GRAM VIKAS EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY , FEROZPUR V. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS), CHANDIGARH

ITA 470/ASR/2018

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 115 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 8395 (ITAT-AMRITSAR)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 20 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 09-10-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Next Hearing Date: 29-08-2019
• Assessment Year: 2017-2018
• Appeal Filed On: 19-09-2018
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SANDEEP C HAUHAN LD
• Assessee Lawyers: P N ARORA LD
• Keywords: Question of law; Set aside
• Section: 12AA; 12

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNA L AMRITSAR BENCH, AMRITSA R BEFORE SH. B.R. BASKARAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AN D SH. N.K.CHOUDHRY, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO.470/ASR/2018 ASSESSMENT YEAR:NIL GRAM VIKAS EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY VILLAGE PALLA MEGHA FEROZEPUR CITY, PUNJAB [PAN:AABTG 7217L] VS. CIT, (EXEMPTION) CHANDIGARH (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SH. P. N. ARORA (LD. ADV.) RESPONDENT BY: SH. SANDEEP CHAUHAN (LD. CIT- DR) DATE OF HEARING: 29.08.2019 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 09.10.2019 ORDER PER N.K.CHOUDHRY, JM: THE INSTANT APPEAL HAS BEEN PREFERRED BY THE ASSESSEE SOCI ETY AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 31.07.2018 IMPUGNED HEREIN PASSED BY THE LD. CIT(EXEMPTIONS), CHANDIGARH, U/S 12AA OF THE I.T. ACT, 1961 (HEREINAFTER CALLED AS THE ACT) WHEREBY THE APPLICATI ON U/S 12AA OF THE ACT WAS REJECTED. 2. IN THE INSTANT CASE, THE LD. CIT(E) REJECTED THE APPLICA TION FILED BY THE ASSESSEE SOCIETY MAINLY ON THE REASON THAT THE APPL ICANT SOCIETY HAS BEEN CLAIMING EXEMPTION U/S 10(23C)(IIIAD) OF THE I.T. ACT. THE LD. CIT(E) OBSERVED THAT ACTUALLY AS PER THE SCHEME OF THE ACT, THE CONVERSE IS TRUE. FOR CASES CLAIMING AUTOMATIC EXEMPTION U/S 10(23C)(IIIAD) APPROVAL U/S 10(23C)(VI) IS TO BE SO UGHT ON RECEIPTS CROSSING ITA N0.470/ASR/ 2018 GRAM VIKAS EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY VS . CIT(E) 2 THE THRESHOLD OF RS.1 CRORE. THE APPLICANT HAD ALL THE REASONS TO APPLY FOR EXEMPTION UNDER THE PROVISION OF SECTION 10(23C)(VI ) FOLLOWING THE STATUTORY PROVISIONS. THIS ISSUE NEEDS TO BE SEEN I N LIGHT OF THE FACT THAT NUMEROUS YEARS IN THE PAST THE SOCIETY HAS BEEN FIL ING RETURNS AND CLAIMING EXEMPTION U/S 10(23C)(IIIAD) . THE LD. CIT(E) ALSO OBSERVED THAT JUDICIAL PRECEDENTS HAVE ALLOWED PURSUANCE OF ALTER NATIVE CLAIMS EITHER FOR 12AA OR 10(23C) BUT AT THE SAME TIME HA VE NOT ALLOWED SHIFTING FROM ONE PROVISION TO THE OTHER WHEN THE APPLICANT HAS CONSISTENTLY AVAILED BENEFITS FOR A NUMBER OF YEARS UNDER SECTIO N 10(23C)(IIIAD). NATURAL PROGRESSION ENTAILS AND ENTITLES THE EDUCAT IONAL SOCIETIES TO GO FOR 10(23C)(VI) IN SUCH CASES. IT IS ALSO RELEVANT IN T HE PARTICULAR CASE THAT THE CHARACTER AND OBJECTS OF THE APPLICANT HAVE NOT CHA NGED TO WARRANT A CHANGE IN THE CODE OF EXEMPTION THAT HAS A COMPLETE LY DIFFERENT SET OF CONDITIONS. THIS CONTENTION OF THE APPLICANT IS CER TAINLY NOT ACCEPTABLE . 3. HAVING HEARD THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL A VAILABLE ON RECORD. WE OBSERVE THAT THE CO-ORDINATE BENCH IN THE CA SE OF CIT (E), CHANDIGARH VS. KHATU JI PARA MEDICAL TECHNOLOGY EDUCA TIONAL & RESEARCH SOCIETY IN ITA NO. 593/ASR/ 2016 DECIDED 31.08. 2017 DEALT WITH IDENTICAL SITUATION AND ANALYZED THE SIMILAR OBSER VATION OF THE LD. CIT(E) FOR DECLINING THE REGISTRATION U/S 12AA OF THE ACT. THE ORDER PASSED BY THE CO-ORDINATE BENCH IN THE AFORESAID CASE WAS CHALLENGED BEFORE THE HONBLE PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT AND HON' BLE HIGH COURT VIDE ITS JUDGMENT DATED 8 TH APRIL, 2019 IN APPEAL NO.141/2018 [2019]106 TAXMANN.COM 344 (P&H) UPHELD THE FINDING OF THE TRIBUNAL. FOR THE SAKE OF BREVITY AND READY REFERENCE THE RELEVANT PART OF THE ORDER IS REPRODUCED HEREIN BELOW. ITA N0.470/ASR/ 2018 GRAM VIKAS EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY VS . CIT(E) 3 2. A FEW FACTS NECESSARY FOR ADJUDICATION OF THE I NSTANT APPEAL AS NARRATED THEREIN MAY BE NOTICED. THE ASSE SSEE IS AN EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY REGISTERED ON 19.9.2003 UNDER T HE SOCIETIES REGISTRATION ACT, 1860 AND SINCE 2003 HAS BEEN RUNN ING EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTES FOR EDUCATION. IT FILED AN A PPLICATION DATED 15.3.2016 IN FORM 10A FOR REGISTRATION UNDER SECTIO N 12AA OF THE ACT. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS) [F OR BREVITY 'THE CIT(E)'] VIDE ORDER DATED 30.9.2016 (ANNEXURE A-L) REJECTED THE SAID APPLICATION BY OBSERVING AS UNDER: 8 XX XX XX (Z) SELF CONFESSEDLY THE SOLE OBJECT OF THE SOCIETY HAS BEEN PROJECTED AS PROVIDING EDUCATION. IN THAT CONTEXT T HE APPLICANT HAD ALL REASONS TO APPLY FOR EXEMPTION UN DER THE PROVISION OF SECTION 10(23C) (VI) RATHER THAN 12AA. THIS ISSUE GETS CORROBORATED WHEN FOR THE PAST NUMEROUS YEARS THE SOCIETY HAS BEEN FILLING RETURNS AND CLAIMING E XEMPTION U/S 10(23C)(IIIAD). IN ANSWER TO A SPECIFIC QUERY S EEKING THE RATIONALE FOR APPLICATION U/S 12AA IT HAS BEEN STATED THAT SINCE THE RECEIPTS ARE BELOW 1 CRORE THE SOCIE TY IS CLAIMING EXEMPTION U/S 10(23C)(IIIAD). THIS FOLLOWI NG THE STATUTORY PROVISIONS WOULD HAVE NECESSITATED AN APPLICATION U/S 10(23C)(VI) AS PER THE SCHEME OF TH E I.T. ACT, 1961. IS IT THE CASE THAT THE MOMENT RECEIPTS EXCEEDED RS.1 CRORE THE INSTITUTION HAS CEASED TO BE EXISTIN G 'SOLELY FOR EDUCATIONAL PURPOSES' AND 'NOT FOR PROFITS'. (II) ALTHOUGH THE JUDICIAL PRECEDENTS HAVE ALLOWED ALTERNATIVE CLAIMS EITHER FOR 12AA OR 10(23C) BUT A T THE SAME TIME HAVE NOT ALLOWED SHIFTING FROM ONE PROVIS ION TO THE OTHER WHEN THE APPLICANT HAS CONSISTENTLY AVAIL ED BENEFITS FOR A NUMBER OF YEARS UNDER SECTION 10(23C ) (IIIAD). NATURAL PROGRESSION ENTAILS AND ENTITLES T HE EDUCATIONAL SOCIETIES TO GO FOR 10(23C)(VI) IN SUCH CASES. THERE ARE NO FRESH CIRCUMSTANCES PROJECTED THAT WOU LD WARRANT EXAMINATION OF THE ELIGIBILITY OF THE INSTI TUTION UNDER A DIFFERENT CODE WITH DIFFERENT CONDITIONALIT IES. 9. NOTWITHSTANDING THE SAME, THE CLAIM FOR REGIS TRATION U/S 12AA WAS EXAMINED. THE AUDITED ACCOUNTS REVEALS THAT OVER THE PERIOD OF TIME THE EMPHASIS OF THE SO CIETY IS MAINLY ON CREATION OF ASSETS RATHER THAN ON REDEPLO YMENT OF FUNDS TOWARDS EDUCATION. THE INCOME & EXPENDITUR E STATEMENTS AND BALANCE SHEETS FURTHER INDICATE THAT DURING THE F.YS. 2014-15 AND 2015-16 THE EMPHASIS O F THE SOCIETY HAS BEEN MAINLY ON ADDING TO THEIR CAR, MOT ORCYCLE, SCOOTER.' ITA N0.470/ASR/ 2018 GRAM VIKAS EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY VS . CIT(E) 4 3. FEELING AGGRIEVED, THE ASSESSEE FILED AN APPEAL BE FORE THE TRIBUNAL. THE TRIBUNAL VIDE ORDER DATED 31.8.2017 ( ANNEXURE A- 2) ALLOWED THE APPEAL AND DIRECTED THE CIT(E) TO GR ANT REGISTRATION UNDER SECTION 12AA OF THE ACT TO THE ASSESSEE. HENC E, THE PRESENT APPEAL. 4. WE HAVE HEARD LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE APPELLANT AND DO NOT FIND ANY MERIT IN THE APPEAL. 5. THE TRIBUNAL HAS NOTICED THAT THE CIT(E) WAS NOT CO RRECT TO THE EXTENT THAT THE ASSESSEE WOULD HAVE APPLIED UND ER SECTION 10(23C) OF THE ACT INSTEAD OF SECTION 12AA OF THE A CT BECAUSE THE APEX COURT AS WELL AS JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT HAD CLEARLY HELD THAT WHERE THE ASSESSEE WAS RUNNING HOSPITAL OR SCH OOL AND IF BOTH THE OPTIONS WERE AVAILABLE BEFORE IT, I.E., EI THER TO APPLY FOR EXEMPTION UNDER SECTION 10(23C) OF THE ACT OR CLAIM EXEMPTION UNDER SECTION 12AA OF THE ACT, IT WAS NOT JUSTIFIED TO DECLINE EXEMPTION UNDER SECTION 12AA THAT IT SHOULD HAVE CL AIMED EXEMPTION UNDER SECTION 10(23C) OF THE ACT. FOR GRA NTING EXEMPTION UNDER SECTION 12AA OF THE ACT, THE CIT(E) HAD TO SATISFIED HIMSELF ABOUT THE OBJECTS AND THE GENUINE NESS OF THE ACTIVITIES OF THE ASSESSEE AND ONCE THE CIT(E) HAVI NG ACCEPTED THAT THE MAIN AIM OF THE SOCIETY WAS RUNNING OF COL LEGE AND EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTIONS AND MADE NO ADVERSE OBSERV ATION REGARDING GENUINENESS OF THE OBJECTS OR THE ACTIVIT IES CARRIED ON BY THE SOCIETY, THEN THE REGISTRATION UNDER SECTION 12AA OF THE ACT COULD NOT HAVE BEEN DENIED HOLDING THAT IT WAS ENTI TLED TO EXEMPTION UNDER ANY OTHER PROVISION. WITH REGARD TO THE FINDING OF THE CIT(E) THAT THE EMPHASIZE OF THE SOCIETY WAS MAINLY CREATION OF ASSETS RATHER THEN REDEPLOYMENT OF FUND S TOWARDS EDUCATION, THE TRIBUNAL HAD NOTICED THAT DURING THE FINANCIAL YEAR 2014-15 VALUE OF CAR, MOTORCYCLE AND SCOOTER WERE R S. 2.17 LAKHS AND IN 2015- 16, IT WERE RS. 2.30 LAKHS AND THE SOC IETY SURPLUS AMOUNT WAS @ 5.52% ONLY, WHICH CANNOT BE TERMED AS HIGHER AND CERTAINLY TO RUN INSTITUTE, THE VEHICLES WERE R EQUIRED. FURTHER, THE APPREHENSION AND ASSUMPTION OF THE CIT(E) THAT THE SOCIETY MUST BE CHARGING SOME FUNDS, WAS BASED ON THE ASSUM PTION AND SURMISES AND HAD NO LOGICAL REASONING. ACCORDINGLY, THE TRIBUNAL HAS RIGHTLY DIRECTED THE CIT(E) TO GRANT REGISTRATI ON UNDER SECTION 12AA OF THE ACT TO THE ASSESSEE. THE FINDINGS RECOR DED BY THE TRIBUNAL READ THUS: '6. WE HAVE GONE THROUGH THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCE S OF THE CASE AND RIVAL SUBMISSIONS OF THE PARTIES AS WE LL AS DOCUMENTS AVAILABLE ON RECORD AND ORDER PASSED BY T HE LD. CIT(E). IN THE INSTANT CASE, OBJECT OF THE ASS ESSEE IS NOT IN DOUBT. THE OBSERVATION OF THE ASSESSEE CIT(E) IS NOT CORRECT TO THE EXTENT THAT THE ASSESSEE WOULD HAVE APPLIED U/S 10(23C) OF THE ACT INSTEAD OF SEC.L2AA OF THE ACT BECAUSE THE APEX COURT AS WELL ITA N0.470/ASR/ 2018 GRAM VIKAS EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY VS . CIT(E) 5 AS JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT CLEARLY HELD THAT WHER E THE ASSESSEE TRUST RUNNING HOSPITAL OR SCHOOL AND I F BOTH THE OPTIONS AVAILABLE BEFORE IT I.E., EITHER T O APPLY FOR EXEMPTION U/S 10(23C) OR CLAIM EXEMPTION U/S 12AA OF THE ACT THEREFORE IT IS NOT JUSTIFIED TO DECLINE EXEMPTION U/S 12AA ON THE GROUND THAT IT SHOULD HAVE CLAIMED EXEMPTION U/S 10(23C) . IT IS SETTLED LAW THAT FOR THE PURPOSE OF GRANTING REGISTRATION U/S 12AA, SCOPE OF POWERS OF THE LD. C IT(E) IS LIMITED TO BE BEING SATISFIED ABOUT THE OBJECTS AND THE GENUINENESS OF THE ACTIVITIES OF THE ASSESSEE AND O NCE THE CIT(E) HAVING ACCEPTED THAT THE MAIN AIM OF THE SOC IETY IS RUNNING OF COLLEGE AND EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTIONS AND MADE NO ADVERSE OBSERVATION REGARDING GENUINENESS OF THE OBJECTS OR THE ACTIVITIES CARRIED ON BY THE SOCIETY THEN REGISTRATION U/S 12AA COULD NOT BE DENIED ON THE GR OUND THAT IT WAS ENTITLED EXEMPTION UNDER ANY OTHER PROV ISION. FURTHER IN THE CASE OF CIT V. BOSOTTO BROTHERS LIMI TED [1940 ] 8 ITR 41 (MAD ). HON'BLE MADRAS HIGH COURT HELD THAT IF A CASE APPEARS TO BE GOVERNED BY EITHER OF TWO PROVISIONS, IT IS CLEARLY THE RIGHT OF THE ASSESSEE TO CLAIM THAT HE SHOULD BE TAXED UNDER THAT ONE WHICH LEAVES HIM WITH A LIGHTER BURDEN. MEANING THEREBY, IF, EXEMPTI ON IS AVAILABLE TO THE ASSESSEE IN TWO OR MORE SECTIONS T HEN THE CHOICE IS FOR THE ASSESSEE UNDER WHICH SECTION EXEM PTION HAS TO BE CLAIMED. WITH REGARD TO THE ANOTHER OBJEC TION OF LD. CIT(E), OUR ATTENTION WAS DRAWN BY THE LD. AR T O THE AUDITED BALANCE SHEET, WHERE IT IS CLEARLY SHOWN TH AT DURING THE F.Y. 2015-16 VALUE OF CAR, MOTORCYCLE AN D SCOTER WERE 2.17 LAKH AND IN 2015-16 IT WERE 2.30 L AKH AND THE SOCIETY SURPLUS AMOUNT WAS @ 5.52 % ONLY. W E ARE IN AGREEMENT WITH THE ASSESSEE THAT THE SURPLUS @ 5.52 % CANNOT BE TERMED AS HIGHER AND CERTAINLY TO RUN AN INSTITUTE, THE VEHICLES ARE REQUIRED, THEREFORE, TH E OBSERVATION OF THE CIT(E) IS NOT CORRECT TO THE EXT ENT THAT THE EMPHASIZED OF THE SOCIETY HAS BEEN MAINLY TO AD D CAR, MOTORCYCLE AND SCOOTER. IN FACT TOTAL RECEIPTS HAD BEEN SHOWN AT RS. 182,76,252/- DURING THE F.Y. 2015-16, HOWEVER, THE VALUE OF THE CAR, MOTORCYCLES AND SCOO TER WERE 2.30 LAKH ONLY, THEREFORE, WE ARE OF THE CONSI DERED OPINION THAT OBSERVATION OF THE CIT(E) WAS NOT CORR ECT. ANOTHER OBSERVATION OF THE CIT(E) WAS THAT THE SOCI ETY IS MAINLY EMPHASIZING FOR CREATION OF FIXED ASSETS RAT HER THAN REDEPLOYMENT FUNDS TOWARDS EDUCATION. THE LD. AR DRAWN OUR ATTENTION REGARDING THE RECEIPTS, THE AVE RAGE ANNUAL FEE FOR THE F.Y. 2015-16 CHARGED BY THE ASSE SSEE WAS AT RS. 16,525 PER STUDENT FOR IIT, B.COM STUDEN TS AND RS. 4,559 PER STUDENT FOR B.CA COURSES. AVERAGE ANN UAL ITA N0.470/ASR/ 2018 GRAM VIKAS EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY VS . CIT(E) 6 FEE FOR THE F.Y. 2015-16 WAS RS. 34,157 PER STUDENT ONLY AND THE FEE BEING CHARGED IS QUITE REASONABLE AND I S LESS THAN THE FEES PRESCRIBED BY THE CONTROLLING GOVT. B ODIES. THE LD. AR ALSO DREW OUR ATTENTION THAT THE ASSESSE E'S INSTITUTES HAVE ALSO BEEN APPROVED/AFFILIATED BY/WI TH GOVT. AUTHORITIES ON FULFILLMENT OF THE NORMS AND C ONDITIONS AND ADHERENCE THERETO. ON THE AFORESAID CONSIDERATI ON, WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION, THAT THE APPREHENSIO N AND ASSUMPTION OF THE CIT(E) THAT SOCIETY MUST BE CHARG ING SOME FUNDS, JUST BASED ON THE ASSUMPTION AND SURMIS ES AND HAVE NO LOGICAL REASONING. FURTHER OBSERVATION WITH REGARD TO SALARY STRUCTURE AND QUALITY OF EDUCATION , WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT LOWER SALARY CANNOT BE MADE BEST T O CONCLUDE THAT QUALITY OF EDUCATION HAS BEEN COMPRIS ED AND NOT IN SYNC WITH THE INSTRUCTION ISSUED BY MAHA RAJA RANJIT SINGH STATE TECHNICAL UNIVERSITY, BATHINDA, WHILE PROVIDING AFFILIATION TO AN ENTITY. ON THE AFORESAI D OBSERVATION AND CONCLUSION, WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERE D VIEW THAT THE ASSESSEE IS ENTITLED TO GET REGISTRATION U /S 12AA OF THE ACT AND HENCE, WE DIRECT THE LD. CIT(E) TO G RANT REGISTRATION TO THE ASSESSEE SOCIETY. 6. NO ILLEGALITY OR PERVERSITY COULD BE POINTED OUT BY THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE REVENUE IN THE AFORESAID FI NDINGS RECORDED BY THE TRIBUNAL WHICH MAY WARRANT INTERFER ENCE BY THIS COURT. NO SUBSTANTIAL QUESTION OF LAW ARISES IN THE APPEAL. CONSEQUENTLY, FINDING NO MERIT IN THE APPEAL, THE S AME IS HEREBY DISMISSED. NEEDLESS TO SAY, IT SHALL BE OPEN FOR TH E REVENUE TO INITIATE ACTION UNDER SUB-SECTION (3) TO SECTION 12 AA OF THE ACT FOR WITHDRAWAL/CANCELLATION OF THE REGISTRATION GRANTED HEREINABOVE, IN CASE IT COMES TO THE NOTICE OF THE REVENUE THAT THE ACTIVITIES UNDERTAKEN BY THE ASSESSEE ARE NOT GENUINE OR ARE N OT BEING CARRIED OUT IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE OBJECTS OF THE T RUST OR INSTITUTION OR ARE NOT CHARITABLE IN NATURE IN TERM S OF THE PROVISIONS OF THE ACT. ' 3.1 WHILE PERUSING THE JUDGMENT OF THE HONBLE HIGH COURT IT TRANSPIRES THAT THE HONBLE COURT HAS UPHELD THE DECISIO N ON THE SIMILAR AND IDENTICAL ISSUE AS RAISED BY THE LD. CIT(E) I N THE INSTANT CASE AND THE HONBLE HIGH COURT HAS UPHELD THE FINDING O F THIS TRIBUNAL TO THE EFFECT THAT THE LD. CIT(E) WAS NOT JU STIFIED TO DECLINE THE EXEMPTION U/S 12AA ON THE GROUND THAT IT SHOULD H AVE CLAIMED EXEMPTION U/S 10(23C). THEREFORE RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWI NG THE JUDGMENT OF THE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT, WE ARE UNAB LE TO SUSTAIN ITA N0.470/ASR/ 2018 GRAM VIKAS EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY VS . CIT(E) 7 THE MAIN GROUND OF REJECTION OF THE APPLICATION U/S 1 2AA OF THE ACT, TO THE EFFECT THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD ALL THE REASONS TO APPLY FOR EXEMPTION UNDER THE PROVISION OF SEC.10(23C)(VI) OF THE ACT, HENCE WE SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LD. CIT(E) AND REM AND BACK THIS CASE TO ITS FILE FOR DECISION AFRESH WHILE CONSIDERING THE PARAMETERS SET OUT U/S 12AA OF THE ACT, SUFFICE TO SAY WITHIN SIX MONTH OF THIS ORDER AND WHILE AFFORDING PROPER OPPORTUNITY TO THE APPLI CANT SOCIETY . 4. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE STANDS A LLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 09/1 0/2019. SD/- SD/- (B.R.BASKARAN) (N.K.CHOUDHRY) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JU DICIAL MEMBER DATED: 09/10/2019. /PK/ PS. COPY FORWARDED TO: 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CIT 4. THEN CIT(APPEALS) 5. SR DR, I.T.A.T. AMRITSAR 6. GUARD FILE TRUE COPY BY ORDER