M/s Vikash Educational Institutions, Bargarh V. DCIT, Sambalpur

ITA 289/CTK/2012

• Counselvise Citation: [2012] 119 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7840 (ITAT-CUTTACK)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 month(s) 5 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 29-06-2012
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 23-04-2012
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: P TRIPATHYS C MOHANTY
• Assessee Lawyers: G V N HARIN K LATH
• Keywords: Reopening of assessment; Depreciation; Onus to prove; Reason to believe
• Section: 12A; 147; 148

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CUTTACK BENCH , CUTTACK (BEFORE S/SHRI K.K. GUPTA AM & K.S.S.PRASAD RAO, J M) I.T.A.NOS.289, 290 & 041 /CTK/2012 ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2006-07, 2007-08 & 2008-09 VIKASH EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTIONS, CANAL CHOWK, PO: BARAHGUDA, DIST: BARGARH PA NO.AAAAV 2459 D VS DCIT, CIRCLE 2(1), SAMBALPUR APPELLANT RESPONDENT APPELLANT BY: SHRI G.V.N. HARI/N.K.LATH RESPONDENT BY: SHRI P.TRIPATHY/S.C.MOHANTY DATE OF HEARING :20.6.2012 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 29.6.2012 ORDER PER K.S.S.PRASAD RAO, JM ALL THESE APPEALS ARE FILED BY THE ASSESSEE HAVING BEEN AGGRIEVED BY SEPARATE ORDERS OF THE CIT (A), CUTTACK FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2006-07, 2007-08 AND 2008-09, RESPECTIVELY, IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE. 2. FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07, THE FOLLOWING ISSU ES HAVE BEEN RAISED: 1. THE LD CIT(A) OUGHT TO HAVE HELD THAT THE NOTIC E ISSUED U/S.148 IS NOT A VALID NOTICE AND CONSEQUENTLY THE SAID NOTICE IS LIABLE TO BE QUASHED AND THE ENTIRE REASSESSMENT PR OCEEDINGS TO BE HELD VOID-AB-INITO. 2. THE LD CIT(A) OUGHT TO HAVE HELD THAT THE AO IS NOT JUSTIFIED IN CONSIDERING THE SURPLUS OF RS.3,10,930 AS NOT EXEMP T U/S.10(23C) (IIIAD) OF THE ACT. 3. FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08, THE FOLLOWING ISSU ES HAVE BEEN RAISED: 1. THE LD CIT(A) OUGHT TO HAVE HELD THAT THE NOTIC E ISSUED U/S.148 IS NOT A VALID NOTICE AND CONSEQUENTLY THE SAID NOTICE IS I.T.A.NOS.289, 290 & 041 /CTK/2012 ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2006-07, 2007-08 & 2008-09 2 LIABLE TO BE QUASHED AND THE ENTIRE REASSESSMENT PR OCEEDINGS TO BE HELD VOID-AB-INITO. 2. THE LD CIT(A) OUGHT TO HAVE HELD THAT THE AO IS NOT JUSTIFIED IN CONSIDERING THE SURPLUS OF RS.9,64,550 AS NOT EXEMP T U/S.10(23C) (IIIAD) OF THE ACT. 3. ALTERNATIVELY, LD CIT(A) OUGHT TO HAVE HELD THAT THE ABOVE SURPLUS OF RS.9,64,550 IS EXEMPT U/S.11 OF THE ACT. 4. THE LD CIT(A) ERRED IN HOLDING THAT EXEMPTION U/ S.11 CANNOT BE GRANTED FOR NON-FILING OF AUDIT REPORT IN FORM NO.1 0B. 4. FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR, 2008-09, THE FOLLOWING ISSU ES HAVE BEEN RAISED: 1. THAT THE INITIATION OF PROCEEDINGS BY THE AO U /S.147 BY ISSUE OF NOTICE U/S.148 OF THE I.T.ACT, 1961 IS VOID AB-I NITIO AND REJECTION OF OBJECTION OF THE APPELLANT, WITHOUT AS SIGNING ANY CONVINCING REASON BY THE 1 ST APPELLATE AUTHORITY IS NOT JUSTIFIED.. 2. THAT THE AUTHORITIES BELOW HAVE ERRED BOTH IN LA W AND FACTS IN DENYING G CLAIM OF EXEMPTION U/S.11 OF THE I.T.ACT, 1961 ON UNSUSTAINABLE GROUND ALTHOUGH THE ASSESSEE IS AN ED UCATIONAL INSTITUTION REGISTERED UNDER THE SOCIETY REGISTRATI ON ACT AS WELL AS UNDER SECTION 12A OF THE I..T.ACT, 1961 AND APPROVA L HAS ALREADY BEEN ACCORDED TO IT BY THE CCIT AND FROM A.Y. 2009- 10 ONWARDS, SPECIALLY WHEN REGISTRATION U/S.12AA FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDER APPEAL IS STILL IN FORCE AND APPROVAL U/S.10(23)(VI ) FOR SUBSEQUENT YEARS VINDICATES ASSESSEES STAND. 3. THAT THE AUTHORITIES BELOW HAVE ERRED BOTH IN LA W AND FACTS IN ARRIVING AT THE CONCLUSION THAT THE INSTITUTION IS NOT RUNNING WITH ELEMENT OF PUBLIC BENEFIT AND DOES NOT EXIST FOR PH ILANTHROPIC OBJECTS. 4. THAT THE LD AOS ORDER IS FULL OF CONTRADICTIONS AND IS BASED NOT ON FACTS OF THE CASE BUT ON PRESUMPTIONS AND SURMIS ES, AND, THEREFORE, BAD IN LAW AND THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) C ONFIRMING SUCH ORDER IS NOT JUSTIFIED. 5. THAT THE CONCLUSION OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW THA T EXEMPTION CANNOT BE ALLOWED TO THE INSTITUTION, INSPITE OF TH E FACT THAT THE SUPERIORS DECIDED OTHERWISE, IS NOT JUSTIFIED. THE LD AUTHORITIES BELOW HAVE REFERRED TO RULINGS WITHOUT DISCUSSING H OW THOSE ARE APPLICABLE TO THE ASSESSEES CASE OR WITHOUT GIVING THE ASSESSEE AN OPPORTUNITY OF REBUTTAL AND, THEREFORE, THE ORDE R IS NOT A SPEAKING ORDER AND IS LIABLE TO BE DECLARED NULL AN D VOID. 6. THAT THE LD AO EVEN ASSUMED THE POWER OF THE CCI T IN BYPASSING THE PROCEDURE LAID DOWN IN THE ACT AND HA S ACTED I.T.A.NOS.289, 290 & 041 /CTK/2012 ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2006-07, 2007-08 & 2008-09 3 AGAINST THE PROVISION OF INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 AND, THEREFORE, THE ASSESSMENT ORDER MUST BE DECLARED NULL AND VOID AND NOT OPERATIVE, AND THE ACTION OR NON-ACTION OF APPELLAT E AUTHORITY ON THIS POINT IS NOT JUSTIFIED. 5. ON PERUSAL OF GROUNDS OF APPEAL IN ALL THESE APP EALS, IT CAN BE SEEN THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS DISPUTED A COMMON ISSUE CHALLENGING RE OPENING OF ASSESSMENT UNDER SECTION 147 BY ISSUE OF NOTICE U/S.148 OF THE I.T.A CT, 1961 AND REJECTION OF OBJECTION FOR REOPENING THE ASSESSMENT. 6. AS CAN BE SEEN FROM THE ASSESSMENT ORDERS FOR TH E PERIODS UNDER CONSIDERATION, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOTED THAT THE CHIEF COMM ISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CCIT), ORISSA REGION, BHUBANESWAR VIDE ORDER DATED 2.3.200 9 HAS REJECTED THE APPLICATION OF THE ASSESSEE FOR GRANT OF EXEMPTION U/S.10(23C)(VI) OF THE I.T.ACT, 1961 AND THIS WAS COMMUNICATED TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER STATING THERE IN THAT THE ASSESSEE DOES NOT FULFILL THE CONDITIONS LAID DOWN U/S.10(23C)(VI)OF THE I.T. ACT, 1961, WHEREIN, IT HAS SHOWN INCOME OVER EXPENDITURE OF RS.54,82,662 FOR A.Y. 20 08-09 AND HENCE, HE HAS REASON TO BELIEVE THAT INCOME OF RS.54,82,662 CHARGEABLE TO T AX HAS ESCAPED ASSESSMENT. FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07, THE AO HAS NOTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT APPLIED FOR EXEMPTION U/S.10(234C)(VI) OF THE ACT AND SAME WAS REJECTED AND COMMUNICATED TO THE AO BUT FOR THIS YEAR, THE ASSESSEE HAS APPLIED EXEM PTION UNDER SECTION 10(23C)(IIIAD) OF THE ACT. HENCE, HE HAS REASON TO BELIEVE THAT INCO ME OF RS.3,10,930 CHARGEABLE TO TAX HAS ESCAPED ASSESSMENT. FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 20 07-08 ALSO, IT IS NOTED THAT BY THE AO IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS AP PLIED EXEMPTION U/S.10(23C)(IIIAD) AND NOT UNDER SECTION 10(23C)(VI) OF THE ACT, WHICH WAS REJECTED AND COMMUNICATED TO THE AO. BASED ON THIS, AO FOUND THAT THERE IS REAS ON TO BELIEVE THAT INCOME OF RS.9,64,550 CHARGEABLE TO TAX HAS ESCAPED ASSESSMEN T. 7. SINCE THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THIS COMMON ISSUE IN ALL THESE APPEALS AND ADJUDICATION OF THE SAME GOES TO THE ROOT OF THE AP PEALS, THIS ISSUE WAS TAKEN UP FOR CONSIDERATION AT FIRST. 8. THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED SAME ISSUE BEFORE LD CIT (A) ALSO. LD CIT(A) OBSERVED IN THE IMPUGNED ORDERS THAT ONCE THE REASONS ARE DULY RECORDED AND SAME ARE NOT ARBITRARY AND IRRATIONAL, THE JURISDICTION IS VALID LY ASSUMED BY THE AO AND THE COURTS CANNOT LOOK INTO THE ADEQUACY OR SUFFICIENCY OF REA SONS BY RELYING ON THE DECISION OF I.T.A.NOS.289, 290 & 041 /CTK/2012 ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2006-07, 2007-08 & 2008-09 4 HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF RAYMOND WOOLEN MILLS LTD VS. CIT, 236 ITR 34(SC). 9. BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL, LD REPRESENTATIVE OF ASSESS EE HAS VEHEMENTLY ARGUED CONTENDING, INTER ALIA , THAT FOR REOPENING OF ASSESSMENT, THE AO MUST SAT ISFY HIMSELF AS TO THE ESCAPEMENT OF INCOME FROM ASSESSMENT. IN TH E ASSESSMENT ORDERS, THE AO HAS CATEGORICALLY MENTIONED THAT HE REOPENED THE ASSESS MENTS ONLY AFTER RECEIVING THE COMMUNICATION FROM CCIT, ORISSA REGION, BHUBANESWAR DATED 2.3.2009 REJECTING THE APPLICATION OF THE ASSESSEE UNDER SECTION 10(23C)(V I) OF THE ACT FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09 BUT THE ASSESSEE HAS CLAIMED EXEMPTION U/S. 10(23C)(IIIAD) OF THE ACT FOR ASSESSMENT YEARS 2006-07 AND 2007-08. THE ASSESSEE HAS CLAIMED EXEMPTION UNDER SECTION 11(1)(A) FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09. THER EFORE, IT IS CONTENDED BY LD A.R. THAT THE AO HAS NOT REOPENED THE ASSESSMENT ON HIS OWN S ATISFACTION OF ESCAPEMENT OF INCOME BUT HE WAS PERSUADED BY THE COMMUNICATION OF CCIT VIDE ORDER DATED 2.3.2009 REJECTING THE APPLICATION FILED BY THE ASSESSEE CLA IMING EXEMPTION UNDER SECTION 10(23C)(VI) OF THE ACT. THEREFORE, THERE IS NO SAT ISFACTION OF THE AO AS REQUIRED UNDER SECTION 147 OF THE ACT. IN THAT VIEW OF THE MATTER , THE REOPENING OF ASSESSMENTS ITSELF ARE BAD UNDER LAW AND CONSEQUENTLY, THE RESULTANT O RDERS PASSED BY THE AO ARE NOT SUSTAINABLE FOR LEGAL SCRUTINY AS THEY ARE NULL AND VOID. 10. CONTRARY TO THIS, LD D.R. HAS VEHEMENTLY ARGUED CONTENDING, INTER ALIA, THAT AS CAN BE SEEN FROM THE ASSESSMENT ORDERS PASSED BY TH E AO, IT IS CLEAR THAT THE AO HIMSELF HAS REASON TO BELIEVE THAT INCOME OF THE AS SESSEE HAS ESCAPED ASSESSMENT FOR THE PERIODS UNDER CONSIDERATION AND HENCE, HE HAS R IGHTLY REOPENED THE ASSESSMENT. THEREFORE, THERE IS NO INFIRMITY IN REOPENING OF AS SESSMENTS MADE BY THE AO AND CONSEQUENTLY, THE ASSESSMENT ORDERS PASSED IN PURSU ANCE TO REOPENING ARE VERY MUCH VALID AND ENFORCEABLE. MORE SO, LD CIT(A) HAS APPR OVED THIS VIEW OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. ACCORDINGLY, LD D.R. SOUGHT FOR DISMISSAL OF THE APPEALS RAISED BY THE SSESSEE. 11. ON CAREFUL CONSIDERATION OF THE ORDERS OF THE C IT (A) IN THE LIGHT OF MATERIAL MADE AVAILABLE BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL AS WELL AS RIVAL SUBMISSIONS OF BOTH PARTIES, THE UNDISPUTED FACTS RELATING TO THIS ISSUE ARE THAT AS SESSEE HAS FILED THE RETURNS FOR THE PERIODS UNDER CONSIDERATION AND THEY WERE PROCESSED UNDER SECTION 143(1) OF THE ACT. LATER ON, THE AO HAS RECEIVED COMMUNICATION FROM CC IT COMMUNICATING THE ORDER DATED I.T.A.NOS.289, 290 & 041 /CTK/2012 ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2006-07, 2007-08 & 2008-09 5 2.3.2009 STATING THAT THE APPLICATIONS OF THE ASSES SEE FOR CLAIMING EXEMPTION UNDER SECTION 10(23C)(VI) OF THE ACT ARE REJECTED FOR ALL THE PERIODS UNDER CONSIDERATION AS THE ASSESSEE DOES NOT FULFILL THE CONDITIONS LAID DOWN UNDER SECTION 10(23C)(VI) OF THE ACT. FROM THIS INTIMATION, THE AO HAS COME TO BELIEVE TH AT INCOME CHARGEABLE TO TAX IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE HAS ESCAPED ASSESSMENT FOR TH E PERIODS UNDER CONSIDERATION. IT IS FURTHER NOTICED FROM THE ASSESSMENT ORDERS THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS CLAIMED EXEMPTION U/S.11(1)(A) OF THE ACT FOR A.Y. 2008-09 AND THE AS SESSEE HAS CLAIMED EXEMPTION U/S.10(23C)(IIIAD) FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2006-07 AND 2007-08. THEREFORE, IT IS CLEAR THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT CLAIMED EXEMPTION UNDER S ECTION 10(23C)(VI) OF THE ACT FOR ANY OF THE PERIODS UNDER CONSIDERATION. THE AO ON RECEIPT OF THE ORDER DATED 2.3.2009 FROM CCIT REJECTING THE APPLICATIONS OF THE ASSESSE E FILED UNDER SECTION 10(23C)(VI) OF THE ACT, FOR A.Y. 2008-09 CAME TO BELIEVE THAT INCO ME TAXABLE IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE HAS ESCAPED ASSESSMENT FOR ALL THESE YEARS UNDER CONSIDERATION. FOR DECIDING ABOUT VALIDITY OF THE NOTICE UNDER SECTION 148 OF T HE ACT BY THE AO, IT HAS TO BE SEEN AS TO THE PROVISIONS CONTAINED IN SECTION 147 OF THE I .T.ACT, 1961. SECTION 147 OF THE ACT STARTS WITH THE WORDS IF THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS REASON TO BELIEVE THAT ANY INCOME CHARGEABLE TO TAX HAS ESCAPED ASSESSMENT FOR ANY AS SESSMENT YEAR, HE MAY, SUBJECT TO THE PROVISIONS OF SECTIONS 148 TO 153, ASSESS OR RE ASSESS SUCH INCOME AND ALSO ANY OTHER INCOME CHARGEABLE TO TAX WHICH HAS ESCAPED AS SESSMENT AND WHICH COMES TO HIS NOTICE SUBSEQUENTLY IN THE COURSE OF THE PROCEEDING S UNDER THIS SECTION, OR RECOMPUTE THE LOSS OR THE DEPRECIATION ALLOWANCE OR ANY OTHER ALLOWANCE, AS THE CASE MAY BE, FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR CONCERNED (HEREAFTER IN THIS SE CTION AND IN SECTIONS 148 TO 153 REFERRED TO AS THE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEAR) . 12. THE BURDEN OF PROOF IS ON THE REVENUE TO ESTABL ISH THE INCOME WHICH HAS ESCAPED ASSESSMENT AS WAS HELD BY HONBLE ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF TIN MANUFACTURING COMPANY OF INDIA LTD VS CIT, 222 ITR 323 (ALL). THERE ARE MATERIALS MADE AVAILABLE WITH THE TRIBUNAL IN THE IMPUGNED OR DERS PASSED BY THE AO AS WELL AS LD CIT(A), IT IS NOTICED THAT THE AO HAS NO INDEPENDEN T SATISFACTION OF HIMSELF FOR REOPENING OF ASSESSMENT FOR THE ALLEGED ESCAPEMENT OF INCOME TAXABLE IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE. IN SECTION 147, IT IS CATEGORICALLY MENT IONED THAT THE AO MUST HAVE REASON TO BELIEVE THAT INCOME HAS ESCAPED ASSESSMENT. THEREF ORE, FROM THESE MATERIALS AVAILABLE ON RECORD, IT IS CLEAR THAT THE AO IS PERSUADED BY THE COMMUNICATION BY THE ORDER DATED 2.3.2009 OF CCIT REJECTING THE APPLICATION OF THE A SSESSEE FOR EXEMPTION UNDER SECTION I.T.A.NOS.289, 290 & 041 /CTK/2012 ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2006-07, 2007-08 & 2008-09 6 10(23C)(VI) OF THE ACT FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09. THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF CHHUGAMAL RAJPAL VS S.P. CHALIHA AND OTHERS , 79 ITR 603(SC) HELD THAT THE COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSIONER CANNOT FORM THE BASIS OF REASON TO BELIEVE ESCAPEMENT FROM ASSESSMENT. THE HONBLE SUPREME CO URT WHILE COMING TO THIS CONCLUSION HAS CONSIDERED THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 148 AND 151(2) AND SECTION 147 & 151. THE FACTS IN THAT CASE IS THAT WHETHER THE AS SESSMENT IS SOUGHT TO BE REOPENED BY THE AO AND THE AO HAS APPLIED FOR PERMISSION FROM T HE COMMISSIONER TO REOPEN THE ASSESSMENT (AS WAS REQUIRED BY THE PROVISIONS OF SE CTION). THE REPORT OF THE AO TO THE COMMISSIONER IS THAT DURING THE YEAR, THE ASSESSEE HAS SHOWN TO HAVE TAKEN LOANS FROM VARIOUS PARTIES OF CALCUTTA. FROM THE DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX (INV) NO.A/P/MISC.(5) D.I./63-64/5623 DATED AUGUST 13,1965, FORWARDED TO THE OFFICE UNDER CIT, BIHAR AND ORISSA, PATNAS LETTER NO.INV(INV) 15/65-66/1953-20 17 DATED PATNA SEPTEMBER 24, 1965, IT APPEARS THAT THESE PERSONS ARE NAME-LENDERS AND THE TRANSACTIONS ARE BOGUS. HENCE, PROPER INVESTIGATION REGARDING THESE LOANS IS NECES SARY. THE NAMES OF SOME OF THE PERSONS FROM WHOM MONEY IS ALLEGED TO HAVE BEEN TAK EN ON LOAN ON HUNDIES ARE GIVEN IN THE LETTER. THIS COMMUNICATION HAS PERSUADED TH E COMMISSIONER TO GIVE PERMISSION TO THE AO FOR REOPENING THE ASSESSMENT. WHEN IT WA S CHALLENGED BEFORE THE COURTS, ULTIMATELY, THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT HAS HELD THAT THERE IS NO SATISFACTION AS REQUIRED UNDER THE PROVISIONS CONTAINED IN SECTION 147 R.W.S 151(2) OF THE ACT AS IT WAS THEN AND HELD THAT IT IS NOT A VALID REOPENING. IN THE PRES ENT CASE ON HAND, FROM THE COMMUNICATION OF THE CCIT REGARDING REJECTION OF AP PLICATION OF THE ASSESSEE FOR EXEMPTION U/S.10(23C)(VI) ONLY, THE AO HAS COME TO THE CONCLUSION THAT THERE IS ESCAPEMENT OF INCOME FROM ASSESSMENT OF THE ASSESSE E. UNDER THESE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED VIEW THAT THE NOTICE ISSUED UNDER SECTION 148 FOR REOPENING OF ASSESSMENT UNDER SECTI ON 147 FOR THE PERIODS UNDER CONSIDERATION ARE NOT AT ALL VALID ONE AS THERE IS NO SATISFACTION OF THE AO HIMSELF AS TO THE ESCAPEMENT OF INCOME FROM ASSESSMENT IN THE HAN DS OF THE ASSESSEE EXCEPT RECEIPT OF ORDER DATED 2.3.2009 FROM THE CCIT REJECTING THE APPLICATION FOR EXEMPTION UNDER SECTION 10(23C)(VI) OF THE ACT FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09. HENCE, WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED VIEW THAT REASSESSMENT NOTICE ITSELF IS BAD UNDER LAW AND CONSEQUENTLY, ASSESSMENT MADE UNDER SECTION 147 FOR ALL THE PERIO DS UNDER CONSIDERATION IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE ARE NULL AND VOID AS REASSESSMENTS ITSELF HELD INVALID. I.T.A.NOS.289, 290 & 041 /CTK/2012 ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2006-07, 2007-08 & 2008-09 7 13. IN VIEW OF OUR FINDINGS THAT REASSESSMENT NOTIC E ITSELF IS INVALID, CONSEQUENTLY ASSESSMENTS ARE NULL AND VOID, THE MERITS OF THE IS SUES ARE NOT ADVERTENT TO RELYING ON THE DECISION OF HONBLE CALCUTTA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF RAWATMAL HARAKCHAND VS CITG, 129 ITR 346(CAL). IN THAT VIEW OF THE MATTER , THE ASSESSMENT ORDERS PASSED BY THE AO AS WELL AS CONFIRMED BY LD CIT(A) ARE NOT S USTAINABLE FOR SCRUTINY AND HENCE, APPEALS ARE ALLOWED ON THIS POINT ITSELF. 14. IN THE RESULT, ALL THESE THREE APPEALS ARE ALLO WED. SD/- SD/- (K.K.GUPTA) (K.S.S.PRASAD RAO) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED : 29 TH JUNE, 2012 PARIDA COPY TO : 1. ASSESSEE- VIKASH EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTIONS, CANAL CHOWK, PO: BARAHGUDA, DIST: BARGARH 2. ASSESSING OFFICER - DCIT, CIRCLE 2(1), SAMBALPUR 3. CIT CONCERNED 4. CIT (A), CUTTACK 5. D.R., ITAT, CUTTACK. 6. GUARD FILE. TRUE COPY BY ORDER SR. PVT. SECRETARY