GDG Educational Trust, Gurgaon V. CIT, Faridabad

ITA 4722/DEL/2011

• Counselvise Citation: [2014] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 77826 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 8 month(s) 24 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 25-07-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Next Hearing Date: 08-01-2014
• Assessment Year: misc
• Appeal Filed On: 31-10-2011
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: R S GILL
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard; Additional evidence
• Section: 80G; 12A; 12AA; 12

Judgement Text

ITA NO. 4722 & 4723/D/2011 1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH `C NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI S.V. MEHROTRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI CHANDRA MOHAN GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A.NO.4722/DEL/2011 ASSESSMENT YEAR : ----- I.T.A.NO.4723DEL/2011 ASSESSMENT YEAR : ----- GDG EDUCATIONAL TRUST, VS COMMISS IONER OF INCOME TAX, 18/1108, HERITAGE CITY, FARIDABAD. M.G. ROAD, GURGAON. (PAN: AABTG2708A) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY: SHRI SANJAY AGA RWAL, MS MONIKA AGARWAL RESPONDENT BY : SHRI R.S. GILL, CIT DR O R D E R PER CHANDRA MOHAN GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER THE ABOVE CAPTIONED APPEALS HAVE BEEN PREFERRED BY THE ASSESSEE TRUST AGAINST THE ORDERS OF CIT, FARIDABAD DATED 8.9.2011 PASSED U/S12AA(1)(B)(II) AND U/S 80G(5) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 RESPECTIVELY R/W RULER 11AA(5) OF THE INCOME TAX RULES, 1961. 2. THE GROUNDS RAISED IN ITA NO. 4723/DEL/2011 READ AS UNDER:- 1. THAT THE LD. CIT HAS ERRED IN REJECTING ASSESSE E'S APPLICATION IN FORM 10A SEEKING REGISTRATION U/S 12 AA OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE F ACT ITA NO. 4722 & 4723/D/2011 2 THAT THE ASSESSEE IS ENGAGED IN PROVIDING EDUCATION AND THUS THE REGISTRATION U/S 12AA MAY PLEASE BE GRANTE D. 2. THAT THE LD. CIT HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN DENYING THE REGISTRATION U/S 12A OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 WHERE HE HIMSELF HAS ADMITTED THE FACT IN LAST PARA OF THE ORDER THAT ASSESSEE IS COVERED BY THE PROVIS O TO SECTION 2(15) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961. IN VIEW OF THE SAID FINDING, THE REGISTRATION U/S 12A MAY PLEASE B E GRANTED TO ASSESSEE. 3. BRIEFLY STATED THE FACTS GIVING RISE TO THESE AP PEALS ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE TRUST FILED AN APPLICATION ON 10.3.2011 IN FORM NO. 10A FOR REGISTRATION U/S 12AA OF THE ACT. AFTER CONSIDERI NG REPLIES AND SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE, THE CIT FARIDABAD REJECTED THE APP LICATION OF THE ASSESSEE TRUST FOR REGISTRATION U/S 12A OF THE ACT WITH FOLL OWING OBSERVATIONS AND CONCLUSION:- THE ONLY EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT THE CLAIM THAT MAIN O BJECT OF THE TRUST IS 'EDUCATION' IS THE AGREEMENT WITH L ANCASTER, WITHIN WHICH, AS DISCUSSED ABOVE, THE APPLICANT IS NOT PROVIDING 'EDUCATION'. THERE IS NO OTHER EVIDENCE O R INDICATION THAT THE APPLICANT INTENDS TO PURSUE 'ED UCATION' ON ITS OWN. FURTHER, IN MY OPINION, THE APPLICANT IS WRONG IN CLAIMING THAT 'THERE IS NO BAR IN THE INCOME TAX AC T, WHETHER A INSTITUTE OR COLLEGE IS AFFILIATED WITH A UNIVERSITY ESTABLISHED OR LOCALLY OR ABROAD'. BOTH ARRANGEMENT S WORK ON DIFFERENT PRINCIPLES. THE ARRANGEMENT BETWEEN EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTES, AFFILIATED TO AN INDIAN UNI VERSITY, IS QUALITATIVELY DIFFERENT FROM THE ARRANGEMENT WITH A FOREIGN UNIVERSITY. FOR INSTANCE, WHILE TYPICALLY AND IN A NUT SHELL THE INDIAN UNIVERSITIES PROVIDE THE BROAD FRAMEWORK FOR ITA NO. 4722 & 4723/D/2011 3 DELIVERY OF EDUCATION AND ACT AS REGULATORS, THE FO REIGN UNIVERSITY OPERATING IN INDIA IN THIS CASE IS DOING A LOT MORE THAN THAT. THE LANCASTER UNIVERSITY DECIDES TH E STRATEGY AS WELL AS DETAILS OF ACADEMIC ACTIVITIES AND ENTERS INTO A SEPARATE CONTRACT WITH STUDENTS, WHICH ENTIT LES THEM TO BENEFITS AND OBLIGATIONS OF 'EXTERNAL STUDENTS' OF LANCASTER. IT IS ALSO PERTINENT TO MENTION THAT WHEREAS ARRANGEMENTS BETWEEN INDIAN EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTES AND INDIAN UNIVERSITIES ARE SUBJECT TO INDIAN LAWS, THI S AGREEMENT IS SUBJECT TO LAWS OF OTHER COUNTRIES, IN CLUDING THE BRITISH LAWS (PARAS 25 AND 26). IT HAS ALREADY BEEN HELD ABOVE THAT WITHIN ITS AGREEMENT WITH LANCASTER UNIVERSITY, THE RESPONSIBI LITY FOR 'EDUCATION' LIES WITH LANCASTER, A FOREIGN UNIVERSI TY, ENGAGED IN BUSINESS OF EDUCATION FOR IT RECEIVES REGISTRATION FEE, IN ADDITION TO ITS SHARE OF ALL O THER RECEIPTS, INCLUDING TUITION FEES AND ROYALTY FROM T HE APPLICANT, WHO IS ESSENTIALLY PROVIDING SUPPORT SER VICES TO LANCASTER IN THE BUSINESS OF EDUCATION AND FOR SUCH IT RECEIVES A PORTION OF FEES, COLLECTED FROM STUDENTS . IN GIVEN FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES AND FOR REASONS GI VEN ABOVE, I HOLD THAT THE APPLICANT IS PROVIDING SUPPO RT SERVICES, AND THAT TOO FOR A 'FEE', TO THE LANCASTE R UNIVERSITY IN DELIVERY OF EDUCATION AND IS, THUS, COVERED BY P ROVISO TO SECTION 2(15) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961, WHICH RE NDERS IT INELIGIBLE FOR REGISTRATION UNDER SECTION 12A OF TH E INCOME TAX ACT, 1961. ACCORDINGLY, THE APPLICATION IS REJE CTED. 4. THE CIT, FARIDABAD ALSO REJECTED THE APPLICAT ION OF THE ASSESSEE FILED IN FORM NO. 10G FOR EXEMPTION U/S 10G OF THE ACT CONSE QUENT TO THE REJECTION OF APPLICATION FOR REGISTRATION U/S 12A. NOW, THE AGGRIEVED ASSESSEE TRUST IS BEFORE THIS TRIBUNAL WITH ABOVE CAPTIONED APPEALS. ITA NO. 4722 & 4723/D/2011 4 THE APPLICATION FOR ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE UNDER RULE 29 OF IT(APPELLATE TRIBUNAL) RULES, 1963 OF THE ASSESSEE 5. THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED AN APPLICATION FOR FILING ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE BEFORE US. LD. AR SUBMITTED THAT THE ADDITIONAL EV IDENCE IS FACTUALLY RELATED TO THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE AND PRODUCTION OF EVIDE NCE IS NECESSARY TO FACILITATE ADJUDICATION IN THE TRUE SPIRIT OF LAW. THE AR ALSO SUBMITTED THAT AS PER RULE 29 IF ASSESSEE IS PREVENTED BY SUFFICIE NT CAUSE TO PRODUCE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE BEFORE THE LOWER AUTHORITIES, T HEN THE SAME MAY BE SUBMITTED BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL THAT MAY BE RELEVANT TO ANY GROUND OF APPEAL AND ASSESSEE MAY BE ALLOWED TO PRODUCE SUCH ADDITIO NAL EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT HIS CASE. THE ASSESSEE HAS PLACED RELIANCE ON THE DECISION OF HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT OF DELHI IN THE CASE OF C IT VS TEXT HUNDRED INDIA (P) LTD. (2011) 197 TAXMAN 128 (DELHI) AND SUBMITTED THAT UNDER RULE 29 IF IT IS FOUND JUST AND PROPER TO ADMIT THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE ALLOWING THE APPLICATION OF THE ASSESSEE, THEN THE CASE MAY BE REMITTED BACK TO THE CIT, FARIDABAD TO DECIDE THE ISSUE AFRESH AF TER CONSIDERING THE SAID ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE SO ADMITTED BY THE TRIBUNAL. 6. REPLYING TO THE ABOVE, LD. DR SUBMITTED THAT RUL E 29 DOES NOT PROVIDE ANY RIGHT FOR THE ASSESSEE TO SUBMIT ADDITIONAL EVI DENCE BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL DURING THE SECOND APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS. THE DR FU RTHER CONTENDED THAT HOWEVER TRIBUNAL IS EMPOWERED TO CALL FOR ADDITIONA L EVIDENCE IF THE ITA NO. 4722 & 4723/D/2011 5 TRIBUNAL REQUIRES ANY DOCUMENT TO BE PRODUCED OR AN Y WITNESS TO BE EXAMINED OR ANY AFFIDAVIT TO BE FILED TO ENABLE IT TO PASS ORDERS OF ANY OTHER SUBSTANTIAL CAUSE. THE DR FURTHER CONTENDED THAT T HIS IS NOT A CASE WHEN TRIBUNAL ASKED TO SUBMIT ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE OR DOC UMENT, THEREFORE, ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE CANNO T BE ADMITTED AND CONSIDERED. 7. FROM THE WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS AND APPLICATION, WE OBSERVE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS MADE FOLLOWING SUBMISSIONS TO SUPPORT ITS APPLICATION FOR FILING OF ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE:- THAT VIDE LETTER DATED 26/08/2011, THE LD CIT RAIS ED VARIOUS CONTENTIONS ABOUT THE TERMS SETTLED BETWEEN GDG TRUST AND LANCASTER UNIVERSITY. IN RESPONSE TO WHIC H ASSESSEE REPLIED VIDE LETTER DATED 29108/2011 & 05/09/2011. HOWEVER WHILE REJECTING THE APPLICATION FOR REGISTRATION U/S 12A AND 80G OF INCOME TAX ACT, 196 1 VIDE ORDER DATED 8.9.2011, THE LD CIT MADE ADVERSE OBSERVATION ABOUT VARIOUS FACTS THAT WERE NEVER CON FRONTED TO ASSESSEE FOR ITS EXPLANATION AND THEREFORE PROPE R OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD WAS NOT PROVIDED TO ASSE SSEE AND AS SUCH ASSESSEE MAY PLEASE BE ALLOWED TO FURNI SH THESE EVIDENCES EARLIER NOR ASSESSEE WAS INTIMATED AS IF THE CIT WAS OF ANY ADVERSE OPINION IN RESPECT OF CERTAI N FACTS, TO WHICH THE EVIDENCES INTENDED TO BE FILED AT THIS STAGE ARE RELEVANT. DETAIL OF ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES REQUESTED TO BE FURNISHED UNDER RULE 29 OF INCOME TAX (APPELLATE TRIBUNAL) RULES, 1963, IS AS UNDER: A. SAMPLE COPY OF IDENTITY CARD OF STUDENTS (PAGE NO. 1-2 OF ANNEXURE-B) ITA NO. 4722 & 4723/D/2011 6 OBSERVATION AT PAGE 2, PARA 4, LINE NO. 7 OF ORDER PASSED U/S 12AA (I)(B)(II) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 DA TED 08/0912011 IS REPRODUCED AS UNDER: . 'YET FURTHER IN TERMS OF PARA 6, LANCASTER WILL ENTER IN TO A SEPARATE AGREEMENT WITH THE STUDENTS (PARA 5.4 AND 6.8.2), AND UP ON SIGNING OF SUCH SEPARATE AGREEMENT 'LANCASTER WILL PROVIDE (STUDENTS) WITH I DENTITY CARDS THAT IDENTIFY THEM AS EXTERNAL STUDENTS OF LA NCASTER' (PARA 6.1) AND ENTITLE THEN TO 'ONLINE SERVICESAS MAY BE APPLICABLE TO SUCH STUDENTS AND MAKE ALL INFORMA TION AVAILABLE AS IS SUPPLIED TO OTHER 'EXTERNAL STUDENT S' OF LANCASTER. ' THE LD CIT NEVER CONFRONTED THE ASSESSEE ABOUT AS I F HE WAS KEEPING ANY ADVERSE INFERENCE ABOUT THE IDENTIT Y CARDS TO BE ISSUED BY LANCASTER DURING THE PROCEEDINGS U/ S 12AA OF INCOME TAX ACT, 1961. IN THIS REGARD IT IS SUBMI TTED THAT THE STUDENTS ENROLLED WITH GDG WORLD INSTITUTE ARE ISSUED WITH TWO IDENTITY CARDS, ONE OF GDGWI I.E. GD GOENK A WORLD INSTITUTE, TO IDENTIFY THEM AS STUDENT OF GD GOENKA WORLD INSTITUTE AND OTHER IDENTITY CARD WAS LIBRARY CARD OF LANCASTER UNIVERSITY, SO AS TO ALLOW STUDENTS TO US E ONLINE LIBRARY OF LANCASTER. B. SAMPLE COPY LETTER OF APPOINTMENT & TERMS AND CONDITION OF APPOINTMENTS OF TEACHERS AND ADMINISTR ATIVE STAFF . (PAGE NO. 3 -13 OF ANNEXURE B) OBSERVATION AT PAGE 3, PARA 4, OF ORDER PASSED U/S 12AA(I)(B)(II) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 DATED 08/09/2011 IS REPRODUCED AS UNDER: 'FURTHER, IN MY VIEW, BECAUSE OF THE OVERWHELMING T HRUST IN THE AGREEMENT ON DISTINCT ROLES FOR LANCASTER AN D THE APPLICANT, SOME MINOR RESPONSIBILITIES OF ACADEMIC NATURE, SAY TEACHING UNDER GRADUATE . (AGAIN) SUPPOR TED BY ACADEMIC STAFF FROM LANCASTER' (PARA 5.8), 'RECRUIT MENT OF ACADEMIC, ADMINISTRATIVE AND SUPPORT STAFF (PARA 5. 9) AND 'DEVELOPMENT' (PARA 5.10), ALL EXERCISED UNDER COMP LETE ITA NO. 4722 & 4723/D/2011 7 CONTROL AND SUPERVISION OF LANCASTER DO NOT HAVE MA TERIAL IMPACT ON ROLE DIVISION BETWEEN THE LANCASTER AND T HE APPLICANT. ' THAT THE LD CIT NEVER CONFRONTED THE ASSESSEE ABOUT AS IF HE WAS KEEPING ANY ADVERSE INFERENCE ABOUT APPOINTM ENT OF STAFF, IN THIS REGARD IT IS SUBMITTED THAT APPOI NTMENT OF TEACHING AND ADMINISTRATIVE STAFF IS MADE ON THE PA YROLL OF GD GOENKA WORLD INSTITUTE UNDER GDG EDUCATIONAL TRUST. 8 . IT IS THE MAIN CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE TRUST THA T THE CIT NEVER CONFRONTED THE ASSESSEE ABOUT WHETHER HE WAS KEEPIN G ANY ADVERSE INFERENCE ABOUT THE IDENTITY CARDS TO BE ISSUED BY THE LANCAS TER UNIVERSITY DURING THE PROCEEDINGS. THE AR FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE STU DENT ENROLLED WITH G.D. GOENKA ARE ISSUED WITH TWO TYPES OF IDENTITY CARDS, ONE OF GDGWI I.E. GD GOENKA WORLD INSTITUTE, TO IDENTIFY THEM AS STUDENT OF GD GOENKA WORLD INSTITUTE AND OTHER IDENTITY CARD WAS LIBRARY CARD OF LANCASTER UNIVERSITY, SO AS TO ALLOW STUDENTS TO USE ONLINE LIBRARY OF LANCA STER . THE AR FURTHER CONTENDED THAT THE CIT DID NOT ASK ANY INFORMATION ABOUT RECRUITMENT AND PAYROLL OF THE STAFF, THEREFORE, THE ASSESSEE WAS N OT AWARE OF THE FACT THAT THE CIT IS NOT SATISFIED ABOUT THE FACT OF STAFF RECRUI TMENT AND APPOINTMENT. THE AR VEHEMENTLY CONTENDED THAT THE APPOINTMENT OF TEA CHING, ADMINISTRATIVE AND SUPPORT STAFF IS MADE ON THE PAYROLL OF GD GOEN KA WORLD INSTITUTE UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF ASSESSEE TRUST AND THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE PERTAINING TO THE APPOINTMENT OF STAFF AND IDENTITY CARDS IS RELEVANT AND NECESSARY FOR PROPER ITA NO. 4722 & 4723/D/2011 8 ADJUDICATION OF THE APPEAL. THE DR REITERATED IT S EARLIER ARGUMENT AND SUBMITTED THAT THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE COULD HAVE B EEN FILED BEFORE THE CIT, FARIDABAD AND THERE IS NO SUFFICIENT CAUSE WHICH PR EVENTED THE ASSESSEE TO FILE THE SAME BEFORE THE CIT DURING RELEVANT PROCEE DINGS. 9. ON CAREFUL CONSIDERATION OF ABOVE SUBMISSIONS OF BOTH THE PARTIES, WE OBSERVE THAT AS PER DECISION OF HONBLE JURISDICTIO NAL HIGH COURT OF DELHI IN THE CASE OF CIT VS TEXT HUNDRED INDIA (P) LTD. (SU PRA), WHEN THE ASSESSEE PREFERRED AN APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL, ALONG WITH AN APPLICATION FOR LEADING ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE UNDER RULE 29 OF THE RU LES AS THE ASSESSEE WANTED TO PRODUCE SOME FURTHER EVIDENCE WHICH IT HA D NOT PRODUCED BEFORE THE LOWER AUTHORITIES, THEN IF TRIBUNAL HAD ADMITTE D THAT ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE ALLOWING THE APPLICATION OF THE ASSESSEE UNDER RULE 29, THEN THE CASE HAS TO BE REMITTED BACK TO THE LOWER AUTHORITIES FOR FRESH ADJUDICATION AFTER CONSIDERING THE SAID ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE. IN THE P RESENT CASE, IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER AT PAGE 2 IN PARA 4, THE CIT(A) HAS OBSERVED THAT ON SIGNING OF SEPARATE AGREEMENT, LANCASTER UNIVERSITY WILL PR OVIDE STUDENT WITH IDENTITY CARDS WHICH IDENTIFY THEM AS EXTERNAL STUD ENT OF LANCASTER UNIVERSITY AND ENTITLE THEM FOR ONLINE SERVICES. B UT THE CIT NEVER INQUIRED ABOUT THE OTHER IDENTITY CARDS WHICH WERE ISSUED BY THE GDGWI. ADDITIONAL ITA NO. 4722 & 4723/D/2011 9 EVIDENCE PLACED AT PAGE NO. 1 & 2 OF ANNEXURE B TO THE APPLICATION IN HAND AS SAMPLE COPY OF IDENTITY CARDS IS RELEVANT ON THI S ISSUE. 10. WE FURTHER OBSERVE THAT IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER A T PAGE 3 PARA 4, IT HAS BEEN OBSERVED THAT THE RECRUITMENT OF ACADEMIC, ADM INISTRATIVE AND SUPPORT STAFF IS EXERCISED UNDER COMPLETE CONTROL AND SUPER VISION OF LANCASTER UNIVERSITY AND THE CIT DREW A CONCLUSION THAT THE L ANCASTER UNIVERSITY IS IN THE BUSINESS OF EDUCATION IN INDIA THROUGH THE ASSE SSEE TRUST AND THE ASSESSEE TRUST IS PROVIDING SERVICES TO LANCASTER UNIVERSITY FOR A FEE. THE CIT HELD THAT THE ASSESSEE TRUST IS PROVIDING SUPPORT SERVIC ES FOR A FEE TO THE LANCASTER UNIVERSITY IN DELIVERY OF EDUCATION AND THUS, THE S AME IS COVERED BY PROVISO TO SECTION 2(15) OF THE ACT WHICH RENDERS THE ASSES SEE TRUST INELIGIBLE FOR REGISTRATION U/S 12A OF THE ACT. 11. IN VIEW OF ABOVE, WE OBSERVE THAT THE FACTS WHI CH LEAD TO THE CONCLUSION OF CIT WERE BASED ON THE AGREEMENT BETWE EN THE ASSESSEE TRUST AND LANCASTER UNIVERSITY. THE CIT COULD HAVE ASKED THE ASSESSEE TRUST TO EXPLAIN THE DETAILS OF IDENTITY CARDS AND PROCEDURE OF APPOINTMENT OF ACADEMIC, ADMINISTRATIVE AN SUPPORT STAFF AND ALSO THE SOURCE AND MODE OF PAYMENT OF THEIR SALARY AND PERQUISITES BUT THE CIT WITHOUT ASKING ANY EXPLANATION IN THIS REGARD DREW A CONCLUSION THAT T HE ASSESSEE TRUST IS MERELY FACILITATING LANCASTER UNIVERSITY IN THE BUSINESS O F EDUCATION IN INDIA AND ITA NO. 4722 & 4723/D/2011 10 THAT TOO FOR A FEE. UNDER ABOVE FACTUAL MATRIX, WE REACH TO A CONCLUSION THAT IMPORTANT EVIDENCE AND RELEVANT MATERIAL WAS NOT CO NSIDERED BY THE CIT WHILE REJECTING THE APPLICATION OF THE ASSESSEE FOR REGISTRATION U/S 12 OF THE ACT. SINCE THERE WAS NO QUERY FROM THE CIT, FARIDA BAD, THE RELEVANT EVIDENCE AND DOCUMENTS COULD NOT BE PRODUCED AND CO NSIDERED AT THE LEVEL OF CIT DURING THE ORIGINAL PROCEEDINGS. HOWEVER, I N THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE, WE FIND IT APPROPRIATE THAT THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE AND DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE RELEVANT FOR ADJUDICATION OF TH E ASSESSEE FOR REGISTRATION U/S 12A OF THE ACT. ACCORDINGLY, ADDITIONAL EVIDEN CE SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE DESERVES TO BE ADMITTED AND WE ADMIT THE S AME BY ALLOWING APPLICATION OF THE ASSESSEE FILED UNDER RULE 29 OF THE IT(AT) RULES, 1963. GROUND NO. 1 & 2 OF THE ASSESSEE IN ITA NO. 4723/D/ 2012 12. SINCE BY THE EARLIER PART OF THIS ORDER, WE HAV E ADMITTED AND ALLOWED ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE OF THE ASSESSEE PERTAINING TO T HE APPLICATION FOR REGISTRATION U/S 12A OF THE ACT, HENCE WE FIND IT A PPROPRIATE THAT THE ISSUE OF REGISTRATION U/S 12A OF THE ACT REQUIRES FRESH ADJU DICATION AT THE LEVEL OF CIT, FARIDABAD. THEREFORE, WITHOUT GOING ON MERITS , THE ISSUE OF REGISTRATION U/S 12A OF THE ACT IS RESTORED TO THE FILE OF CIT, FARIDABAD FOR FRESH CONSIDERATION AND DE NOVO ADJUDICATION IN THE LIGHT OF ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE AND OTHER RELEVANT MATERIAL/EVIDENCE AND SUBMISSION S OF THE ASSESSEE. ITA NO. 4722 & 4723/D/2011 11 ACCORDINGLY, GROUND NO. 1 AND 2 OF THE ASSESSEE ARE ALLOWED AND IMPUGNED ORDER IS SET ASIDE WITH A DIRECTION TO CIT, FARIDAB AD THAT HE SHALL DECIDE THE ISSUE AND APPLICATION OF THE ASSESSEE-TRUST FOR GRA NT OF REGISTRATION U/S 12A OF THE ACT AFRESH AFTER AFFORDING DUE OPPORTUNITY OF H EARING FOR THE ASSESSEE WITHOUT BEING PREJUDICED WITH ITS OBSERVATIONS AND FINDINGS IN THE EARLIER IMPUGNED ORDER. 13. IN VIEW OF ABOVE, GROUND NO. 1 AND 2 OF THE ASS ESSEE IN APPEAL NO. 4723/D/11 ARE DEEMED TO BE ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. APPEAL NO. 4722/D/2011 OF THE ASSESSEE 14. SINCE WE HAVE RESTORED THE MAIN ISSUE TO THE FI LE OF CIT, FARIDABAD, THEREFORE, THE ISSUE OF REGISTRATION U/S 80G OF THE ACT BEING CONSEQUENTIAL REJECTION OF THE APPLICATION OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALS O RESTORED TO THE FILE FOR FRESH ADJUDICATION WITH A DIRECTION TO CIT THAT THE APPLICATION OF ASSESSEE FILED IN FORM NO. 10G SHALL BE RECONSIDERED IN THE LIGHT OF CONCLUSION DRAWN FOR GRANT OF REGISTRATION U/S 12A OF THE ACT. ACCO RDINGLY, GROUND NO. 1 AND 2 OF THE ASSESSEE IN APPEAL NO. 4722/DEL/2011 IS ALSO DEEMED TO ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 15. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS AL LOWED AS INDICATED ABOVE. ITA NO. 4722 & 4723/D/2011 12 ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 25.7.2014. SD/- SD/- (S. V. MEHROTRA) (CHANDRAMOHAN GARG) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DT. 25TH JULY, 2014 GS COPY FORWARDED TO:- 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. C.I.T.(A) 4. C.I.T. 5. DR BY ORDER ASSTT.REGISTRAR