The ITO, Ward-3, Anand V. Charotar Education Society, Anand

ITA 3198/AHD/2010

• Counselvise Citation: [2011] 134 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6343 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 6 month(s) 22 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 24-06-2011
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: D
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 02-12-2010
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: S S PARIDA
• Assessee Lawyers: ASHEEM L THAKKAR
• Keywords: Charitable institution; Revised return
• Section: 11A; 80G; 12A; 139(5); 10B; 12; 10; 2; 11; 139

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL D BENCH AHMEDABAD (BEFORE S/SHRI BHAVNESH SAINI, JM AND A. N. PAHUJA, AM) ITA NO.3198/AHD/2010 A. Y.: 2007-08 THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 3, 2 ND FLOOR, S. P. COMPLEX, NR. OLD C.K. HALL, MAYFAIR ROAD, ANAND 388001 VS CHAROTAR EDUCATION SOCIETY, STATION ROAD, ANAND 388 001 PA NO. ADAPK 9546 J (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY SHRI S. S. PARIDA, DR RESPONDENT BY SHRI ASHEEM L. THAKKAR, AR O R D E R PER BHAVNESH SAINI: THIS APPEAL BY THE REVENUE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT(A)-IV , BARODA DATED 27 TH SEPTEMBER, 2010, FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08, CHALL ENGING THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT(A) IN DIRECTING THE AO TO EXAMINE THE CLAIM U/S 11 OF THE IT ACT ON THE BASIS OF REVISED AUDIT REPORT IN FORM NO.10B ON MERITS. 2. BRIEFLY, THE FACTS OF THE CASE AS NOTED BY THE L EARNED CIT(A) IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER ARE THAT RETURN OF INCOME WAS F ILED CLAIMING EXEMPTION U/S 10 (23C) (IIIAD) OF THE IT ACT. THE R ETURN OF INCOME WAS ACCOMPANIED WITH FORM NO.10BB AND FORM NO.10B. AT T HE ASSESSMENT STAGE IT WAS POINTED OUT BY THE AO THAT EXEMPTION U/S 10 (23C) (IIIAD) OF THE IT ACT CANNOT BE GRANTED BECAU SE ASSESSEES ITA NO.3198/AHD/2010 ITO, WARD 3, ANAND VS CHAROTAR EDUCATION SOCIETY 2 ANNUAL RECEIPT EXCEEDED RS.1 CRORES AND THE INSTITU TION WAS NOT APPROVED BY THE PRESCRIBED AUTHORITY. IT WAS SUBMIT TED THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS WHOLLY EDUCATIONAL TRUST AND APPLICATI ON WAS MADE TO THE CCIT BEING THE PRESCRIBED AUTHORITY FOR APPROVA L AND THE ASSESSEE WAS ALSO ELIGIBLE FOR RELIEF U/S 11 (2) OF THE IT ACT. IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS REGISTERED U/S 12A OF THE IT ACT WITH CIT, BARODA AND WAS ALSO HAVING REGISTRATION CERTIF ICATE U/S 80G (5) OF THE IT ACT WHICH IS ALSO RENEWED. IT WAS SUBMITT ED THAT EVEN IF EXEMPTION CLAIMED U/S 10 (23C) OF THE IT ACT WAS NO T AVAILABLE; STILL THE ASSESSEE WAS ELIGIBLE FOR DEDUCTION U/S 11 OF T HE IT ACT. THE AO FURTHER NOTED THAT FORM NO.10B FILED BY THE ASSESSE E FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07 AS WELL AS FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08 WAS FILED WITHOUT RELEVANT INFORMATION FOR CLAIMING EXEMPTION U/S 11 OF THE IT ACT. THE AO WAS OF THE VIEW THAT THE CLAIM OF EXEMP TION U/S 11 OF THE IT ACT WAS NOT SUBSTANTIATED WITH CORROBORATIVE EVI DENCES, NECESSARY AND VITAL TO FULFILL PRE-CONDITIONS FOR ALLOWING EX EMPTION U/S11 OF THE IT ACT. THE ASSESSEE WAS REQUIRED TO FILE COPY OF THE EXEMPTION CERTIFICATE U/S 12A OF THE IT ACT BECAUSE IT WAS FO UND TO BE MISPLACED. THE ASSESSEE THEREAFTER, FILED CERTIFIED COPY OF RE GISTRATION U/S 12A AND 80 G CERTIFICATES. THE AO DENIED EXEMPTION U/S 11 OF THE IT ACT BY OBSERVING THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS REQUIRED TO FULF ILL THE CONDITIONS OF SECTION 11(5) OF THE IT ACT AND HAS TO FURNISH THE NECESSARY DETAILS IN FORM NO.10 BEFORE EXPIRY OF THE TIME ALLOWED U/S 13 9 (1) OF THE IT ACT AND SINCE IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE RETURN WAS FI LED LATE, THEREFORE, EXEMPTION CANNOT BE GRANTED U/S 11 OF THE IT ACT. T HE ASSESSEE CHALLENGED THE ORDER BEFORE THE LEARNED CIT(A) AND FILED WRITTEN SUBMISSION WHICH IS REPRODUCED IN THE IMPUGNED ORDE R BY THE LEARNED ITA NO.3198/AHD/2010 ITO, WARD 3, ANAND VS CHAROTAR EDUCATION SOCIETY 3 CIT(A) AND IT WAS BRIEFLY EXPLAINED THAT THE ASSESS EE IS REGISTERED U/S 12A AND 80G OF THE IT ACT AND FURTHER APPROVAL IS G RANTED U/S 10(23C) OF THE IT ACT BY THE CCIT. IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE IS A CHARITABLE TRUST WHICH RUNS AND OPERATES EDUCA TIONAL INSTITUTIONS. IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT COMPLETE DETAILS WERE FURNISH ED FOR CLAIMING EXEMPTION U/S 11A OF THE IT ACT. FURTHER DETAILS WE RE ALSO FILED. COMMENTS OF THE AO WERE CALLED FOR ON THE SUBMISSIO NS OF THE ASSESSEE. FURTHER COMMENTS OF THE ASSESSEE WERE CAL LED FOR ON THE REMAND REPORT. SAME HAVE BEEN REPRODUCED IN THE APP ELLATE ORDER. THE LEARNED CIT(A) CONSIDERING THE EXPLANATION OF T HE ASSESSEE AND MATERIAL ON RECORD NOTED THAT THE ASSESSEE FILED AU DIT REPORT IN FORM NO.10B CURING THE DEFECTS IN THE REPORT FILED WITH THE RETURN OF INCOME WHICH IS NOT EXAMINED BY THE AO. THEREFORE, THE AO WAS DIRECTED TO VERIFY THE CLAIM ON THE BASIS OF THE REVISED AUDIT REPORT IN FORM NO.10 B AND EXAMINE THE FACTS OF THE CASE. THE FINDINGS O F THE LEARNED CIT(A) IN PARA 4 OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER ARE REPRODUC ED AS UNDER: 4. I HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE FACTS OF THE CA SE, AOS REPORT AND APPELLANTS SUBMISSIONS. APPELLANT HAD CLAIMED EXEMPTION U/S. 10 (23C) IN THE RETURN OF IN COME FILED; HOWEVER ON BEING POINTED OUT THAT APPROVAL O F CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX UNDER RULE 2CA OF INCOME - TAX RULES WAS PENDING, APPELLANT MADE A CLAIM U/S. 11 BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER. AOS OBSERVATION IN T HE REMAND REPOT THAT THE CLAIM U/S. 11 SHOULD HAVE BEE N MADE BY FILING A REVISED RETURN U/S. 139(5) IN VIEW OF SUPREME COURTS DECISION IN TH4E CASE OF GOETZE IND IA LTD. 284 ITR 323 IS TAKEN UP FIRST. CLAIM U/S. 11 W AS MADE BY THE APPELLANT AT ASSESSMENT STAGE ITSELF AND AT THAT TIME, THIS OBJECTION WAS NOT RAISED BY THE ASSESSIN G OFFICER. SUCH AN OBJECTION HAS BEEN RAISED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AT APPELLATE STAGE ONLY. ITA NO.3198/AHD/2010 ITO, WARD 3, ANAND VS CHAROTAR EDUCATION SOCIETY 4 COURTS/TRIBUNALS HAVE HELD IN VARIOUS DECISIONS THA T CIT(APPEALS)/TRIBUNAL HAVE TO ENTERTAIN CLAIMS ON M ERITS, EVEN THOUGH NOT MADE BY FILING A REVISED RETURN. IN THE CASE OF CHICAGO PNEUMATIC INDIA LTD. (2007) 15 SOT 252 (MUMBAI), IT WAS HELD THAT CIT (APPEALS) HAVING CO - TERMINUS POWERS WITH ASSESSING OFFICER AND DUE TO APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS BEING CONTINUATION OF ORIGINA L PROCEEDINGS, HAS TO ENTERTAIN CLAIM OF ASSESSEE AND ALLOW IT, IF OTHER CONDITIONS OF PROVISIONS OF LAW ARE SA TISFIED. IN CASE OF JAY PARABOLIC PRINTS LTD. (2008) 306 ITR 42 (DEL.), EMERSON NETWORK POWER INDIA LTD. (2009) 122 TTJ (MUMBAI) 67, HERO HONDA FINLEASE LTD. (2008) 115 TT J (DEL) (T M) 752 AND RAMCO INTERNATIONAL [ITA NO.141 7 OF 2008] (PUNJAB & HARYANA), SIMILAR VIEW WAS TAKEN. I T IS THEREFORE, HELD THAT THE CLAIM U/S. 11 IS REQUIRED TO BE EXAMINED ON MERITS. CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSING OFF ICER THAT AUDIT WAS GOT DONE LATE AND RETURN OF INCOME W AS FILED LATE, CANNOT BE A VALID REASON TO REJECT THE CLAIM U/S. 11. THE CONDITION OF FILING RETURN OF INCOME WITHIN THE DUE DATE IS APPLICABLE U/S. 139 (3) IN RESPECT OF LOSS RETURN ONLY FOR ALLOWING CARRY FORWARD LOSSES. APPELLANT F ILED THE RETURN WITHIN THE TIME ALLOWED U/S. 139(4) AND THE CLAIM HAD TO BE EXAMINED ON MERITS. ASSESSING OFFICERS ANOTHER OBSERVATION WAS THAT THE APPELLANT HAD TO F URNISH DETAILS IN FORM 10 BEFORE EXPIRY OF TIME U/S. 139(1 ). APPELLANT CLAIMS TO HAVE APPLIED MORE THAN 85% OF INCOME DERIVED FROM PROPERTY HELD UNDER TRUST FOR CHARITABLE PURPOSES DURING THE PREVIOUS YEAR. FORM 10 IS TO BE FILED IN CASES WHERE LESS THAN 85% OF INCOME IS APPLIED TOWARDS CHARITABLE PURPOSE DURING THE PREVI OUS YEAR. ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT EXAMINED THE CLAIM U/S. 11 ON MERITS AND IT WAS THEREFORE, PREMATURE TO COM E TO A CONCLUSION THAT FORM 10 WAS REQUIRED TO BE FILED. APPELLANT HAS FILED AUDIT REPORT IN FORM 10B CURING THE DEFECTS IN THE REPORT FILED WITH RETURN OF INCOME. SINCE THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT EXAMINED THE CLAIM FOR EXEMPTION U/S. 11 ON MERITS SO FAR, IT IS DIRECTED THAT THE CLAIM U/S. 11 MADE ON THE BASIS OF REVISED AUDIT RE PORT IN FORM 10B EXAMINED ON MERITS AND ALLOWED ACCORDINGLY . ITA NO.3198/AHD/2010 ITO, WARD 3, ANAND VS CHAROTAR EDUCATION SOCIETY 5 3. THE LEARNED DR RELIED UPON THE ORDER OF THE AO A ND SUBMITTED THAT SINCE AUDIT REPORT IN FORM NO.10 B WAS FILED L ATE, THEREFORE, CLAIM U/S 11 OF THE IT ACT WAS RIGHTLY REJECTED BY THE AO . ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE REITERATED THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BEFORE THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. 4. ON CONSIDERATION OF THE ABOVE FACTS, WE ARE OF T HE VIEW THE ISSUE IS NOW SQUARELY COVERED BY THE ORDER OF THE I TAT AHMEDABAD C BENCH IN THE CASE OF THE XAVIER KELAVANI MANDAL PVT. LTD IN ITA NO.2050/AHD/2009 IN WHICH DEPARTMENTAL APPEAL HAS B EEN DISMISSED VIDE ORDER DATED 17-06-2011. THE FINDINGS OF THE TR IBUNAL IN PARA 7 AND 8 ARE REPRODUCED AS UNDER: 7. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. THE FACTS NOTED ABOVE ARE NOT IN DISPUTE. THE AFFIDAVIT OF THE CONCERN PERSON MOHAMAD IQBAL VOHRA (PB-4) FILED BEFORE THE LEARNED CIT(A) IN SUPPORT OF THE CONTENTION OF FILING OF TH E PRESCRIBED RETURN OF INCOME. IT IS EXPLAINED IN THE AFFIDAVIT THAT DISPATCH CLERK REFUSED TO ACCEPT THE RETURN ON THE GROUND THAT ACIT, CIRCLE-6 IS COMPANY CIRCLE AND ON LY COMPANY RETURN CAN BE ACCEPTED. HE ADVISED TO FILE RETURN IN FORM NO.1 THROUGH E-FILING BECAUSE IT WAS MANDAT ORY TO DO SO. THE DISPATCH CLERK OF ADIT (EXEMPTION) REFUS ED TO ACCEPT THE RETURN ON THE GROUND THAT THOUGH THE RET URN IS IN FORM NO.3A, THE PAN MENTIONED IS OF COMPANY; THEREFORE, SAME CANNOT BE ACCEPTED. SINCE BOTH THE DISPATCH CLERKS REFUSED TO ACCEPT THE PROPER RETURN , THEREFORE, INCOME TAX RETURN IN FORM NO.1 WAS FILED THROUGH E-MAILING ON 20-12-2006. FORM NO.3A ALONG W ITH AUDIT REPORT IN FORM NO.10B WAS HANDED OVER TO ACIT , CIRCLE- 6 IN PERSON ON 29-12-2006. THE LEARNED CIT( A) CALLED FOR COMMENTS OF THE AO AT THE APPELLATE STAG E. THE ASSESSEE EXPLAINED THAT THE POWERS OF LEARNED CIT(A ) IS ITA NO.3198/AHD/2010 ITO, WARD 3, ANAND VS CHAROTAR EDUCATION SOCIETY 6 COTERMINOUS AS THAT OF THE AO, THEREFORE, REPORT FI LED BEFORE THE LEARNED CIT(A) MAY BE ADMITTED IN EVIDEN CE. THE LEARNED CIT(A) ADMITTED THE SAME AUDIT REPORT A T THE APPELLATE STAGE ON WHICH THE REVENUE HAS NOT TAKEN ANY GROUND OF APPEAL CHALLENGING THE DISCRETION EXERCIS ED BY THE LEARNED CIT(A) IN ADMITTING THE AUDIT REPORT AT THE APPELLATE STAGE. SINCE, THE FINDINGS OF THE LEARNED CIT(A) TO THAT EXTENT HAVE NOT BEEN DISPUTED OR CHALLENGED , THEREFORE, IT STANDS FINALLY CONCLUDED THAT THE AUD IT REPORT IN PRESCRIBED FORM WAS ADMITTED AT THE APPELLATE ST AGE. THE HONBLE CALCUTTA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS HARDEODAS AGARWALLA TRUST (SUPRA) HELD AS UNDER: HELD, THAT, IN THE INSTANT CASE, THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT GIVEN AN OPPORTUNITY TO FILE THE AUDIT REPORT IN THE PRESCRIBED FORM WHICH WAS AVAILABLE WITH THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE ASSESSMENT WAS COMPLETED. IN SUCH A CASE, THE APPEAL BEING A CONTINUATION OF THE ORIGINAL PROCEEDINGS, THE APPELLATE AUTHORITY HAD THE POWER TO ACCEPT THE AUDIT REPORT AND DIRECT THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO REDO THE ASSESSMENT. 7.1 THE HONBLE PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS SHAHZEDANAND CHARITY TRUST 228 ITR 2 92 HELD AS UNDER: UNDER SECTION 11 OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961, SUBJECT TO CERTAIN PROVISIONS OF THE ACT, AND ON FULFILLING OF CERTAIN CONDITIONS PROVIDED UNDER SECTION 12A, INCOME FROM PROPERTY HELD FOR CHARITABLE OR RELIGIOUS PURPOSE HAS BEEN EXEMPTED FROM PAYMENT OF TAX. SECTION 12A PROVIDES THAT THE PROVISIONS OF SECTIONS 11 AND 12 SHALL NOT APPLY IN RELATION TO THE INCOME OF ANY TRUST OR INSTITUTION UNLESS THE TWO CONDITIONS PROVIDED IN CLAUSES (A) AND (B) OF SECTION 12A ARE FULFILLED. SECTION 12A LAYS DOWN THAT THE TRUST OR INSTITUTION HAS TO FURNISH AN AUDITORS REPORT DULY SIGNED AND VERIFIED BY THE ITA NO.3198/AHD/2010 ITO, WARD 3, ANAND VS CHAROTAR EDUCATION SOCIETY 7 CHARTERED ACCOUNTANT WITH THE RETURN OF INCOME. ACCORDING TO CIRCULAR DATED FEBRUARY 9, 1978 OF THE CENTRAL BOARD OF DIRECT TAXES, IT IS NOT MANDATORY UNDER SECTION 12A (B) TO FILE THE AUDIT REPORT ALONG WITH THE RETURN OF INCOME. NORMALLY, A CHARITABLE OR RELIGIOUS TRUST OR INSTITUTION IS EXPECTED TO FILE THE AUDITORS REPOR T ALONG WITH THE RETURN BUT IN CASES WHERE FOR REASONS BEYOND THE CONTROL OF THE ASSESSEE SOME DELAY HAS OCCURRED IN FILING THE SAID REPORT, THE INCOME-TAX OFFICER, FOR REASONS TO BE RECORDED, HAS BEEN AUTHORIZED TO CONDONE THE DELAY IN FURNISHING THE AUDITORS REPORT AND ACCEPT THE SAME AT A BELATED STAGE. IT HAS BEEN CLARIFIED THAT THE EXEMPTION AVAILABLE TO THE TRUST UNDER SECTION 11 MAY NOT BE DENIED MERELY ON ACCOUNT OF DELAY IN FURNISHING THE AUDITORS REPORT. THE WORD SHALL OCCURRING IN SECTION 12A CANNOT, UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES, BE READ AS MUST MAKING IT MANDATORY FOR THE TRUST TO FURNISH THE AUDITORS REPORT ALONG WITH THE FILING OF THE RETURN. IF FOR CERTAIN UNAVOIDABLE CIRCUMSTANCES, THE ASSESSEE IS UNABLE TO FURNISH THE AUDITORS REPORT ALONG WITH THE RETURN, THEN THE SAME CAN BE FURNISHED AT A LATER DATE WITH THE PERMISSION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER WHO MAY PERMIT THE ASSESSEE TO DO SO AFTER RECORDING HIS REASONS. THE CENTRAL BOARD OF DIRECT TAXES BY ISSUING THE CIRCULAR DATED FEBRUARY 9, 1978, HAS TREATED THE PROVISIONS REGARDING FURNISHING OF AUDITORS REPORT ALONG WITH THE RETURN TO BE PROCEDURAL AND, THEREFORE, DIRECTORY IN NATURE. BY SHOWING SUFFICIENT CAUSE, THE AUDITORS REPORT COULD BE PRODUCED AT ANY LATER STAGE EITHER BEFORE THE INCOME-TAX OFFICER OR BEFORE THE APPELLATE AUTHORITY. 7.2 IN THIS CASE, THE AO HAS NOT GIVEN ANY NOTICE T O THE ASSESSEE AT THE ASSESSMENT STAGE THAT THE RETURN WA S INCOMPLETE BECAUSE OF NON-FILING OF THE AUDIT REPOR T, THE ITA NO.3198/AHD/2010 ITO, WARD 3, ANAND VS CHAROTAR EDUCATION SOCIETY 8 SAME BE FILED AT THE APPELLATE STAGE. THEREFORE, AP PELLATE PROCEEDINGS BEING CONTINUATION OF THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE LEARNED CIT(A) ON PROPER APPRECIAT ION OF THE FACTS CORRECTLY ADMITTED THE AUDIT REPORT AT TH E APPELLATE STAGE. IN THE ABOVE POSITION, IT WAS HELD THAT THE ASSESSEE CAN FILE AUDITORS REPORT BEFORE THE APPELL ATE AUTHORITY AND THE APPEAL BEING CONTINUATION PROCESS OF THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE APPELLATE AUTHORITY HAS THE POWER TO ACCEPT THE AUDIT REPORT AND THE APPELLATE AUTHORITY CAN DO WHAT THE AO CAN DO AND DIRECT HIM TO DO WHAT HE HAS FAILED TO DO. IN THIS CASE, IT IS NOT I N DISPUTE THAT THE AUDIT REPORT IN PRESCRIBED FORM WAS OBTAIN ED PRIOR TO FILING OF THE RETURN ON 20-12-2006; THEREFORE, T HERE WAS NO REASON FOR THE ASSESSEE TO KEEP THE AUDIT REPORT WITH IT IN ORDER TO LOOSE THE EXEMPTION. THE ASSESSEE IN TH E EARLIER AS WELL AS IN THE SUBSEQUENT ASSESSMENT YEA RS FILED THE AUDIT REPORT AND GOT THE EXEMPTION. THE C ONDUCT OF THE ASSESSEE IN EARLIER YEAR AND SUBSEQUENT YEAR S WOULD PROVE THAT DUE TO THE FACTS STATED ABOVE THER E WAS DELAY IN FILING THE AUDIT REPORT AND THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE WAS SUPPORTED BY THE AFFIDAVIT OF MOHAMAD IQBAL VOHRA (PB-4). THE LEARNED CIT(A) ON PROPER APPRECIATION OF THE FACTS AND MATERIAL ON RECORD IN THE LIGHT OF THE DECISIONS OF THE HONBLE PUNJAB & HARY ANA HIGH COURT AND THE HONBLE CALCUTTA HIGH COURT RIGH TLY DIRECTED THE AO TO ACCEPT THE AUDIT REPORT OF THE A SSESSEE AND GRANT EXEMPTION U/S 11 OF THE IT ACT. WE, THERE FORE, DO NOT FIND ANY INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER OF THE LEARN ED CIT(A). WE CONFIRM HIS FINDINGS AND DISMISS THE APPEAL OF T HE REVENUE. 8. IN THE RESULT, THE DEPARTMENTAL APPEAL IS DISMIS SED. 5. CONSIDERING THE FACTS OF THE CASE IN THE LIGHT O F THE ABOVE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT SINCE THE A SSESSEE FILED AUDIT REPORT IN PRESCRIBED FORM BEFORE THE AO, THEREFORE, THE AO SHALL HAVE TO EXAMINE THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE U/S 11 OF THE IT ACT ON MERITS. THE LEARNED CIT(A), THEREFORE, RIGHTLY DIRECTED THE AO TO EXAMINE THE ITA NO.3198/AHD/2010 ITO, WARD 3, ANAND VS CHAROTAR EDUCATION SOCIETY 9 CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE U/S 11 OF THE IT ACT ON THE B ASIS OF REVISED AUDIT REPORT IN FORM NO.10B. THERE IS NO MERIT IN T HE DEPARTMENTAL APPEAL. THE SAME IS ACCORDINGLY DISMISSED. 6. IN THE RESULT, THE DEPARTMENTAL APPEAL IS DISMIS SED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 24-06-2011 SD/- SD/- (A. N. PAHUJA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER (BHAVNESH SAINI) JUDICIAL MEMBER DATE : 24-06-2011 LAKSHMIKANT/- COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CIT CONCERNED 4. THE CIT(A) CONCERNED 5. THE DR, ITAT, AHMEDABAD 6. GUARD FILE BY ORDER D Y. REGISTRAR, ITAT, AHMEDABAD