Samajik Jan Chetna Sewa Sansthan, Raibareli V. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Sultanpur

ITA 448/LKW/2013

• Counselvise Citation: 44823714 RSA 2013
• Duration Of Justice: 2 month(s) 4 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 22-08-2013
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Next Hearing Date: 19-08-2013
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 17-06-2013
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: ALOK MITRA
• Assessee Lawyers: P K KAPOOR
• Keywords: Period of limitation; Assessment record; Benefit of exemption; Reason to believe; Reassessment proceedings
• Section: 143(3); 12A; 12AA; 147; 148; 144; 2; 11

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL LUCKNOW BENCH SMC : LUCKNOW BEFORE SHRI SUNIL KUMAR YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. NO. 448 /LKW/2013 ASSESSMENT YEAR:0 6 - 0 7 SAMAJIK JAN CHETNA SEWA SANSTHAN, VS. DY. C.I.T., VILL. SHAHPUR, POSTKALYANPUR RAILY, CIRCLE SULTANPUR. RAE BARELI. PAN:AAEAS4496F (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI P. K. KAPOOR, C.A. RESPONDENT BY : SHRI ALOK MITRA, D.R. DATE OF HEARING : 19 /0 8 /2013 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 22/08/2013 ORDER THIS APPEAL IS PREFERRED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER OF CIT(A) , INTER ALIA, ON VARIOUS GROUNDS, WHICH ARE AS UNDER: 1. BECAUSE THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, SULTANPUR CIRCLE, SULTANPUR ERRED IN LAW AS WELL AS IN FACTS IN INITIATING THE PROCEEDINGS U/S 147 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 AND LEARNED C.I.T.(A) III, LUCKNOW HAS HELD THAT THE ACTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFIC ER WAS IN ORDER AND HE HAS DECLINED TO INTERFERE IN THE MATTER WITHOUT CALLING ANY REPORT FROM THE A SSESSING O FFICER. THE ASSESSEE'S STRESS WAS ON ONLY THIS ISSUE AS TO WHETHER THE REJECTION OF REGISTRATION U/S 12AA OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 BY C.I.T. AU TOMATICALLY DIRECTS TO THE A SSESSING O FFICER FOR INITIATION OF PROCEEDINGS U/S 2 147 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961. UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES, THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DESERVES TO BE CANCELLED OR IT SHOULD BE SET ASIDE TO THE A SSESSING O FFICER. 2. BECAUSE WITHOUT P REJUDICE TO THE ABOVE GROUND OF APPEAL, IT IS STATED THAT THE MEMBERSHIP FEE AT RS.45,000/ - AND RS.2,63,233/ - BEING DONATION AMOUNT RECEIVED BY THE SOCIETY HAS WRONGLY BEEN ADDED BY THE A SSESSING O FFICER AND THE SAME HAS BEEN CONFIRMED BY THE LEARNED C.I.T . (APPEALS). 3. BECAUSE THE APPELLANT ASSESSEE RESERVES ITS RIGHT TO ADD, DELETE OR ALTER ANY OTHER GROUND OR GROUNDS OF APPEAL WITH THE PERMISSION OF THE CHAIR BEFORE HEARING OF THE APPEAL OR AT THE TIME OF HEARING OF APPEAL. 4. BECAUSE THE ORDERS PASSED BY THE AUTHORITIES ARE UNJUST, UNREASONABLE AND ALSO BAD IN LAW. 2. THROUGH GROUND NO. 1 THE ASSESSEE HAS ASSAILED THE REOPENING OF THE ASSESSMENT U/S 147 OF THE I.T. ACT, 1961 (HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS THE ACT) ON THE GROUND THAT PROCEEDING U /S 147 WAS INITIATED ON REJECTION OF REGISTRATION U/S 12AA OF THE ACT BY CIT, THEREFORE, BEFORE ISSUING NOTICE U/S 148 OF THE ACT, THERE WAS NO BELIEF OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT INCOME CHARGEABLE TO TAX HAS ESCAPED ASSESSMENT. BESIDES , IT WAS ALSO ARGU ED THAT THERE WAS SUFFICIENT TIME FOR ISSUING NOTICE U/S 143(2) OF THE ACT FOR FRAMING A REGULAR ASSESSMENT U/S 143(2) OF THE ACT BUT THE ASSESSING OFFICER, INSTEAD OF ISSUING NOTICE U/S 143(2), HAS ISSUED NOTICE U/S 148 FOR REOPENING OF THE ASSESSMENT. I T WAS FURTHER CONTENDED BY LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SHRI PRADEEP KUMAR KAPOOR THAT THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 147 CAN ONLY BE INVOKED WHERE THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS A BELIEF THAT INCOME CHARGEABLE TO TAX HAS ESCAPED ASSESSMENT. BUT 3 IN THE ABSENCE OF ASSESSMENT NO BELIEF CAN BE FORMED THAT THAT INCOME CHARGEABLE TO TAX HAS ESCAPED ASSESSMENT. IT WAS FURTHER CONTENDED THAT THE RETURN OF INCOME FILED BY THE ASSESSEE WAS UNDER PROCESS AND THE ASSESSMENT WAS NOT FRAMED, THEREFORE, THERE CANNOT BE A BELIEF THAT INCOME CHARGEABLE TO TAX HAS ESCAPED ASSESSMENT. 3. THE LEARNED D.R., ON THE OTHER HAND , HAS INVITED OUR ATTENTION THE JUDGMENT OF HON'BLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT AND ANOTHER VS. JORA SINGH, PROP M/S KHAIRA FILLING STATION IN INCOME TAX APPEAL NO. 418 OF 2010 DATED 08/02/2013 IN WHICH THEIR LORDSHIPS OF HON'BLE JURISDICT IONAL HIGH COURT HAVE CATEGORICALLY HELD THAT OPTION IS WITH THE ASSESSING OFFICER EITHER TO FRAME REGULAR ASSESSMENT U/S 143(2) AFTER ISSUING NOTICE U/S 143(2) OR TO FRAME THE ASSESSMENT U/S 147 OF THE ACT BY ISSUING NOTICE U/S 148 OF THE ACT. THE LEARNE D D.R. SHRI ALOK MITRA FURTHER CONTENDED THAT THE REJECTION OF REGISTRATION BY THE CIT IS AN IMPORTANT FACTOR BUT IT HAS NO RELEVANCE FOR INVOKING THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 147 OF THE ACT. AFTER REJECTION OF REQUEST FOR REGISTRATION U/S 12A OF THE ACT, TH E ASSESSEE CANNOT CLAIM ANY BENEFIT U/S 11 OF THE ACT AND THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS TO ASSESS THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE IN NORMAL COURSE. THEREFORE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS RIGHTLY INVOKED THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 147 OF THE ACT . 4. HAVING GIVEN A TH OUGHTFUL CONSIDERATION TO THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND FROM A CAREFUL PERUSAL OF THE ORDERS OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES AS WELL AS THE JUDGMENT OF HON'BLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT AND ANOTHER VS. JORA SINGH, PROP M/S KHAIRA FILLING STATION (S UPRA), I AM OF THE VIEW THAT REJECTION OF REQUEST FOR REGISTRATION U/S 12AA OF THE ACT IS AN 4 IMPORTANT FACTOR TO BE TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT WHILE COMPLETING THE ASSESSMENT. AFTER DENIAL OF REGISTRATION U/S 12AA OF THE ACT, THE ASSESSEE CANNOT CLAIM THE BENEFIT /EXEMPTION U/S 11 OF THE ACT. ITS INCOME IS TO BE ASSESSED IN NORMAL COURSE. SINCE THE ASSESSEE HAS CLAIMED TO BE ENGAGED IN EDUCATIONAL ACTIVITIES, ITS CLAIM CAN BE EXAMINED IN THE LIGHT OF SECTION 10(23C)(IIIAD) & (VI) OF THE ACT . SO FAR AS ISSUE OF F RAMING OF ASSESSMENT U/S 147 OF THE ACT DESPITE THE AVAILABILITY OF TIME FOR ISSUING NOTICE U/S 143(2) OF THE ACT IS CONCERNED, THE HON'BLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT AND ANOTHER VS. JORA SINGH, PROP M/S KHAIRA FILLING STATION (SUPRA), HAS CATEGORICALLY HELD THAT AMBIT AND SCOPE OF REASSESSMENT PROCEEDING IS LIMITED AND RESTRICTED AND IF THE A SSESSING AUTHORITY IN ITS WISDOM PROCEEDS TO ASSESS THE INCOME WITH THE HELP OF LIMITED POWER, IT DOES NOT LIE IN THE MOUTH OF THE ASSESS EE TO SAY THAT THE ASSESSING AUTHORITY SHOULD HAVE EXERCISED WIDER JURISDICTION I.E. THE REGULAR ASSESSMENT PROCEEDING INSTEAD. THE RELEVANT OBSERVATIONS OF HON'BLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT ARE EXTRACTED HEREUNDER FOR THE SAKE OF REFERENCE: IN VIEW O F THE ABOVE STATUTORY PROVISIONS, THE ARGUMENT THAT NO ASSESSMENT ORDER WAS FRAMED, NO RE - ASSESSMENT PROCEEDING CAN BE INITIATED IS NOT VALID PROVIDED THE OTHER CONDITIONS OF CLAUSE (B) TO EXPLANATION - 2 ARE SPECIFIED. IN ANY VIEW OF THE MATTER, SO FAR AS T HE ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT IS CONCERNED, THE CONTROVERSY STANDS CONCLUDED BY THE DECISION OF THIS COURT IN THE CASE OF PRADEEP KUMAR HAR SARAN LAL (SUPRA). THE ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT HAS FOLLOWED THE JUDGMENT OF THE CALCUTTA HIGH COURT AND IT EXTRACTED THE RELE VANT PORTION FROM THE JUDGMENT OF THE CALCUTTA HIGH COURT IN JORAWAR SINGH BAID VERSUS CIT (ASST.) [1992] ITR 47 (CAL). THE EXTRACTED PORTION IS REPRODUCED BELOW : - 5 'SIMPLY BECAUSE THE RETURN OF THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN ACCEPTED WITHOUT SCRUTINY AND IN GOOD FAITH THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS NOT PRECLUDED FROM INITIATING A PROCEEDING SATISFYING THE CONDITIONS THEREFOR WHERE THE INCOME HAS ESCAPED ASSESSMENT. THERE IS NOTHING EITHER IN SECTION 143 OR IN SECTION 147 THAT CAN SUPPORT SUCH A VIEW. THE PROVISIONS OF A TAX STATUTE SHOULD BE INTERPRETED IN A MANNER LEADING TO THE RESULT THAT EVERYBODY PAYS HIS DUE TAX.... IN OUR VIEW, A RETURN AFTER ITS ACCEPTANCE, WHETHER IN A SUMMARY MANNER OR AFTER SCRUTINY, MAY ITSELF LEAD TO REASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS PROVIDED THE CON DITIONS FOR REASSESSMENT UNDER SECTION 147 EXIST.. IT IS NOT THE SUMMARY ACCEPTANCE OF THE RETURN UNDER SECTION 143(1)(A) THAT CAN OPERATE AS A BAR AGAINST REASSESSMENT. IT IS, RATHER, THE FURTHER DISCLOSURE MADE BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE COURSE OF PROCEEDIN GS UNDER SECTION 143(3) WHEREBY THE ASSESSEE MAY TAKE OUT HIS CASE FROM THE MISCHIEF OF SECTION 147. THEREFORE, THE SCOPE FOR INITIATING REASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS IN AN ASSESSMENT MADE UNDER SECTION 143(1)(A) IS FAR WIDER THAN IN AN ASSESSMENT UNDER SECTION 143(2) READ WITH SECTION 143(3). IN OUR VIEW, THE POWER THAT CAN BE EXERCISED UNDER SECTION 143(2) TO CORRECT THE ASSESSMENT MADE UNDER SECTION 143(1) DOES NOT EXCLUDE THE POWER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO REOPEN THE ASSESSMENT UNDER SECTION 147 IF THE I NGREDIENTS OF SECTION 147 ARE SATISFIED. IT IS OPEN TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO INVOKE THE JURISDICTION UNDER SECTION 147, NOTWITHSTANDING THE FACT THAT THERE ARE OTHER REMEDIES OPEN TO HIM UNDER THE ACT. IT CANNOT, THEREFORE, BE ACCEPTED THAT THE REASSESS MENT UNDER SECTION 147 IS VITIATED BECAUSE THE ASSESSING OFFICER FAILED TO INVOKE HIS POWER TO CORRECT THE ASSESSMENT ALREADY COMPLETED UNDER SECTION 143(1) BY ISSUING A NOTICE UNDER SECTION 143(2) OF THE ACT.' THEREAFTER, IT HAS BEEN HELD BY THIS COURT AS FOLLOWS: 'WE AGREE WITH THE ABOVE REASONING OF THE CALCUTTA HIGH COURT, IN SO FAR AS IT HAS BEEN HELD THAT SO LONG AS THE INGREDIENTS OF SECTION 147 ARE FULFILLED, THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS FREE TO INITIATE REASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS AND FAILURE TO TAKE 6 STE PS UNDER SECTION 143(2) WILL NOT RENDER THE ASSESSING OFFICER POWERLESS TO INITIATE THE REASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS.' WHILE PREPARING THE JUDGMENT, WE COULD LAY OUR HANDS ON A DIRECT DECISION OF THE APEX COURT IN THE CASE OF ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME - T AX VERSUS RAJESH JHAVERI STOCK BROKERS P. LTD., (2007) 291 ITR 500 (SC). IN THIS CASE, THE APEX COURT HAS NOTICED THE UNAMENDED SECTION 143 AND AS IT WAS AMENDED W.E.F. APRIL, 1989. IT CONSIDERED THE RELEVANT PROVISIONS RELATING TO RE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDING AS IT IS EXISTED PRIOR TO APRIL, 1ST 1989 AND THEREAFTER, IT HAS BEEN LAID DOWN THAT THE SCOPE AND EFFECT OF SECTION 147 AS SUBSTITUTED WITH EFFECT FROM APRIL 1, 1989, AS ALSO SECTIONS 148 TO 152 ARE SUBSTANTIALLY DIFFERENT FROM THE PROVISIONS AS THEY STO OD PRIOR TO SUCH SUBSTITUTION. THE RELEVANT PORTIONS FROM THE SAID JUDGMENT IS EXTRACTED BELOW: '17. THE SCOPE AND EFFECT OF SECTION 147 AS SUBSTITUTED WITH EFFECT FROM APRIL 1, 1989, AS ALSO SECTIONS 148 TO 152 ARE SUBSTANTIALLY DIFFERENT FROM THE PROVI SIONS AS THEY STOOD PRIOR TO SUCH SUBSTITUTION. UNDER THE OLD PROVISIONS OF SECTION 147, SEPARATE CLAUSES (A) AND (B) LAID DOWN THE CIRCUMSTANCES UNDER WHICH INCOME ESCAPING ASSESSMENT FOR THE PAST ASSESSMENT YEARS COULD BE ASSESSED OR REASSESSED. TO CONFE R JURISDICTION UNDER SECTION 147(A) TWO CONDITIONS WERE REQUIRED TO BE SATISFIED FIRSTLY THE ASSESSING OFFICER MUST HAVE REASON TO BELIEVE THAT INCOME PROFITS OR GAINS CHARGEABLE TO INCOME TAX HAVE ESCAPED ASSESSMENT, AND SECONDLY HE MUST ALSO HAVE REASON TO BELIEVE THAT SUCH ESCAPEMENT HAS OCCURRED BY REASON OF EITHER (I) OMISSION OR FAILURE ON THE PART OF THE ASSESSEE TO DISCLOSE FULLY OR TRULY ALL MATERIAL FACTS NECESSARY FOR HIS ASSESSMENT OF THAT YEAR. BOTH THESE CONDITIONS WERE CONDITIONS PRECEDENT TO BE SATISFIED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER COULD HAVE JURISDICTION TO ISSUE NOTICE UNDER SECTION 148 READ WITH SECTION 147(A) BUT UNDER THE SUBSTITUTED SECTION 147 EXISTENCE OF ONLY THE FIRST CONDITION SUFFICES. IN OTHER WORDS IF THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR WHATEVER REASON HAS REASON TO BELIEVE THAT INCOME HAS ESCAPED ASSESSMENT IT CONFERS JURISDICTION TO REOPEN THE ASSESSMENT. IT IS HOWEVER TO BE NOTED THAT BOTH THE CONDITIONS MUST BE FULFILLED IF THE CASE 7 FALLS WITHIN THE AMBIT OF THE PROVISO TO SECTION 147 . THE CASE AT HAND IS COVERED BY THE MAIN PROVISION AND NOT THE PROVISO. 18. SO LONG AS THE INGREDIENTS OF SECTION 147 ARE FULFILLED, THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS FREE TO INITIATE PROCEEDING UNDER SECTION 147 AND FAILURE TO TAKE STEPS UNDER SECTION 143(3) WIL L NOT RENDER THE ASSESSING OFFICER POWERLESS TO INITIATE REASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS EVEN WHEN INTIMATION UNDER SECTION 143(1) HAD BEEN ISSUED.' THE VIEW TAKEN BY US, IN THE PRESENT APPEAL IS IN CONSONANCE OF THE JUDGMENT IN THE CASE OF ASSISTANT COMMISSIONE R OF INCOME - TAX VERSUS RAJESH JHAVERI STOCK BROKERS P. LTD. (SUPRA) HOLDING THAT FAILURE TO TAKE STEPS UNDER SECTION 143(3) WILL NOT RENDER THE ASSESSING OFFICER POWERLESS TO INITIATE REASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS EVEN WHEN INTIMATION UNDER SECTION 143(1) HAD B EEN ISSUED. HAVING REGARD TO WHAT HAS BEEN SAID ABOVE, WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL HOLDING THAT THE NOTICE UNDER SECTION 147 OF THE ACT DATED 4TH JULY, 2006 IS INVALID IS LEGALLY NOT CORRECT. ON A QUERY PUT BY THE COURT, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE IF THE RECOURSE TO SECTION 143(3) WOULD HAVE BEEN BARRED BY TIME, THERE WOULD HAVE BEEN NO RESTRICTION TO INITIATE THE RE - ASSESSMENT PROCEEDING UNDER SECTION 147 OF THE ACT. WE MAY ADD THAT THERE IS NOTHING ONLINE PLAIN LANGUAGE O R SECTION 43 OF THE ACT WHICH MAY SUGGEST THAT THE RECOURSE TO SECTION 147 CAN BE HAD ONLY WHEN THE PERIOD OF LIMITATION TO COMPLETE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDING HAS EXPIRED OR THE APPELLATE AUTHORITY SHOULD WAIT FOR THE EXPIRY OF THE SAID PERIOD. THE SAID ARGUME NT IS RIDICULOUS AND NOT ACCEPTABLE. THE AMBIT AND SCOPE OF RE - ASSESSMENT PROCEEDING IS LIMITED AND RESTRICTED AND IF THE ASSESSING AUTHORITY IN ITS WISDOM PROCEEDS TO ASSESS THE INCOME WITH THE HELP OF LIMITED POWER, IT DOES NOT LIE IN THE MOUTH OF THE AS SESSEE TO SAY THAT THE ASSESSING AUTHORITY SHOULD HAVE EXERCISED WIDER JURISDICTION I.E. THE REGULAR ASSESSMENT PROCEEDING INSTEAD. 8 5. SINCE THE CONTROVERSY IN THIS REGARD HAS BEEN SET AT REST BY HON'BLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT THROUGH THE AFORESAID JU DGMENT, I FIND NO MERIT IN THE ARGUMENT OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE REOPENING OF THE ASST IS NOT VALID. ACCORDINGLY, I CONFIRM THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) IN THIS REGARD. 6. DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING OF THE APPEAL, THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMIT TED THAT HE HAS NOT BEEN SUPPLIED WITH THE COPY OF THE REASONS RECORDED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR REOPENING OF THE ASSESSMENT. IN SUPPORT THEREOF HE HAS INVITED MY ATTENTION TO THE LETTER DATED 13/06/2013 WRITTEN TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR SUPPLYING T HE REASONS. THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE FURTHER CONTENDED THAT IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE, THE REVENUE MAY BE DIRECTED TO SUPPLY THE COPY OF REASONS AND THE MATTER MAY BE REMANDED BACK TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR DISPOSAL OF THE OBJECTIONS TO BE FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE REASONS RECORDED AND THEREAFTER TO FRAME THE ASSESSMENT AFRESH. THE LEARNED D.R. STRONGLY OPPOSED THIS CONTENTION OF THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE WITH THE SUBMISSIONS THAT THE REASONS CAN ONLY BE SOUGHT FOR FILIN G THE OBJECTION DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS AND NOT DURING THE PENDENCY OF THE SECOND APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. 7. I HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND FROM A PERUSAL OF RECORD, I FIND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT TAKEN ANY SPECIFIC GROUN D IN THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL WITH REGARD TO RECORDING OF REASONS BEFORE INITIATING THE PROCEEDINGS U/S 147 OF THE ACT. MOREOVER, THERE IS NO CASE OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE REASONS WERE NEVER RECORDED BEFORE INITIATING THE PROCEEDINGS U/S 147 OF THE ACT. HE SIMPLY WANTS TO EXAMINE THE REASONS 9 RECORDED FOR REOPENING OF THE ASSESSMENT. INSTEAD OF SENDING A LETTER BY POST TO THE ASSESS ING OFFICER BEFORE FILING OF THE APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL AND AFTER DISPOSAL OF THE APPEAL BY THE CIT(A), THE ASSESSEE COULD HAVE INSPECTED THE ASSESSMENT RECORD AND HAVE TAKEN A SPECIFIC GROUND CHALLENGING THE REOPENING OF THE ASSESSMENT BEFORE THE TRIB UNAL BUT HE OPTED NOT TO DO SO. EVEN TILL DATE HE HAS NOT MADE ANY EFFORT TO INSPECT THE ASSESSMENT RECORD TO FIND OUT THE SPECIFIC DEFECT IN THE REASONS RECORDED FOR REOPENING OF THE ASSESSMENT. THEREFORE , I FIND NO MERIT IN THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESS EE THAT THE COPY OF REASONS BE SUPPLIED TO HIM SO THAT HE CAN FILE OBJECTION AND THE MATTER MAY BE SENT BACK TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR DISPOSAL OF THE OBJECTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THIS EXERCISE CAN BE DONE AT THE TIME OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS W HERE THE ASSESSEE CAN ASK THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO SUPPLY THE COPY OF REASONS RECORDED FOR REOPENING OF THE ASSESSMENT AND ON ITS RECEIPTS HE CAN FILED THE OBJECTIONS. IN THAT SITUATION, THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS DUTY BOUND TO DISPOSE OF THE OBJECTION FILE D BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE COMPLETING THE ASSESSMENT BUT THIS OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE CANNOT BE AFFORDED AT THE SECOND APPELLATE STAGE AS THE ASSESSEE REMAINED SILENT IN THIS REGARD UPTO FIRST APPELLATE STA G E. I, THEREFORE, FIND NO MERIT IN THE CONTENTI ON OF THE ASSESSEE AND ACCORDINGLY REJECT THE SAME. 8. WITH REGARD TO GROUND NO. 2 RELATING TO AN ADDITION OF MEMBERSHIP FEES AND DONATION AMOUNT RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE, IT IS NOTICED THAT BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT RESPONDED AND THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS CONSTRAINED TO FRAME THE ASSESSMENT U/S 147 READ WITH SECTION 144 OF THE ACT. BEFORE THE CIT(A), THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED A CLAIM U/S 10(23C)(IIIAD) & (VI) OF THE ACT WITH THE SUBMISSIONS THAT THE 10 ENTIRE RECEIPTS OF THE ASSESSEE BE EXEMPTED FROM TAX AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 10(23C)(IIIAD) & (VI) OF THE ACT BUT WHILE ADJUDICATING THE ISSUE THE CIT(A) HAS EXCLUDED THE SCHOOL FEES OF ` 1,11,000/ - FROM THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE AFTER ALLOWING EXEMPTION U/S 10(23C)(IIIAD) OF THE ACT BUT WITH REGARD TO THE OTHER RECEIPTS I.E. MEMBERSHIP FEES RECEIPTS OF ` 45,000/ - AND DONATION OF ` 2, 5 3, 233 / - , THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS TREATED THE SAME AS THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. NOW THE ASSESSEE HAS A GRIEVANCE WITH REGARD TO THE ADDITIO N OF ` 45,000/ - MEMBERSHIP RECEIPT AND ` 2,53,233/ - RECEIVED AS DONATION WHICH WAS ADDED TO THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. IN THIS REGARD THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS CONTENDED THAT THE MATTER MAY BE RESTORED TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER SO THAT THE ASSESSEE CAN PLACE THE RELEVANT EVIDENCE IN THIS REGARD. 9. THE LEARNED D.R., ON THE OTHER HAND, HAS CONTENDED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN DENIED THE REGISTRATION U/S 12AA OF THE ACT, THEREFORE, HE CANNOT GET THE BENEFIT OF EXEMPTION U/S 11 OF TH E ACT. AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 10(23C)(IIIAD) & (VI) OF THE ACT, ONLY THE TUITION FEES CAN BE EXEMPTED AND THE OTHER RECEIPTS WOULD BE CHARGEABLE TO TAX AS INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. 10. DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING OF THE APPEAL THE LEARNED COUNSE L FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS SIMPLY PRAYED FOR THE RESTORATION OF THE MATTER TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO PROVE THE GENUINENESS OF THE MEMBERSHIP RECEIPTS AND DONATION RECEIVED FROM VARIOUS DONORS. BUT FROM THE PERUSAL OF THE ORDER OF CIT(A), I FIND THAT CIT(A) HAS NEVER DOUBTED THE GENUINENESS OF THE MEMBERSHIP RECEIPTS AND THE DONATION RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE SOCIETY. THEREFORE, NO PURPOSE WOULD BE SERVED IN SENDING THE 11 MATTER BACK TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THE SOLE ISSUE RAISED BEFOR E US IS THAT UNDER WHICH SECTION THE MEMBERSHIP RECEIPTS AND THE DONATIONS CAN BE EXEMPTED FROM THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE SOCIETY. IN THIS REGARD, THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT POINT OUT ANY SECTION UNDER WHICH IT CAN CLAIM THE EXEM PTION OF THE SA ID RECEIPT S FROM ITS TAXABILITY. I, THEREFORE, AM OF THE VIEW THAT THE CIT(A) HAS RIGHTLY ADJUDICATED THE ISSUE AND I DO NOT FIND ANY INFIRMITY THEREIN. ACCORDINGLY, I CONFIRM THE SAME. 11. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DI SMISSED. (ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 22/08/2013 ) SD/. (SUNIL KUMAR YADAV) JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED: 22/08/2013 *CL SINGH COPY FORWARDED TO THE: 1. APPELLANT. 2. RESPONDENT. 3. CIT (A) 4. CIT 5. DR. ASSISTANT REGISTRAR