Sree Anjaneya Medical trust, Calicut V. CIT, Calicut

ITA 471/COCH/2009

• Counselvise Citation: [2011] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 52269 (ITAT-COCHIN)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 2 month(s) 3 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 21-10-2011
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Next Hearing Date: 15-09-2011
• Assessment Year: misc
• Appeal Filed On: 17-08-2009
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: S VIJAYAPRABHA
• Assessee Lawyers: T M SREEDHARAN SR ADV
• Keywords: Charitable institution; Non-deduction of tax; Competent authority
• Section: 133A; 12A; 12AA

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL COCHIN BENCH, COCHIN BEFORE S/SHRI N.R.S.GANESAN, JM AND SANJAY AROR A, AM I.T.A NO. 471/COCH/2009 ASSESSMENT YEAR: NOT APPLICABLE SREE ANJANEYA MEDICAL TRUST, KANCHAS COMPLEX, OPP. INDOOR STADIUM, CALICUT. [PAN:AAHTS 3844B] VS. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CALICUT (ASSESSEE-APPELLANT) (REVENUE- RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY SHRI T.M.SREEDHARAN, SR. ADV.-AR REVENUE BY MS. S. VIJAYAPRABHA, JR. DR DATE OF HEARING 15/09/2011 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 21/10/2011 O R D E R PER SANJAY ARORA, AM: THIS IS AN APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE, A TRUST, CONTES TING THE REJECTION OF ITS APPLICATION FOR GRANT OF REGISTRATION U/S. 12A OF T HE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961 ('THE ACT', HEREINAFTER) BY THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CAL ICUT (`CIT FOR SHORT) VIDE ORDER U/S. 12AA OF THE ACT DATED 25.6.2009. 2. THE BACKGROUND FACTS, AS LISTED IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER, ARE THAT THE APPLICATION UNDER REFERENCE WAS MADE BELATEDLY ON 12.12.2008; T HE APPELLANT-TRUST HAVING BEEN CONSTITUTED VIDE A DEED DATED 27.5.2005, AND WAS UN ACCOMPANIED BY A PETITION FOR CONDONING THE SAID DELAY. A SURVEY U/S. 133A OF TH E ACT WAS SUBSEQUENTLY CARRIED OUT AT THE PREMISES OF THE TRUST BY ADIT (INV.), KOZHIKODE (ON 19.3.2009), AND SEVERAL IRREGULARITIES FOUND. THERE WAS A HUGE COLLECTION FOR THE PURPOSE OF THE TRUST, SO THAT THE I.T.A. NO. 471/COCH/2009 2 MATTER MERITED FURTHER INVESTIGATION. SPECIFICALLY, THERE WAS A COLLECTION OF ` 75 LAKHS FROM FOUR DIFFERENT PEOPLE AS ADVANCE TUITION FEES FOR MBBS COURSE, ETC. FURTHER, IT HAD RECEIVED ` 6 CRORES AS CONTRIBUTION FOR THE PERIOD PRIOR TO TH E REGISTRATION, AND WHICH WOULD ONLY BE ITS INCOME U/S. 2(24) OF THE ACT. THE EXPENDITURE WAS NOT VERIFIABLE. PRELIMINARY EXPENSES WERE CLAIMED IN THE HUGE SUM O F ` 60 LAKHS, FOR WHICH, HOWEVER, NO DETAILS WERE FURNISHED. THE COPIES OF THE BALANCE-S HEET, AS FURNISHED FOR THE PRECEDING THREE YEARS ALONG WITH THE APPLICATION, WERE UNCERT IFIED AND WITHOUT VERIFICATION OR DETAILS, EVEN AS THE SAME DID NOT CONTAIN INCOME AN D EXPENDITURE ACCOUNT. AS SUCH, THE FINAL ACCOUNTS COULD NOT BE ACCEPTED AS REPRESENTIN G THE CORRECT STATE OF AFFAIRS. THE TRUST- DEED DID NOT CONTAIN ANY PROVISION TO THE EFFECT TH AT IT IS NOT FOR PROFIT. FOR THESE REASONS, AS WELL AS THE CONTINUOUS VIOLATION OF THE PROVISIO NS OF THE ACT, VIZ., NOT FILING THE RETURN IN TIME, NOT PAYING THE TAX, NON-DEDUCTION OF TAX, ETC., THE LD. CIT REJECTED THE ASSESSEES APPLICATION U/S. 12A. 3.1 BEFORE US, THE MATTER STOOD VEHEMENTLY ARGUED B Y THE LD. AR, ITS COUNSEL, PLACING ON RECORD A PAPER-BOOK (PB), REQUESTING THAT THE SA ME MAY BE TAKEN ON FILE; THE DOCUMENTS HAVING NOT BEEN FURNISHED BEFORE THE COMP ETENT AUTHORITY. THE MAIN THRUST OF THE ARGUMENTS ADVANCED WAS THAT THE INTERVENING YEA RS, I.E., THAT PRECEDING ITS APPLICATION U/S. 12A, WERE THE INITIAL YEARS OF THE TRUST, WHER EAT IT WAS ENGAGED IN SETTING UP THE INFRASTRUCTURE FACILITIES, VIZ., ACQUISITION OF LAN D; CONSTRUCTION OF BUILDING, AS WELL AS MAKING APPLICATIONS FOR THE GRANT OF PERMISSIONS/SA NCTIONS OR TOWARD SEEKING AFFILIATIONS TO/FROM VARIOUS REGULATORY AUTHORITIES QUA THE EDUCATIONAL COURSES SOUGHT TO BE UNDERTAKEN, WHICH ARE PRIMARILY IN THE FIELD OF MED ICINE AND ALLIED SCIENCES. THE SAME HAS BORNE FRUITS AND, ACCORDINGLY, IT HAS BEEN ISSU ED APPROVAL FOR STARTING A MEDICAL COLLEGE AS WELL AS A COLLEGE OF NURSING, WHICH AS A LSO RECEIVED PROVISIONAL ACCREDITATION FROM THE KERALA UNIVERSITY OF HEALTH AND ALLIED SCI ENCES. THE SAID COMMUNICATIONS ARE NO DOUBT SUBSEQUENT TO THE IMPUGNED ORDER, BUT WOUL D SHOW UNMISTAKABLY THE GENUINENESS OF THE APPLICANTS ACTIVITIES, WHICH IS , IN EFFECT, THE PURVIEW OF THE COMPETENT AUTHORITY WHILE PROCESSING AN APPLICATION FOR GRANT OF REGISTRATION U/S. 12A. THE FINANCIAL IRREGULARITIES, AS OBSERVED BY THE LD. CIT, COULD N OT FIRSTLY BE TERMED AS IRREGULARITIES AND, I.T.A. NO. 471/COCH/2009 3 SECONDLY, ARE A GROSS EXAGGERATION. THE IMPUGNED O RDER MAY, THEREFORE, BE CANCELLED AND ITS PRAYER FOR REGISTRATION GRANTED. 3.2 THE LD. DR, ON THE OTHER HAND, WOULD SUBMIT THA T THE MATERIALS WHICH WERE NOT BEFORE THE COMPETENT AUTHORITY COULD NOT BE THE SUB JECT MATTER OF CONSIDERATION OR FORM THE BASIS (OR EVEN A PART) OF THE DECISION BY THE T RIBUNAL. THE GENUINENESS OF THE ACTIVITIES OF THE APPLICANT-TRUST DID NOT FIND REFLECTION IN I TS ACCOUNTS, WHEREFROM THE SAME COULD BE ADJUDGED. TAKING US THROUGH THE IMPUGNED ORDER, TH E VARIOUS IRREGULARITIES OBSERVED BY THE LD. CIT WERE SOUGHT TO BE EMPHASIZED BY HER. TH E SAME CAME TO LIGHT ONLY PURSUANT TO THE SURVEY ACTION, AND IN RESPECT OF WHICH THE A SSESSEE HAD NOT FURNISHED ANY SPECIFIC REPLY. HOW, IN ITS ABSENCE, IT WAS URGED, COULD HIS ORDER BE IMPUGNED OR HELD INFIRM ? 4. WE HAVE HEARD THE PARTIES, AND PERUSED THE MATER IAL ON RECORD. 4.1 AT THE OUTSET, WE MAY CLARIFY THAT AS REGAR DS THE DELAY IN THE FILING OF THE APPLICATION FOR REGISTRATION, OR OF IT BEING NOT AC COMPANIED BY A CONDONATION PETITION, THE SAME IS OF LITTLE CONSEQUENCE, EVEN AS THE LD. CIT HAS HIMSELF CONSIDERED THE APPLICATION ON MERITS WITHOUT EXPRESSLY CONDONING THE DELAY. TH IS IS IN VIEW OF S. 12A(2) OF THE ACT, WHEREBY, W.E.F. 1.6.2007, THE PROVISIONS OF SS. 11 & 12 WOULD APPLY ONLY FROM THE ASSESSMENT YEAR IMMEDIATELY FOLLOWING THE YEAR IN W HICH THE APPLICATION U/S. 12A IS MADE; THE APPLICATION IN THE INSTANT CASE HAVING BE EN MADE ON 12/12/2008. 4.2 ON MERITS, WITHOUT DOUBT, THE TRUST IS ENGA GED IN SETTING UP A MEDICAL COLLEGE DURING THE PERIOD SINCE ITS INCEPTION, AS WELL AS S EEKING THE NECESSARY APPROVALS/SANCTIONS FOR UNDERTAKING THE CONTEMPLATED COURSES OF STUDY I N THE FIELD OF MEDICINE AND ALLIED SUBJECTS, AND ITS APPLICATION/S HAS MET APPROVAL. H OWEVER, THE QUESTION IS: WOULD THAT BY ITSELF MAKE IT TO BE A CHARITABLE INSTITUTION ? THIS IS AS EDUCATION COULD ALSO FORM A BUSINESS ACTIVITY AND, THUS, CONSTITUTE A `BUSINESS BY ITSELF. WE HAVE, THEREFORE, TO BE GUIDED BY ITS GOVERNING DEED. THE SAME CONTAINS NO PROVISION TO THE EFFECT THAT IT IS NOT FOR PROFIT. ON WHAT BASIS, THEN, THE TRUST SEEKS RE GISTRATION U/S. 12A, SO THAT ITS INCOME, SUBJECT TO APPLICATION FOR CHARITABLE PURPOSES, WOU LD BE EXEMPT UNDER THE ACT, IS NOT I.T.A. NO. 471/COCH/2009 4 UNDERSTOOD. THE LD. CIT, AMONG THE VARIOUS GROUNDS CITED FOR THE REFUSAL OF REGISTRATION, HAS ALSO MENTIONED OF THE VIOLATIONS OF THE VARIOUS PROVISIONS OF THE ACT, VIZ., NON-FILING OF THE RETURN/S OF INCOME; NON-DEDUCTION OF TAX AT SOURCE; CONTRIBUTIONS BEING LIABLE TO BE ASSESSED AS INCOME, ETC. THE SAME, TO OUR MIND, ARE NOT RELEVANT FOR THE PURPOSE AT HAND. THIS IS AS EVEN A CHARITABLE INSTITUTION, IF IT VIO LATES THOSE PROVISIONS, WOULD BE SUBJECT TO THE CONSEQUENCES IN LAW, AND THE EXEMPTION FROM TAX THERETO IS NOT ABSOLUTE AND/OR AUTOMATIC. EVEN AS ARGUED BY THE LD. AR, WHY DID NO T THE REVENUE IN THAT CASE PROCEED TO ISSUE IT NOTICE U/S. 148? WITHOUT GOING INTO THE ME RITS OF THE RIVAL CLAIMS, THE VIOLATIONS UNDER THE ACT, IF AND WHERE SO (EXCEPT WHERE IN REL ATION TO THE REGISTRATION PROVISIONS), THE DUE PROCESS OF LAW WOULD FOLLOW, BUT CANNOT IMP UGN THE ASSESSEES CASE WITH REGARD TO REGISTRATION UNDER THE ACT, WHICH IS ONLY A PRIMA FACIE , ALBEIT FORMAL, SATISFACTION OF ITS OBJECTS BEING CHARITABLE, AND ITS ACTIVITIES, GENUI NE. 4.3 HOWEVER, THE FINDINGS BY THE LD. CIT, INSOFAR A S THEY RELATE TO THE ACTIVITIES OF THE TRUST, ARE DEFINITELY GERMANE AND RELEVANT. TOWARD THIS, WE FIND THAT HE STATES THAT THE DETAILS OF THE PRELIMINARY EXPENSES, REFLECTED AT ` 60 LAKHS, WERE NOT FURNISHED. THE COPIES OF THE BALANCE-SHEETS WERE ALSO UNCERTIFIED AND WIT HOUT DETAILS. THE PROVISIONS OF THE TRUST DEED CONTAIN, AS THEY MUST, PRESCRIPTION AS TO KEEP ING AND AUDIT OF ACCOUNTS, AND THE SUBSEQUENT APPROVAL OF THE AUDITED FINAL ACCOUNTS B Y THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES AND/OR AGM. IT IS ONLY SUCH BALANCE-SHEETS, DULY APPROVED AS PE R ITS RULES/BYE-LAWS, WHICH COULD BE CONSIDERED AS RELEVANT AND AUTHENTIC. FURTHER, WE E NDORSE THE REVENUES STAND THAT THE ACCOUNTS MUST BE COMPLETE, PROPER; REFLECTING TRULY AND FAIRLY THE ACTIVITIES OF THE TRUST. SO, HOWEVER, IT IS FOR THE REVENUE TO SHOW IF IS NO T SO, AND THE ACCOUNTS BEAR SERIOUS OMISSIONS, AS, AGAIN, MINOR OMISSIONS WOULD NOT OUS T OR BE FATAL TO THE ASSESSEES CASE. THE NON-SUBMISSION OF THE `INCOME & EXPENDITURE AC COUNT WOULD ONLY BE DUE TO OPERATIONS HAVING NOT COMMENCED, WITH THE ASSESSEE CAPITALIZING THE PRE-OPERATIVE EXPENDITURE. THE APPLICANT-TRUST HAS RECEIVED ADVANC E FOR TUITION FEES FOR MBBS COURSES. IT IS NOT CLEAR IF THE SAME IS A CAPITATION FEE OR IN PUR SUANCE TO A DEFINED, TRANSPARENT PROCESS OF PAYMENT, WHICH HAS BEEN DULY OBSERVED. AS LONG A S IT IS SO, AND THERE IS NO BREACH OF I.T.A. NO. 471/COCH/2009 5 LAW, HOW, WE WONDER, THE SAME COULD IMPUGN THE ASSE SSEES CLAIM. EVEN IF THERE IS A MANAGEMENT QUOTA FOR SEATS, IF THE SAME IS WITHIN T HE SPECIFIED NORMS, DULY DISCLOSED PER THE PROSPECTUS OR OTHER OFFICIAL PRONOUNCEMENTS (IN CLUDING THE FEES OR THE MANNER IN WHICH THE SAME IS TO BE ARRIVED AT), AND NOT INFLIC TED WITH ANY BIAS, THE SAME CAN ONLY BE REGARDED AS PROPER. HOWEVER, MERELY MAKING SOME STA TEMENTS, WITHOUT AFFORDING PROPER OPPORTUNITY TO THE APPLICANT TO STATE ITS CASE, AND DRAWING INFERENCES THERE-FROM, IS NOT PROPER OR JUDICIAL. THE MATTER REQUIRES TO BE EXAMI NED FURTHER, AND TOWARD WHICH THE DECISIONS IN THE CASE OF SIND COOPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETY V. ITO , 317 ITR 47 (BOM.) AND WALKESHWAR TRIVENI COOPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETY LTD. V. ITO , 88 ITD 159 (MUM.)(SB) MAY BE RELEVANT. AS REGARDS THE ABSENCE OF A PROFIT CLAUS E, THE ASSESSEES STANCE THEREON HAS TO BE CALLED FOR, AND CONSIDERED, AND WHICH WE OBSERVE HA S NOT BEEN. THERE IS NO QUESTION OF EXEMPTION IF THERE IS NO SCOPE OF INCOME. THE LAW, THUS, DOES NOT CONTEMPLATE ABSENCE OF INCOME, BUT ONLY THAT THE ENTITY IS NOT RUN ON COMM ERCIAL LINES; THE SOLE ESSENCE OF GRANTING EXEMPTION BEING PROMOTION OF CHARITY, AND NOT PROFIT MAKING. REFERENCE IN THIS CONTEXT MAY BE MADE TO THE FOLLOWING EXCERPT FROM T HE DECISION BY THE TRIBUNAL (CHENNAI BENCH) IN THE CASE OF SRI AUROBINDO ANNAI TRUST V. CIT, CHENNAI (IN ITA NOS. 1773&1774/MDS/2009 DTD. 18/3/20011, SEEKING TO CLAR IFY THE LAW IN THE MATTER WITH REFERENCE TO THE DECISIONS BY THE APEX COURT THEREO N: `3.3 THE PRINCIPLE OR LAW INVOLVED STANDS EXPLAINED BY T HE APEX COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT (ADDL.) VS. SURAT ARTS SILK CLOTH MFRS. ASSOCN . (1980) 121 ITR 1 (SC), WITH IT STATING THAT THE CHARITABLE PURPOSE SHOULD NOT BE SUBMERGED BY T HE PROFIT MAKING MOTIVE; THE LATTER SHOULD NOT MASQUERADE UNDER THE GUISE OF THE FORMER , SO THAT WHERE PROFIT MAKING IS THE PRE-DOMINANT OBJECT OF AN ACTIVITY, IT WOULD CEASE TO BE A CHARITABLE PURPOSE. BUT WHERE THE PRE-DOMINANT OBJECT OF THE ACTIVITY IS TO CARRY OUT THE CHARITABLE PURPOSE AND NOT TO EARN PROFIT, IT WOULD NOT LOSE ITS CHARACTER OF A C HARITABLE PURPOSE MERELY BECAUSE SOME PROFIT ARISES FROM THE ACTIVITY. IT GOES ON TO SAY (AT PG. 28): `WHAT IS NECESSARY TO BE CONSIDERED IS WHETHER HAVI NG REGARD TO ALL THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE DOMINANT OBJECT OF T HE ACTIVITY IS PROFIT MAKING OR CARRYING OUT A CHARITABLE PURPOSE. IF IT IS A FORMER, THE P URPOSE WOULD NOT BE A CHARITABLE PURPOSE, IF IT IS LATTER, THE CHARITABLE CHARACTER OF THE PURPOSE IS NOT LOST. I.T.A. NO. 471/COCH/2009 6 THIS, AS EXPLAINED BY THE HONBLE COURT, IS FOR THE REASON THAT CHARITY IS SOMETHING WHICH IS INTRINSICALLY ALTRUISTIC IN THOUGHT AND IN DEED, INVOLVING THE CONCEPT OF SELFLESSNESS, I.E., TO BE OF SOME ASSISTANCE FOR BENEFIT TO SOMEONE OUT SIDE ONESELF. THIS IS PRECISELY THE CONCERN EXPRESSED BY THE HONBLE HIGH COURT OF UTTA RAKHAND, BEING THE RAISON DETRE AND THE LEITMOTIF OF ITS DECISIONS IN THE CASE OF NATIONAL AERONAUTICAL ENGINEERING EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY (SUPRA) AND CIT VS. QUEENS EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY , 319 ITR 160 (UTT.). IT HAS IN RENDERING THESE DECISIONS ELABORA TED AND EXPLAINED THIS ASPECT OF THE LAW. THE WHOLE PURPORT OF THE ACTIVITIES OF THE INSTITUT IONS SHOULD BE (CHARITABLE), AS EXPLAINED BY THE APEX COURT IN THE CASE OF MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI V. CHILDREN BOOK TRU ST (1992) 3 SCC 390; EXHAUSTIVELY DEALING WITH THE SUB JECT, EMPHASIZING THAT CHARITY MUST NEVERTHELESS PERVADE AND INFORM THE ACTIVITIES OF T HE INSTITUTION, I.E., SHOULD BE ITS DOMINANT OBJECT; THE WHOLE PREMISE OF THE INSTITUTI ON BEING ONLY CHARITABLE. IF NOT SO CONSIDERED EVERY PRIVATE INSTITUTION (INCLUDING SCH OOLS AND COLLEGES) ENGAGED IN RENDERING EDUCATION, THOUGH RUN ON AND GUIDED BY PROFIT CONSI DERATION, WOULD ANSWER THE DESCRIPTION OF UNDERTAKING CHARITABLE ACTIVITY, ENT ITLED TO EXEMPTION OF PROFIT EARNED THUS; IT STATING AS: ` IN OTHER WORDS, WHAT WE WANT TO STRESS IS, WHEN A S OCIETY OR BODY IS MAKING SYSTEMATIC PROFIT, EVEN THOUGH THAT PROFIT IS UTILIZED ONLY FO R CHARITABLE PURPOSES, YET IT CANNOT BE SAID THAT IT COULD CLAIM EXEMPTION. IF, MERELY QUAL ITATIVE TEST IS APPLIED TO SECTION, EVEN SCHOOLS WHICH ARE RUN ON COMMERCIAL BASIS MAKING PR OFIT WOULD GO OUT OF THE PURVIEW OF TAXATION AND DEMAND EXEMPTION . WE MAY CONCLUDE THIS DISCUSSION WITH THE FOLLOWING OBSERVATIONS BY THE APEX COURT IN THE CASE OF ADITANAR EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTIONS VS. CIT (ADDL.) (SUPRA): `. THE DECISIVE OR ACID TEST IS WHETHER ON AN OVERALL VIEW OF THE MATTER, THE OBJECT IS TO MAKE PROFIT. IN EVALUATING OR APPRAISING THE ABOVE, ONE SHOULD ALSO BEAR IN MIND THE DISTINCTION BETWEEN THE CORPUS, THE OBJECTS AND POW ERS OF THE CONCERNED ENTITY . 4.4 UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES, THEREFORE, WE ONL Y DEEM IT FIT AND PROPER THAT THE MATTER IS RESTORED BACK TO THE FILE OF THE LD. CIT, SO AS TO EXAMINE THE ASSESSEES CASE IN ITS PROPER PERSPECTIVE, AND RENDER A DECISION ON ITS AP PLICATION AFTER AFFORDING PROPER OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING THERETO ON EACH OF THE FACTO RS CONSIDERED DEBILITATING BY THE REVENUE. A SUPPLEMENTARY DEED OF MODIFICATION OF TR UST HAS BEEN EXECUTED ON 18/6/2009 (PB PGS. 25 TO 30), WHICH APPEARS TO BE AT THE REVE NUES INSTANCE, THOUGH THERE IS NO REFERENCE THERETO IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER, AND IN ANY CASE WOULD MERIT DUE CONSIDERATION. THOUGH THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED A VOLUMINOUS PAPER-BO OK ALONG WITH ITS SUBMISSIONS, THE SAME ADMITTEDLY CONTAIN DOCUMENTS NOT BEFORE THE RE GISTERING AUTHORITY. RELIANCE THEREON I.T.A. NO. 471/COCH/2009 7 IS THEREFORE TO THE LIMITED EXTENT OF CONVEYING THE THRUST OF THE ASSESSEES CASE, EVEN AS WE WERE ALSO NOT TAKEN THROUGH THEM DURING HEARING. LIKE-WISE FOR THE CASE LAW MENTIONED ITS SUBMISSIONS, AS THE LAW HAS NECESSARI LY TO BE APPLIED TO THE OBTAINING FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES, WHILE WE FIND AS A MATTER OF FAC T THAT THE ISSUES ARISING FOR CONSIDERATION BY THE COMPETENT AUTHORITY AS BEING F ACTUALLY INDETERMINATE. WE DECIDE ACCORDINGLY. 5. IN THE RESULT, THE ASSESSEES APPEAL IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. SD/- SD/ - (N.R.S.GANESAN) (SANJAY ARORA) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER PLACE: ERNAKULAM DATED: 21ST OCTOBER, 2011 GJ COPY TO: 1. SREE ANJANEYA MEDICAL TRUST, KANCHAS COMPLEX, OP P. INDOOR STADIUM, CALICUT. 2. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CALICUT. 3. D.R., I.T.A.T., COCHIN BENCH, COCHIN. 4. GUARD FILE .