Swasthya Bikash Samiti, Berhampur V. ITO(Exemption), Berhampur

ITA 416/CTK/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 128 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 3745 (ITAT-CUTTACK)
• Duration Of Justice: 6 month(s) 28 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 30-06-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Next Hearing Date: 28-06-2017
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 02-12-2016
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: D K PRADHAN
• Assessee Lawyers: B PANDA B R PANDA
• Section: 12A

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. 416 /CTK/2016 : ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2007 - 08 ITA NO.05/CTK/2016: ASSESSMENT YEAR :2008 - 09 ITA NO.06/CTK/2016: ASSESSMENT YEAR :2009 - 10 ITA NO.07/CTK/2016: ASSESSMENT YEAR :2010 - 11 ITA NO.08/CTK/2016: ASSESSMENT YEAR :2011 - 12 SWATHSYA BIKASH SAMITHY MKCG MEDICAL COLLEGE HOSPITAL, BERHAMPUR VS. DCIT, BERHAMPUR CIRCLE, BERHAMPUR PAN/GIR NO. AAAAM 6698 P (APPELLANT ) .. ( RESPONDENT ) ASSESSEE BY : SHRI B.PANDA/B.R.PANDA, AR RE V ENUE BY : SHRI D.K.PRADHAN, DR DATE OF HEARING : 28 /06 / 2017 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : /06 / 2017 O R D E R PER N.S.SAINI, AM THESE ARE APPEAL S FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGA INST THE ORDER OF CIT(A) - 3, BHUBANESWAR. ITA NOS.05 TO 08/CTK/2016 ARE DIRECTED AGAINST A COMMON ORDER DATED 30 TH OCTOBER, 2016 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2008 - 09 TO 2011 - 12 AND ITA NO. 462/CTK/ IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 4.8.2016 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007 - 08. 2 ITA NO.416/CTK/2016: ASSESSMENT YEAR :2007 - 08 ITA NO.05/CTK/2016: ASSESSMENT YEAR :2008 - 09 ITA NO.06/CTK/2016: ASSESSMENT YEAR :2009 - 10 ITA NO.07/CTK/2016: ASSESSMENT YEAR :2010 - 11 ITA NO.08/CTK/2016: ASSESSMENT YEAR :2011 - 12 2. IN ALL THESE APPEALS, THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING COMMON GROUNDS OF APPEAL EXCEPT CHA NGE IN FIGURES: A. FOR THAT THE ORDERS OF THE FORUMS BELOW ARE ILLEGAL, ABSURD, UNJUST, ARBITRARY AND CAPRICIOUS IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. THE RETURN FILED DECLARING THE 'NIL' INCOME SHOULD HAVE BEEN ACCEPTED AND THEREFORE THE INC OME DETERMINED ILLEGALLY AND EXCESSIVELY AT RS.41,84,660/ - RAISING THE TAX DEMAND OF RS.18,95,900/ - IS TO BE DELETED ENTIRELY. B. FOR THAT THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAD TOTALLY MISCONSTRUED THE FACTS AS WELL AS THE PROVISIONS OF LAW HOLDING WRONGLY THAT THE DEPARTMENTAL CIRCULARS HAD APPLIED TO THE FACTS OF THE CASE STATING THEREIN THAT THE APPELLANT WAS REQUIRED TO FILE THE RETUR N U/S 139(1) OF THE I.T.ACT AS SUCH THE SUBMISSION OF THE APPELLANT SHOULD HAVE BEEN ACCEPTED SINCE THE APPELLANT INSTITUTION IS FULLY AND SUBSTANTIALLY FINANCED BY THE GOVERNMENT FOR THE PURPOSE OF TREATMENT AND REHABILITATION OF THE PATIENTS, THUS THE AM OUNT RECEIVED TOWARDS USERS FEE SINCE IS NOT WITHIN THE SCOPE OF INCOME UNDER THE I.T. ACT, FILING OF RETURN OF INCOME IS NOT REQUIRED U/S. 139(1) HENCE NO INCOME ACCRUED FROM THE USER FEE FOR THE PURPOSE OF ASSESSMENT, THEREFORE THE PASSING OF THE ORDER I S CONTRADICTING. C. FOR THAT THE FORUMS BELOW WITHOUT APPRECIATION AND CONSIDERATION OF THE FACTS AND LAW HAD ILLEGALLY HELD THAT THE USER'S FEE RECEIVED FOR THE PURPOSE OF TREATMENT AND TO PROVIDE PATHOLOGICAL AND OTHER TESTS, ETC. IN ORDER TO IMPROVE AN D CURE THE PATIENTS WITHIN A REASONABLE TIME AT LOWER SUBSCRIPTIONS SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ASSESSED AS INCOME AND THE APPELLANT SOCIETY IS A PHILANTHROPIC BODY ABSOLUTELY GROWN FOR THE WELFARE OF THE PATIENTS AND COMMITTED TO SEE THEIR COMFORTS SHOULD NOT HA VE BEEN TAXED ON THE USERS FEE COLLECTED AND ACCUMULATED ONLY FOR THE PURPOSE OF THE PATIENTS BENEFIT. D. FOR THAT THE FORUMS BELOW HAVE MADE CERTAIN ILLEGALITIES AND PROCEEDED ERRATICALLY STATING THAT THE FIXED DEPOSITS ARE MAINTAINED AND ADVANCED TO GOV ERNMENT FUNDS ARE QUITE MISNOMER BECAUSE OF THE SURPLUS AMOUNT KEPT FOR THE SAFETY IN THE BANK WHICH SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN OTHERWISE TO BE CONSIDERED EXCEPT THE PURPOSE FOR WHICH THE USERS FEE COLLECTED. E. FOR THAT THE FORUMS BELOW HAD ILLEGALLY PROCEEDED BEYOND THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND THE DETERMINATION OF INCOME MADE ARBITRARILY WITHOUT GIVING REDUCTION OF RS.39,57,076/ - FOUND TO BE EXCESS INCOME OVER THE EXPENDITURE AND THEREFORE THE USER FEES DO NOT COME UNDER THE SCOPE, PURVIEW AND CONCEPT OF INCOME UNDER THE I.T. ACT, 1961. F. FOR THAT THE FORUMS BELOW HAD FAILED TO PROVIDE ADEQUATE OPPORTUNITY TO JUSTIFY, EXAMINE AND CARRY OUT THE PROCESS OF LAW AND THE CONCEPTS THERE OF TO CONFRONT AND FIND OUT WHETHER THE FEE COLLECTED FOR THE PURPOSE OF 3 ITA NO.416/CTK/2016: ASSESSMENT YEAR :2007 - 08 ITA NO.05/CTK/2016: ASSESSMENT YEAR :2008 - 09 ITA NO.06/CTK/2016: ASSESSMENT YEAR :2009 - 10 ITA NO.07/CTK/2016: ASSESSMENT YEAR :2010 - 11 ITA NO.08/CTK/2016: ASSESSMENT YEAR :2011 - 12 TREATMENT OF PATIENTS HAD OWNED BY THE APPELLANT SOCIETY AS ITS INCOME, THEREFORE, ORDERS ARE TO BE QUASHED. G. FOR THAT THE LEARNED CIT(A) SHOULD NOT HAVE IGNORED THE SUBMISSIONS AND THE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE APPELLANT STA TING THEREIN THAT THE TAXABILITY OF THE GOVERNMENT REVENUE HELD BY THE STATE AS WELL AS THE UNION GOVERNMENT IS PROHIBITED UNDER ARTICLE 289 OF THE CONSTITUTION AND IN AS MUCH AS USER OF CHARGES COLLECTED BY THE APPELLANT BASING ON THE RULES FRAMED BY THE MEDICAL COLLEGE AND HOSPITALS RUN BY THE GOVERNMENT OF ODISHA SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN TAXED UNDER THE I.T. ACT SINCE IS VIOLATIVE OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS AND NO ASSESSMENT AS SUCH TO BE MADE. H. FOR THAT IT WAS NOT CONSIDERED BY THE LEARNED CIT(A) THAT THE APPELLANT PER SE HAS NO CAPACITY OR ACTIVITY TO EARN ANY INCOME BUT IT IS ONLY THE USER CHARGES OF THE MEDICAL COLLEGE HOSPITAL THAT ARE KEPT IN THE CUSTODY OF THE APPELLANT AND THE APPELLANT IS AUT HORISED BY THE BY - LAWS, FRAMED BY THE GOVERNMENT OF ODISHA, TO INCUR EXPENSES ON CERTAIN SPECIFIC HEADS WHICH ARE TOTALLY ON BEHALF OF THE GOVERNMENT AND THE SAID FUNDS DEPOSITED CAN UNDER NO CIRCUMSTANCES BE TREATED AS THE INCOME OF THE APPEL LANT. I . FOR THAT THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER AS WELL AS THE CIT(A) SHOULD NOT HAVE DISTINGUISHED THE APPELLANT AS A SEPARATE ENTITY DIFFERENT FROM THE OTHER MEDICAL COLLEGES WHERE THE USER FEE IS COLLECTED, SINCE THE VERY CREATION IS TO FUNCTION AS PAR T OF THE HOSPITAL AND IMPROVE THE HEALTH SERVICES PROVIDED TO THE PUBLIC, THERE SHOULD NOT HAVE ANY ASSESSMENT. 3. LD A.R. OF THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE IS A SOCIETY REGISTERED UNDER THE REGISTRATION OF SOCIETIES ACT VIII OF 1969 VIDE REGISTRATION NO.5205 OF 1997 - 98 DT.2.1.1998 IN THE NAME & STYLE SOCIETY OF THE MAHARAJA KRUSHNA CHANDRA GAJAPATI MEDICAL COLLEGE & HOSPITAL AT/PO; MEDICAL CAMPUS, BERHAMPUR AND LATER A GAIN ON 18.8.2005 AS SWASTHYA BIKASH SAMITTEE M.K.C.G. MEDICAL COLLEGE HOSPITAL UNDER THE SOCIETY REGISTRATION (ORISSA AMENDMENT ACT, 1969) VIDE NO.7391. THE AIMS AND OBJECTIVE FOR CREATION OF SOCIETY ARE (I) REPAIR, MAINTENANCE AND UPKEEP OF ALL ASSETS OF THE HOSPITAL; (II) PROMOTION OF PATIENT CARE AND TREATMENT ACTIVITIES, HOSPITAL SERVICES, TRAINING OF PERSONNEL ENGAGED IN HEALTH SERVICES AND CREATE AWARENESS AMONG THE PUBLIC ABOUT PUBLIC HEALTH, 4 ITA NO.416/CTK/2016: ASSESSMENT YEAR :2007 - 08 ITA NO.05/CTK/2016: ASSESSMENT YEAR :2008 - 09 ITA NO.06/CTK/2016: ASSESSMENT YEAR :2009 - 10 ITA NO.07/CTK/2016: ASSESSMENT YEAR :2010 - 11 ITA NO.08/CTK/2016: ASSESSMENT YEAR :2011 - 12 FAMILY WELFARE AND MEDICAL EDUCATION ISSUES AND MATTER S CONNECTED THEREOF. DURING THE YEARS UNDER APPEAL, THE ASSESSEE DID NOT FILE RETURN OF INCOME. NOTICE U/S.148 OF THE ACT WAS ISSUED AND IN RESPONSE TO THE SAME, THE ASSESSEE FILED RETURN OF INCOME SHOWING NIL INCOME. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HELD THAT REG ISTRATION UNDER SECTION 12A OF THE I.T.ACT, 1961 FOR EXEMPTION OF INCOME FROM TAX WAS NOT GRANTED DURING THE YEAR UNDER REFERENCE AND, THEREFORE, HE TREATED THE ASSESSEE AS AN ASSOCIATION OF PERSONS (AOP) AND BROUGHT TO TAX THE EXCESS OF INCOME OVER EXPEND ITURE OF RS.32,26,642, FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007 - 08, RS.39,57,076/ - FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008 - 09, RS.3,40,150/ - FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009 - 10, RS.341,84,660/ - FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010 - 11 AND RS. 88,50,108/ - FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2011 - 12. 4. ON APPEAL, THE CIT(A) CONFIRMED THE ACTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 5. HE SUBMITTED THAT APPLICATION FOR REGISTRATION U/S.12AA OF THE ACT WAS FILED BEFORE THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION), HYDERABAD ON 19.11.2013, WHICH WAS REJECTED VIDE ORDER D ATED 2.1.2014. ON AN APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE THERE - AGAINST, THE CUTTACK BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL RESTORED THE MATTER BACK TO THE FILE OF THE CIT(EXEMPTION), HYDERABAD FOR REDECIDING THE ISSUE OF GRANT OF REGISTRATION U/S.12AA OF THE ACT TO THE ASSESSEE . THE CIT(EXEMPTION), HYDERABAD VIDE ORDER DATED 30.6.2016 GRANTED THE REGISTRATION U/S.12AA OF THE ACT TO THE ASSESSEE W.E.F. 19.11.2013. THUS, THE VERY BASIS FOR TREATING THE ASSESSEE AS AN AOP FOR WANT OF REGISTRATION U/S.12AA OF THE ACT DID NOT EXIST AFTER GRANTING OF 5 ITA NO.416/CTK/2016: ASSESSMENT YEAR :2007 - 08 ITA NO.05/CTK/2016: ASSESSMENT YEAR :2008 - 09 ITA NO.06/CTK/2016: ASSESSMENT YEAR :2009 - 10 ITA NO.07/CTK/2016: ASSESSMENT YEAR :2010 - 11 ITA NO.08/CTK/2016: ASSESSMENT YEAR :2011 - 12 REGISTRATION BY THE CIT(EXEMPTION) HYDERABAD TO THE ASSESSEE U/S.12AA OF THE ACT. HE SUBMITTED AS PER THE FIRST PROVISO TO SECTION 12A SUB - SECTION (2) WHERE REGISTRATION HAS BEEN GRANTED TO THE TRUST OR INSTITUTION UNDER SECTION 12AA, T HEN, THE PROVISIONS OF SECTIONS 11 AND 12 SHALL APPLY IN RESPECT OF ANY INCOME DERIVED FROM PROPERTY HELD UNDER TRUST OF ANY ASSESSMENT YEAR PRECEDING THE AFORESAID ASSESSMENT YEAR, FOR WHICH ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS ARE PENDING BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER AS ON THE DATE OF SUCH REGISTRATION AND THE OBJECTS AND ACTIVITIES OF SUCH TRUST OR INSTITUTION REMAIN THE SAME FOR SUCH PRECEDING ASSESSMENT YEAR. HE SUBMITTED THAT FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007 - 08, ORDER WAS PASSED BY THE CIT(A) ON 4.8.2016. AS THE POWERS O F THE CIT(A) ARE CO - TERMINUS WITH THAT OF THE POWERS OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER AS HELD BY HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. KANPUR COAL SYNDICATE, 53 ITR 224 (SC), THEREFORE, THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS WERE PENDING AS ON THE DATE OF GRANT OF REGI STRATION U/S.12AA OF THE ACT ON 30.6.2016. THEREFORE, IN VIEW OF THE SAID PROVISO, THE ASSESSEE WAS ENTITLED TO THE BENEFIT OF PROVISIONS OF SECTIONS 11 AND 12 OF THE ACT IN RESPECT OF ANY INCOME DERIVED FROM PROPERTY HELD UNDER TRUST AS THE OBJECTS AND ACTIVITIES OF THE TRUST WERE THE SAME IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007 - 08. THEREFORE, IT WAS HIS SUBMISSION THAT THE MATTER SHOULD BE RESTORED BACK TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR RECOMPUTING THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE AFTER ALLOWING THE BENEFIT OF DEDUCTION U/S.11 AND 12 OF THE ACT. 6 ITA NO.416/CTK/2016: ASSESSMENT YEAR :2007 - 08 ITA NO.05/CTK/2016: ASSESSMENT YEAR :2008 - 09 ITA NO.06/CTK/2016: ASSESSMENT YEAR :2009 - 10 ITA NO.07/CTK/2016: ASSESSMENT YEAR :2010 - 11 ITA NO.08/CTK/2016: ASSESSMENT YEAR :2011 - 12 6. WITH REGARD TO OTHER ASSESSMENT YEARS VIZ ASSESSMENT YEARS 2008 - 09, 2009 - 10, 2010 - 11 AND 2011 - 12, HE SUBMITTED THAT THE REGISTRATION U/S.12AA OF THE ACT WAS GRANTED TO THE ASSESSEE BY THE LD CIT(EXEMPTION) HYDERABAD VIDE ORDER DATED 3 0.6.2016 W.E.F. 19.11.2013 AND AS THE OBJECTIVES AND ACTIVITIES OF THE SOCIETY WERE THE SAME AS IN THE YEAR OF GRANT OF REGISTRATION U/S.12AA OF THE ACT, THEREFORE, IT WILL BE UNJUST AND UNFAIR TO THE ASSESSEE TO NOT TO ALLOW THE BENEFIT OF PROVISIONS OF S ECTION 11 & 12 OF THE ACT FOR THE SAID YEARS ALSO. HE SUBMITTED THAT IT IS TRITE LAW THAT CONTINUATION OF THE APPEAL PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL IS CONTINUATION OF THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. IN THIS VIEW OF THE MATTER ALSO, THE ASSESSEE IS ENTITLED FOR BENEFIT OF DEDUCTION U/S.11 AND 12 OF THE ACT FOR THE SAID ASSESSMENT YEARS. 7. ON THE OTHER HAND, LD D.R. RELIED ON ORDERS OF LOWER AUTHORITIES. 8. AFTER HEARING BOTH THE PARTIES AT LENGTH AND CONSIDERING THE MATERIALS AVAILABLE ON RECORD, IT IS OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER TREATED THE ASSESSEE AS AN AOP FOR WANT OF REGISTRATION U/S.12AA OF THE ACT. IT IS ALSO NOT IN DISPUTE THAT THE REGISTRATION U/S.12AA OF THE ACT HAS BEEN GRANTED TO THE ASSESSEE W.E.F. 19.11.2 013 BY THE LD CIT(EXEMPTION), HYDERABAD VIDE ORDER DATED 30.6.2016. THEREFORE, THE APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE CIT(A) FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007 - 08 WHO PASSED THE ORDER ON 4.8.2016, WERE PENDING BEFORE HIM. AS THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CAS E OF KANPUR COAL SYNDICATE (SUPRA) HAS HELD THAT THE POWERS OF THE CIT(A) ARE 7 ITA NO.416/CTK/2016: ASSESSMENT YEAR :2007 - 08 ITA NO.05/CTK/2016: ASSESSMENT YEAR :2008 - 09 ITA NO.06/CTK/2016: ASSESSMENT YEAR :2009 - 10 ITA NO.07/CTK/2016: ASSESSMENT YEAR :2010 - 11 ITA NO.08/CTK/2016: ASSESSMENT YEAR :2011 - 12 CO - TERMINUS WITH THAT OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER, WE, THEREFORE, FOLLOWING THE SAME, HOLD THAT THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS WERE PENDING AS ON THE DATE OF GRANT OF REGISTRATION U/S.1 2AA OF THE ACT AND, THEREFORE, IN VIEW OF THE FIRST PROVISO TO SECTION 12A(2) OF THE ACT, THE OBJECTIVES AND ACTIVITIES OF THE SOCIETY REMAIN TH E SAME WHICH IS NOT IN DISPUTED, T HE ASSESSEE IS ENTITLED TO THE BENEFIT OF DEDUCTION U/S.11 AND 12 OF THE ACT. A CCORDINGLY, WE SET ASIDE THE ORDERS OF LOWER AUTHORITIES AND RESTORE THE MATTER BACK TO THE FILE OF THE ASSES SING OFFICER FOR RE - COMPUTING THE INCOME AFTER ALLOWING BENEFIT OF SECTION 11 AND 12 OF THE ACT TO THE ASSESSEE AS PER LAW. THUS, THIS PART OF T HE GROUND IS ALLOWED. 9. WITH REGARDS TO OTHER ASSESSMENT YEARS UNDER APPEAL, IT IS OBSERVED THAT THE CIT(A) HAS CONFIRMED THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER TREATING THE ASSESSEE AS AN AOP AND BRINGING TO TAX THE EXCESS OF INCOME OVER EXPENDITURE ON THE G ROUND THAT REGISTRATION U/S.12AA OF THE ACT WAS NOT GRANTED TO THE ASSESSEE. IT IS ALSO NOT IN DISPUTE THAT THE OBJECTIVES AND ACTIVITIES OF THE ASSESSEE SOCIETY IN THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT YEARS REMAIN THE SAME AS IN THE YEAR OF GRANTING OF REGISTRATION U /S.12AA OF THE ACT TO THE ASSESSEE. THEREFORE, WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED VIEW THAT IT WOULD BE WHOLLY UNJUSTIFIED TO NOT TO GRANT THE BENEFIT OF PROVISIONS OF SECTION 11 AND 12 OF THE ACT FOR THE IM PUGNED ASSESSMENT YEARS ALSO WHEN T HE OBJECTIVES AND ACTIVITIES OF THE SOCIETY ARE THE SAME WHICH FACT IS NOT IN DISPUTE. HENCE, WE SET ASIDE THE ORDERS OF LOWER AUTHORITIES AND RESTORE THE MATTER 8 ITA NO.416/CTK/2016: ASSESSMENT YEAR :2007 - 08 ITA NO.05/CTK/2016: ASSESSMENT YEAR :2008 - 09 ITA NO.06/CTK/2016: ASSESSMENT YEAR :2009 - 10 ITA NO.07/CTK/2016: ASSESSMENT YEAR :2010 - 11 ITA NO.08/CTK/2016: ASSESSMENT YEAR :2011 - 12 BACK TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO RE - COMPUTE THE INCOME AS PER LAW AFTER ALLOWING THE BENEFIT OF PROVISIONS OF SECTION 11 AND 12 OF THE ACT TO THE ASSESSEE. NEEDLESS TO MENTION THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER SHALL ALLOW REASONABLE AND PROPER OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING TO THE ASSESSEE FOR ADJUDICATING THE ISSUE AFRESH AS PER LAW. HENCE, THE GRO UNDS OF APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE ARE ALLOWED. 10. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL S FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCE D IN THE OPEN COURT ON 30 /06 /2017 IN THE PRESENCE OF PARTIES. SD/ - SD/ - ( PAVAN KUMAR GADALE) ( N.S SAINI) JUDICIALMEMBER A CCOUNTANT MEMBER CUTTACK; DATED 30 /06 /2017 B.K.PARIDA, SPS COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : BY ORDER, SR.PRIVATE SECRETARY ITAT, CUTTACK 1. THE APPELLANT : SWATHSYA BIKASH SAMITHYI MKCG MEDICAL COLLEGE HOSPITAL, BERHAMPUR 2. THE RESPONDENT. DCIT, BERHAMPUR CIRCLE, BERHAMPUR - 3, BHUBANESWAR 3. THE CIT(A) , HYDERABAD. 4. PR.CIT , 5. DR, ITAT, CUTTACK 6. GUARD FILE. //TRUE COPY//