under the Societies Registration Act. He held that the trust had already been in existence prior to the commencement of the 1961 Act and, consequently, the provisions of section 13(1)(b) of the Act have no application. Once the trust is held to have come into existence prior to the commencement of the 1961 Act, the trust qualified for being treated as a charitable trust in the absence of any dispute regarding the charitable character of the objects. In that view, the Appellate Assistant Commissioner allowed the appeal filed by the assessee and cancelled the assessment. The Income-tax Officer filed an appeal before the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal against the above decision of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner. The Appellate Tribunal affirmed the view of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner and dismissed the appeal. It may be mentioned that before the Tribunal, a further argument was raised that the assessee-trust was deriving income by letting the building involving the earning of income and, as such, the assessee is carrying on an activity for profit within the meaning of section 2(15) of the Income-tax Act and, consequently, the income derived by the trust would not qualify for exemption. The Tribunal negatived this contention also on the ground that letting out of the properties belonging to the trust did not Page | 8 ITA No.277/RJT/2019 A.Y. 2019-20 amount to an activity for profit as envisaged by section 2(15) of the Act. Aggrieved by the decision of the Tribunal, the Commissioner carried the matter on reference to this court and the three questions mentioned above have been referred. Learned standing counsel for the Revenue, Sri. M.S.N. Murthy, contended that on the facts and circumstances of this case, the assessee-trust must be held to have come into existence only on December 5, 1967, when it was registered under the Societies Registration Act, If the trust should be held to have come into existence on December 5, 1967, then the provisions of section 13(1)(b) of the Act would automatically come into operation and the trust being one for the benefit of a particular religious community (Vysya community), the income of the trust would not qualify for exemption under section 11 of the Act. It is also submitted that, in any event, the income of the assessee-trust derived by letting out the properties could not be exempt as the assessee-trust must be held to be carrying on an activity for profit. We are unable to accept the Revenue's plea that a new trust has come into existence on December 5, 1967, when registration was made under the Societies Registration Act. It may be pointed out that there is no requirement under the law that a trust should be registered under the Societies Registration Act in order to be recognised as a charitable institution for the purpose of earning exemption under section 11 of the Act. The requirement for earning exemption under section 11 of the Act is that there must be an institution in existence which may be in the nature of a trust or held under any legal obligation. The will dated October 20, 1918, executed by the late K. China Venkata Subbaiah had undoubtedly brought into existence a trust for the benefit of the Vysya community. Trustees were duly appointed under the will. Objects were specified and the manner in which the trust fund should be utilised was specified in the will. These requirements are sufficient to render the purpose as coming within the purview of a trust created under the will dated October 20, 1918. There is also a legal obligation imposed under the will to hold the properties for the purposes specified in the will. The Act does not lay down any requirement that in order to be recognised as a public charitable institution, there must be registration under the Societies Registration Act. It is obviously for a collateral purpose that registration has been sought in the present case under the Societies Registration Act and that fact does not militate against the claim that there has been in existence already an institution administered under the will dated October 20, 1918. There is also nothing inconsistent in law in an existing trust augmenting its resources by securing more contributions with the specific purpose of utilising all such contributions upon the objects specified in the trust already created. Indeed, there is no dispute in the present case that the objects for which the trust was created under the will dated October 20, 1918, or the objects subsequently added by the trustees were charitable in character. The only dispute is that although the objects were charitable in nature, the society having come into Page | 9 ITA No.277/RJT/2019 A.Y. 2019-20 existence on December 5, 1967, could be governed by the provisions of section 13(1)(b) of the Act. As already pointed out, there is already in existence an instrument evidencing the creation of a trust as far back as October 20, 1918, and what had happened on December 5, 1967, was merely registering the same document under the Societies Registration Act. We do not think that the Revenue is right in contending that a new trust came into existence and the provisions of section 13(1)(b) of the Act hit the new trust. If the trust has come into existence prior to April 1, 1962, its income would qualify for exemption under section 11 of the Act even if it enured for a particular community. This proposition is not disputed before us by the learned standing counsel for the Revenue. The other question that requires consideration is whether letting out of the property belonging to the trust amounted to an activity for profit. In the first place, there is no material to indicate what activities were involved in the matter of letting out a property to derive income. Even otherwise, it cannot be said that any activity for profit is involved if admittedly a public charitable trust lets out its property. This proposition is fairly settled in the decisions of the Supreme Court in Addl. CIT v. Surat Art Silk Cloth Manufacturers Association [1980] 121 ITR 1 (SC) and CIT v. Federation oj Indian Chambers of Commerce and Industry [1981] 130 ITR 186 (SC). We do not consider that there is any activity for profit involved in merely letting out a property to derive income from rents. The Tribunal was, therefore, justified in rejecting the Department's plea that there was any activity for profit involved in the present case. We accordingly answer the first question referred in the affirmative, i.e., in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. The answer to the second question is in the negative, i.e., in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. The answer to question No. 3 is in the affirmative, i.e., in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. The reference is answered accordingly.” 12. The similar and identical facts were also held in the case of CIT vs. Maheshwari Agarwal Marwari Panchayat 10 taxman183 (MP), wherein it was held as follows: “Facts as stated by the Tribunal are as follows: The assessee is a Panchayat registered under section 12 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, by the Commissioner of Income-tax, Bhopal. For the. assessment years 1974-75, 1975-76 and 1976- 77, the assessee claimed that it was a trust only for charitable and religious purposes and, therefore, its income was not taxable in view of section 11 of the Income-tax Act. The ITO held that, according to the bye-laws, the Panchayat had been created and established for the benefit of the members of the Maheshwari Agrawal Marwari Samaj and, therefore, it could not claim, exemption in view of section Page | 10 ITA No.277/RJT/2019 A.Y. 2019-20 13(1)(b)of the Act. On appeal before the AAC, the contention of the assessee was that its main purpose was the maintenance of the old temple and the uplift of the Maheshwari Samaj was only a subsidiary purpose. It was further contended that though the institution was registered in the year 1967, the temple and its buildings were in existence for the last several decades. Learned AAC partly accepted the assessee's contention and held that the purpose of the trust was two-fold, i.e., to look after the property of the temple and to act for the uplift of the Maheshwari Samaj. First was purely a religious purpose but so far as the second purpose was concerned, the learned AAC held that the trust which had been created after the commencement of the Act and one of its objects was to provide benefit to a particular religious community, section 13(1)(b)of the Act was partly applicable. Accordingly, he directed the ITO to treat the trust as one created for charitable and religious purposes and to give exemption under section 11 of the Act for the income which had been utilised for religious purposes. The department did not challenge this order. The assessee, however, appealed before the Appellate Tribunal. The question which was raised before the Tribunal was whether the assessee-trust had been created or established before the commencement of the Act of 1961 or after and, if so, whether section 13(1)(b) was applicable to deprive the assessee-trust of the benefit available to it under section 11 of the Act. The Appellate Tribunal examined two public documents, one, a certificate issued by the High Court of Bhopal under O. 21, rule 89 of the CPC in favour of the managers of the Maheshwari Agrawal Marwari Panchayat, Bhopal, and the other, a copy of the minutes of the resolution of the Panchayat approving the accounts for the year 1958 and redrafting the bye-laws passed on 17th March, 1958. On the basis of these two documents, the Appellate Tribunal recorded a finding of fact that the trust existed before the coming into force of the 1961 Act and managed the affairs of the property of the temple. In the light of this finding of fact about the existence of the trust before the coming into force of the 1961 Act, we have to examine whether the Tribunal was right in holding that the assessee was entitled to the benefit of exemption under section 11 of the Income-tax Act for its entire income. The department sought to deny the exemption claimed by the assessee on the short ground that in view Of section 13(1)( b) of the Act, the trust had been established for the benefit of a particular religious community. Section 13(1)( b) of the Income-tax Act is as follows : "13. (1) Nothing contained in section 11 or section 12 shall operate so as to exclude from the total income of the previous year of the person in receipt thereof—... (b) in the case of a trust for charitable purposes or a charitable institution created or established after the commencement of this Act, any income Page | 11 ITA No.277/RJT/2019 A.Y. 2019-20 thereof if the trust or institution is created or established for the benefit of any particular religious community or caste ." This provision applies only to such charitable trusts which are created ox established after the commencement of the Act of 1961. The bar under this provision is not applicable to a charitable trust which was created or established before the commencement of the Act. Since the Tribunal held as a fact that the assessee-trust had been created before the commencement of this Act, it was right in holding that the assessee was entitled to the benefit of exemption under section 11 of the Income-tax Act for its entire income as the bar under section 13(1)(b) was not applicable to it. We, therefore, answer the question in the affirmative and hold that the Tribunal was correct in law in holding that the assessee is entitled to the benefit of exemption under section 11 of the Income-tax Act for its entire income. There shall be no order as to costs.” 13. From the above judgments of various High Courts, it is vivid that the provisions of section 13(1)(b) of the Income Tax Act 1961, is applicable to the trusts created or established after the commencement of Income Tax Act, 1961.We note that assessee -trust, under consideration was in existence prior to commencement of the Income Tax Act, 1961. However, as per the plain language of section 13(1)(b) of the Income Tax Act 1961, which, states that “in the case of a trust for charitable purpose or a charitable institution created or established after the commencement of this Act, any income thereof if the trust or institution is created or established for the benefit of any particular religious community or caste” therefore, it is vivid that trust created prior to commencement of the Income Tax Act, 1961, the provisions of section 13(1) (b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, would not be applicable to such trust, even if, such trust was established or created for the benefit of any particular religious community or caste. We find that assessee-trust, under consideration, was in existence since in 1937, that is, prior to the Income-Tax Act, 1961, came into being. That is, the trust under consideration was created in 1937, however, the Indian Income Tax Act 1961, was come into force in the year 1961. Therefore, the assessee- trust was in existence prior to the Indian Income Tax Act 1961, hence the provisions of section 13(1) (b) of Page | 12 ITA No.277/RJT/2019 A.Y. 2019-20 the Income Tax Act, 1961, would not be applicable to the assessee-trust under consideration. Therefore, the ld CIT (E) should not have denied the registration on this issue. 14. In conclusion we state that the registration of the trust should not be denied on account of provisions of section 13(1) (b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, as these provisions are not applicable to the assessee-trust, under consideration, as explained above. Therefore, we direct the ld CIT(E ) to grant the registration to the assessee- trust provided, the assessee-trust fulfilled other conditions, as mentioned in section 12AB of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and Rule 17A of the Income Tax Rules, 1962. For statistical purposes, the appeal of the assessee is treated to be allowed. 15. In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes, in above terms. Order is pronounced in the open court on 09/07/2024 Sd/- Sd/- (DINESH MOHAN SINHA) (Dr. A.L. SAINI) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Rajkot TRUE COPY दनांक/ Date: 09/07/2024 Copy of the Order forwarded to 1. The Assessee 2. The Respondent 3. The CIT(A) 4. Pr. CIT 5. DR/AR, ITAT, Rajkot 6. Guard File By Order // TRUE COPY // Assistant Registrar/Sr. PS/PS ITAT, Rajkot