Shree Deshi Lohana Vidhyarthi Bhavan, Ahmedabad V. The ITO, (Exemptions), Ward-2, Ahmedabad

ITA 418/AHD/2019

• Counselvise Citation: [2021] 107 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 4276 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 6 month(s) 19 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 30-09-2021
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: D
• Assessment Year: 2014-2015
• Appeal Filed On: 11-03-2019
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: DR SHYAM PRASAD
• Assessee Lawyers: BIREN SHAH A R S
• Keywords: Business income; Charitable institution; Rule of consistency; Benefit of exemption; Set aside
• Section: 143(3); 234B; 80G; 12A; 12AA; 13; 147; 12; 11

Judgement Text

, IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL D BENCH, AHMEDABAD (THROUGH WEB-BASED VIDEO CONFERENCING PLATFORM) BEFORE SHRI WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND MS. MADHUMITA ROY, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NOS. 418 & 419/AHD/2019 / ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2014-15 & 2015-16 SHRI DESHI LOHANA VIDHYARTHI BHAVAN, NR. VYAYAM VIDHYALAY, KANKARIA, AHMEDABAD-380022 PAN : AAAAS 5836 R VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER (EXEMPTION), WARD-2, AHMEDABAD / (APPELLANT) / (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : SHRI VARTIK CHOKSI & SHRI BIREN SHAH, ARS REVENUE BY : DR. SHYAM PRASAD, SR DR / DATE OF HEARING : 28.07.2021 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 30.09.2021 / O R D E R PER WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: THE PRESENT TWO APPEALS ARE DIRECTED AT THE INSTANC E OF THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE SEPARATE ORDERS OF LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-9, AHMEDABAD [CIT(A) IN SHORT] OF EVEN DATE 05.02.2019 PASSED FOR ASSESSMENT YEARS 2014-15 AND 2015-16. ITA NO. 418/AHD/2019 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2014-15 2. FIRST, WE TAKE UP ITA NO. 418/AHD/2019 FOR ASSE SSMENT YEAR 2014- 15. THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF AP PEAL:- 1. IN LAW AND IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES O F THE CASE OF APPELLANT, THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN REJECTING THE GROUND TAKEN WITH REGARDS TO THE IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED U/S 143(3) R.W.S.147 OF THE ACT ITO (E XEMPTION)-WARD-2, AHMEDABAD IS VOID AND DESERVES TO BE QUASHED. 2 ITA NOS. 418 & 419/AHD/2019 DESHI LOHANA VIDHYARTHI BHAVAN VS. ITO AY : 2014-15 & 2015-16 1.1. IN LAW AND IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE OF APPELLANT, THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN REJECTING THE GROUND TAKEN WITH REGARDS TO THE IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED U/S 143(3) R.W.S.147 OF THE ACT ITO (E XEMPTION)-WARD-2, AHMEDABAD IS VOID AND DESERVES TO BE QUASHED AS THE RE IS NOT INCOME WHICH HAS ESCAPED ASSESSMENT. 2. IN LAW AND IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES O F THE CASE OF APPELLANT, THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ACTION OF ASSESS ING OFFICER (ITO WARD 2, AHMEDABAD) WHO ERRED BOTH IN LAW AND IN FACTS IN HO LDING THAT THE NET RECEIPTS OF RS.3,10,343/- WAS TO BE TREATED AS BUSI NESS RECEIPTS AND THAT EXEMPTION U/S. 11 AS CLAIMED WAS NOT ALLOWABLE TO T HE APPELLANT CHARITABLE TRUST. THE LD. A.O. ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN AP PLYING PROVISO TO SECTION 2(15) WHICH IS NOT AT ALL APPLICABLE ON THE FACTS O F THE APPELLANT'S CASE. 3. IN LAW AND IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE OF APPELLANT, THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ACTION OF ASSESSING OFFICER WHO HAS APPLIED SECTION 2(15) CONSIDERING ACTIVITIES OF THE APPELLA NT IN NATURE OF TRADE AND COMMERCE WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE FACT THAT THEY AR E EDUCATIONAL ACTIVITIES. 3.1 IN LAW AND IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE OF APPELLANT, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ACTION OF ASSESS ING OFFICER WHO HAS FAILED TO APPRECIATE THE SUBMISSION FILED BEFORE HIM REGAR DING THE APPELLANT TRUST WHICH WAS ENGAGED IN PROVIDING HOSTEL FACILITY AS P ER THE CONSTITUTION AND ALSO AS ACCEPTED WHILE GRANTING REGISTRATION WAS PU RELY ACTIVITIES OF CHARITABLE PURPOSE. IT BE SO HELD NOW. 4. IN LAW AND IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE OF APPELLANT THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ACTION OF ASSESSING OFFICER WHO HAS ERRED IN DENYING THE EXEMPTION OF RS.32,68,165/- CLAIMED U/S 11(1)(D) OF THE ACT. 5. IN LAW AND IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE OF APPELLANT THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ACTION OF ASSESSING OFFICER IN CHARGING EXCESS INTEREST U/S 234A, 234B & 234C OF THE ACT WHEN NO S UCH INTEREST IS REQUIRED TO BE PAID. THE APPELLANT DENIES ITS EXCESS LIABILI TY TO PAY INTEREST. 6. IN LAW AND IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF T HE CASE OF APPELLANT THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ACTION OF ASSESSING OFFICER WHO HAS ERRED IN INITIATING PENALTY PROCEEDINGS UNDER SECTION 271(1) (C) OF THE ACT WHEN APPELLANT HAS NOT COMMITTED ALLEGED DEFAULT. THE SA ME MAY BE DIRECTED TO BE DELETED. 7. THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD, ALTER, AMEN D AND/OR WITHDRAW ANY GROUND OR GROUNDS OF CROSS APPEAL EITHER BEFORE OR DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING OF THE SAME. 3 ITA NOS. 418 & 419/AHD/2019 DESHI LOHANA VIDHYARTHI BHAVAN VS. ITO AY : 2014-15 & 2015-16 3. THE ASSESSEE IN GROUND NO. 1 HAS CHALLENGED THE VALIDITY OF THE ASSESSMENT FRAMED UNDER SECTION 143(3) READ WITH SE CTION 147 OF THE ACT BEING VOID AND DESERVES TO BE QUASHED. 4. AT THE OUTSET WE NOTE THAT THE LEARNED AR FOR TH E ASSESSEE AT THE TIME OF HEARING HAS NOT ADVANCED ANY ARGUMENT ON THIS TE CHNICAL ISSUE. ACCORDINGLY, WE DO NOT FIND ANY REASON TO ADJUDICAT E THE SAME. CONSEQUENTLY THE ISSUE RAISED IN THIS GROUND OF APP EAL IS DISMISSED BEING NOT PRESSED. 5. THE 2 ND ISSUE RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IN GROUND NO. 2 TO 4 IS THAT THE LEARNED CIT (A) ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ORDER OF TH E AO BY DENYING THE EXEMPTION UNDER SECTION 11 OF THE ACT AND TREATING THE NET RECEIPTS OF 3,10,343/- AS BUSINESS INCOME WHICH IS LIABLE TO TA X AS WELL AS DENYING THE BENEFIT CLAIMED UNDER SECTION 11(1)(D) OF THE ACT. 6. THE FACTS IN BRIEF ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE IN THE PRESENT CASE IS A PUBLIC CHARITABLE TRUST AND REGISTERED UNDER SECTION 12A A ND 80G OF THE ACT. THE TRUST WAS ENGAGED IN PROVIDING BASIC AND NECESSARY FACILITIES TO THE STUDENTS IN ORDER TO EXPEDITE THEM IN GETTING THE EDUCATION. THUS THE ASSESSEE CONSTRUCTED A BUILDING WHICH WAS USED AS HOSTEL UND ER THE NAME AND STYLE OF SHREE DESHI LOHANA VIDHARTHI BHAVAN IN THE PREMIS ES LOCATED AT KANKARIA AREA, AHMEDABAD. IN THE HOSTEL, CERTAIN FACILITIES WERE PROVIDED TO THE STUDENTS FOR LIVING, FOOD AND OTHER EDUCATIONAL HEL P. THE CAPACITY OF THE HOSTEL WAS TO ACCOMMODATE APPROXIMATELY 100 STUDENT S. 7. THE ASSESSEE, IN THE HOSTEL BUILDING, HAS ALSO C REATED A FACILITY BY CONSTRUCTING A HALL WHICH WAS BEING PROVIDED FOR SO CIAL AND OTHER ACTIVITIES TO THE MEMBERS AND THE PUBLIC. THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED THAT IT WAS NOT CHARGING ANY CONSIDERATION AGAINST THE USE OF THE HALL FACIL ITY BY THE MEMBERS AND THE 4 ITA NOS. 418 & 419/AHD/2019 DESHI LOHANA VIDHYARTHI BHAVAN VS. ITO AY : 2014-15 & 2015-16 PUBLIC EXCEPT FOR THE RECOVERY OF ELECTRICITY, GAS AND CLEANING CHARGES. HOWEVER, ANY PERSON USING THE HALL FACILITY, IF DES IRES, WAS ALLOWED TO GIVE THE DONATION TO THE TRUST. BUT THE SAME WAS NOT COM PULSORY. RATHER IT WAS THE WISH OF THE PERSON, USING THE HALL FACILITY, TO DONATE THE MONEY TO THE TRUST. THE ASSESSEE HAS RECEIVED A SUM OF 32.68 LAKHS AGAINST THE USE OF THE HALL FACILITY CREATED BY IT. THE BREAKUP OF THE SAM E STANDS AS UNDER: INCOME AMOUNT (IN RS.) TO RENTAL INCOME FROM KHIJDA POLE BLDG. & OTHERS 5,25,000 TO INTEREST RECEIVED 13,28,321 TO DONATION 32,81,165 TO ADMISSION FEES 1,705 STUDENT SUBSCRIPTION 2,50,000 MISC. INCOME 15,786 TRUST MEMBERSHIP FEES 9,618 TOTAL 54,11,595 8. THE ASSESSEE ALSO SUBMITTED THAT THE AMOUNT OF D ONATION GIVEN BY DIFFERENT PERSONS VARY PERSON TO PERSON. HAD SUCH A MOUNT BEEN IN THE NATURE OF RENT, THEN IT SHOULD HAVE BEEN FIXED AMOU NT RECOVERED FROM EACH PERSONS. THUS, THE ASSESSEE CONTENDED THAT IT IS NO T CARRYING OUT ANY ACTIVITY IN THE NATURE OF TRADE, COMMERCE AND BUSINESS. 9. HOWEVER, THE AO DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDING S OBSERVED CERTAIN FACTS AS DETAILED UNDER: I. THERE WAS NO DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE SUGGESTING THAT THE ASSESSEE IS ENGAGED IN THE CHAR ITABLE ACTIVITY BY PROVIDING EDUCATION TO THE STUDENTS. LIKEWISE, THER E WAS NO INFORMATION ON RECORD TO THE EFFECT THAT WHETHER TH E AMOUNT OF DONATION RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE WAS USED FOR CHAR ITABLE PURPOSES. 5 ITA NOS. 418 & 419/AHD/2019 DESHI LOHANA VIDHYARTHI BHAVAN VS. ITO AY : 2014-15 & 2015-16 II. THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO NOT FURNISHED THE NAME, ADDRE SS AND CONTACT DETAILS OF THE PERSONS TO WHOM THE HALL WAS LET-OUT IN ORDER TO AVOID THE ENQUIRIES WHICH COULD HAVE BEEN CONDUCTED TO ASCERTAIN THE FACT WHETHER THE RENT WAS CHARGED ON COMMERCIAL LINES. III. THE REGISTRATION UNDER SECTION 12A OF THE ACT WAS G RANTED ON THE BASIS OF THE OBJECTS MENTIONED IN THE BYLAWS OF THE TRUST WHEREIN IT WAS MENTIONED THAT THE TRUST WILL HELP AND FACILITA TE THE STUDENTS IN GETTING THE EDUCATION. THERE WAS NO MENTIONED THAT THE ASSESSEE SHALL RUN THE HOSTEL FACILITIES FOR THE STUDENTS. T HEREFORE, IT CANNOT BE CONCLUDED THAT THE ACTIVITIES OF THE SOCIETY HAV E BEEN APPROVED AS CHARITABLE BY THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER UNDER SEC TION 12 A OF THE ACT. FURTHERMORE, THE ACTIVITIES INCORPORATED I N THE OBJECTS OF THE BYE LAWS OF THE SOCIETY ARE VERIFIED DURING THE ASSESSMENT STAGE TO ENSURE WHETHER THE ACTUAL ACTIVITIES CARRIED OUT BY THE ASSESSEE ARE AS PER THE OBJECTS OF THE TRUST. 10. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE THE AO HELD THAT THE ACTIV ITY OF RENTING OUT THE HOSTEL FACILITY CANNOT BE TREATED AS THE ACTIVITY F OR HELPING AND FACILITATING THE STUDENTS IN GETTING THE EDUCATION. THE AO IN HOLDIN G SO PLACED HIS RELIANCE ON THE JUDGEMENT OF HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CA SE OF SOLE TRUSTEE, LOKA SHIKSHANA TRUST VS. CIT REPORTED IN 101 ITR 23 4. 11. THE AO FURTHER OBSERVED THAT THE ACTIVITY OF TH E ASSESSEE CAN BE CATEGORIZED AS ADVANCEMENT OF ANY OTHER OBJECT OF G ENERAL PUBLIC UTILITY BUT THE SAME SHOULD NOT BE IN THE NATURE OF TRADE COMME RCE AND BUSINESS AS PROVIDED IN THE PROVISO TO SECTION 2(15) OF THE ACT . AS PER THE AO, THE PERCENTAGE OF INCOME OVER EXPENDITURE WAS INCREASIN G EVERY YEAR AS EVIDENT FROM THE INCOME AND EXPENDITURE ACCOUNT OF VARIOUS YEARS (AYS 2011-12 TO 2015-16). THUS, THE AO HELD THAT THE ACTIVITY OF HO STEL FACILITY AND RENTING OUT 6 ITA NOS. 418 & 419/AHD/2019 DESHI LOHANA VIDHYARTHI BHAVAN VS. ITO AY : 2014-15 & 2015-16 OF THE HALL IS NOTHING BUT A COMMERCIAL ACTIVITY TH EREFORE THE SAME CANNOT BE ALLOWED EXEMPTION UNDER SECTION 11 OF THE ACT. AS S UCH, THE ASSESSEE HAS SHOWN THE RENT CHARGED FROM THE PARTIES IN THE GARB OF DONATION IN ORDER TO CLAIM THE BENEFIT OF EXEMPTION. THUS THE ULTIMATE U SE OF THE MONEY RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE FROM LETTING OUT ACTIVITY IS OF NO RELEVANCE AS PROVIDED IN THE PROVISO TO SECTION 2(15) OF THE ACT. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE THE AO DENIED THE EXEMPTION CLAIMED UNDER SECTION 11 OF THE ACT AND T REATED THE AMOUNT OF SURPLUS OF INCOME OVER THE EXPENDITURE AMOUNTING TO 3,10,343/- AS INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. 12. LIKEWISE, THE AO ALSO FOUND THAT THE AMOUNT OF DONATION OF 32,68,165/- WAS DIRECTLY TAKEN TO THE BALANCE SHEET INSTEAD OF ROUTING THROUGH THE INCOME AND EXPENDITURE ACCOUNT WHICH WA S TREATED AS CORPUS DONATION UNDER SECTION 11(1)(D) OF THE ACT. THUS TH E AO DISALLOWED THE SAME AND ADDED TO THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. 13. AGGRIEVED ASSESSEE PREFERRED AN APPEAL TO THE L EARNED CIT (A). 14. THE ASSESSEE BEFORE LEARNED CIT (A) SUBMITTED T HAT TRUST HAS BEEN ESTABLISHED IN THE YEAR 1955 AND GOT REGISTERED UND ER SECTION 12A AS CHARITABLE TRUST WITH THE OBJECT TO SPREAD EDUCATIO N. THUS ITS ACTIVITY OF PROVIDING HOSTEL TO STUDENT FALLS UNDER THE CATEGOR Y EDUCATION AND NOT THE ADVANCEMENT OF ANY OTHER OBJECT OF PUBLIC UTILITY A S ALLEGED BY THE AO. THE ASSESSEE ALSO SUBMITTED THAT IN SEVERAL CASES IT WA S HELD BY THE JUDICIAL AUTHORITY THAT THE EDUCATION FOR THE PURPOSE OF SEC TION 2(15) IS NOT ONLY LIMITED TO TRADITIONAL SCHOOLING SYSTEM. THE ASSESS EE ACCORDINGLY CONTENDED THAT THE PROVISO TO SECTION 2(15) WILL NOT APPLY IN ITS CASE AS SAME IS FOR THE CHARITABLE TRUST ENGAGED IN THE ACTIVITY OF ADVANCE MENT OF OTHER GENERAL PUBLIC UTILITY. 7 ITA NOS. 418 & 419/AHD/2019 DESHI LOHANA VIDHYARTHI BHAVAN VS. ITO AY : 2014-15 & 2015-16 15. THE ASSESSEE FURTHER SUBMITTED ITS MAIN ACTIVIT Y IS PROVIDING ACCOMMODATION TO THE STUDENT ALONG WITH FOOD AS WEL L OTHER EDUCATIONAL HELPS. THROUGH THE HOSTEL IT IS PROVIDING ACCOMMODA TION AND FOOD FACILITY TO AROUND 100 STUDENTS. THEREFORE TO RUN KITCHEN SERVI CES IT HAS INSTALLED GAS AND ELECTRICITY SERVICES. HOWEVER, OCCASIONALLY GIV ING HALL FOR USE OF MARRIAGE AND OTHER SOCIAL GATHERING WILL NOT DEVIAT E FROM ITS MAIN ACTIVITY. 16. HOWEVER, THE LEARNED CIT (A) CONFIRMED THE ACTI ON OF THE AO AFTER RELYING ON THE ORDER OF HIS PREDECESSOR FOR A.Y. 20 13-14. 17. BEING AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT (A), THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 18. THE LEARNED AR BEFORE US FILED A PAPER BOOK RUN NING FROM PAGES 1 TO 34 AND CONTENDED THAT THIS TRIBUNAL IN THE OWN CASE OF THE ASSESSEE HAS HELD THAT THE ACTIVITY OF RENTING OUT THE HOSTEL FACILIT Y TO THE STUDENTS IS EDUCATIONAL IN NATURE. THEREFORE, THE ACTIVITY OF T HE ASSESSEE CANNOT BE RE- CHARACTERIZED AS ADVANCEMENT OF ANY OTHER OBJECT OF GENERAL PUBLIC UTILITY. 18.1 THE LEARNED AR FURTHER CONTENDED THAT THE ACTI VITY OF RENTING OUT THE HALL IS INCIDENTAL ACTIVITY AND THEREFORE THE SAME CANNOT BE TREATED AS THE ACTIVITY IN THE NATURE OF TRADE OR COMMERCE. THUS T HE PROVISO ATTACHED TO SECTION 2(15) OF THE ACT CANNOT BE APPLIED THE PRES ENT CASE. FURTHERMORE, THE RECEIPT FROM THE ACTIVITY OF RENTING OF THE HALL HA S BEEN UTILIZED FOR THE EDUCATIONAL ACTIVITY ONLY. 19. ON THE OTHER HAND THE LEARNED DR BEFORE US SUBM ITTED THAT THE ACTIVITY OF RENTING OUT OF THE HOSTEL FACILITY IS NOT EDUCAT IONAL IN NATURE. MOREOVER SUCH ACTIVITY IS ALSO NOT EMANATING FROM THE OBJECT S FOR WHICH THE TRUST WAS 8 ITA NOS. 418 & 419/AHD/2019 DESHI LOHANA VIDHYARTHI BHAVAN VS. ITO AY : 2014-15 & 2015-16 REGISTERED. ACCORDINGLY, THERE WAS NO NEXUS BETWEEN THE ACTIVITY CARRIED OUT BY THE ASSESSEE VIZ A VIZ THE OBJECTS OF THE TRUST. 19.1 IT WAS MANDATORY FOR THE ASSESSEE TO MAINTAIN SEPARATE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS FOR THE ACTIVITY OF RENTING OUT THE HALL F OR SOCIAL FUNCTIONS. BUT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT DONE SO WHICH IS VIOLATION OF THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 11(4A) OF THE ACT. 19.2 THE LEARNED DR ALSO POINTED OUT THAT SUFFICIEN T DETAILS HAVE NOT BEEN FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE IN SUPPORT OF THE CORPUS DONATION RECEIVED BY IT. THE LEARNED DR VEHEMENTLY SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF TH E AUTHORITIES BELOW. 20 WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS OF BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE MATERIALS AVAILABLE ON RECORD. FROM THE PRECEDI NG DISCUSSION, WE NOTE THAT THE ASSESSEE OWNS 2 BUILDINGS. ONE OF THE BUIL DING IS LOCATED AT KHIDJA POLE AHMADABAD WHICH HAS BEEN LET OUT ON RENTAL BAS IS. THE RENT QUA TO THIS BUILDING WAS SHOWN UNDER THE HEAD INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY. 21. THE NEW BUILDING LOCATED AT KANKARIA AHMADABAD. THE BUILDING WAS COMPRISING OF HOSTELS AND THE HALL. THE HOSTEL WAS GIVEN TO THE STUDENTS TO FACILITATE THEM IN GETTING THE EDUCATION. LIKEWISE, THE HALL WAS GIVEN TO THE MEMBERS OF THE TRUST AS WELL AS TO THE OUTSIDERS ON THE OCCASION OF SOCIAL FUNCTION SUCH AS MARRIAGE. THE ISSUE IN THE PRESENT CASE REVOLVES AROUND THE ACTIVITY OF HOSTEL FACILITY CARRIED ON BY THE ASSES SEE AS WELL AS THE ACTIVITY OF RENTING OUT THE HALL. THEREFORE, WE PROCEED TO DEAL BOTH THE ISSUE SEPARATELY AND INDEPENDENTLY. 22. AS FAR AS THE ACTIVITY OF HOSTEL FACILITY BEING AN EDUCATIONAL ACTIVITY OR OTHER GENERAL PUBLIC UTILITY IS CONCERNED, THE ISSU E IS COVERED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE. THIS TRIBUNAL IN THE OWN CASE OF THE ASSE SSEE FOR THE ASSESSMENT 9 ITA NOS. 418 & 419/AHD/2019 DESHI LOHANA VIDHYARTHI BHAVAN VS. ITO AY : 2014-15 & 2015-16 YEAR 2013-14 IN CO NO. 64/AHD/2017 VIDE ORDER DATED 29-06-2020 HAS ALREADY HELD THAT THE ACTIVITY OF THE ASSESSEE PROV IDING THE HOSTEL FACILITY TO THE STUDENTS IS AN INTEGRAL PART OF EDUCATIONAL ACT IVITY. THE RELEVANT EXTRACT OF THE ORDER OF THIS TRIBUNAL IS REPRODUCED AS UNDER: '6. SHORT QUESTION REQUIRED TO BE ADJUDICATED BY TH E TRIBUNAL IS, WHETHER PROVIDING HOSTEL FACILITY TO THE STUDENTS BY APPELL ANT-TRUST IS TO BE CONSIDERED AS IMPARTING EDUCATION WITHIN THE MEANING OF SECTIO N 2(15) OF THE ACT OR IT WOULD FALL WITHIN THE CLAUSE 'ADVANCEMENT OF ANY OT HER OBJECT OF GENERAL PUBLIC UTILITY' PROVIDED IN THE PROVISO APPENDED TO SECTION 2(15) O F THE ACT. THE AO WAS OF THE OPINION THAT PROVIDING HOSTEL FACILITY IS NOT A N ACTIVITY AKIN TO EDUCATION. HENCE, THE ACTIVITY PERFORMED BY THE ASSESSEE WOULD NOT FALL WITHIN THE MEANING OF CLAUSE 2(15) GIVING MEANING OF EXPRESSIO N 'CHARITABLE PURPOSE'. HE CONSTRUED 'ADVANCEMENT OF ANY OTHER OBJECT OF GE NERAL PUBLIC UTILITY' FALLING WITHIN THE AMBIT OF PROVISO APPENDED TO SEC TION 2(15). FOR HARBOURING THIS PLEA, BASICALLY THE LD.AO HAS NOT ASSIGNED ANY REASON, RATHER SIMPLY OBSERVED THAT HOSTEL FACILITY CANNOT BE CONSTRUED A S IMPARTING EDUCATION. BEFORE CONSIDERING REASONS ASSIGNED BY THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES BELOW, WE DEEM IT APPROPRIATE TO UNDERSTAND THE MEANING AND O BJECTS OF THIS FACILITY. IT IS PERTINENT TO NOTE THAT HUMAN PERSONALITY IS SHAP ED BY THE EXPERIENCES OF LIFE. WHEN A CHILD IS BORN, FAMILY PROVIDES A PROTE CTIVE ENVIRONMENT FOR THE CHILD. AT THE BEGINNING, INTERACTIONS ARE LIMITED L ATTER SOCIAL INTERACTIONS INCREASE, AND THE PROCESS OF SOCIALIZATION STARTS. EDUCATION IS A PART OF CHILD DEVELOPMENT. THOUGH IT STARTED WITH THE BIRTH AND L ASTED TILL THE TIME OF DEATH, BUT FORMAL EDUCATION OF LANGUAGE AND OTHERS ARE BEI NG IMPARTED IN THE SCHOOL AND COLLEGES. HOSTEL IS AN ESSENTIAL INSTITUTION FO R THE STUDENTS TO STAY IN BIG CITIES AND HOSTEL PLAYS AN IMPORTANT ROLE IN EDUCAT ION AND TRAINING OF THESE STUDENTS. THEY PROVIDE RESIDENTIAL OPPORTUNITIES FO R THE STUDENTS TO CONTINUE THE PROCESS OF EDUCATION. IT IS A PLACE WHERE STUDE NTS STAY FOR PURSUING FORMAL EDUCATION AWAY FROM THEIR HOMES. THE CONCEPT OF HOS TEL IS NOT ONLY LIMITED TO PLACE OF RESIDENCE, RATHER IT IS A HUMAN PRACTICAL LABORATORY FOR DEVELOPMENT OF STUDENTS. IT IS A CENTER OF EDUCATION. STUDENTS LEA RN AS MUCH AS FROM THEIR TEACHERS AS WELL AS FELLOWS DURING HOSTEL STAY. IT ENRICHES UNDERSTANDING OF THE CURRICULUM THROUGH ANALYTICAL DISCUSSION AMONGST TH E STUDENTS LIVING IN THE HOSTELS, AND MAY CONTRIBUTE TO CHARACTER BUILDING A S WELL. STUDENTS IN HOSTEL NOT ONLY LEARN THE THEORETICAL MATERIAL, THEY ALSO LEARN HOW TO ENHANCE THEIR PERSONAL ABILITIES AND LEARN TO LIVE INDEPENDENTLY. HOSTEL LIFE HAS AN IMPACT UPON THE BEHAVIORAL AS WELL AS PERSONALITY DEVELOPM ENT OF STUDENTS. IT IS ONE OF THE ESSENTIAL COMPONENTS OF AN EDUCATIONAL INSTI TUTION. SOME OF THE INSTITUTIONS LIKE IITS, MEDICAL COLLEGES PROVIDE CO MPULSORY STAY IN THE HOSTEL. THUS, HOW THE AO CAN SEGREGATE THIS COMPONENT FROM THE CONCEPT OF 10 ITA NOS. 418 & 419/AHD/2019 DESHI LOHANA VIDHYARTHI BHAVAN VS. ITO AY : 2014-15 & 2015-16 EDUCATION PROVIDED IN THE MAIN PROVISION OF SECTION 2(15) ? IF IT IS ACCEPTED THAT HOSTEL IS JUST AN ESSENTIAL PART OF EDUCATIONA L INSTITUTION, THEN ALL THAT DISCUSSIONS MADE BY THE AO WOULD BE IRRELEVANT. THE SIMPLE REASON IS THAT ASSESSEE-TRUST CAME INTO EXISTENCE IN THE YEAR 1947 . IT HAS BEEN PROVIDING HOSTEL FACILITIES FOR MORE THAN 60 YEARS. IT HAS AL WAYS BEEN TREATED AS A CHARITABLE INSTITUTION. IN THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010 -11 A SCRUTINY ASSESSMENT WAS MADE. ITS STATUS OF 'CHARITABLE INSTITUTION' WA S ACCEPTED EVEN AFTER INTRODUCTION OF SECTION 2(15) IN THE STATUTE BOOK. NOT ONLY IT HAS BEEN TREATED AS 'CHARITABLE INSTITUTION' BY GIVING REGISTRATION UNDER SECTION 12AA OF THE ACT, BUT UNDER SECTION 80G(5) IT HAS AGAIN BEEN REC OGNIZED AS 'CHARITABLE INSTITUTION'. 7. LET US TAKE NOTE OF REASONS ASSIGNED BY THE AO. WHEN THE ASSESSEE HAS POINTED OUT THAT IT HAS BEEN GRANTED REGISTRATION U NDER SECTION 12AA AND 80G(5) OF THE ACT, THEN THE AO HAS OBSERVE D THAT SUCH REGISTRATION WAS GRANTED AFTER LOOKING INTO THE OBJECTS OF THE T RUST. THE AO OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO SUBMIT ANY EVIDENCE SHOWING THAT IT IS ACTUALLY IMPARTING EDUCATION BY CONDUCTING CLASSES. THE LD.A O FAILED TO NOTE THAT THE STAND OF THE ASSESSEE WAS ALWAYS TO THE EFFECT THAT , TO RUN HOSTEL PARTICULARLY FOR THE STUDENTS IS AN ACTIVITY ACCORDING TO THE OB JECT OF THE TRUST, AND IT IS AN AID FOR ATTAINING EDUCATIONAL OBJECTS. THE AO THERE AFTER MADE AN ANALYSIS OF ALLEGED PROFIT EARNED BY THE ASSESSEE. HE LOOKED IN TO GROSS RECEIPTS MINUS EXPENDITURE, AND SURPLUS GENERATED DURING THE YEAR. IT IS PERTINENT TO NOTE THAT SURPLUS IN THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2013-14 IS RS.1 3.82 CRORES. OTHERWISE, IN ALL OTHER YEARS, IT IS IN BETWEEN RS.2 TO 4 LAKHS. THE ASSESSEE HAS TO MAINTAIN BUILDING. IT HAS TO INCUR EXPENDITURE IN CAPITAL FI ELD. IF A SMALL PERCENTAGE OF SURPLUS IS BEING GENERATED THEN HOW ALL OF A SUDDEN THE 'CHARITABLE ACTIVITY' WOULD BECOME 'TRADE, COMMERCE OR BUSINESS' ? IF THE MAIN ACTIVITY OF THE ASSESSEE I.E. PROVIDING HOSTEL FACILITIES TO THE ST UDENTS FALL WITHIN THE AMBIT OF EXPRESSION 'EDUCATION' EMPLOYED IN THE MAIN PROVISI ON OF SECTION 2(15) THEN GENERATION OF SURPLUS WOULD BE IMMATERIAL BECAUSE U LTIMATELY IS TO BE ASCERTAINED WHETHER SURPLUS IS BEING USED FOR THE P URPOSE OF FULFILLING ALL THE OBJECTS OF THE TRUST OR NOT. IF THE SURPLUS IS BEIN G APPLIED ON THE OBJECTS OF THE TRUST OR BEING ACCUMULATED AS PROVIDED IN THE SCHEM E, THEN NOTHING IS TO BE TAXABLE. ON DUE ANALYSIS OF RECORD, WE ARE OF THE V IEW THAT THE AO HAS UNNECESSARILY CREATED AN ARTIFICIAL DISTINCTION. TH E ASSESSEE IS NOT ADMITTING OTHER PERSONS IN THE BUILDING. IT IS PROVIDING FACI LITY ONLY TO THE STUDENTS, AND THERE ARE LOTS OF RULES AND REGULATIONS, BYE-LAWS F OR ADMITTING STUDENTS, ACCORDING TO THEIR MERITS IN EDUCATION. THUS, TAKIN G INTO ACCOUNT OVERALL FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE ASSE SSEE IS ENTITLED FOR BENEFIT OF SECTIONS 11 AND 12 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT. IF THE ASSESSEE IS ENTITLED FOR BENEFIT OF SECTIONS 11 AND 12, THEN THE AMOUNT SPEN T FROM THE CORPUS FUND FOR CONSTRUCTION OF BUILDING IS ALSO TO BE LOOKED INTO WITH THAT ANGLE. WE SET ASIDE BOTH THE ORDERS OF THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES AND REST ORE THIS ISSUE TO THE FILE OF 11 ITA NOS. 418 & 419/AHD/2019 DESHI LOHANA VIDHYARTHI BHAVAN VS. ITO AY : 2014-15 & 2015-16 THE AO. THE LD.AO SHALL RE-DETERMINE TAXABLE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE AND AFTER PROVIDING BENEFIT UNDER SECTIONS 11 AND 12.' 23. IT IS ALSO PERTINENT TO NOTE THAT THERE WAS NO CHANGE IN THE AIMS AND OBJECTS OF THE TRUST. ACCORDINGLY IN VIEW OF THE AB OVE, WE HOLD THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS ENTITLED TO CLAIM EXEMPTION UNDER SECT ION 11 OF THE ACT WITH RESPECT TO ITS ACTIVITY OF RENTING OUT THE HOSTEL F ACILITIES TO THE STUDENTS BEING IN THE NATURE OF EDUCATION. 24. ONCE THE ACTIVITY OF THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN HELD AS EDUCATIONAL IN NATURE, THEN THE PROVISO TO SECTION 2(15) SHALL NOT BE APPLICABLE. THE PROVISO RESTRICTS THE EXEMPTION TO THE TRUST IF ITS ACTIVI TIES FALLS IN THE LAST LIMB I.E. ADVANCEMENT OF ANY OTHER OBJECT OF GENERAL PUBLIC U TILITY. IN OTHER WORDS, THE RESTRICTIONS IMPOSED UNDER THE PROVISO TO SECTION 2 (15) OF THE ACT CANNOT BE MADE APPLICABLE IN THE CASE ON HAND AS THE ASSESSEE IS ENGAGED IN THE ACTIVITY OF EDUCATION. FOR THIS PURPOSE, WE REFER TO THE CIR CULAR ISSUED BY THE CBDT BEARING NO. 11 OF 2008 DATED 9 DECEMBER 2008. THE R ELEVANT EXTRACT READS AS UNDER: 3. THE NEWLY INSERTED PROVISO TO SECTION 2(15) WILL APPLY ONLY TO ENTITIES WHOSE PURPOSE IS ADVANCEMENT OF ANY OTHER OBJECT O F GENERAL PUBLIC UTILITY I.E. THE FOURTH LIMB OF THE DEFINITION OF CHARITAB LE PURPOSE CONTAINED IN SECTION 2(15). 25. BESIDES THE ABOVE, WE ALSO DRAW SUPPORT AND GUI DANCE FROM THE JUDGEMENT OF HONBLE MUMBAI ITAT IN CASE OF ALL IND IA FEDERATION OF TAX PRACTITIONERS VS. ITO REPORTED IN [2021] 128 TAXMAN N.COM 379 WHEREIN IT WAS HELD AS UNDER: 12. UNDISPUTEDLY, THE AFORESAID PROVISO IS APPLICABLE FROM ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010-11. AT THE COST OF REPETITION, IT MUST BE REIT ERATED THAT FROM THE DATE OF ITS REGISTRATION AS A SOCIETY, THE OBJECTS OF THE A SSESSEE AS PER THE MEMORANDUM OF ASSOCIATION HAVE NOT CHANGED. ON THE BASIS OF SU CH OBJECTS, THE ASSESSEE ALL ALONG HAS BEEN TREATED AS A CHARITABLE ORGANIZATION FULFILLING THE CONDITIONS OF SECTION 2(15) OF THE ACT. THEREFORE, MERELY BECA USE 12 ITA NOS. 418 & 419/AHD/2019 DESHI LOHANA VIDHYARTHI BHAVAN VS. ITO AY : 2014-15 & 2015-16 THE PROVISO TO SECTION2(15) CAME INTO FORCE WITH EF FECT FROM 1-4-2009, THE ASSESSEE WOULD NOT AUTOMATICALLY LOSE ITS CHARACTER AS A CHARITABLE ORGANISATION. FURTHER, AS REGARDS APPLICABILITY OF THE AFORESAID PROVISO TO THE ASSESSEE, IT IS VERY MUCH CLEAR THAT THE SAID PROVI SO WOULD BE APPLICABLE TO THE LASTLIMB OF 'CHARITABLE PURPOSE' AS DEFINED UND ER SECTION2(15) OF THE ACT, I.E. ANY OTHER ACTIVITY OR OBJECT OF GENERAL P UBLIC UTILITY. AS PER THE MAIN OBJECT, THE ASSESSEE IS ENGAGED IN EDUCATIONAL ACTI VITY. THEREFORE, STRICTLY SPEAKING, THE PROVISO TO SECTION2(15) OF THE ACT WO ULD NOT APPLY TO THE ASSESSEE. 26. NOW THE 2 ND CONTROVERSY REVOLVES WHETHER THE INCOME GENERATED BY THE ASSESSEE FROM RENTING OUT THE HALL CAN BE CLASS IFIED AS EDUCATIONAL ACTIVITY IN THE MANNER PROVIDED UNDER SECTION 2(15) OF THE A CT. IN THIS REGARD, WE NOTE THAT THE ACTIVITY OF RENTING OUT THE HALL CANN OT BE CATEGORIZED AS EDUCATIONAL ACTIVITY BUT THE STATUS OF THE ASSESSEE WILL NOT CHANGE BEING A CHARITABLE ORGANIZATION. IT IS FOR THE REASON THAT THIS ACTIVITY IS THE ANCILLARY ACTIVITY WHICH IS SUPPORTING THE ASSESSEE TO ACHIEV E ITS GOALS OF PRIMARY ACTIVITIES. FURTHERMORE, THERE IS NO PROHIBITION UN DER THE ACT THAT THE ASSESSEE BEING A CHARITABLE ORGANIZATION CANNOT CAR RY ON THE BUSINESS WHICH IS INCIDENTAL TO THE ATTAINMENT OF THE OBJECTIVE OF THE TRUST. RATHER SUBSECTION (4A) TO SECTION 11 OF THE ACT, AUTHORIZES THE EDUCA TIONAL INSTITUTION TO CARRY ON THE BUSINESS WHICH IS INCIDENTAL TO THE ATTAINME NT OF THE MAIN OBJECTIVE OF THE TRUST. IN THIS CONNECTION, WE DRAW SUPPORT AND GUIDANCE FROM THE JUDGEMENT OF HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN CASE OF DG IT (EXEMPTION) VS. ICAI REPORTED IN [2013] 35 TAXMANN.COM 140 (DELHI): - THE EXPRESSIONS 'TRADE', 'COMMERCE' AND 'BUSINESS' AS OCCURRING IN THE FIRST PROVISO TO SECTION 2(15) MUST BE READ IN THE CONTEX T OF THE INTENT AND PURPORT OF SECTION 2(15) AND CANNOT BE INTERPRETED TO MEAN ANY ACTIVITY WHICH IS CARRIED ON IN AN ORGANISED MANNER. THE PURPOSE AND THE DOMINANT OBJECT FOR WHICH AN INSTITUTION CARRIES ON ITS ACTIVITIES IS M ATERIAL TO DETERMINE WHETHER THE SAME IS BUSINESS OR NOT. THE PURPORT OF THE FIR ST PROVISO TO SECTION 2(15) IS NOT TO EXCLUDE ENTITIES WHICH ARE ESSENTIALLY FOR C HARITABLE PURPOSE BUT ARE CONDUCTING SOME ACTIVITIES FOR A CONSIDERATION OR A FEE. THE OBJECT OF 13 ITA NOS. 418 & 419/AHD/2019 DESHI LOHANA VIDHYARTHI BHAVAN VS. ITO AY : 2014-15 & 2015-16 INTRODUCING THE FIRST PROVISO IS TO EXCLUDE ORGANIZ ATIONS WHICH ARE CARRYING ON REGULAR BUSINESS FROM THE SCOPE OF 'CHARITABLE P URPOSE' 27. WE ALSO DRAW SUPPORT AND GUIDANCE FROM THE ORDE R OF HONBLE MUMBAI ITAT IN CASE OF ALL INDIA FEDERATION OF TAX PRACTITIONERS VS. ITO (SUPRA) WHERE IT WAS HELD AS UNDER: 13. IN THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE, IT IS VERY MUCH CLEAR THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS CARRIED OUT ACTIVITIES IN FURTHERANCE OF ITS OBJECT S. IN THE PROCESS, THE ASSESSEE MIGHT HAVE EARNED SOME INCOME BY WAY OF SUBSCRIPTIO NS, SALE OF PUBLICATIONS, ETC. HOWEVER, THIS INCOME EARNING ACTIVITIES OF THE ASSESSEE CANNOT BE TREATED TO BE IN THE NATURE OF TRADE, COMMERCE OR BUSINESS. IN ANY CASE OF THE MATTER, FROM ITS VERY INCEPTION THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN GRANT ED EXEMPTION UNDER SECTION 11 OF THE ACT. ONLY, IN THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT YEARS ITS CLAIM OF EXEMPTION HAS BEEN DENIED. THOUGH, IT MAYB E A FACT THAT WHILE GRANTING EXEMPTION IN EARLIER AS WELL AS SUBSEQUENT ASSESSMENT YEARS NO SCRUTINY ASSESSMENT HAS BEEN MADE; HOWEVER, FACT RE MAINS THAT ASSESSEE'S CLAIM OF EXEMPTION HAS BEEN ACCEPTED OVER THE YEARS . FURTHER, THE ACTIVITIES/OBJECTS ON THE BASIS OF WHICH CLAIM OF E XEMPTION UNDER SECTION 11 OF THE ACT WAS ACCEPTED IN OTHER ASSESSMENT YEARS HAVE NOT CHANGED IN THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT YEARS. IN FACT, THE REGISTRATIO N GRANTED UNDER SECTION 12A OF THE ACT STILL CONTINUES. THAT BEING THE CASE, EVEN APPLYING THE RULE OF CONSISTENCY, ASSESSEE'S CLAIM OF EXEMPTION UNDER SECTION 11 OF THE ACT HAS TO BE ALLOWED. THE DECISIONS RELIED UPON BY THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE CLEARLY SUPPORTS T HIS VIEW. 28. IT WAS ALSO ARGUED BY THE LEARNED DR THAT ASSUM ING THAT THE ACTIVITY OF RENTING OUT THE HALL IS INCIDENTAL ACTIVITY BUT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT MAINTAINED SEPARATE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS AS REQUIRED UNDER THE PR OVISIONS OF SECTION 11(4A) OF THE ACT. THUS, THE ASSESSEE IS NOT ELIGIB LE FOR EXEMPTION FOR THE INCOME GENERATED FROM THE RENTING OUT OF THE HALL. IN THIS REGARD, WE NOTE THAT NONE OF THE AUTHORITY BELOW HAS TOUCHED UPON T HE ISSUE WHETHER THE ASSESSEE IS MAINTAINING SEPARATE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS OR NOT FOR THE ACTIVITY OF RENTING OUT THE HALL. ACCORDINGLY, WE ARE NOT INCLI NED TO ENTERTAIN SUCH CONTENTION OF THE LEARNED DR FOR THE REVENUE. 14 ITA NOS. 418 & 419/AHD/2019 DESHI LOHANA VIDHYARTHI BHAVAN VS. ITO AY : 2014-15 & 2015-16 29. WE ARE ALSO CONSCIOUS TO THE FACT THAT AT THE T IME OF HEARING THE LEARNED DR AND THE AR HAS CITED MANY JUDGEMENTS BUT WE DO N OT FIND NECESSARY TO INCORPORATE ALL OF THEM AS WELL AS DEAL WITH THEM I NDIVIDUALLY BUT SUFFICE TO HOLD THAT THOSE JUDGEMENTS WERE RENDERED IN THE DIF FERENT CONTEXT. THUS THE PRINCIPLES LAID DOWN THEREIN ARE NOT APPLICABLE TO THE CASE OF THE PRESENT CASE. 30. WITH RESPECT TO THE DEDUCTION CLAIMED BY THE AS SESSEE FOR RS. 32,68,165.00 BEING CORPUS FUND UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 11(1)(D) OF THE ACT, IN THIS CONNECTION WE FIND THAT IT WAS DENIED BY THE AUTHORITIES BELOW ON THE REASONING THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT ENGAGED IN T HE EDUCATIONAL ACTIVITY AND THEREFORE NO BENEFIT CAN BE EXTENDED UNDER THE PROV ISIONS OF SECTION 11(1)(D) OF THE ACT. HOWEVER, WE FIND THAT THE TRIBUNAL HAS ALREADY HELD THAT THE ACTIVITY OF THE ASSESSEE IS IN THE NATURE OF EDUCAT IONAL ACTIVITY VIDE PARAGRAPH NO. 22-23 OF THIS ORDER. FOR DETAILED DISCUSSION, P LEASE REFER THE RELEVANT PARAGRAPH. ACCORDINGLY, WE HOLD THAT THE ASSESSEE I S ELIGIBLE FOR DEDUCTION UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 11(1)(D) OF THE ACT . 31. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE AND AFTER CONSIDERING THE FACTS IN TOTALITY, WE SET ASIDE THE FINDING OF THE LEARNED CIT (A) AND DIRECT THE AO TO DELETE THE ADDITION MADE BY HIM. HENCE THE GROUND OF APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. 32. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. COMING TO ITA NO. 419/AHD/2019 AN APPEAL BY THE ASS ESSEE FOR THE AY 2015- 16 33. AT THE OUTSET WE NOTE THAT THE ISSUES RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IN ITS GROUNDS OF APPEAL FOR THE AY 2015-16 ARE IDENTICAL TO THE ISSUES RAISED BY THE 15 ITA NOS. 418 & 419/AHD/2019 DESHI LOHANA VIDHYARTHI BHAVAN VS. ITO AY : 2014-15 & 2015-16 ASSESSEE IN ITA NO. 418/AHD/2019 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2014-15. THEREFORE, THE FINDINGS GIVEN IN ITA NO. 418/AHD/20 19 SHALL ALSO BE APPLICABLE FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION I.E. AY 2015-16. THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE FOR THE ASSESSMENT 2014-15 HAS BEEN DECIDE D BY US VIDE PARAGRAPH NOS. 20-32 OF THIS ORDER IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE. THE LEARNED AR AND THE DR ALSO AGREED THAT WHATEVER WILL BE THE FINDINGS FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2014- 15 SHALL ALSO BE APPLIED FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDE RATION I.E. AY 2015-16. HENCE, THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE ALLOWED. 34. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. 35. IN THE COMBINED RESULT, BOTH THE APPEALS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE COURT ON 30 TH SEPTEMBER, 2021 AT AHMEDABAD. SD/- SD/- SD/- SD/- ( MS. MADHUMITA ROY) JUDICIAL MEMBER ( WASEEM AHMED ) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AHMEDABAD; DATED 30/09/2021 **BT / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. / THE APPELLANT 2. / THE RESPONDENT. 3. / CONCERNED CIT 4. ) ( / THE CIT(A)- 5. , , /DR,ITAT, AHMEDABAD, 6. / GUARD FILE. / BY ORDER, TRUE COPY (ASSTT. REGISTRAR) ITAT, AHMEDABAD