DCIT, UDAIPUR V. M/s. Geetanjali Education Society, UDAIPUR

ITA 303/JODH/2009

• Counselvise Citation: [2011] 134 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 9440 (ITAT-JODHPUR)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 9 month(s) 19 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 22-03-2011
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Next Hearing Date: 03-02-2011
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 03-06-2009
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: NARENDRA GOUD
• Assessee Lawyers: SANJAY JHAWAR
• Keywords: Depreciation; Charitable institution; Maximum Marginal Rate; Benefit of exemption; TDS
• Section: 11A; 12AA; 11

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL JODHPUR BENCHE, JODHPUR. BEFORE SHRI S.V. MEHROTRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI V. DURGA RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO.303/JU/2009 (ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2006-07) ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 2, UDAIPUR. VS. M/S. GEETANJALI EDUCATION SOCIETY, 19-C, OLD FATEHPURA, UDAIPUR. PAN AAATG4407F (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI NARENDRA GOUD RESPONDENT BY : SHRI SANJAY JHAWAR. O R D E R PER V. DURGA RAO : THIS APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED BY THE REVENUE AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), U DAIPUR DT.18.03.2009 RELATING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07 HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL. WHETHER ON THE FACTS AND IN THE PRESENT CIRCUMSTAN CES OF THE CASE, THE LEARNED CIT(A) IS NOT JUSTIFIED IN - I) DIRECTING THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO GRANT EXEMPTION U/S. 11 OF THE ACT TO THE ASSESSEE AND DELETED THE ADDITIONS MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. II) DIRECTING THE ASSESSING OFFICER NOT TO CHARGE THE E NTIRE INCOME AT MAXIMUM MARGINAL RATES. III) DIRECTING THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO EXCLUDE CORPUS D ONATION OF RS.84,12,400 FROM THE COMPUTATION OF THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE SOCIETY. IV) DIRECTING THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO CONSIDER THE DON ATION GIVEN TO M/S. VIJAY SHANTI TRUST AND OTHERS AS APPLICATION O F INCOME U/S. 11 OF ACT. 2. THE FACTS IN BRIEF ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE IS A SO CIETY REGISTERED UNDER THE SOCIETY REGISTRATION ACT, 1958 OF RAJASTHAN. I T IS ALSO REGISTERED U/S. ITA 303/JU/2009 M/S GEETANJALI EDUCATION SOCIETY 2 12AA BY CIT, UDAIPUR VIDE ORDER NO.919 DT.24.2.2003 . THE ASSESSEE-SOCIETY HAS CLAIMED EXEMPTION U/S.11 AS IT IS BEING ESTABLI SHED FOR CHARITABLE PURPOSE. DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION, THE ASSESSEE-SOCIETY IS RUNNING AN ENGINEERING COLLEGE IN THE NAME OF GEETA NJALI INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY AND SCIENCE. DURING THE YEAR UNDER CON SIDERATION, THE ASSESSEE-SOCIETY HAS SHOWN A TOTAL RECEIPT OF RS.19 ,36,317/- FROM GEETANJALI INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY AND SCIENCE ARISING OUT OF TUITION FEES, HOSTEL FEES, CONVEYANCE FEES ETC AND RS.3,62,08,947/- FROM GEETA NJALI EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY OUT OF DONATIONS AND INTEREST ETC. AGAINST THESE RECEIPTS THE ASSESSEE HAS BOOKED TOTAL EXPENDITURE OF RS.3,25,43 ,635/-. THE SOCIETY THUS BOOKED A PROFIT OF RS.36,65,308/-. THE SOCIETY HAS ALSO RECEIVED A CORPUS DONATION OF RS.84,12,400/-. 3. AT THE TIME OF HEARING, THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS SUBMITTED THAT ALL THE ISSUES INVOLVED IN THIS APPE AL COVERED BY ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR A.Y. 2005-06 IN ITA NO.370/JU/2008 DT. 28.11.2008. HE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT IN THE ASSESSEES OWN CASE, FOR A.Y. 2007-08 IN ITA NO.365/JU/2010 VIDE ORDER DT.13.9.2010 HAS FOLLOWED THE EARLIER YEAR DECIDED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE. HE SUBMITTED THA T ALL THE ISSUES INVOLVED IN THIS APPEAL, HAS CONSIDERED BY THE CO-ORDINATE B ENCHES OF THE TRIBUNAL AND THE SAME MAY BE FOLLOWED IN THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDER ATION ALSO AS THE ISSUES ARE IDENTICAL TO THAT OF AY 2005-06 AND THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE MAY BE DISMISSED. ITA 303/JU/2009 M/S GEETANJALI EDUCATION SOCIETY 3 4. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REP RESENTATIVE HAS SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS ADVANCED HUGE AMOUN TS TO THIRD PARTIES ON WHICH NO INTEREST WAS RECEIVED. THE INTEREST AMOUN T SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE IS A COLOURABLE DEVICE AND HE ACTUALLY HAD NOT RECE IVED ANY INTEREST. THE THIRD PARTIES WHO PAID THE INTEREST TO THE ASSESSEE NOT DEDUCTED TDS AND NOT SHOWN IN THEIR BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS THAT THE INTEREST HAS BEEN PAID TO THE ASSESSEE. DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION, THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOUND THAT INTEREST SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE IS A COLOURABLE DEVICE ONLY FOR THE PURPOSE OF GETTING THE EXEMPTION UNDER THE ACT. 4.1 THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE RELIED ON THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF AVASARALA AUTOMATION LTD. VS. JCIT (266 ITR 178) TO JUSTIFY THE ACTION OF THE ASS ESSING OFFICER IN DENYING THE BENEFIT U/S. 11 OF THE ACT TO THE ASSESSEE. TH E HONBLE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF AVASARALA AUTOMATION LTD. (SUP RA) HELD THAT WHEN ASSESSEE MAKES A CLAIM FOR DEPRECIATION ON THE GROU NDS ALLOWED BY LAW, IT WOULD ALWAYS BE OPEN TO THE A.O. TO LIFT THE VEIL O F THE TRANSACTION PUT FORWARD AND FIND OUT AS TO WHETHER THE TRANSACTION PUT FORWARD FOR THE PURPOSE OF CLAIMING DEPRECIATION IS A GENUINE TRANS ACTION OR ONLY A MAKE- BELIEVE ONE INTENDED TO AVOID PAYMENT OF TAX. IN T HE PRESENT CASE, THE ASSESSEE HAS RECEIVED THE INTEREST FROM THE THIRD P ARTIES. THERE IS NOTHING ON RECORD TO SHOW THAT THE INTEREST RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE IS A COLOURABLE DEVICE EXCEPT THAT NO TDS WAS DEDUCTED BY THIRD PAR TIES AND THERE WAS NO ENTRY IN THEIR BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS. THIS CASE RELIED ON BY THE DEPARTMENTAL ITA 303/JU/2009 M/S GEETANJALI EDUCATION SOCIETY 4 REPRESENTATIVE HAS NO APPLICATION TO THE FACTS OF T HE CASE. HE FURTHER RELIED ON THE DECISION OF IPCA LABORATORY LTD. VS.DCIT 266 ITR 521 (SC) WHEREIN THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT HELD THAT EVEN THOUGH A LI BERAL INTERPRETATION HAS TO BE GIVEN TO AN INCENTIVE PROVISION, THE INTERPRE TATION HAS TO BE AS PER THE WORDINGS OF THE SECTION, AND THE BENEFITS WHICH ARE NOT AVAILABLE UNDER THE SECTION CANNOT BE CONFERRED BY IGNORING OR MISINTER PRETING CLEAR WORDS IN THE SECTION. THIS CASE ALSO HAS NO APPLICATION TO THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE. 4.2 THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE FURTHE R RELIED ON THE DECISION IN THE CASE OF SMT. GOMTI DEVI BANARSIDAS VAID CHARITABLE TRUST VS. ITO (1987) 27 TTJ (ALL) 5, WHEREIN IT HELD BY THE T RIBUNAL THAT TO AVAIL EXEMPTION U/S.11, LOAN SHOULD BE BOTH AGAINST ADEQU ATE INTEREST RATE AND SECURITY. HOWEVER, FLOATING CHARGES FROM THE ASSETS OF FIRM AND PERSONAL BONDS OF TWO PARTNERS CANNOT BE SAID TO BE ADEQUATE SECURITY. THAT BEING SO, SECTION 13(2)(C) CLEARLY ATTRACTED NEGATING THE ASS ESSEES CLAIM FOR EXEMPTION. IN THE PRESENT CASE, THE CIT(A) GAVE CAT EGORICAL FINDING THAT FACTS ARE SIMILAR TO THAT OF A.Y. 2005-06. THE TRIBUNAL WHILE DEALING WITH THIS ISSUE, HELD THAT THE CIT(A) FIND SECURITY IS AN A DEQUATE SECURITY. THEREFORE, WE FIND THIS CASE HAS NO APPLICATION TO THE FACTS O F THE CASE. APART FROM THE ABOVE, WHETHER SECURITY IS AN ADEQUATE SECURITY OR NOT IT HAS TO BE DECIDED ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF EACH CASE. HE ALS O RELIED ON THE DECISION IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. VIVIAN BOSE (118 ITR 989). T HE ABOVE CASE DEALS WITH THE DIFFERENCE OF GOOD CONSIDERATION AND ADEQUATE C ONSIDERATION AND IT HAS NO APPLICATION TO THE FACTS OF THE CASE UNDER CONSI DERATION. ITA 303/JU/2009 M/S GEETANJALI EDUCATION SOCIETY 5 4.3 THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE FURTHE R SUBMITTED THAT THE TRIBUNAL, WHILE CONSIDERING THE ISSUE FOR A.Y. 2005 -06, NOT CONSIDERED THE ISSUES IN PROPER PERSPECTIVE. THEREFORE, THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL IS NOT BINDING FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. IN THE A SSESSMENT ORDER FOR THE A.Y. 2005-06, THE ASSESSEE HAD ADVANCED CERTAIN AMO UNT AND MADE HUGE PURCHASES IN THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION, THE ASSE SSEE HAS MADE VERY NOMINAL PURCHASES, THEREFORE, IT CANNOT BE SAID THA T THE FACTS INVOLVED IN THIS YEAR ARE SIMILAR TO THE EARLIER YEAR. 5. IN THE REJOINDER, THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE A SSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS RECEIVED 8% INTEREST. THE ASSESSE E IS NOT CONCERNED ABOUT WHETHER THE PARTIES WHO PAID THE INTEREST TO THE AS SESSEE DEDUCTED TDS OR NOT, WHETHER SHOWN IN THEIR BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS OR NO T. THIS ISSUE WAS ALREADY CONSIDERED BY THE TRIBUNAL IN THE A.Y. 2005-06 AND ALSO IN A.Y. 2007-08. IN SO FAR AS PERSONAL GUARANTEE IS CONCERNED, IN EARLI ER YEAR THE TRIBUNAL HAS ALREADY GIVEN FINDING THAT GUARANTEES GIVEN BY THE THIRD PARTY ARE SUFFICIENT. IN SO FAR AS PURCHASES ARE CONCERNED, THE ASSESSEE IS PURCHASING MATERIAL ACCORDING TO THE REQUIREMENT AND PURCHASES FOR ONE YEAR MAY BE HIGH, NEXT YEAR MAY BE LOW. IT WILL NOT HAVE ANY EFFECT ON TH E RELIEF IS CONCERNED. 6. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE SIDES, PERUSED THE RECORD S, GONE THROUGH THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. THE MAIN ISSUE IN VOLVED IN THIS APPEAL IS WHETHER THE ASSESSEE IS ELIGIBLE FOR EXEMPTION U/S. 11A OF THE ACT OR NOT. THIS ISSUE WAS CONSIDERED BY THE TRIBUNAL IN ASSESS EES OWN CASE FOR THE A.Y. ITA 303/JU/2009 M/S GEETANJALI EDUCATION SOCIETY 6 2005-06 VIDE ORDER DT.28.11.2008 AT PAGE NO.10 PARA 11 OF THE ORDER, THE RELEVANT PORTION OF THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL IS EX TRACTED HERE UNDER : THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS ALSO FOUND THAT THE ASSESS EE HAS LENT MONEY BY CHARGING INTEREST @ 8% WHICH WAS MORE THAN THE INTEREST RATE OF 5 TO 6% BEING COLLECTED BY THE ASS ESSEE ON THE DEPOSITS MADE BY THE BANKERS THAT CAME TO BE WITHDR AWN AND WERE LET OUT TO THE PERSONS SPECIFIED U/S.13(3) OF THE A CT. HE ALSO FOUND OUT THAT THE PERSONS TO WHOM SUCH AMOUNTS HAVE BEEN LENT ON INTEREST WERE OF SUBSTANTIAL AND SOUND FINANCIAL ST ANDING AS THEY WERE MEN OF MEANS. HE, THEREFORE, HELD THAT NO BENE FIT WAS EXTENDED TO THE SPECIFIED PERSONS WITHIN THE MEANIN G OF SECTION13(3) R.W.S. 13(2) OF THE ACT AND FOUND NO J USTIFICATION IN REFUSING EXEMPTION U/S.11 OF THE ACT. IN THE ABSEN CE OF ANY CONTRARY MATERIAL ON RECORD, WE SUBSCRIBE TO THE VI EW ENTERTAINED BY THE LEARNED CIT(A), AND ARE SATISFIED THAT LENDI NG HAS BEEN MADE AT ADEQUATE RATE OF INTEREST AND BORROWER IS F INANCIALLY SOUND AS WELL AS THE AMOUNT SO LENT ARE SECURED BY GUARAN TEE GIVEN BY PERSONS OF SUBSTANTIAL FINANCIAL MEANS. THE ASSESS EES CASE, THEREFORE, WAS OUTSIDE THE SWEEP OF SECTION 13(2)(A ) OF THE ACT AS THE MONEY HAS BEEN LENT BY CHARGING ADEQUATE INTERE ST AS WELL AS UPON TAKING ADEQUATE SECURITY FROM THE SPECIFIED PE RSONS. KEEPING IN VIEW THE ENTIRE CONSPECTUS OF THE CASE AND NO BE NEFIT HAVING BEEN EXTENDED TO THE SPECIFIED PERSONS WITHIN THE M EANING OF SECTION 13(3) R W S 13(2) OF THE ACT, WE UPON THE F INDINGS REACHED BY THE LEARNED CIT(A) THAT THERE IS NO JUSTIFICATIO N IN DENYING EXEMPTION U/S.11 OF THE ACT TO THE SOCIETY. HIS ORD ER, THEREFORE, CANNOT BE HELD TO BE INFIRM UNDER THE PECULIAR FACT S AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THIS CASE. ACCORDINGLY, WE FIND NO MERIT IN THE GROUND RAISED IN APPEAL BY THE REVENUE. GROUND NO. 1 STANDS REJECTED. GROUND NO.2 IN REVENUES APPEAL NEEDS NO ADJUDICATION AS THE L EARNED CIT(A) DID NOT DECIDE THIS GROUND ON MERITS AS IS F OUND CLEARLY AS LAID DOWN IN PARA 32 OF HIS ORDER. HE HAS DECLINED TO DE AL WITH THIS GROUND IN VIEW OF THE EXEMPTION GIVEN U/S.11 OF THE ACT. NO USEFUL PURPOSE WILL BE SERVED IN RENDERING THE DECISION THERETO AFTER T HE DECISION TO ALLOW EXEMPTION U/S.11 OF THE ACT HAS ALREADY BEEN SUSTAI NED IN GROUND NO.1 HEREIN ABOVE. IN GROUND NO.3 THE REVENUES GRIEVANCE IS AGAINST EXCLUSION OF CO RPUS DONATION FROM THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE SOCIETY U/ S.11(1)(D) OF THE ACT. THE AUTHORITIES BELOW ARE SHOWN TO HAVE CONSI DERED THIS SECTION AS CONSEQUENTIAL TO ASSESSEES ENTITLEMENT TO EXEMPTIO N U/S.11 OF THE ACT. HAVING UPHELD THE DECISION TO ALLOW EXEMPTION U/S.11 , NO INTERFERENCE IS ITA 303/JU/2009 M/S GEETANJALI EDUCATION SOCIETY 7 CONSIDERED NECESSARY IN THE DECISION OF THE LEARNED CIT(A). THIS GROUND OF APPEAL BY THE REVENUE, THEREFORE, STANDS REJECTE D. IN GROUND NO.4, THE LEARNED CIT(A) IS FOUND TO HAVE GIVEN A DIRECT ION TO THE ASSESSING AUTHORITY TO CONSIDER THE DONATION OF RS.73,50,000/- GIVEN TO MANGALAM EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY AS APPLICATIO N OF INCOME U/S.11 OF THE ACT AS THE SAID SOCIETY TO THE ABOVE SOCIETY , NAMELY, MANGALAM EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY IS COVERED BY THE OBJECTIVES AS CONTAINED IN CLAUSE 20 THEREOF. IN THE ABSENCE OF CONTRARY MATERIAL H AVING BEEN BROUGHT TO OUR NOTICE AND KEEPING IN VIEW THE PECULIAR FACTS A S NARRATED HEREINABOVE, WE FIND NO INFIRMITY IN HIS ORDER AND ACCORDINGLY REJECT THE GROUND RAISED BY THE REVENUE. 7. THE ABOVE DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL IN AY 2005-06 HAS BEEN FOLLOWED IN ITA NO.365/JU/2010 FOR THE A.Y. 2007-08 VIDE ORDER DT.30.9.2010. IN THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION, THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS G IVEN A CATEGORICAL FINDING THAT THE FACTS ARE SIMILAR TO THE A.Y. 2005-06. BY FOLLOWING THE TRIBUNAL ORDER FOR A.Y. 2005-06, THE LEARNED CIT(A) ALLOWED THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE AFTER EXAMINING THE EACH GROUND SEPARATELY . IN SO FAR AS THE FIRST GROUND IS CONCERNED, THE LEARNED CIT(A) GAVE A FIND ING THAT THE FACTS ARE SIMILAR TO THE A.Y. 2005-06, THERE WERE TRANSACTION S WITH THE SISTER CONCERN BUT NONE OF THE TRANSACTIONS CAN BE SAID TO BE CONF ERRING ANY BENEFIT OF ANY NATURE UPON THE SISTER CONCERN OR SPECIFIED PERSON AND THEREFORE DENIAL OF THE BENEFIT OF EXEMPTION U/S.11 OF THE ACT WAS NOT JUST IFIED. IN SO FAR AS INTEREST AND SECURITY IS CONCERNED, THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS F OLLOWED THE DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL FOR A.Y. 2005-06 BY OBSERVING THAT NO CONT RARY FACTS ARE BROUGHT TO HIS NOTICE AND GROUND RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IS ALL OWED. 8. IN SO FAR AS THE SECOND GROUND OF APPEAL RELATIN G TO MARGINAL RATE IS CONCERNED, THE LEARNED CIT(A) GAVE A FINDING THAT T HE FACTS IN THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION ARE SIMILAR TO THE A.Y. 2005-06 AND H E OBSERVED THAT IT WOULD ITA 303/JU/2009 M/S GEETANJALI EDUCATION SOCIETY 8 BE AN ACADEMIC EXERCISE TO DEAL WITH THIS GROUND AS IN THE CASE OF INVOKING PROVISIONS OF SECTION 13, NO BENEFIT HAS BEEN EXTEN DED TO ANY THIRD PARTIES ON THE GROUND RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE WAS ALLOWED. WE F IND NO INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER OF CIT(A) AND THE SAME IS HEREBY UPHELD. ACCO RDINGLY, THIS GROUND OF APPEAL OF REVENUE IS DISMISSED. 9. THE NEXT GROUND OF APPEAL IS EXCLUSION OF CORPUS DONATION FROM THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE SOCIETY AMOUNTING TO RS.84,1 2,400/. 10. THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS OBSERVED THAT THE FACTS IN THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION ARE SIMILAR TO THE A.Y. 2005-06. THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED ALL THE DETAILS IN RESPECT OF CORPUS DONATION, THERE IS NO ALLEGATION AND DISPUTE WITH REGARD TO THE CORPUS DONATIONS AND BY FOLLOWING THE TRIBUNAL ORDER IN A.Y. 2005-06 ALLOWED THE GROUND RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE. WE FIND NO INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT(A) AND THE SAME IS HER EBY UPHELD. ACCORDINGLY, THIS GROUND OF APPEAL OF REVENUE IS DISMISSED. 11. THE NEXT GROUND OF APPEAL RELATING TO DONATION GIVEN TO M/S. VIJAY SHANTI TRUST AND OTHERS. THE LEARNED CIT(A) GAVE A CATEGORICAL FINDING THAT IN THE A.Y. 2005-06, THE ASSESSEE-SOCIETY GAVE DONATIO N TO THE MANGALAM EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY FOR THE PURPOSE OF EDUCATION AN D OBJECTIVES DULY FALL WITHIN THE OBJECTIVES OF THE ASSESSEE-SOCIETY. IN THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION, THE ASSESSEE HAS GIVEN DONATIONS TO M/S. VIJAY SHANTI TRUST AND OTHERS FOR THE PURPOSE OF EDUCATIONAL OBJECTIVE S DULY FORMED WITHIN THE OBJECTIVES OF THE ASSESSEE-SOCIETY. THE LEARNED C IT(A) BY FOLLOWING THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL FOR A.Y. 2005-06 ALLOWED THE GROUND RAISED BY THE ITA 303/JU/2009 M/S GEETANJALI EDUCATION SOCIETY 9 ASSESSEE BEFORE HIM. WE FIND NO INFIRMITY IN THE O RDER OF THE LEARNED CIT(A). THIS GROUND RAISED BY THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED. 12. IN THE RESULT THE APPEAL OF REVENUE IS DISMISSE D. PRONOUNCED ON 22 ND MARCH, 2011. SD/- SD/- (S.V. MEHROTRA) (V. DURGA RAO) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER MUMBAI, DT. 22 ND MARCH, 2011. *GPR COPIES OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : (1) THE APPELLANT (2) THE RESPONDENT (3) CIT CONCERNED. (4) CIT(A) (5) DR, (6) GUARD FILE TRUE COPY BY ORDER ASSISTANT REGISTRAR INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCHES ITA 303/JU/2009 M/S GEETANJALI EDUCATION SOCIETY 10 DATE INIT IALS DRAFT DICTATED ON 14.03.2011. DRAFT PLACED BEFORE AUTHOR DRAFT PROPOSED & PLACED BEFORE SECOND MEMBER DRAFT DISCUSSED & APPROVED BY SECOND MEMBER APPROVED DRAFT COMES TO SR.PS/PS KEPT FOR PRONOUNCEMENT ON FILE SENT TO BENCH CLERK DATE ON WHICH FILE GOES TO THE HEAD CLERK DATE OF DISPATCH OF ORDER.