G D EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY, NOIDA V. JCIT, RANGE- 1, NOIDA

ITA 3925/DEL/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 125 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6707 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 1 month(s) 13 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 30-07-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Assessment Year: 2013-2014
• Appeal Filed On: 16-06-2017
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: RAKESH GUPTA
• Keywords: Depreciation; Charitable institution; Principle of natural justice; Maximum Marginal Rate; Wrong claim; Assessment record; Benefit of exemption; Capital expenditure
• Section: 142(1); 56(2); 234B; 12A; 56; 12; 11

Judgement Text

1 ITA NOS. 3923/DEL/2017 & ORS IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLA TE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH: C NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI R. K. PANDA, ACCOUNTANT ME MBER AND MS SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JUDI CIAL MEMBER I.T.A .NO. 3923/DEL/2 017 (A.Y 2009-10) G D EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY C/O. RRA TAX INDIA, D-28, SOUTH EXTENSION, PART-1 NEW DELHI (APPELLANT) VS JCIT RANGE-1 NOIDA UTTAR PRADESH (RESPONDENT) ITA .NO. 3924/DEL/20 17 (A.Y 2010-11) G D EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY A-73, SECTOR-34 NOIDA (APPELLANT) VS JCIT RANGE-1 NOIDA UTTAR PRADESH (RESPONDENT) ITA .NO. 3925/DEL/20 17 (A.Y 2013-14) G D EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY C/O. RRA TAX INDIA, D-28, SOUTH EXTENSION, PART-1 NEW DELHI (APPELLANT) VS JCIT RANGE-1 NOIDA UTTAR PRADESH (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY SH. RAKESH GUPTA, ADV RESPONDENT BY SH. ARUN KUMAR YADAV, SR. DR ORDER PER SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JM THESE APPEALS ARE FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 30/03/2017 PASSED BY CIT(A)-1, NOIDA. DATE OF HEARING 19.07.2018 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 30.07.2018 2 ITA NOS. 3923/DEL/2017 & ORS 2. THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL ARE AS UNDER:- I.T.A .NO. 3923/DEL/2017 1. THAT HAVING REGARD TO THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES O F THE CASE, LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN HOLDING THAT THE A PPELLANT IS NOT ENTITLED TO BENEFIT OF SECTION 11(1 )(A) & 1 L(L)(D) AND U/S 12 AND THAT TOO WITHOUT OBSERVING THE PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE AND WIT HOUT GIVING SHOW CAUSE. 2. THAT HAVING REGARD TO THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN HOLDING THE INCOME OF THE APPELLANT CHARGEABLE TO TAX UNDER THE HEAD INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES AND HAS FURTHER ERRED IN BRINGING TO TAX A SUM OF RS. 1,59,84,559/- AND THAT TOO WITHOUT GIVING ANY DEDUCTION WITH REGARD TO EXPENSES. 3. THAT HAVING REGARD TO THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN HOLDING THAT THERE WAS VIOLATIONS OF SECTION 13(L)(D) R.W.S. 11(5). 4. THAT IN ANY CASE AND IN ANY VIEW OF THE MATTER, AC TION OF LD. CIT(A) IN ENHANCING THE ASSESSMENT AND BRINGING TO TAX THE GR OSS RECEIPTS AS TAXABLE INCOME OF THE APPELLANT AND THAT TOO WITHOUT GIVING ANY DEDUCTION AND DENYING THE BENEFIT OF SECTION 11 & 12 IS BAD IN LA W AND AGAINST THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. 5. THAT HAVING REGARD TO THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN NOT REVERSING THE ACTION OF LD. AO IN COMPUTING THE INCOME OF ASSESSEE IN THE STATUS OF AOP INSTEAD OF CHARITABLE SOCIETY AS CLAIMED BY THE APPELLANT AND FURTHER ER RED IN APPLYING THE MAXIMUM MARGINAL RATE OF TAX. 6. THAT IN ANY CASE AND IN ANY VIEW OF THE MATTER, ACTION OF LD. CIT(A) IN NOT REVERSING THE ACTION OF LD. AO IN COMPUTING THE INC OME OF ASSESSEE IN THE STATUS OF AOP IS BAD LAW AND AGAINST THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. 7. THAT HAVING REGARD TO THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANC ES OF THE CASE, LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED LAW AND ON FACTS IN NOT REVERSING THE ACT ION OF LD. AO IN MAKING ADDITION RS.2,00,215/- ON ACCOUNT OF INTEREST PAID ON UNSECURED LOANS RELATING TO BUILDING UNDER CONSTRUCTION AND THAT TO O BY RECORDING INCORRECT FACTS AND FINDINGS AND WITHOUT OBSERVING THE PRINC IPLE OF NATURAL JUSTICE. 8. THAT HAVING REGARD TO THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANC ES OF THE CASE, LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED LAW AND ON FACTS IN NOT REVERSING THE ACT ION OF LD. AO IN MAKING ADDITION OF RS.64,000/- ON ACCOUNT OF INTEREST EAR NED ON ADVANCES AND THAT TOO BY RECORDING INCORRECT FACTS AND FINDINGS AND W ITHOUT OBSERVING THE PRINCIPLE OF NATURAL JUSTICE. 9. THAT HAVING REGARD TO THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANC ES OF THE CASE, LD. CIT(A) 3 ITA NOS. 3923/DEL/2017 & ORS HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN PASSING THE IMPUGN ED ORDER AND THAT TOO WITHOUT GIVING OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING AND BY RECORD ING INCORRECT FACTS AND FINDINGS. 10. THAT HAVING REGARD TO THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANC ES OF THE CASE, LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN NOT REVERSING THE ACTION OF LD. AO IN CHARGING INTEREST U/S 2344 234B AND 234C OF INCOME TAX ACT, 1961. 1 L. THAT THE APPELLANT CRAVES THE LEAVE TO ADD, M ODIFY, AMEND OR DELETE ANY OF THE GROUND OF APPEAL AT THE TIME OF HEARING AND ALL THE ABOVE GROUNDS ARE WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO EACH OTHER. ITA .NO. 3924/DEL/2017 1. THAT HAVING REGARD TO THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCE S OF THE CASE, LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN HOLDING THAT THE A PPELLANT IS NOT ENTITLED TO BENEFIT OF SECTION 11(1 )(A) & 1 L(L)(D) AND U/S 12 AND THAT TOO WITHOUT OBSERVING THE PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE AND WIT HOUT GIVING SHOW CAUSE. 2. THAT HAVING REGARD TO THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANC ES OF THE CASE, LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN HOLDING THE INCOME OF THE APPELLANT CHARGEABLE TO TAX UNDER THE HEAD INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES AND HAS FURTHER ERRED IN BRINGING TO TAX A SUM OF RS. 2,37,66,767/- AND THAT TOO WITHOUT GIVING ANY DEDUCTION WITH REGARD TO EXPENSES. 3. THAT HAVING REGARD TO THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANC ES OF THE CASE, LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN HOLDING THAT THERE WAS VIOLATIONS OF SECTION 13(L)(D) R.W.S. 11(5). 4. THAT IN ANY CASE AND IN ANY VIEW OF THE MATTER, ACTION OF LD. CIT(A) IN ENHANCING THE ASSESSMENT AND BRINGING TO TAX THE GR OSS RECEIPTS AS TAXABLE INCOME OF THE APPELLANT AND THAT TOO WITHOUT GIVING ANY DEDUCTION AND DENYING THE BENEFIT OF SECTION 11 & 12 IS BAD IN LA W AND AGAINST THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. 5. THAT HAVING REGARD TO THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANC ES OF THE CASE, LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN NOT REVERSING THE ACTION OF LD. AO IN COMPUTING THE INCOME OF ASSESSEE IN THE STATUS OF AOP INSTEAD OF CHARITABLE SOCIETY AS CLAIMED BY THE APPELLANT AND FURTHER ER RED IN APPLYING THE MAXIMUM MARGINAL RATE OF TAX. 6. THAT IN ANY CASE AND IN ANY VIEW OF THE MATTER, ACTION OF LD. CIT(A) IN NOT REVERSING THE ACTION OF LD. AO IN COMPUTING THE INC OME OF ASSESSEE IN THE STATUS OF AOP IS BAD LAW AND AGAINST THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. 7. THAT HAVING REGARD TO THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANC ES OF THE CASE, LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED LAW AND ON FACTS IN NOT REVERSING THE ACT ION OF LD. AO IN MAKING ADDITION RS.9,54,275/- ON ACCOUNT OF INTEREST PAID ON UNSECURED LOANS 4 ITA NOS. 3923/DEL/2017 & ORS RELATING TO BUILDING UNDER CONSTRUCTION AND THAT TO O BY RECORDING INCORRECT FACTS AND FINDINGS AND WITHOUT OBSERVING THE PRINC IPLE OF NATURAL JUSTICE. 8. THAT HAVING REGARD TO THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANC ES OF THE CASE, LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED LAW AND ON FACTS IN NOT REVERSING THE ACT ION OF LD. AO IN MAKING ADDITION RS.64,000/- ON ACCOUNT OF INTEREST EARNED ON ADVANCES AND THAT TOO BY RECORDING INCORRECT FACTS AND FINDINGS AND WITHO UT OBSERVING THE PRINCIPLE OF NATURAL JUSTICE. 9. THAT HAVING REGARD TO THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCE S OF THE CASE, LD.CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN NOT REVERSING THE ACTION OF LD. A.O IN ALLOWING THE DEPRECIATION AMOUNTING TO RS.20,34,822/- AS APP LICATION. 10. THAT HAVING REGARD TO THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANC ES OF THE CASE, LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN PASSING THE IMPUGN ED ORDER AND THAT TOO WITHOUT GIVING OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING AND BY RECORD ING INCORRECT FACTS AND FINDINGS. 11. THAT HAVING REGARD TO THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANC ES OF THE CASE, LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN NOT REVERSING THE ACTION OF LD. AO IN CHARGING INTEREST U/S 2344 234B AND 234C OF INCOME TAX ACT, 1961. 12. THAT THE APPELLANT CRAVES THE LEAVE TO ADD, MOD IFY, AMEND OR DELETE ANY OF THE GROUND OF APPEAL AT THE TIME OF HEARING AND ALL THE ABOVE GROUNDS ARE WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO EACH OTHER. ITA .NO. 3925/DEL/2017 1. THAT HAVING REGARD TO THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCE S OF THE CASE, LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN HOLDING THAT THE A PPELLANT IS NOT ENTITLED TO BENEFIT OF SECTION 11(1 )(A) & 1 L(L)(D) AND U/S 12 AND THAT TOO WITHOUT OBSERVING THE PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE AND WIT HOUT GIVING SHOW CAUSE. 2. THAT HAVING REGARD TO THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANC ES OF THE CASE, LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN HOLDING THE INCOME OF THE APPELLANT CHARGEABLE TO TAX UNDER THE HEAD INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES AND HAS FURTHER ERRED IN BRINGING TO TAX A SUM OF RS. 3,39,78,053/- AND THAT TOO WITHOUT GIVING ANY DEDUCTION WITH REGARD TO EXPENSES. 3. THAT HAVING REGARD TO THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANC ES OF THE CASE, LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN HOLDING THAT THERE WAS VIOLATIONS OF SECTION 13(L)(D) R.W.S. 11(5). 4. THAT IN ANY CASE AND IN ANY VIEW OF THE MATTER, ACTION OF LD. CIT(A) IN ENHANCING THE ASSESSMENT AND BRINGING TO TAX THE GR OSS RECEIPTS AS TAXABLE INCOME OF THE APPELLANT AND THAT TOO WITHOUT GIVING ANY DEDUCTION AND DENYING THE BENEFIT OF SECTION 11 & 12 IS BAD IN LA W AND AGAINST THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. 5 ITA NOS. 3923/DEL/2017 & ORS 5. THAT HAVING REGARD TO THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANC ES OF THE CASE, LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN NOT REVERSING THE ACTION OF LD. AO IN COMPUTING THE INCOME OF ASSESSEE IN THE STATUS OF AOP INSTEAD OF CHARITABLE SOCIETY AS CLAIMED BY THE APPELLANT AND FURTHER ER RED IN APPLYING THE MAXIMUM MARGINAL RATE OF TAX. 6. THAT IN ANY CASE AND IN ANY VIEW OF THE MATTER, ACTION OF LD. CIT(A) IN NOT REVERSING THE ACTION OF LD. AO IN COMPUTING THE INC OME OF ASSESSEE IN THE STATUS OF AOP IS BAD LAW AND AGAINST THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. 7. THAT HAVING REGARD TO THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANC ES OF THE CASE, LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED LAW AND ON FACTS IN NOT REVERSING THE ACT ION OF LD. AO IN MAKING ADDITION RS.56,68,000/- ON ACCOUNT OF INTEREST PAID ON UNSECURED LOANS RELATING TO BUILDING UNDER CONSTRUCTION AND THAT TO O BY RECORDING INCORRECT FACTS AND FINDINGS AND WITHOUT OBSERVING THE PRINC IPLE OF NATURAL JUSTICE. 8. THAT HAVING REGARD TO THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANC ES OF THE CASE, LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED LAW AND ON FACTS IN PASSING THE IMPUGNED ORDER AND THAT TOO WITHOUT GIVING OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING AND BY RECORD ING INCORRECT FACTS AND FINDINGS. 9. THAT HAVING REGARD TO THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCE S OF THE CASE, LD.CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN NOT REVERSING THE ACTION OF LD. A.O IN CHARGING INTEREST U/S 234A, 234B AND 234C OF INCOME TAX ACT, 1961. 3. FACTS OF THE A.Y. 2009-10 IS TAKEN AS IT IS THE LEAD CASE. RETURN DECLARING INCOME OF RS. NIL AFTER CLAIMING EXEMPTION U/S 11 O F THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 WAS FILED ON 30/09/2009 IN STATUS OF AOP (T) WHICH WAS PROCESSED U/S 143 (1) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961. SUBSEQUENTLY, CASE WA S SELECTED FOR SCRUTINY. ACCORDINGLY NOTICE U/S 143(2) DATED 27/9/2010 WAS I SSUED AND SERVED UPON THE ASSESSEE FIXING THE DATE OF HEARING ON 11/10/20 10. THEREAFTER, NOTICE U/S 142(1) DATED 27/6/2011 ALONG WITH QUESTIONNAIRE WAS ISSUED AND SERVED UPON THE ASSESSEE FIXING THE DATE OF HEARING ON 7/7/2011 . ANOTHER NOTICE U/S 142(1) DATED 25/10/2011 WAS ISSUED AND SERVED UPON THE ASSESSEE FIXING THE DATE OF HEARING ON 11/11/2011 WAS ISSUED AND SERVED UPON THE ASSESSEE. IN RESPONSE TO ALL THE STATUTORY NOTICES, CHARTERED AC COUNTANT AND AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE APPEARED FOR AND ON BEHALF OF THE AS SESSEE FROM TIME TO TIME AND FURNISHED DETAILS AND DOCUMENTS AS CALLED FOR B Y THE ASSESSING OFFICER. BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS WERE PRODUCED WHICH WERE EXAMINED BY THE ASSESSING 6 ITA NOS. 3923/DEL/2017 & ORS OFFICER. THE ASSESSEE IS RUNNING TWO SCHOOLS NAMEL Y KANGAROO KIDS (FOR CLASSES UP TO K.G) & BILLABONG HIGH (FOR CLASSES AB OVE K.G) IN THE NAME THE SCHOOL. THE SOCIETY WAS GRANTED REGISTRATION U/S 12A OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 ON 6/2/1989 BY CIT MEERUT. THE ASSESSING OFFI CER OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS ENTERED INTO A FRANCHISE AGREEMENT FOR ROYALTY ON 3/11/2004 WITH KANGAROO KIDS EDUCATION FOR BEING APPOINTED FO R CONDUCTING THE FRANCHISEE BUSINESS OF IMPORTING HIGH QUALITY PRE-S CHOOL EDUCATION AND TRAINING AND OTHER RELATED ACTIVITIES. ACCORDING T O PRESCRIBED SYLLABUS AND METHOD OF TRAINING DEVISE AND DEVELOP AS A FRANCHIS OR UNDER THE MARK FOR NOIDA/GHAZIABAD TERRITORY OR ANY OTHER LOCATION AS MAY BE AGREED BY THE FRANCHISER. THE ASSESSING OFFICER OBSERVED THAT FR OM THE PERUSAL OF THE FRANCHISE AGREEMENT THAT THE ASSESSEE IS PURSUING O BJECT OF IMPARTING AND SPREADING OF EDUCATION WITH PROFIT MOTIVE AND NOT A S OBJECT OF CHARITY. THEREFORE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER MADE AN ADDITION OF RS. 2,00,215/- BEING INTEREST CLAIMED ON UNSECURED LOANS AT 12% ON AMOUN T OF RS.26,30,111/-. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HELD THAT IN THE SCHEDULE OF FI XED ASSETS THE ASSESSEE HAS SHOWN BUILDING UNDER CONSTRUCTION AT RS.33,36,914/- AND NO AMOUNT OF INTEREST WAS CAPITALIZED. CONSIDERING THE ABOVE FA CTS INTEREST AT 12% PER ANNUM ON AVERAGE COST OF CONSTRUCTION OF RS.16,68,4 57/- WHICH WORKS OUT TO RS.2,00,215/-WAS DISALLOWED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICE R. THE ASSESSING OFFICER FURTHER DISALLOWED AMOUNT OF RS.64,000/- IN RESPECT OF RS. 16 LACS WHICH WAS ADVANCED TO M/S PROGRESSIVE TOOLS AND COMPONENTS PV T. LTD. FOR A PERIOD OF FOUR MONTHS BY OBSERVING THAT AS PER INCOME AND EXP ENDITURE ACCOUNT NO INTEREST INCOME WAS CREDITED. 4. BEING AGGRIEVED BY THE ASSESSMENT ORDER THE ASSE SSEE FILED APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT(A). THE CIT(A) NOT ONLY DISMISSED THE APPE AL OF THE ASSESSEE BUT ENHANCE THE INCOME . THE CIT(A) HELD AS UNDER: 86. IN VIEW OF THAT IT IS CLEAR THAT RUNNING OF THE EDU CATIONAL INSTITUTIONS BY THE APPELLANT IS AN ACTIVITY AIMED AT ACTUALIZAT IONS OF THE OBJECTS OF THE APPELLANT SOCIETY OF DOING CHARITY & IS NOT THE PRO PERTY WHICH IS A PRECONDITION 7 ITA NOS. 3923/DEL/2017 & ORS FOR CLAIMING & AVAILING THE BENEFIT OF EXEMPTION ON INCIDENCE OF TAX U/S 11 OF I.T. ACT, 1961. 87. AS THE INCOME OF THE APPELLANT WHICH IS THE SUBJECT OF THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT & THE PRESENT ADJUDICATION BEFORE THIS O FFICE IS NOT THE INCOME DERIVED FROM THE PROPERTY IN THE FIRST PLACE, THE A PPELLANT CANNOT CLAIM THE BENEFIT OF EXEMPTION FROM THE INCIDENCE OF TAX U/S 11 OF I.T. ACT, 1961 QUA ITS SUCH INCOME AS THE CONDITIONS LAID DOWN BY THE LEGI SLATURE UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION LL(L)(A) OF I.T. ACT, 1961 AR E NOT SATISFIED BY THE APPELLANT AND WHICH IS THE CONDITION REQUISITE FOR AVAILING T HAT BENEFIT. 88. REGARDING THE DONATION RECEIVED BY APPELLANT & CLA IMED TO BE EXEMPT FROM TAX; THE CONDITIONS OF SECTION 11 (1)(D ) OF I.T. ACT, 1961 ARE TO BE SATISFIED. PERUSAL OF THE FINAL ACCOUNTS OF THE APP ELLANT REVEALS THAT THE APPELLANT NEITHER HAS ANY CORPUS NOR THERE WERE ANY DIRECTIONS FROM THE GIVERS OF THE ALLEGED DONATION THAT THE DONATION GI VEN BY THEM SHOULD FORM PART OF THE CORPUS OF THE APPELLANT SOCIETY. THERE IS ALSO NOTHING TO MEET THE REQUIREMENT OF LAW THAT THE SAID DONATION IF THAT CAN BE CALLED DONATION WAS GIVEN VOLUNTARILY OR WERE VOLUNTARY CONTRIBUTIONS. 89. THE AMOUNT OF MONEY RECEIVED BY APPELLANT AS DONAT ION IS PRIMARILY FROM THE STUDENTS & THEIR GUARDIANS & IS IN THE WAK E OF THOSE STUDENTS GETTING THE ADMISSIONS IN THE SCHOOLS RUN BY THE APPELLANT SOCIETY & CONTINUATION OF SUCH ADMISSION & THEREFORE, IS CONTRACTUAL IN NATUR E. SUCH PAYMENTS CANNOT BE CONSIDERED TO BE THE VOLUNTARY CONTRIBUTION. THE SE ARE RECIPROCAL PAYMENTS MADE UNDER THE EXPECTATIONS OF RECIPROCAL BENEFITS & IN CONTRIBUTION WHICH IS THE PRECONDITION FOR AVAILING THE BENEFIT OF EXEMPT ION FROM THE INCIDENCE OF TAX U/S LL(L)(D) & 12 OF THE I.T. ACT, 1961. 90. IN THE LIGHT OF THE ABOVE, REQUIREMENTS OF LAW UNDER SECTION LL(L)(D) & ALSO UNDER SECTION 12 OF I.T. ACT, 1961 IS NOT ME T EITHER SUBSTANTIALLY OR PROCEDURALLY AS NEITHER THE DONATIONS ARE VOLUNTARY CONTRIBUTIONS NOR ARE GIVEN WITH SPECIFIC DIRECTIONS THAT THAT SHALL FORM PART OF THE CORPUS OF THE APPELLANT SOCIETY. 91. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, THE APPELLANT SOCIETY IS NOT ELIGIBLE FOR THE BENEFIT OF EXEMPTION FROM THE INCIDENCE TO TAX UNDE R THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION LL(L)(D) OF I.T. ACT, 1961. IT IS ALSO NOT ELIGIBLE FOR THE BENEFIT OF EXEMPTION FROM INCIDENCE TO TAX UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 12 OF I.T. ACT, 1961 FOR THE REASON THAT THE MONEY COLLECTED FROM STUDENTS & THE IR GUARDIANS, ETC., IS NOT THE VOLUNTARY CONTRIBUTION BUT THE CONTRACTUAL LEVI ES & PAYMENTS. 8 ITA NOS. 3923/DEL/2017 & ORS 92. THEREFORE, THE APPELLANT IS NEITHER ENTITLED TO TH E BENEFIT OF EXEMPTION FROM INCIDENCE TO TAX U/S LL(L)(A) OF I.T . ACT, 1961 NOR U/S LL(L)(D) NOR U/S 12 OF I.T. ACT, 1961 IN ANY MANNER. 93. THE I.T. ACT, 1961 CONCEIVES U/S 11 OF I.T. ACT, 19 61 ANOTHER POSSIBLE SITUATION WHERE A RUNNING BUSINESS IS RECE IVED BY THE CHARITABLE INSTITUTION BY WAY OF THE DONATION OR OTHERWISE & H AS PROVIDED THAT IN THAT CASE THE CHARITABLE INSTITUTION MAY CONTINUE WITH T HE BUSINESS THOUGH BY FOLLOWING THE PRESCRIBED MANNER OF ACCOUNTING OF IT S FINANCIAL AFFAIRS. HOWEVER, IN THE PRESENT CASE THIS IS NOT THE CASE A S APPELLANT HAS NOT RECEIVED ANY EXISTING BUSINESS AS DONATION OR IN SO ME OTHER MANNER & HAS SET UP ITS VARIOUS SCHOOLS AS ALMOST A BUSINESS ENT ITIES RUN PURELY ON COMMERCIAL LINES. THEREFORE, APPELLANT IS NOT ENTIT LED TO THE BENEFIT OF EXEMPTION FROM THE INCIDENCE OF TAX IN SUCH A SITUA TION AS WELL AS THE CONDITIONS PRECEDENT IS NOT SATISFIED BY IT. THOUGH WITH NO SUCCESS THAT THE BUSINESS OF THE APP ELLANT WHICH THOUGH FREUDIAN SLIP BUT NONETHELESS AN INDICATION OF ITS TRUE AFFAIRS, THE BUSINESS OF THE APPELLANT BE HELD TO BE THE PROPERTY OF THE APP ELLANT HELD UNDER TRUST WHOLLY FOR THE CHARITABLE PURPOSES. 95. THE LD. A.OS. THOUGH, NOT ABLE TO ENFORCE THE LAW CORRECTLY FOR ONCE REJECTED THE PREPOSTEROUS PROPOSITION OF THE APPELL ANT. THE INTENT OF THE LEGISLATURE QUA THIS ISSUE IS VERY CLEAR. WHERE A B USINESS IS RECEIVED BY A CHARITABLE INSTITUTION BY WAY OF CONTRIBUTION TO IT S CAUSE AND IS HELD AS SUCH ONLY IN SUCH CONDITION IT CAN BE CLAIMED THAT THE C LAIMANT OF EXEMPTION IS HOLDING THE BUSINESS AS PROPERTY HELD UNDER TRUST W HOLLY FOR THE CHARITABLE OR RELIGIOUS PURPOSES. 96. IN THE INSTANT CASE THE FACTS ARE JUST OPPOSITE. T HE APPELLANT SOCIETY HAS NOT RECEIVED ANY BUSINESS EITHER AS CONDITIONAL DONATION AS TO FORM PART OF ITS CORPUS OR AS VOLUNTARY CONTRIBUTION AND THER EFORE, CANNOT BE HELD TO BE THE PROPERTY OF THE APPELLANT HELD UNDER TRUST WHOL LY FOR CHARITABLE PURPOSE OR WHATEVER ELSE. THE BOGUS CLAIM OF THE APPELLANT WAS CORRECTLY REJECTED BY THE LD. A.OS. 97. EVEN OTHERWISE ALSO THE CLAIM OF THE APPELLANT BEI NG AN AFTERTHOUGHT IN ANY CASE IS NOT BORNED BY THE RECORDS OF THE APP ELLANT ITSELF. THE BALANCE SHEET OF THE APPELLANT AS ON 31/03/2013 HAS NO SUCH ASSET. IT HAS FIXED ASSET, CAPITA! WORK IN PROGRESS BEING THE BUILDING, CURRENT ASSET BEING THE SECURITY DEPOSITS, FEES RECEAIVABLE, ADVANCE TO SUP PLIER, PRE-PAIO INSURANCES, PRE-PAID EXPENSES AND THE TDS RECOVERABLE, THE CASH AND BANK BALANCES AND 9 ITA NOS. 3923/DEL/2017 & ORS CASH IN HAND AT ITS BRANCHES. THERE IS NO ASSET IN THE BALANCE SHEET OF THE APPELLANT AS A RUNNING BUSINESS AS CLAIMED BY THE A PPELLANT. IF, THE BUSINESS OF RUNNING SCHOOL WAS RECEIVED BY THE APPELLANT AND THEREAFTER HELD BY THE APPELLANT AS SUCH IT HAS TO REFLECT IN THE BALANCE SHEET OF THE APPELLANT AND THERE BEING NO SUCH ASSET IN THE BALANCE SHEET OF T HE APPELLANT THE CLAIM OF THE APPELLANT IS NOTHING BUT AN AFTERTHOUGHT TO COV ER UP ITS FAILURE TO COMPLY CORRECTLY REJECTED BY THE ID. A.OS. IN THE FACTS AN D CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. 98. THE NEXT QUESTION BEING THE NATURAL COROLLARY OF T HE ABOVE CONCLUSION IS WHAT IS THE STATUS OF THE INCOME RECE IVED BY THE APPELLANT SOCIETY IN TERMS OF THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 14 AN D CONSEQUENTIALLY WHAT DEDUCTIONS ARE ADMISSIBLE TO THE APPELLANT SOCIETY AGAINST ITS INCOME WHICH HAS ACCRUED TO IT IN THE BUSINESS OF DOING CHARITY & IMPARTING EDUCATION AS THE CHARITABLE ACTIVITY. 99. THE INCOME OF THE APPELLANT FROM THE BUSINESS OF D OING CHARITY & IMPARTING EDUCATION AS THE CHARITABLE ACTIVITY BEIN G THE INVOLUNTARY LEVIES RECOVERIES FROM THE STUDENTS & THEIR GUARDIANS AS C ONTRACTUAL RECIPROCITIES IS NOT TO BE CONSIDERED AS SALARY FOR OBVIOUS REASONS. IT IS ALSO NOT THE INCOME FROM THE HOUSE PROPERTY. AS THE APPELLANT IS A CHAR ITABLE INSTITUTION, IT IS IN NORMAL COURSE NOT PERMITTED TO INDULGE IN ANY BUSIN ESS OR PROFESSIONAL ACTIVITY BUT AS AN EXCEPTION TO THE GENERALITY OF T HE RULE IT IS PERMITTED TO RUN & MAINTAIN CERTAIN ACTIVITIES COMMERCIALLY IF, THE RU NNING AND MAINTENANCE OF SUCH ACTIVITIES IS NECESSARY FOR THE ACTUALIZATION OF THE OBJECTS OF THE APPELLANT SOCIETY. THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 11(4) & SECTION 11(4A) OF I.T. ACT, 1961 PROVIDE FOR SUCH EXCEPTION IN THE CASES OF A CHARIT ABLE INSTITUTIONS OR A RELIGIOUS INSTITUTION IF THE RUNNING OF THE COMMERC IAL ACTIVITY IS INCIDENTAL TO THE ACTUALIZATION OF THE OBJECTS OF THE CHARITABLE ENTI TY & IS SUBJECT TO THE CONDITIONS IMPOSED THEREIN & THEREUNDER. WHETHER TH E APPELLANT COMES UNDER THE PURVIEW OF THE SECTION 11(4) & THE SECTION 11(4 A) OF I.T. ACT, 1961 WILL BE EXAMINED SEPARATELY. THE INCOME OF THE APPELLANT IS ALSO NOT THE INCOME FROM CAPITAL GAINS AS THERE IS NO INCIDENCE OF TRANSFER OF ANY PROPERTY OF ANY KIND IN THE ACCRUAL & THE RECEIPT OF THE INCOME TO THE A PPELLANT. 100. THEREFORE, THE INCOME OF THE APPELLANT IN THE IMPU GNED ASSESSMENTS CAN ONLY BE CONSIDERED EITHER UNDER THE HEADS 'INCO ME FROM THE BUSINESS OR PROFESSION' OR THE 'INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES'. THE RE CAN BE A THIRD SITUATION WHERE THE INCOME OF THE APPELLANT MAY NOT BE THE IN COME AT ALL IN ACT, 1961. 101. THE APPELLANT HAS REGISTERED ITSELF AS CHARITABLE INSTITUTION & HAS CLAIMED ITS MAIN ACTIVITY AS IMPARTING OF QUALITY E DUCATION NOT AS COMMERCIAL 10 ITA NOS. 3923/DEL/2017 & ORS ACTIVITY BUT STRICTLY AS CHARITABLE ACTIVITY. 102. FOR IMPARTING EDUCATION AS CHARITABLE ACTIVIT Y, QUALITY OR NOT, IT CANNOT BE THE CASE OF ANYONE THAT SUCH EDUCATION OR QUALITY EDUCATION CANNOT BE IMPARTED AS CHARITABLE ACTIVITY UNLESS THE COST OF IMPARTING OF EDUCATION IS BORNE BY THE RECIPIENTS OF EDUCATION. THEORETICALLY & MATHEMATICALLY, IT IS PERFECTLY POSSIBLE TO IMPART THE EDUCATION IN THE D OMAIN OF CHARITABLE ACTIVITY WITHOUT RECOVERING ANYTHING FROM THE RECIPIENT/S OF THE EDUCATION IMPARTED AS CHARITABLE ACTIVITY AS IS THE CLAIM OF THE APPELLAN T. THE COST OF EDUCATION IN A CHARITABLE DISPENSATION HAS TO BE MET BY THE PERSON CLAIMING TO BE BEING CHARITABLE & DOING THE CLAIMED CHARITY & NOT FROM T HE RECIPIENTS OF THE CHARITY. THEREFORE, IT CANNOT BE HELD UNDER ANY STRETCH OF I MAGINATION THAT RUNNING AND MAINTAINING THE SCHOOLS ALMOST ON COMMERCIAL LINES IS NECESSARY FOR ACTUALIZATION OF THE OBJECTS OF DOING CHARITY BY TH E APPELLANT INSTITUTION IN ANY WAY. 103. THE INCOME OF THE APPELLANT CANNOT BE CONSIDE RED TO BE THE INCOME FROM THE PROFIT & GAINS OF THE BUSINESS & PR OFESSIONS. THIS IS ALSO CLEAR FROM THE BLANKET BAN ON PROFITEERING IN THE F IELD OF EDUCATION BY THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT, THOUGH THE HON'BLE SUPREME C OURT WAS CONSIDERATE TO ALLOW REASONABLE SURPLUS OVER THE COST OR IMPARTING THE EDUCATION SUBJECT IN CERTAIN CONDITIONS IN THE FIELD OF RUNNING THE EDUC ATIONAL INSTITUTION AS OCCUPATION AND NOT AS CHARITABLE INSTITUTION. IT IS TRITE THAT WHERE AN EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTION IS BEING RUN BY A PERSON IT HAS TO RUN AS 'PURE CHARITY' AND NOT AS COMMERCIAL ENTERPRISE AS THE HON'BLE SUP REME COURT HAS VERY CATEGORICALLY PROHIBITED ANY PROFITEERING IN THE FI ELD OF EDUCATION AND THERE CANNOT BE ANY OCCASION TO RECOVER THE COST OF CHARI TY FROM THE BENEFICIARIES OF THE CHARITY AS IS BEING CLAIMED BY THE APPELLANT. 104. INCOME OF THE APPELLANT BY THE APPELLANT & HAS BEEN OFFERED BY THE APPELLANT AS ITS INCOME ALL THROUGH ITS EXIS TENCE SINCE INCEPTION & HAS BEEN CLAIMED EXEMPT FROM THE INCIDENCE OF TAX UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 11 OF I.T. ACT, 1961 AS ITS INCOME AND BEING SUBJEC T TO THE PROVISIONS OF THE I.T. ACT, 1961. THEREFORE, THERE IS NO DISPUTE ON THE F ACT THAT THE INCOME OF THE APPELLANT IS THE INCOME OF THE APPELLANT IN TERMS O F SECTION 2(24) OF I.T. ACT, 1961. 105. EVEN OTHERWISE, THE INGREDIENTS OF THE INCOME AS PROVIDED U/S 2(24) OF I.T. ACT, 1961 ARE INCLUSIVE & NOT THE EXHAUSTIVE. THEREFORE, THE RECEIPTS OF :NE APPELLANT ON REVENUE ACCOUNT IS THE INCOME OF THE A PPELLANT AND SUCH -'COME OF THE APPELLANT HAS TO BE TREATED AS THE INCOME & AS IT DOES NOT QUALITY TO BE 11 ITA NOS. 3923/DEL/2017 & ORS THE SALARIES, THE INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY, PROFI T & GAINS FROM BUSINESS & PROFESSION OR THE CAPITAL GAINS, IT HAS TO BE CONSI DERED AS INCOME OF THE APPELLANT FROM THE 'OTHER SOURCES' & HAS TO BE DEAL T WITH UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF THE CHAPTER IVF & U/S 56 OF THE I.T. ACT, 1961. 106. THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 56(1) OF I.T. ACT, 1961 PROVIDES THAT INCOME OF EVERY KIND WHICH IS NOT TO BE EXCLUDED FROM THE TOTAL INCOME UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF THE I.T. ACT, 1961 IS TO BE CHARGEABL E TO INCOME TAX UNDER THE HEAD 'INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES' IF IT IS NOT CHARG EABLE TO INCOME TAX UNDER ANY OF THE HEADS SPECIFIED IN THE SECTION 14, ITEMS A TO E OF I.T. ACT, 1961. 107. ADMITTEDLY, THE INCOME OF THE APPELLANT SOCIE TY IS NOT CHARGEABLE TO INCOME TAX UNDER ANY OF THE HEADS SPECIFIED IN THE SECTION 14, ITEMS A TO E OF THE I.T. ACT, 1961 & ADMITTEDLY, THE SAME BEING THE INCOME OF THE APPELLANT SOCIETY, THE SAME IS TO BE CHARGED TO TAX UNDER SEC TION 56(1) OF I.T. ACT, 1961. THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 56(2) ARE MERELY DEMONSTR ATIVE AND NOT THE EXHAUSTIVE & CERTAINLY NOT RESTRICTIVE IN ANY MANNE R & IN NO WAY LIMITS OR RESTRICTS THE SCOPE & AMBIT OF THE PROVISIONS OF SE CTION 56(1) WHICH IS OVER RIDING OVER THOSE PROVISIONS. 108. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE FACTS, IT IS HELD THAT T HE INCOME OF THE APPELLANT IS CHARGEABLE TO INCOME TAX UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF THE SECTION 56(1) OF I.T. ACT, 1961 AS 'INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES'. 109. THE INCOME OF AN ASSESSEE CHARGEABLE TO INCOM E TAX U/S 56 IS SUBJECT TO DEDUCTIONS U/S 57 & PROHIBITIONS UNDER S ECTION 58 OF I.T. ACT, 1961 & THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 59 AS WELL. IT IS THERE FORE, NECESSARY TO CONSIDER WHAT DEDUCTIONS ARE ADMISSIBLE TO APPELLANT UNDER T HE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 57 OF I.T. ACT, 1961. 110. THE DEDUCTIONS U/S 57(I) & 57(IA) AS ALSO 57( II) & 57(IIA) ARE SPECIFIC IN NATURE & DOES NOT APPLY TO THE FACTS OF THE CASE OF THE APPELLANT. THE DEDUCTION U/S 57(IV) IS ALSO SPECIFIC IN NATURE AND DOES NOT APPLY TO THE FACTS OF THE CASE OF THE APPELLANT. 111. THEREFORE, THE APPELLANT IN THE PRESENT ASSESS MENTS IS NOT ENTITLED TO ANY DEDUCTION AGAINST ITS INCOME UNDER THE PROVISIO NS OF SECTION 57(I), 57(IA), 57(II), 57(IIA) & 57(IV) OF I.T. ACT, 1961. 112. THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 57(III) PROVIDES TH AT ANY OTHER EXPENDITURE NOT BEING IN THE NATURE OF CAPITAL EXPENDITURE LAID OUT OR EXPENDED WHOLLY OR EXCLUSIVELY FOR THE PURPOSES MAKING OR EARNING SUCH INCOME IS TO BE ALLOWE AS 12 ITA NOS. 3923/DEL/2017 & ORS DEDUCTION AGAINST INCOEM CHARGEABLE TO THE INCOEM T AX U/S 56 OF I.T ACT, 1961. 113. THE APPELLANT SOCIETY IS A CHARITABLE INSTITUT ION SET UP TO DO THE CHARITY AND NOT TO EARN INCOME IN MANNER WHATSOEVER FROM THE CLAIMED CHARITABLE ACTIVITIES THAT TOO COMMERCIALLY. THE FO UNDING MEMBERS OF THE SOCIETY OR THE AUTHORS & THE TRUSTEES OF THE CHARIT ABLE TRUST OR MEMBERS OF THE SOCIETY ARE RESPONSIBLE & OBLIGATED UNDER THE IDEA OF CHARITY TO ARRANGE THE FINANCES FOR THE CHARITY TO BE DONE & AS CLAIMED TO HAVE BEEN DONE BY THE CLAIMANT PROVIDE THAT IN THE ACT OF DOING CHARITY T HE PERSON THAT IN THE ACT OF DOING CHARITY SHOULD RECOVER THE COST OF DOING THE CHARITY IN TERMS OF MONEY THAT TOO FROM THE MOM THE BENEFICIARY OF THE ALLEGE D CHARITY. THE IDEA OF CHARITY IS DIFFERENT, DISTINCT & ALMOST CONTRADICTO RY TO THE IDEA OF DOING BUSINESS OR EARNING THE INCOME IN ANY MANNER. 114. THE EXPENSES INCURRED BY THE APPELLANT SOCIET Y IS NOT THE EXPENSES INCURRED TO EARN THE INCOME BUT FOR DOING THE CHARI TY. IT IS NOT THE COST OF THE INCOME BUT THE APPLICATION OF INCOME. THE EXPENSES INCURRED BY A CHARITABLE INSTITUTION IS NOT THE EXPENDITURE INCURRED EITHER WHOLLY OR EVEN OTHERWISE FOR THE PURPOSE OF MAKING OR EARNING AN INCOME AS THE V ERY CONCEPT OF CHARITY IS COMPLETELY ANATHEMA TO THE CONCEPT OF MAKING OR EAR NING INCOME. THE EXPENDITURE INCURRED BY THE APPELLANT IS FOR ACTUAL IZATION OF ITS CHARITABLE PURPOSE AND NOT TO MAKE OR EARN ANY INCOME. THE EXP ENDITURE IS THE APPLICATION OF INCOME AND NOT THE COST OF THE REVEN UES AS IS THE CASE IN A NORMAL ROUTINE COMMERCIAL OR NON COMMERCIAL ACTIVIT Y AND WHICH IS THE INTENT OF THE LEGISLATURE UNDER THE PROVISION OF SECTION 5 7(III) OF I.T. ACT, 1961. 115. THERE IS NO NEXUS BETWEEN THE ACT OF DOING CH ARITY AS DONE BY THE APPELLANT & THE INCOME EARNED BY THE APPELLANT. THE INCOME EARNED BY THE APPELLANT IS NOT BECAUSE OF THE EXPENSES INCURRED B UT INDEPENDENT OF THAT. ALTHOUGH, SUPERFICIALLY, IT MAY APPEAR & APPELLANT WOULD LIKE TO CLAIM THAT AS WELL THAT THE EXPENSES ON IMPARTING EDUCATION ARE T HE EXPENSES NECESSARY TO EARN THE INCOME WHICH HAS BEEN EARNED BY THE APPELL ANT; CONSIDERING THE ISSUE SUBSTANTIALLY & CONCEPTUALLY THAT IS NOT THE CASE AS THE APPELLANT HAS TO DO THE CHARITY AS APPLICATION OF ITS INCOME & IS NO T PERMITTED BY THE VERY CONCEPT OF THE TERM CHARITY TO RECOVER THE COST OF THE CHARITY DONE BY IT FROM THE BENEFICIARY OF CHARITY. 116. THE APPELLANT IS NOT PERMITTED IN LAW TO RUN ANY BUSINESS ACTIVITY NOR RUN ANY PROFESSION. IT HAS STRICTLY PROHIBITED IN LAW TO HAVE ANY 13 ITA NOS. 3923/DEL/2017 & ORS COMMERCIAL THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 11(4) AND SECT ION 11(4A) OF I.T. ACT, 1961 ARE NOT AVAILABLE TO THE APPELLANT. AS THE APPELLAN T IS TOTALLY, COMPLETELY AND STRICTLY PROHIBITED BY THE LAW TO RUN ANY COMMERCIA L ACTIVITY IT IS ALSO PROHIBITED IN AW TO CLAIM ITS EXPENDITURE AS EXPEND ITURE LAID OUT OR EXPENDED WHOLLY AND EXCLUSIVELY FOR THE PURPOSE OF MAKING OR EARNING SUCH INCOME. THE ARGUMENT THOUGH NOT ADVANCED BY THE APPELLANT BUT S TILL TO BE CONSIDERED BY THIS OFFICE THAT THE COST OF IMPARTING EDUCATION HA S TO BE PROVIDED CANNOT BE ENTERTAINED FOR THE SIMPLE REASON THAT WHEREVER THE I.T. ACT, 1961 DOES NOT PROVIDE FOR ANY SUCH SET OFF OF THE COST OF INCOME AS IN THE CASE OF THE SALARY THE SAME IS NOT TO BE PROVIDED. THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT HAS CLEARLY LAID DOWN THE BASIC LAW IN THIS REGARD IN THE CASE OF 'A DD!. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX VS. SURAT ART & SILK CLOTH MANUFACTURERS ASSOCIATION, SURAT' (1980) AIR 387 SC THAT IN A TAXING ACT ONE H AS MERELY TO LOOK AT WHAT IS CLEARLY SAID BY THE LEGISLATURE. THERE IS NO ROO M FOR ANY INTENDMENT. THERE IS NO EQUITY ABOUT A TAX. THERE IS NO PRESUMPTION A S TO A TAX. NOTHING IS TO BE READ IN, NOTHING IS TO BE IMPLIED. ONE CAN ONLY LOO K FAIRLY AT THE LANGUAGE USED IN LAW. THAT BEING THE LAW, THE APPELLANT CANNOT BE PERMITTED TO RAISE THE ISSUE OF MEETING THE COST OF ITS ACTIVITIES FROM TH OSE ACTIVITIES ITSELF FOR THE SIMPLE REASON THAT NEITHER THE COST OF CHARITY CAN BE EXTRACTED FROM THE BENEFICIARIES OF THE CHARITY NOR THE EXPENDITURE ON CHARITY CAN BE ALLOWED TO CONSTRUED AS THE EXPENDITURE LAID OUT OR EXPENDED W HOLLY FOR THE PURPOSES OF MAKING OR EARNING AN INCOME AS EARNING OF INCOME IS NOT THE CHARITABLE ACTIVITY THOUGH IN AN EXCEPTIONAL SITUATION IT CAN BE AN INCIDENTAL OUTCOME OF THE SAME UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 11(4) AND SECTION 11(4A) OF I.T. ACT, 1961 WHICH IS NOT THE CASE IN THE CASE OF THE APPEL LANT. 117. AS THERE IS NO POSSIBILITY OF RECOVERING THE C OST OF CHARITY FROM THE RECIPIENT OF THE CHARITY, THERE CAN BE NO NEXUS BET WEEN THE EXPENDITURE INCURRED BY THE APPELLANT SOCIETY AND THE INCOME EA RNED BY THE APPELLANT SOCIETY. THE EXPENDITURE INCURRED BY THE APPELLANT SOCIETY IS FOR THE ACTUALIZATION OF OBJECTS OF APPELLANT & IS BY WAY O F CHARITY WHILE THE INCOME APPELLANT SOCIETY. THERE IS NO LINKAGE MUCH LES NE XUS AMONG THE TWO SET OR FACTS. -APPELLANT SOCIETY. THERE IS NO LINKAGE MUCH LESS NEXUS AMONG THE TWO SET OR FACTS. 118. THEREFORE, THE EXPENDITURE INCURRED BY APPELL ANT SOCIETY IS NOT IN ANY MANNER LAID OUT OR EXPENDED MUCH LESS WHOLLY AN D EXCLUSIVELY FOR PURPOSES OF MAKING OR EARNING THE INCOME EARNED BY THE APPELLANT SOCIETY. THE APPELLANT SOCIETY IS THEREFORE, NOT ENTITLED TO THE BENEFIT OF DEDUCTION U/S. 57(III) OF I.T. ACT, 1961. 14 ITA NOS. 3923/DEL/2017 & ORS 119. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, THE ENTIRE INCOME OF TH E APPELLANT BY WAY OF THE FEES & OTHER LEVIES RECOVERED FROM STUDENTS & T HEIR GUARDIANS & ENTIRE AMOUNT OF DONATIONS AS RECEIVED BY APPELLANT SOCIET Y IS THE INCOME OF THE APPELLANT SOCIETY CHARGEABLE TO TAX U/S 56 OF THE I .T. ACT, 1961 WITHOUT ANY DEDUCTION. THE SAME IS ORDERED ACCORDINGLY & INCOME OF APPELLANT SOCIETY IS ENHANCED U/S 251(L)(A) OF I.T. ACT, 1961 R.W. THE P ROVISIONS OF THE SECTION 251(2) OF I.T. ACT, 1961 & IS DETERMINED AT RS. RS. 1,59,84,559/- FOR THE A.Y. 2009-10, RS. 2,37,66,767/-FOR THE A.Y.2010-11 AND R S.3,96,46,053/-FOR THE A.Y. 2013-14. 120. FROM THE PERUSAL OF THE BALANCE SHEET OF THE APPELLANT AS ALSO THE PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNTS OF THE APPELLANT IT IS SEE N THAT THE APPELLANT HAD RECEIVED RENTAL INCOME, AND INTEREST ON SAVING DEPO SITS FROM THE BANK. THESE RECEIPTS ARE CERTAINLY FROM THE PROPERTY HELD BY TH E APPELLANT UNDER TRUST FOR ACTUALIZING ITS OBJECTS AND IN NORMAL COURSE THESE RECEIPTS WOULD NAVE DEEN ELIGIBLE FOR BENEFIT OF EXEMPTION FROM THE INCIDENC E OR COX UNOER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION LL(L)(A) OF I.T. ACT, 1961 BUT IN THE PE CULIAR FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES THESE RECEIPTS ARE ALSO NOT ELIGIBLE FOR THE BENEFI T OF SECTION 11 OR 12 BECAUSE OF THE VIOLATION OF THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 13(L) (D) R.W. THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 11(5) OF I.T. ACT, 1961. ADMITTEDLY, THE AP PELLANT HAS ADVANCED LOANS WITHOUT CHARGING ANY INTEREST TO AN ENTITY WHICH IS NOT PERMITTED BY THE LAW TO RECEIVE ANY INVESTMENT OR DEPOSIT FROM THE APPELLAN T. FURTHER, THE APPELLANT HAS ALSO VIOLATED THE CONDITIONS OF APPELLANT SOCIE TY HAD BEEN GAINFULLY EMPLOYED BY THE APPELLANT SOCIETY BESIDES THE LIFE MEMBERS OF THE APPELLANT SOCIETY HAVE APPROPRIATED FOR THEMSELVES TO NOMINAT E IN THEIR PLACE EITHER DURING THEIR LIFETIME OR AFTER THEIR DEATH EITHER T HEIR ELDEST SON OR THE ELDEST DAUGHTER THUS DERIVING A BENEFIT TO THEMSELVES WHIC H IS PROHIBITED IN THE LAW. 121. BECAUSE OF THE VIOLATIONS OF THE OVERRIDING C ONDITIONS OF SECTION 13 BY THE APPELLANT SOCIETY THE APPELLANT IS NOT ENTIT LED FOR THE BENEFIT OF EXEMPTION FROM THE INCIDENCE OF TAX UNDER THE PROVI SIONS OF SECTION 11 AND 12 OF I.T. ACT, 1961 ON ANY PART OF ITS INCOME INCLUDI NG THAT WHICH IS ELIGIBLE OTHERWISE FRO THE BENEFIT OF EXEMPTION FROM THE INC IDENCE OF TAX APART FROM THE FACT THAT THE APPELLANT IS NOT ENTITLED FOR THE BEN EFIT OF EXEMPTION FROM THE INCIDENCE OF TAX ON ITS SPECIFIED INCOME UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 11 & 12 OF I.T. ACT, 1961. CONVERSELY, THE ENTIRE GROS S RECEIPTS OF THE APPELLANT IN ALL THE THREE APPEALS, I.E., THE A.YS. 2009-10, 201 1-12 AND 2013-14 IS THE INCOME OF THE APPELLANT AND IS LIABLE TO BE TAXED U NDER THE PROVISIONS OF THE I.T. ACT, 1961. 15 ITA NOS. 3923/DEL/2017 & ORS 122. AS IN THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT ORDERS FOR THE A.YS. 2009-10, 2011- 12 AND 2013-14 THE ID. A.OS. HAVE NOT CORRECTLY COM PUTED THE TAXABLE INCOME OF THE APPELLANT AND HAVE INFACT INCORRECTLY COMPUT ED THE TAXABLE INCOME OF THE APPELLANT AT FAR LESSER AMOUNT, I AM ASSUMING J URISDICTION UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 251(L)(A) R.W. SECTION 251(2) OF I.T. ACT, 1961 AND ENHANCE THE ASSESSED INCOME OF THE APPELLANT FOR THE A.YS. 2009-10, 2011- 12 AND 2013-14 AT RS.1,59,84,559/-, RS. 2,37,66,767/- & RS .3,96,46,053/- RESPECTIVELY. THE INTEREST AS CHARGEABLE IN LAW IS ORDERED TO BE CHARGED BY THE ID. A.O. AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF THE LAW. 123. THE ID. A.O. IS DIRECTED TO ISSUE THE DEMAND NOTICE AS PER LAW AND ENFORCE THE RECOVERY OF THE TAX PAYABLE BUT NOT PAI D AS PER LAW. IN CHARGE HAS FAILED TO PROVIDE THE NECESSARY ASSIS TANCE TO THE UNDERSIGNED DESPITE THE REPEATED REQUEST MADE BY THE OFFICE UND ER THE SPECIFIC ORDERS OF THE UNDERSIGNED EVEN ON THE JUDICIAL SIDE. EVEN THE ASSESSMENT RECORDS HAVE NOT BEEN PROVIDED BY THE ID. A.O. AND ITS ADMINISTR ATIVE SUPERIORS EVEN AFTER THE UNDERSIGNED BROUGHT THE MATTER TO THE KIND NOTI CE OF THE ID. CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION) AT DELHI. TH IS HAS SERIOUSLY HAMPERED THE CORRECT DETERMINATION OF THE TAXABLE I NCOME OF THE APPELLANT IN THE PENDING APPEALS. AS THE CORRECT INCOME OF THE A PPELLANT HAS BEEN DETERMINED IN THESE APPEALS WITHOUT THE BENEFIT OF THE ASSESSMENT RECORDS, IN CASE OF ANY ERROR APPARENT FROM RECORD QUA THE CORR ECT TAXABLE INCOME OF THE APPELLANT THE LEAVE AND LIBERTY IS GRANTED TO BOTH THE SIDES TO THE DISPUTE TO SEEK AND AVAIL THEIR REMEDIES IN LAW AS MAY BE LAWF ULLY AVAILABLE TO THEM. 5. THE LD. AR SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER AS WELL AS THE CIT(A) IGNORED THE FACT THAT THE PRIMARY OBJECT OF THE SOC IETY WAS TO PROVIDE EDUCATION AND THAT OBJECT HAS NEVER BEEN CHANGED. THE LD. AR SUBMITTED THAT THE CIT(A) HAS ENHANCED THE ASSESSED INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE AT RS.1,59,84,559/- FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10, RS.2,37,66,767/- FOR ASSES SMENT YEAR 2001-12 AND RS.3,96,46,53/- FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2013-14. THE C IT(A) HAS NEVER GIVEN ANY OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE WHILE ENHANCING THE ASS ESSED INCOME. THE CIT(A) HAS TOTALLY IGNORED THE BENEFIT OF SECTION 11 & 12 TO THE ASSESSEE WHICH IS UNDER OPERATION TILL DATE. THE CIT(A) ERRED IN NOT REVERSING THE ACTION OF ASSESSING OFFICER IN COMPUTING THE INCOME OF THE A SSESSEE IN THE STATUS OF AOP INSTEAD OF CHARITABLE SOCIETY AND FURTHER ERRED IN APPLYING THE MAXIMUM 16 ITA NOS. 3923/DEL/2017 & ORS MARGINAL RATE OF TAX. THE LD. AR RELIED UPON THE D ECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL IN CASE OF RAMA DEVI MEMORIAL SOCIETY VS. JCIT ITA NO. 4434/DEL/2017 ORDER DATED 5/7/2018 WHEREIN IT IS CATEGORICALLY HELD TH AT DENIAL OF BENEFIT OF SECTION 11 & 12 IS NOT AS PER THE LAW. EDUCATIONAL ACTIVITY HAS BEEN SPECIFICALLY TREATED AS CHARITABLE PURPOSE U/S 2(15 ) AND ENHANCEMENT OF INCOME MADE BY THE CIT(A) IS NOT JUST AND PROPER. THE LD. AR ALSO RELIED UPON THE DECISION OF THE ADARSH PUBLIC SCHOOL WHEREIN TH E TRIBUNAL HELD THAT THE ASSESSEES INCOME BY WAY OF FEES CANNOT BE HELD TO BE DERIVED FROM PROPERTY HELD UNDER THE TRUST BECAUSE STUDENTS CANNOT BE TRE ATED AS PROPERTY. 6. THE LD. DR RELIED UPON THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSIN G OFFICER AND ORDER OF CIT(A). 7. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE M ATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. WE FIND THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER MADE C ERTAIN ADDITION ON GROUND THAT THE ASSESSEE IS PURSUING ITS OBJECT OF IMPARTI NG AND SPREADING EDUCATION WITH PROFIT MOTIVE AND NOT THAT OF CHARITY PURPOSE. WE FIND THAT CIT(A) NOT ONLY CONFIRMED THE ASSESSMENT ORDER BUT ALSO ENHANCED TH E INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE WHICH IS REPRODUCED IN THE PRECEDING PARA. IT IS TH E SUBMISSION OF THE LD. AR THAT THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE IS SQUARELY COVERED B Y THE DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL IN CASE OF ADARSH PUBLIC SCHOOL (SUPRA) WHERE IN TH E TRIBUNAL HELD AS UNDER:- 19. NOW COMING TO THE OBSERVATION THAT ASSESSEES INCOME BY WAY OF FEES CANNOT BE HELD TO BE DERIVED FROM PROPERTY HEL D UNDER THE TRUST, BECAUSE STUDENTS CANNOT BE TREATED AS PROPERTY. IF SUCH A P ROPOSITION OR VIEW OF LD. CIT (A) IS UPHELD, THEN PROBABLY NO EDUCATION INSTITUTI ON IN THE COUNTRY WOULD EVER BE ELIGIBLE/ENTITLED FOR EXEMPTION U/S.11 AND PERHA PS WILL DEFEAT THE ENTIRE PURPOSE OF LEGISLATURE AND THE DEFINITION OF CHARI TABLE PURPOSE OF EDUCATION AS DEFINED IN SECTION 2(15). SECTION 12 OF THE ACT CLEARLY PROVIDES THAT ANY VOLUNTARY CONTRIBUTION RECEIVED BY A TRUST WHOLLY F OR CHARITABLE OR RELIGIOUS PURPOSE, THEN FOR THE PURPOSE OF SECTION 11 IT IS D EEMED TO BE INCOME DERIVED FROM THE PROPERTY HELD UNDER THE TRUST. SUCH A DEEM ING PROVISION OF REVENUE CONTRIBUTION IS HELD AS INCOME DERIVED FROM THE TRU ST WHICH IS SUBJECT TO COMPUTATION AND CONDITIONS LAID DOWN IN SECTION 11 TO 13. IF THE ASSESSEE IS 17 ITA NOS. 3923/DEL/2017 & ORS CARRYING OUT ANY OBLIGATION FOR EDUCATIONAL ACTIVIT Y, THEN IT HAS TO BE TREATED AS THE TRUST UNDER THE PROVISION OF SECTION 11; A ND THIS PROPOSITION HAS BEEN CLEARLY HELD BY THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CA SE OF CIT VS. GUJARAT MARITIME BOARD (SUPRA), THAT IF THE ASSESSEE IS UND ER LEGAL OBLIGATION TO APPLY THE INCOME THEN IT IS ENTITLED TO BE REGISTERED AS CHARITABLE TRUST. IN THE CASE BEFORE THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT, THE AUTHORITY GUJ ARAT MARITIME BOARD WAS CARRYING OUT THE DEVELOPMENT OF MINOR PORT WHICH WA S IN THE REALM OF CARRYING OUT OBJECTS OF GENERAL PUBLIC UTILITY. T HE HON'BLE APEX COURT HELD THAT SUCH AN AUTHORITY IS TO BE RECKONED AS CHARITA BLE TRUST FOR THE PURPOSE OF SECTION 11. IN THIS CASE ONE OF THE MAIN OBJECTION RAISED ON BEHALF OF THE DEPARTMENT WAS THAT SAID BOARD WAS NOT ENTITLED FOR THE BENEFIT OF SECTION 11 AS IT WAS NOT A TRUST UNDER THE PUBLIC TRUST ACT AND THEREFORE, IT WAS NOT ENTITLED TO CLAIM REGISTRATION U/S. 12A. SINCE IT W AS NOT HELD UNDER THE TRUST THEREFORE, IT IS NOT ENTITLED FOR EXEMPTION U/S. 11 (1)(A). THE RELEVANT CONTENTION OF THE REVENUE AS WELL AS THE FINDING OF THE HON'BL E APEX COURT READS AS UNDER:- 12. ONE OF THE OBJECTIONS RAISED ON BEHALF OF THE DEPARTMENT WAS THAT GUJARAT MARITIME BOARD IS NOT ENTITLED TO THE BENEF IT OF SECTION 11 OF THE 1961 ACT AS THE SAID BOARD WAS NOT A TRUST UNDER PU BLIC TRUST ACT AND, THEREFORE, IT WAS NOT ENTITLED TO CLAIM REGISTRATIO N UNDER SECTION 12A OF THE 1961 ACT. THE DEPARTMENT'S CASE WAS THAT THE MARITI ME BOARD WAS A STATUTORY AUTHORITY. IT WAS NOT A TRUST. ITS BUSINE SS WAS NOT HELD UNDER A TRUST. ITS PROPERTY WAS NOT HELD UNDER TRUST. THERE FORE, THE BOARD WAS NOT ENTITLED TO BE REGISTERED AS A CHARITABLE INSTITUTI ON. IT WAS THE CASE OF THE DEPARTMENT THAT THE BOARD WAS PERFORMING STATUTORY FUNCTIONS. DEVELOPMENT OF MINOR PORTS IN THE STATE OF GUJARAT CANNOT BE TERMED AS THE WORK UNDERTAKING FOR CHARITABLE PURPOSES AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES THE COMMISSIONER REJECTED THE BOARD'S APPLICATION UNDER SECTION 12A OF THE 1961 ACT IN THE LIGHT OF THE ABOVE CASE OF THE DEPA RTMENT, WE ARE REQUIRED TO CONSIDER THE EXPRESSION 'ANY OTHER OBJECT OF GEN ERAL PUBLIC UTILITY' IN SECTION 2 (15) OF THE 1961 ACT. 13. ....... 14. WE HAVE PERUSED NUMBER OF DECISIONS OF THIS COURT WHICH HAVE INTERPRETED THE WORDS, IN SECTION 2(15), NAMELY, 'ANY OTHER OBJECT OF GENERALLY PUBLIC UTILITY'. FROM THE SAID DECISIONS IT EMERGES THAT THE SAID EXPRESSION IS OF THE WIDEST CONNOTATION. THE WORD ' GENERAL' IN THE SAID EXPRESSION MEANS PERTAINING TO A WHOLE CLASS. THERE FORE, ADVANCEMENT OF ANY OBJECT OF BENEFIT TO THE PUBLIC OR A SECTION OF THE PUBLIC AS DISTINGUISHED FROM BENEFIT TO AN INDIVIDUAL OR A GROUP OF INDIVID UALS WOULD BE A 18 ITA NOS. 3923/DEL/2017 & ORS CHARITABLE PURPOSE CIT V. AHMEDABAD RANA CASTE ASSOCIATION [1983] 140 ITR 1 (SC). THE SAID EXPRESSION WOULD PRIMA FACIE INCLUDE ALL OBJECTS WHICH PROMOTE THE WELFARE OF THE GENERAL PUBLIC. IT CANNOT BE SAID THAT A PURPOSE WOULD CEASE TO BE CHARITABLE EVEN IF PUBLIC WELFARE IS INTENDED TO BE SERVED. IF THE PRIMARY PURPOSE AND THE PREDOMINA NT OBJECT ARE TO PROMOTE THE WELFARE OF THE GENERAL PUBLIC THE PURPO SE WOULD BE CHARITABLE PURPOSE. WHEN AN OBJECT IS TO PROMOTE OR PROTECT TH E INTEREST OF A PARTICULAR TRADE OR INDUSTRY THAT OBJECT BECOMES AN OBJECT OF PUBLIC UTILITY, BUT NOT SO, IF IT SEEKS TO PROMOTE THE INTEREST OF THOSE WHO CO NDUCT THE SAID TRADE OR INDUSTRYCIT V. ANDHRA CHAMBER OF COMMERCE [1965] 55 ITR 722 (SC). IF THE PRIMARY OR PREDOMINANT OBJECT OF AN INSTITUT ION IS CHARITABLE, ANY OTHER OBJECT WHICH MIGHT NOT BE CHARITABLE BUT WHIC H IS ANCILLARY OR INCIDENTAL TO THE DOMINANT PURPOSE, WOULD NOT PREVE NT THE INSTITUTION FROM BEING A VALID CHARITYADDL. CIT V. SURAT ART SILK CLOTH MFRS. ASSOCIATION [1980] 121 ITR 1 (SC). 15. THE PRESENT CASE IN OUR VIEW IS SQUARELY COVERED B Y THE JUDGMENT OF THIS COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT V. ANDHRA PRADESH STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPN. [1986] 159 ITR 1 IN WHICH IT HAS BEEN HELD T HAT SINCE THE CORPORATION WAS ESTABLISHED FOR THE PURPOSE OF PROV IDING EFFICIENT TRANSPORT SYSTEM, HAVING NO PROFIT MOTIVE, THOUGH IT EARNS IN COME IN THE PROCESS, IT IS NOT LIABLE TO INCOME-TAX. 16. APPLYING THE RATIO OF THE SAID JUDGMENT IN THE CAS E OF ANDHRA PRADESH STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPN. (SUPRA), WE FIND THAT, IN THE PRESENT CASE, GUJARAT MARITIME BOARD IS ESTABLISHED FOR THE PREDOMINANT PURPOSE OF DEVELOPMENT OF MINOR PORTS WITHIN THE ST ATE OF GUJARAT, THE MANAGEMENT AND CONTROL OF THE BOARD IS ESSENTIALLY WITH THE STATE GOVERNMENT AND THERE IS NO PROFIT MOTIVE, AS INDICA TED BY THE PROVISIONS OF SECTIONS 73, 74 AND 75 OF THE 1981 ACT. THE INCOME EARNED BY THE BOARD IS DEPLOYED FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF MINOR PORTS IN INDI A. IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES, IN OUR VIEW THE JUDGMENT OF THIS COURT IN ANDHRA PR ADESH STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPN.'S CASE (SUPRA) SQUARELY APPLIES TO THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE. 17. BEFORE CONCLUDING WE MAY MENTION THAT UNDER THE SC HEME OF SECTION 11(1) OF THE 1961 ACT, THE SOURCE OF INCOME MUST BE HELD UNDER TRUST OR UNDER OTHER LEGAL OBLIGATION. APPLYING THE SAID TES T IT IS CLEAR, THAT GUJARAT MARITIME BOARD IS UNDER LEGAL OBLIGATION TO APPLY T HE INCOME WHICH ARISES DIRECTLY AND SUBSTANTIALLY FROM THE BUSINESS HELD U NDER TRUST FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF MINOR PORT IN THE STATE OF GUJARAT. THEREFORE, THEY ARE ENTITLED TO BE REGISTERED AS 'CHARITABLE TRUST' UND ER SECTION 12A OF THE 19 ITA NOS. 3923/DEL/2017 & ORS 1961 ACT. 20. THIS PRINCIPLE HAS BEEN REITERATED BY THE H ON'BLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF INSTITUTE OF CHARTERED ACCOUNTANTS OF INDIA -V-DGIT, 358 ITR 91 (DEL). THUS, THE ASSESSEE SOCIETY WHICH HAS BEEN REGISTERE D UNDER REGISTRATION OF SOCIETIES ACT, 1860 WITH THE SOLE OBJECT OF PROVID ING EDUCATION AND HAS A LEGAL OBLIGATION FOR APPLYING ITS INCOME FOR SUCH C HARITABLE PURPOSE, THEN FOR THE PURPOSE OF SECTION 11 IT HAS TO BE TREATED AS T RUST AND INCOME DERIVED FROM CARRYING OUT SUCH OBLIGATION HAS TO BE RECKONE D AS INCOME DERIVED FROM PROPERTY UNDER THE TRUST AND THEREFORE, ON THE GROU ND ALSO AS RAKED BY THE LD. CIT (A), EXEMPTION U/S.11 CANNOT BE DENIED. ACCORDI NGLY, IN VIEW OF THE FINDING GIVEN ABOVE AND VARIOUS LEGAL PRINCIPLE AS DISCUSSED ABOVE, WE HOLD THAT NONE OF THE OBSERVATIONS AND THE FINDING OF TH E LD. CIT(A) ARE SUSTAINABLE AND THE GROUNDS TAKEN AND THE REASONING GIVEN BY HI M TO DENY THE BENEFIT/EXEMPTION U/S.11 TO THE ASSESSEE CANNOT BE UPHELD EITHER IN LAW OR ON FACTS. 21. ACCORDINGLY, IN VIEW OF OUR FINDING GIVEN ABOVE , THE ENTIRE RECEIPTS WHICH HAS BEEN TAXED UNDER THE HEAD INCOME FROM OT HER SOURCES IS SET ASIDE AND WE DIRECT THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO GRANT EXEMPT ION U/S.11 AS PER THE INCOME AND EXPENDITURE ACCOUNT SUBMITTED BY THE ASS ESSEE. 22 . IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS A LLOWED. SINCE IN THE INSTANT CASE THE REGISTRATION GRANTED UNDER SECTION 12A IS STILL IN FORCE AND SINCE THE OBJECT OF THE ASSESSEE SOCIE TY HAS NOT UNDER GONE ANY CHANGE, THEREFORE, CONSIDERING THE TOTALITY OF THE FACTS OF THE CASE, WE DEEM IT PROPER TO RESTORE THE ISSUE TO THE FILE OF THE ASSE SSING OFFICER WITH THE DIRECTION TO ADJUDICATE THE ISSUE A FRESH IN LIGHT OF THE DEC ISION OF ADARSH PUBLIC SCHOOL CITED (SUPRA) AND IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW. NEEDLESS TO SAY, THE ASSESSEE BE GIVEN OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING BY FOLLOWING PRINCIPLES OF N ATURAL JUSTICE. ALL THE THREE APPEALS ARE IDENTICAL IN NATURE, THEREFORE, ALL THR EE APPEALS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE PARTLY ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSE. 20 ITA NOS. 3923/DEL/2017 & ORS 8. IN RESULT, THE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE ARE PARTL Y ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSE. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 30 TH JULY, 2018 . SD/- SD/- (R. K. PANDA) (SUCHITRA KAMBLE) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEM BER DATED: 30/07/2018 R. NAHEED * COPY FORWARDED TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(APPEALS) 5. DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT NEW DELHI 21 ITA NOS. 3923/DEL/2017 & ORS DATE OF DICTATION 23.07.2018 DATE ON WHICH THE TYPED DRAFT IS PLACED BEFORE THE DICTATING MEMBER 23.07.2018 DATE ON WHICH THE TYPED DRAFT IS PLACED BEFORE THE OTHER MEMBER DATE ON WHICH THE APPROVED DRAFT COMES TO THE SR. PS/PS DATE ON WHICH THE FAIR ORDER IS PLACED BEFORE THE DICTATING MEMBER FOR PRONOUNCEMENT DATE ON WHICH THE FAIR ORDER COMES BACK TO THE SR. PS/PS 30.07.2018 DATE ON WHICH THE FINAL ORDER IS UPLOADED ON THE WEBSITE OF ITAT 30.07.2018 DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE BENCH CLERK 30.07.2018 DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE HEAD CLERK THE DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR FOR SIGNATURE ON THE ORDER DATE OF DISPATCH OF THE ORDER