ITO, Ward-2(1), Bhubaneswar, Bhubaneswar V. Regional College of Management, Bhubaneswar

ITA 408/CTK/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 128 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 3760 (ITAT-CUTTACK)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 11 month(s) 25 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 06-07-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Next Hearing Date: 12-06-2017
• Assessment Year: 2005-2006
• Appeal Filed On: 11-07-2013
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: KUNAL SINGH
• Keywords: Depreciation; Charitable institution; Retrospective amendment; Additional evidence
• Section: 12AA; 12; 11

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CUTTACK BENCH, CUTTACK BEFORE S/SHRI N.S SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO S . 408 TO 412/CTK/2013 ASSESSMENT YEAR S : 2005 - 06 TO 2009 - 2010 ITO, WARD - 2(1), BHUBANESWAR VS. REGIONAL COLLEGE OF MANAGEMENT, PLOT NO.GD - 2 - 12, AND 2013, CHANDRA SEKHARPUR, BHUBANESWAR. PAN/GIR NO. AAATR 6599 K ( ASSESSEE ) .. ( RESPONDENT ) C.O. NOS. 58 TO 62/CTK/ 2013 (ARISING OUT OF ITA NOS.408 TO 412/CTK/2013 ASSESSMENT YEARS :2005 - 06 TO 2009 - 2010 REGIONAL COLLEGE OF MANAGEMENT, PLOT NO.GD - 2 - 12, AND 2013, CHANDRA SEKHARPUR, BHUBANESWAR VS. ITO, WARD - 2(1), BHUBANESWAR PAN/GIR NO. AAATR 6599 K (CROSS OBJECTOR ) .. ( RESPONDENT ) ASSESSEE BY : SHRI BHAGABAN PANDA/PRADYUMNA KUMAR SAHOO, ARS RE VENUE BY : SHRI KUNAL SINGH, CIT DR DATE OF HEARING : 04 /07 / 2017 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : /07 / 2017 O R D E R PER N.S.SAINI, AM 2 REGIONAL COLLEGE OF MANAGEMENT THESE ARE APPEAL S FILED BY THE REVENUE AND CROSS OBJECTIONS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST A CONSOLIDATED ORDER OF CIT(A) - II, BHUBANESWAR , DATED 28.3.2013 , FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR S 2005 - 06 TO 2009 - 2010, RESPECTIVELY. 2. IN ALL THESE APPEALS, THE REVENUE HAS RAISED COMMON GROUNDS OF APPEAL, WHICH READ AS UNDER: 1. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE LD. CIT(A) IS NOT JUSTIFIED IN ALLOWING BENEFIT OF SEC.11 TO THE ASSESSEE WHICH WAS DISALLOWED BY THE AO. 2. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE LD, CIT(A) IS NOT JUSTIFIED IN HOLDING THAT UTILIZATION OF FUNDS FOR CONSTRUCTI ON OF LORD JAGANNATH MANAGEMENT TEMPLE IN THE CAMPUS WAS PART OF THE EDUCATION ACTIVITY OF THE ASSESSEE. 3. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE LD. CIT(A) IS NOT JUSTIFIED IN ALLOWING THE BENEFIT OF SEC. 11 TO THE ASSESSEE WITHOUT VER IFYING WHETHER THE ASSESSEE FULFILLED ALL THE RELEVANT CONDITIONS. 4. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE LD. CIT(A) IS NOT JUSTIFIED IN ACCEPTING THE CONTENTIONS OF THE ASSESSEE AND NOT ACCEPTING THE FINDINGS OF THE AO IN VIOLATION O F RULE 46A OF THE IT RULES. 3. BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE AS EMERGED FROM THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE TRUST I.E. M/S. REGIONAL COLLEGE OF MANAGEMENT WAS REGISTERED UNDER THE INDIAN TRUST ACT VIDE A TRUST DEED DTD.12.05.2004. UNDER THE TRUST, THE NAME O F THE EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTION WAS 'REGIONAL COLLEGE OF MANAGEMENT' WHICH RUNS FROM ITS OWN BUILDING CONSTRUCTED ON STATE GOVERNMENT PLOT NO.GD - 2/12 & 2/13, CHANDRASEKHARPUR, BHUBANESWAR. PRIMARILY, THE COLLEGE IMPARTS MBA (MASTER OF BUSINESS 3 REGIONAL COLLEGE OF MANAGEMENT ADMINISTRATION) AND MCA (MASTER OF COMPUTER APP LICATION) & M.A. (TOURISM) COURSES DULY APPROVED BY THE ALCTE AND OTHER RE GULATING AGENCY FOR EVERY YEAR. THE ASSESSING OFFICER OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE TRUST HAS CLAIMED EXEMPTION U/S.10(23)(C) OF THE ACT. THE ASSESSING OFFICER FURTHER OBSERVE D THAT TH E ASSESSEE WAS NOT GRANTED REGISTRATI ON UNDER SECTION 12AA OF THE ACT . HENCE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER REQUIRED THE ASSESSEE TO FURNISH THE BASIS OF CLAIMING EXEMPTION. AS THERE IS NO REPLY RECEIVED FROM THE ASSESSEE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER DID NOT ENTERTAI N THE CLAIM OF EXEMPTION OF THE GENERATED SURPLUS IN ANY OF THE FIVE YEARS EITHER U/S.10(23C)(VI) OR UNDER SECTION 11 OF THE ACT. ACCORDINGLY, AS SESSMENTS/REASSESSME NTS FOR ASSESSMENT YEARS 2005 - 06 TO 2009 - 10 WERE COMPLETED BETWEEN 30.11.2010 AND 20.12.20 11 (FOR FIRST FOUR YEARS, REASSESSMENTS WERE DONE ON THE SAME DAY I.E. 30.11.2010 AND FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009 - 10, REGULAR ASSESSMENT WAS DONE ON 20.12.2011). ASSESSMENTS WERE COMPLETED TREATING THE ASSESSEE AS A NORMAL ASSESSABLE ENTITY AND DISALLOWANCES HAVE BEEN MADE ON THE BASIS OF ACCOUNTS WHATEVER HA VE BEEN MADE AVAILABLE TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER . ACCORDINGLY, THE INCOMES HAVE BEEN COMPUTED FOR ALL TH E 5 YEARS TREATING THE ASSESSEE AS AN AO P AND TAXES HAVE BEEN DEMANDED AS PER LAW. 4. THE ASSESSEE TRUST HAD FILED AN APPLICATION BEFORE THE CIT, BHUBANESWAR FOR GRANT OF REGISTRATION U/S.12A OF THE ACT ON 29.05.2007 W.E.F. 12.05.2004, THE DATE OF EXECUTION OF THE TRUST DEED. HOWEVER, THE CIT DID NOT ACT ON T HIS APPLICATION OF THE ASSESSEE FOR A LONG TIME WHICH 4 REGIONAL COLLEGE OF MANAGEMENT EVENTUALLY RESULTED IN THE IM PUGNED ASSESSMENTS UNDER APPEAL. THE ASSESSEE TRUST FILED A WRIT BEFORE THE HONBLE HIGH COURT OF ODISHA BEING W.P.C. NO.23432/2011 WHICH WAS DISPOSED OF BY THE HONBLE HIGH COURT ON 5.12.2011 WITH A DIRECTION TO DI SPOSE OF THE APPLICATION DATED 29.5.2007 FILED IN FORM NO.10A OF THE ACT IF PERMISSIBLE IN LAW. PURSUANT TO THIS DIRECTION OF HONBLE HIGH COURT, THE CIT DISPOSE OF THE APPLICATION VIDE ORDER DATED 29.3.2012 TO GRANT REGISTRATION TO THE TRUST WITH RETROS PECTIVE EFFECT FROM 12.5.2004 , THE DATE OF EXECUTION OF REGISTRATION OF TRUST DEED. THUS, AFTER 29.3.2012, THE TRUST BECAME ELIGIBLE FOR CONSIDERATION FOR GRANT OF BENEFIT U/S.11 FOR ALL THE FIVE YEARS IN APPEAL SUBJECT TO ITS SATISFYING THE CONDITIONS U/S.11 TO 13 OF THE I.T.ACT. 5. BEFORE THE CIT(A), LD A.R. OF THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT AFTER GRANT OF REGISTRATION U/S.12A ON 29.03.2012 , IT BECAME NECESSARY FOR THE DEPARTMENT TO EXAMINE AS TO WHETHER THE STATEMENT OF AFFAIRS A ND THE ACCOUNTS OF THE ASSESSEE SUPPORTS GRANT OF BENEFIT U/S.11, AND ONCE I T IS ACCEPTED THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS A CHARITABLE TRUST AND DID NOT VIOLATE THE PROVISIONS FROM SEC. 11 TO 13, THERE WOULD BE NO MEANING IN MAKING VARIOUS DISALLOWANCES OF EXPENDITURE EVENTUALLY TO GRANT EXEMPTION TO THE FINALLY COMPUTED INCOME. THE SO CALLED EXPENDITURE WOULD BECOME APPLICATION OF THE RE CEIPTS OF THE TRUST. IT WAS STATED THAT THE ASSESSMENT ORDERS HAVE NOTHING TO SUGGEST ANY VIOLAT ION OF SEC. 11 OR SEC.13. SO THERE IS NO SCOPE TO DENY THE BEN EFIT OF SEC. 11 TO THE ASSESSEE FOR ANY OF THE YEARS UNDER APPEAL. IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT FOR THE FIRST TIME THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS 5 REGIONAL COLLEGE OF MANAGEMENT GOT THE SCOPE TO EXAMINE THE STATE MENT OF AFFAIRS OF THE A SSESSEE TRUST FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010 - 11 PUTTING THE SAME UNDER THE SCANNER OF SEC.11 TO 13 OF THE L.T. ACT. EVEN AGAINST THE BACKGROUND OF THE ASS ESSMENTS MADE FOR ASSESSMENT YEARS 2005 - 06 TO 2009 - 10 AND IN SPITE OF HIS OWN REMAND REPORT SENT TO THE CIT(A) ON 15.01.2013 FOR ALL THE FIVE YEARS SUPPORTING THE ORIGINAL ASSESSMENTS, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS EVENTUALLY CONCLUDED FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010 - 11 THAT THE ASSESSEE TRUST WAS INDEED ENGAGED IN CHARITABLE ACTIVITIES AND DID NOT VIOLATE ANY PROVISIONS OF SEC.11 TO SEC.13 FOR THAT YEAR. THE ACTIVITIES AND ACC OUNTS OF THE TRUST FOR ALL THE FIVE YEARS WERE ABSOLUTELY SIMILAR TO THAT OF A/YS.2010 - 11. ACCORDING LY, ON MERIT, FOR ALL THOSE YEARS, THE TRUST SHOULD GET THE BENEFIT U/S.11. A COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER FOR A/Y.2010 - 11 WAS FILED BEFORE THE CIT(A). 6. THE CIT(A) ALLOWED THE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE OBSERVING AS UNDER: 'I HAVE CAREFULLY ANALYSED THE FACTS OF THE CASE AND THE ARGUMENTS PLACED BEFORE ME AND HAVE GONE THROUGH THE ASSESSMENT ORDERS, THE WRITTEN SUBMISSION OF THE ASSESSEE AND THE REMAND REPORT OF THE AO. HAVING APPLIED MY MIND TO THE FACTS OF THE CASE, I FIND THAT THE FACTS OF ALL THE FIVE YEARS WOULD FALL IN THE SAME FRAME AS THAT OF A/Y.2010 - 11, IF THE SAME ARE EXAMINED FOR THE PUR POSE OF GRANT OF BENEFIT U/S.11. 6.1. ALTHOUGH THE TRUST DEED WAS EXECUTED ON 12.05.2004, FINANCIAL YEAR 2004 - 05 WAS NOT THE VERY FIRST YEAR OF ACTIVITY OF 'RE GIONAL COLLEGE OF MANAGEMENT'. AS EXPLAINED BY THE AR, UNDER THE SAME NAME OF REGIONAL COLLEGE OF MANAGEMENT THERE WAS A SOCIETY WHICH WAS FUNCTIONING AT THE SAME PLACE AND MOST OF THE CONSTRUCTIONS ON THE PLOT HAD BEEN CARRIED OUT BY THAT SOCIETY. THE TRU ST HAD TAKEN OVER THE SAID SOCIETY INCLUDING ITS ASSETS AND LIABILITIES AS A GOING CONCERN W.E.F. FINANCIAL YEAR 2004 - 05 I.E. AFTER FORMATION OF TRUST. THEREFORE, EVEN IN THE FIRST BALANCE SHEET OF THE TRUST ONE FINDS SUBSTANTIAL ASSETS AND LIABILITIES WHI CH IS AS PER THE TAKEN OVER BALANCE SHEET FROM THE SOCIETY. ADMITTEDLY, AT THE TIME OF COMPLETION OF ORIGINAL ASSESSMENTS FOR ALL THE FIVE YEARS, THE TRUST DID NOT HAVE THE BENEFIT OF REGISTRATION U / S .12A. THIS BENEFIT WAS GRANTED BY THE CIT, BHUBANESWAR O NLY ON 29.03.2012 WITH RETROSPECTIVE EFFECT FROM 12.05.2004, THEREBY MAKING THE TRUST ELIGIBLE TO BE EXAMINED FOR BENEFIT U/S.LL OF THE ACT. THEREFORE, THE ENTIRE EXERCISE DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS FOR THE YEARS UNDER APPEAL WERE BASE D ON MAKING THE DISALLOWANCES UNDER THE HEADS OF VARIOUS EXPENDITURE SUCH AS CONSULTANCY AND LEGAL EXPENSES, COMPUTER PURCHASE 6 REGIONAL COLLEGE OF MANAGEMENT EXPENSES, DEPRECIATION, PLACEMENT EXPENSES, DONATIONS, EPF/CPF CONTRIBUTIONS, ADVERTISEMENT EXPENSES, LAB EXPENSES, ETC. 6.2. VI DE MY LETTER DTD.26.10.2012, WHILE SENDING THE WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE TO THE AO AND CALLING FOR HIS REMAND REPORT, I HAD SPECIFICALLY MENTIONED THAT THE MAIN ISSUE IN REMAND WOULD BE THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE THAT IN VIEW OF REGISTRATION U / S .1 2A FOR ALL THE YEARS IT SHOULD BE ENTITLED TO THE BENEFIT OF SEC.11 . THE AO WAS ASKED TO SUBMIT HIS VIEWS ON THIS CLAIM IN PARTICULAR. 6.3 NO DOUBT THE AO HAS TAKEN PAINS TO ELABORATELY EXAMINE THE WRITTEN SUBMISSION OF THE APPELLANT FOR ALL THE FIVE YEARS AGAINST THE BACKGROUND OF THE RESPECTIVE ASSESSMENT ORDERS. FOR EACH YEAR, THE AO HAS MOSTLY STATED THAT DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENTS THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT FILED MOST OF THE DOCUMENTS AND EXPLANATIONS WHICH HE INCLUDED IN THE VOLUMINOUS PAPER BOOKS FILED DURING THE APPELLATE, PROCEEDINGS. THEREFORE, THIS WOULD CONSTITUTE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE AND SHOULD NOT BE ENTERTAINED. HE HAS REPEATED LY ASSERTED THAT SINCE THE CLAIMS WERE NOT SUBSTANTIATED WITH APPROPRIATE EVIDENCE DURING THE ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT, THE AO HAD RIGHTLY DISALLOWED PART/FULL OF THE CLAIM. 6.4. THE DOCUMENTS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AND THE STATEMENTS OF AFFAIRS HAVE NOT BEEN EXAMINED DURING THE REMAND PROCEEDINGS IN ORDER TO GIVE A FINDING AS TO WHETHER THE ASSESSEE WOULD NOW BE ENTITLED TO SEC.11 IN VIEW OF THE REGISTRATION GRANTED U / S .12A OR THERE WERE SOME IRREGULARITIES WITHIN THE MEANING OF SEC. 11 TO 13 SO AS TO DIS ENTITLE THE ASSESSEE TRUST TO SUCH BENEFIT. 6.5. IT REMAINS UNCONTROVERTED THAT THE ASSESSEE TRUST WAS CARRYING ON ORGANIZED EDUCATIONAL ACTIVITIES DULY APPROVED BY THE ALL INDIA COUNCIL FOR TECHNICAL EDUCATION(AICTE) AND IT HAD ALCTE'S APPROVALS F OR ALL THE FIVE YEARS UNDER EXAMINATION. THE COURSES WERE APPROVED BY GOVT. AGENCIES AND WERE AFFILIATED TO THE CONCERNED UNIVERSITIES AND OTHER THAN EDUCATION, THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT BEEN FOUND TO BE ENGAGED IN ANY OTHER ACTIVITIES OF PROFIT. NEITHER DURING THE ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS NOR DURING THE REMAND THERE IS ANY FINDING TO. ESTABLISH ANY VIOLATION U/S.LL(2), 11(5) OR SEC. 13 OF THE I.T. ACT. IN THE ELABORATE REMAND REPORT, THERE IS NOT A SINGLE WORD TO POINT OUT AS TO WHY BENEFIT U/S.LL SHOULD NOT BE GRANTED TO THE TRUST. ON THE OTHER HAND, WHEN THE FACTS REMAIN ALMOST IDENTICAL FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010 - 11, IN THE LATEST ORDER PASSED , THE AO ON 21.03.2013 AFTER EXAMINING O \ \ ASPECTS OF THE CASE, HE HAS ALLOWED BENEFIT OF SECTION 11 TO THE ASSE SSEE TRUST. 6.6. IN THE MATRIX OF DISALLOWANCES FOR ALL THE FIVE YEARS, I HAVE FOUND THAT THERE IS AN OBSERVATION FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007 - 08 AND 2008 - 09 THAT IN THE PREMISES OF REGIONAL COLLEGE OF MANAGEMENT A JAGANNATH TEMPLE HAS BEEN CONSTRUCTED USING THE TRUST FUNDS. THE EXPENDITURE IN THESE TWO YEARS WERE RS.82 LAKHS AND RS.34 LAKHS RESPECTIVELY. IN HIS DISCUSSION, THE AO HAD DISALLOWED THE DEPRECIATION PERTAINING TO THE TEMPLE STATING THAT THE TEMPLE WAS NOT FOR THE PURPOSE OF INCOME EARNED BY THE INSTITUTION (THE AO WAS CONSIDERING THE FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF THE ASSESSEE ON COMMERCIAL CONSIDERATION). SIMILARLY, DEPRECIATION CLAIM WAS ALSO DISALLOWED IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009 - 10. HOWEVER, AT PARA - 9.1 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER FOR THAT YEAR THE AO HAD NOTED THAT THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE TEMPLE WAS NOT AT ALL RELATED TO THE AIMS AND OBJECTIVES OF THE TRUST AND IT WAS ALSO NOT RELATED TO THE ACTIVITIES OF THE TRUST. 6.7. IN THE ENTIRE DISCUSSION (IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDERS AN D IN THE REMAND REPOTS) FOR ALL THE FIVE YEARS, AT BEST, THE AFORESAID DISCUSSION AT PARA - 9.1 COULD BE CONSIDERED TO BE RELEVANT FOR CONSIDERATION OF BENEFIT U/S.11. THE AR OF THE ASSESSEE WAS ASKED TO EXPLAIN THE CONNECTION OF JAGANNATH TEMPLE WITH THE A IMS AND OBJECTIVES OF THE TRUST 7 REGIONAL COLLEGE OF MANAGEMENT AND ACTIVITIES OF THE TRUST. IT WAS STATED THAT IN ALMOST ALL EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTIONS ACROSS THE COUNTRY, * THERE IS A PLACE OF WORSHIP BECAUSE THIS IS USUALLY CONSTRUCTED ON STUDENTS' DEMAND. IN SOME CASES, THE TEMPLE IS T HAT OF LORD GANESH WHEREAS IN SOME CASES IT CAN BE THAT OF LORD SHIVA OR EVEN GODDESS SARASWATI. IT HAS BEEN A PSYCHOLOGICAL REQUIREMENT FOR STUDENTS IN THEIR STRESS PERIOD IN THE EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTIONS. THE ONLY DIFFERENCE IN THE CASE OF THE PRESENT TRU ST IS THAT WHILE BUILDING A PLACE OF WORSHIP, THE TRUSTEES HAVE BUILT A RATHER LARGE JAGANNATH TEMPLE WITH SUBSTANTIAL INVESTMENTS. IT HAS BEEN EXPLAINED THAT THIS HAS WORKED WONDERS FOR THE STUDENTS AND IRRESPECTIVE OF THEIR CASTE, CREED ET LANGUAGES, ETC . AND THEIR STATES OF ORIGIN AND GENDER, STUDENTS AND STAFF FREQUENTLY VISIT THE TEMPLE AND SUCH VISITS HAS PERCEPTIBLY INCREASED THE LEVEL OF DISCIPLINE AND PEACE IN THE ACADEMIC INSTITUTION. THEREFORE, THE AR PLEADED THAT CONSTRUCTION OF THE TEMPLE CANNO T BE TOTALLY SEPARATED FROM THE GOAL AND ACTIVITY OF THE EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTION. 7. I AM INCLINED TO AGREE WITH THE VIEWS OF THE ASSESSEE AND SINCE THE JAGANNATH TEMPLE IS LOCATED INSIDE THE PREMISES OF THE INSTITUTION AND IS MOSTLY USED BY THE STUDENTS AND STAFF FOR THEIR SPIRITUAL BENEFIT, IT CANNOT BE SAID THAT INVESTMENT IN THIS TEMPLE WOULD DEBAR THE ASSESSEE TRUST FROM THE BENEFIT OF SEC. 11. 8. IN THE AFORESAID DISCUSSION, I HAVE CONSCIOUSLY CHOSEN NOT TO DISCUSS EVERY ASSESSMENT YEAR AND EVERY HEAD OF EXPENDITURE INDIVIDUALLY IN ORDER TO AVOID REPETITION OF FACTS AND ISSUES. FOR ALL THE YEARS, THE AO HAD ORIGINALLY CONSIDERED DISALLOWANCES MOSTLY UNDER IDENTICAL HEADS WHICH HOWEVER HAVE BECOME IRRELEVANT NOW, WHEN WE DISCUSS THE ELIGIBILITY OF T HE TR UST FOR GRANT OF BENEFIT U/S.11. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, IN MY OPINION, AFTER THE TRUST HAS BEEN GRANTED REGISTRATION U/S.L2A ON 29.03.2012 AND THAT TOO WITH RETROSPECTIVE EFFECT AND SECONDLY BECAUSE IN THE LATEST ASSESSMENT FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010 - 11 COMPLETE D ON 21.03.2013, BENEFIT U/S.11 HAS BEEN ALLOWED, IN ABSENCE OF ANY ADVERSE COMMENTS REGARDING SEC.11 BENEFIT IN THE REMAND REPORT, THE TRUST BECOMES ELIGIBLE FOR THE BENEFIT OF SEC. 11 FOR ALL THE FIVE YEARS UNDER APPEAL. ACCORDINGLY, FOR ALL TH E RIVE YEARS, THE APPEALS ARE TREATED AS ALLOWED. 6. AGGRIEVED BY TH E ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER, THE REVENUE HAS FILED APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT(A). 7. WE HAVE HEARD RIVAL SUBMISSIONS, PERUSED THE ORDERS OF LOWER AUTHORITIES AND MATERIALS AVAILABLE ON RECORD. THE UNDISPUTED FA C TS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE IS ENGAGED IN RUNNING AN EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTION UNDER THE NAME & STYLE OF M/S. REGIONAL COLLEGE OF MANAGEMENT. THE ASSESSEE IN ITS RETURN OF INCOME FILED FOR ALL THE YEARS UNDER CONSIDERATI ON CLAIMED DEDUCTION U/S.11 & 12 OF THE ACT. THE ASSESSING OFFICER OBSERVING 8 REGIONAL COLLEGE OF MANAGEMENT THAT THE ASSESSEE TRUST HAS NOT BEEN REGISTERED UNDER SECTION 12AA OF THE ACT, DECLINED TO ALLOW EXEMPTION U/S.11 & 12 OF THE ACT TO THE ASSESSEE. 8. ON APPEAL, THE CIT(A) OBSERV ED THAT THE ASSESSEE TRUST HAS BEEN GRANTED REGISTRATION U/S.12AA OF THE ACT BY THE CIT, BHUBANESWAR VIDE ORDER DATED 29.3.2012 W.E.F. 12.5.2004. THUS, THE CIT(A) FOUND THAT ALL THE ASSESSMENT YEARS INVOLVED IN THE PRESENT APPEALS ARE COVERED BY THE AFORE SAID REGISTRATION GRANTED TO THE ASSESSEE U/S.12AA OF THE ACT. 9. THEREAFTER, THE CIT(A) CALLED FOR A REMAND REPORT FROM THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO SUBMIT HIS COMMENTS AS TO WHY DEDUCTION CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE U/S.11 & 12 OF THE ACT SHOULD NOT BE ALLOWED FOR ALL THE YEARS UNDER APPEAL IN VIEW OF THE REGISTRATION GRANTED TO THE ASSESSEE U/S.12AA OF THE ACT. 10. AFTER CONSIDERING THE REMAND REPORT, THE CIT(A) OBSERVED THAT NO REASON COULD BE GIVEN BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN THE REMAND REPORT WHICH STILL RE QUIRES DISALLOWANCE OF DEDUCTION CLAIMED UNDER SECTION 11 AND 12 OF THE ACT. THE CIT(A), THEREAFTER CONSIDERING THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE HELD THAT IN VIEW OF GRANT O F REGISTRATION U/S.12AA OF THE A CT ON 29.3.2012 WITH RETROSPECTIVE EFFECT AND SECONDLY BECAUSE IN THE LATEST ASSESSMENT FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010 - 11 COMPLETED ON 21.03.2013, BENEFIT U/S.11 HAS BEEN ALLOWED, IN ABSENCE OF ANY ADVERSE COMMENTS REGARDING SEC.11 BENEFIT IN THE REMAND REPORT, THE TRUST BECOMES ELIGIBLE FOR THE BENEFIT OF SEC. 11 FOR ALL THE FIVE YEARS UNDER APPEAL . 9 REGIONAL COLLEGE OF MANAGEMENT 11. BEFORE US, LD D.R. COULD NOT GIVE ANY REASON AS TO WHY STILL DEDUCTION U/S.11 & 12 OUGHT TO BE DENIED TO THE ASSESSEE WHEN REGISTRATION U/S.12AA OF THE ACT HAS BEEN GRANTED TO THE ASSESSEE FOR ALL THE ASSESSMENT YEARS UNDER APPEAL AND WHEN DISALLOWANCE WAS MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ONLY FOR THE REASON OF ABSENCE OF SAID REGISTRATION. LD D.R. COULD NOT POINT OUT ANY SPECIFIC ERROR IN THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A). LD D.R. ALSO COULD NOT POINT OUT ANY ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE, WHICH WAS ADMITTED BY THE CIT(A) FOR DECIDING THE IMPUGNED APPEALS WHICH WAS TAKEN ON RECORD AFTER THE REMA ND REPORT OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 12. FURTHER, WE FIND NOWHERE THE CIT(A) HAS HELD THAT FUNDS UTILIZED FOR MAKING INVESTMENT IN TEMPLE BY THE ASSESSEE IS TO BE ALLOWED AS DEDUCTION U/S.11 & 12 OF THE ACT. DURING THE YEARS UNDER APPEAL, DEPRECIATION O N TEMPLE WAS CLAIMED AS DEDUCTION BY THE ASSESSEE, WHICH WAS ALLOWED BY THE CIT(A) ON ITS FINDINGS THAT TEMPLE W AS PART AND PARCEL OF EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTION AND WAS FOR THE BENEFIT OF ALL THE STUDENTS AND STAFF OF THE INSTITUTION WITHOUT ANY DISCRIMINATI ON. 13. FURTHER, WE FIND THAT ON SIMILAR FACTS DEDUCTION U/S.11 & 12 OF THE ACT WAS ALLOWED TO THE ASSESSEE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN THE ASSESSMENT OF ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010 - 2011 PASSED U/S.143(3) OF THE ACT ON 21.3.2013. 10 REGIONAL COLLEGE OF MANAGEMENT 14. WE THUS DO NOT FIND ANY GOO D REASON TO INT ERFERE WITH THE ORDER OF THE CI T(A). THEREFORE, THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) FOR ALL THE ASSESSMENT YEARS UNDER APPEAL IS CONFIRMED AND GROUNDS OF APPEAL OF REVENUE ARE DISMISSED. 15 . THE CROSS OBJECTIONS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE IN SUPPORT OF THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A). SINCE, WE HAVE UPHELD THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) FOR ALL THE YEARS UNDER CONSIDERATION, THE CROSS OBJECTIONS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE INFRUCTUOUS AND HENCE, DISMISSED. 16. IN THE RESULT, APPEALS FILED BY THE REVENUE AND CROSS OBJE CTIONS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE DISMISSED . ORDER PRONOUNCE D IN THE OPEN COURT ON 06 /07 /2017 IN THE PRESENCE OF PARTIES. SD/ - SD/ - ( PAVAN KUMAR GADALE) ( N.S SAINI) JUDICIALMEMBER A CCOUNTANT MEMBER CUTTACK; DATED 06 /07 /2017 B.K.PARIDA, SPS COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. THE ASSESSEE : ITO, WARD - 2(1), BHUBANESWAR 2. THE RESPONDENT. REGIONAL COLLEGE OF MANAGEMENT, PLOT NO.GD - 2 - 12, AND 2013, CHANDRASEKHARPUR, BHUBANESWAR 3. THE CIT(A) - II, BHUBANESWAR 4. PR.CIT II, BHUBANESWAR 5. DR, ITAT, CUTTACK 6. GUARD FILE. //TRUE COPY// 11 REGIONAL COLLEGE OF MANAGEMENT BY ORDER, SR.PRIVATE SECRETARY ITAT, CUTTACK