ITO (E), New Delhi V. M/s. Khetri Trust, New Delhi

ITA 5292/DEL/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 126 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 4047 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 3 month(s) 8 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 15-01-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: D
• Assessment Year: 2012-2013
• Appeal Filed On: 07-10-2016
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: P J KHANNA
• Keywords: Charitable institution; Rule of consistency; Tax effect; Condonation of delay
• Section: 11

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCHES: D , NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI R .K. PANDA , ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SMT. BEENA A PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO. 5292 /DEL/201 6 A.Y. 20 12 - 13 ITO (E), WARD 1(4) CIVIC CENTRE NEW DELHI VS . M/S KHETRI TRUST 5, SARDAR PATEL MARG NEW DELHI (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY SHRI AMIT JAIN, S R.D.R RESPONDENT BY SH. PJ KHANNA, CA DATE OF HEARING 09.01.2018 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 15.01.2018 ORDER PER BEENA A PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER T HE PRESENT APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED BY REVENUE AGAINST ORDER DATED 18/07/16 PASSED BY LD.CIT(A) - 40, NEW DELHI FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2012 - 13 ON THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL: 1. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE LD.CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN ALLOWING THE ASSESSEE S APPEAL BY IGNORING THE FACT THAT SINCE THE ASSESSEE CONTINUES TO HOLD INVESTMENT IN FOREIGN COMPANIES AS WELL AS IN INDIA COMPANIES AND HAS NOT CONVERTED THE SAME IN THE MODES SPECIFIED U/S 11(5), THE TRUST IS NOT ENTITLED TO BENEFIT OF SECTION 11 AND 12 OF THE ACT. 2. THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD, TO ALTER OR AMEND ANY GROUND OF THE APPEAL RAISED ABOVE AT THE TIME OF THE HEARING . ITA 5292/DEL/2016 A.Y.:2012 - 13 ITO(E) VS. KHETRI TRUST, NEW DELHI PAGE 2 OF 11 2. BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE AS UNDER : A SSESSEE IS A T RUST AND FILED ITS RETURN OF INCOME DECLARING NIL INCOME ON 11/09/12. LD. AO COMPLETED THE ASSESSMENT BY MAKING ADDITION IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE AT RS.94,63,660/ - . LD. AO DISALLOWED THE EXEMPTION UNDER SECTION 11 AND 12 OF THE A CT TO ASSESSEE BY OBSERVING AS UNDER: IT IS PERTINENT TO MENTION HERE THAT THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT HAS GIVEN A VERDICT IN THIS CASE VI DE ITS ORDER IN ITA NO.162/2001 DT.17.7.2014 AND THE RELEVANT PORTION OF WHICH IS REPRODUCED AS UNDER: - 'TILL THE WILL IS PROBATED AND IT IS AFFIRMED THAT THE W ILL IS GENUINE, THE RESPONDENT TRUST C OULD NOT ACQUIRE LEGAL RIGHT ON THE PROPERTY AS SUCH FOR THE PURPOSE OF THE PRESENT ACT I.E. INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 ..... ..... IN VIEW OF THE FACTUAL POSITION ELUCIDATED ABOVE AND AFFIRMED BY THE CIT(A) AND THE TRIBUNA L, WE DO NOT THINK ALLEGATION OF VIOLATION OF SECTION 11(5) OF THE ACT ARISES FOR CONSIDERATION OR SHOULD BE ACCEPTED . IN VIEW OF THE HIGH COURT ORDER THE EXEMPTION U/S.11 AND 12 WHICH WERE EARLIER BEING DISALLOWED AS THERE WAS A VIOLATION UNDER SECTION 13( 1 )( D) OF THE I. T. ACT, THE SAME IS ACCEPTED AND ALLOWED. HOWEVER, SINCE THE TRUST IS NOT CARRYING ON ANY CHARITABLE ACTIVITY DESPITE THE FUNDS BEING USED FOR ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES THE EXEMPTION U/S.11 AND 12 IS NOT ALLOWED TO THE ASSESSEE TRUST. IT WI LL ALSO BE NOT OUT OF PLACE TO MENTION HERE THAT AFTER GIVING EFFECT TO THE ORDER OF THE HON'BLE ITAT THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN DETERMINED AT NIL OF THE PREVIOUS YEARS AS ASSESSMENT PASSED ON THE SAME FOOTING. SINCE THE ISSUE RELATES TO LA ST MANY YEARS AND THE QUANTUM OF TOTAL TAX EFFECT IS VERY HUGE AND TO MAINTAIN CONSISTENCY, THE ASSESSMENT IS PASSED ON THE SAME FOOTING AS IN LAST YEARS. THE ASSESSEE TRUST WAS ACCUMULATED THE FUND U/S 11(2) OF THE ACT AT RS. RS.51,75,012/ - AND RS. 1 0,23, 198/ - FOR THE FINANCIAL YEAR 2001 - 02 RELEVANT TO A.Y. 2002 - 03 AND FOR THE FINANCIAL YEAR 2006 - 07 RELEVANT TO AY 2007 - 08 AS PER PROVISION OF SECTION 11 (2) OF THE ACT, ITA 5292/DEL/2016 A.Y.:2012 - 13 ITO(E) VS. KHETRI TRUST, NEW DELHI PAGE 3 OF 11 THE SAME FUND WAS TO BE UTILIZED UP TO F.Y. 2011 - 12 RELEVANT TO A.Y. 2012 - 13. THE ASSESSE E HAS FAILED TO DO SO. THEREFORE, THE AMOUNT OF RS . 61,98,210 / - (51,75,012+10,23,198) IS ADDED TO THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. 2.1. AT THE OUTSET LD. AR HAS SUBMITTED THAT HON BLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN APPEAL BEING ITA NO. 162/2001 V IDE ORDER DATED 17/07/14 HELD AS UNDER: 5. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) HAS REFERRED TO THE W ILL OF LATE RAJA BAHADUR SARDAR SINGH OF KHETRI AND THAT AS PER THE SAID WILL HIS ENTIRE PROPERTY INCLUDING IMMOVABLE PROPERTY AND SHARES IN A FOREIGN COMPANY WORTH RS.9,77,025/ - WERE BEQUEATHED TO THE RESPONDENT TRUST. HE HAS OBSERVED THAT THE PROPERTIES HAD NOT BEEN TRANSFERRED OR ACQUIRED BY THE TRUST BECAUSE OF ONGOING LITIGATION IN THE COURT. THE WILL OF LATE RAJA BAHADUR SARDAR SINGH OF KHETRI WAS UNDER CHALLENG E IN THE PROBATE PROCEEDINGS AND THE SAME WERE PENDING ADJUDICATION. IT HAS BEEN STATED AT THE BAR, THAT THE PROBATE PROCEEDINGS ARE STILL PENDING. TILL THE WILL IS PROBATED AND IT IS AFFIRMED THAT THE WILL IS GENUINE, THE RESPONDENT TRUST WOULD NOT ACQUIR E LEGAL RIGHT ON THE PROPERTY AS SUCH FOR THE PURPOSE OF THE PRESENT ACT I.E. INCOME TAX ACT, 1961. IN CASE, PROBATE IS DENIED, THE, PROPERTIES WOULD NOT DEVOLVE ON THE RESPONDENT - TRUST. AT PRESENT THE LEGAL AND FACTUAL POSITION IS UNCERTAIN AND INCHOATE. 6. THUS, THE FOREIGN SHARES HAVE NOT BEEN TRANSFERRED IN THE NAME OF THE TRUST AND WERE/ARE STILL IN THE NAME OF LATE RAJA BAHADUR SARDAR SINGH. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) HAS NOTI CED THAT THE WILL, THE SHARES ARE TO BECOME THE CORPUS OF THE TR UST ACQUISITION IS DEPENDENT UPON ADJUDICATION OF THE PROBATE. THUS , THERE CANNOT BE VIOLATION OF SECTION 11(5) IN THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE. 7. WITH REGARD TO ADVANCE OF RS. 1,10,000 / - , COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) HAS OBSERVED THAT THE SAME WAS PAID BY THE TRUSTEES FOR RAISING A MEMORIAL FOR LATE RAJA BAHADUR SARDAR SINGH. THE PROJECT HOWEVER HAS NOT BEEN COMPLETED BECAUSE OF THE ONGOING ITA 5292/DEL/2016 A.Y.:2012 - 13 ITO(E) VS. KHETRI TRUST, NEW DELHI PAGE 4 OF 11 DISPUTE. HOWEVER, THE BUSINESS INDIA HAD PAID INTEREST ON THE SAID AMOUNT. ACCORDINGLY PAYMENT OF RS. 1, 1 0,000 / - CANNOT BE TREATED AS AN INVESTMENT WHICH WAS MADE AND WHICH WAS COVERED AND REGULATED BY SECTION 11(5) OF THE ACT. THE INTENT AND PURPOSE BEHIND PAYMENT OF RS.1, 1 0,000 / - WAS NOT INVESTMENT. 8. THE AFORESAID VIEW HAS BEEN AFFIRMED BY THE TR IBUNAL. 9. LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE APPELLANT REVENUE HAS NOT BEEN ABLE TO CONTROVERT AND DENY THE AFORESAID FACTUAL POSITION. IN FACT, HE WAS ASKED WHETHER THE REVENUE HAS FILED OR TAKEN SIMILAR OBJECTIONS IN RESPECT OF OTHER YEARS AND DENIED BENEFIT OF SECTION 11. HE IS UNABLE TO ANSWER THE SAID QUESTION BUT COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSSEE HAS STATED THAT IN 2 OR 3 ASSESSMENT YE ARS SIMILAR OBJECTIONS WERE RAISED BUT IN OTHER YE ARS BENEFIT UNDER SECTION 11 HAS BEEN GRANTED. AS NOTICED ABOVE, COUNSEL FOR RESPON DENT TRUST HAS STATED THAT PROBATE PROCEEDINGS ARE STILL PENDING. 10. IN VIEW OF THE FACTUAL POSITION ELUCIDATED ABOVE AND AFFIRMED BY THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) AND THE TRIBUNAL, WE DO NOT THINK ALLEGATION OF VIOLATION OF SECTION 11 (5) OF THE ACT ARISES FOR CONSIDERATION OR SHOULD BE ACCEPTED. IN VIEW OF AFORESAID, THE QUESTIONS OF LAW HAVE TO BE ANSWERED IN FAVOUR OF THE RESPONDENT - ASSESSEE AND AGAINST THE APPELLANT. 11. THE APPEAL IS ACCORDINGLY DISMISSED. NO COSTS. 2.2 . IT IS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT ON SIMILAR FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES THIS T RIBUNAL HAS TIME AND AGAIN IN VARIOUS A SSESSMENT Y EARS HAS ALLOWED EXEMPTION UNDER SECTION 11 & 12 TO ASSESSEE . SPECIFIC REFERENCE HAS BEEN MADE TO THE DECISION OF THIS T RIBUNAL IN ITA N OS. 2944 AND 1621/DEL/2012 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2004 - 05 AND 2008 - 09 V IDE ORDER DATED 26/03/13 WHEREIN IT HAS BEEN OBSERVED AS UNDER: ITA 5292/DEL/2016 A.Y.:2012 - 13 ITO(E) VS. KHETRI TRUST, NEW DELHI PAGE 5 OF 11 7. THE DELHI ITAT HAS TIME AND AGAIN, OVER ALL THESE YEARS , APPRECIATED THE GROUND REALITIES OF THE CASE AND HAVE ALLOWED T HE EXEMPTION U/S 11 TO THE TRUST . THE TRUSTEES ARE DUTY BOUND AND, ARE PROTECTING THE ASSETS OF THE TRUST, SO THAT ONCE THE COURT EMBARGO IS TAKEN AWAY AFTER THE PROBATE ORDER , THE ACTIVITIES OF THE TRUST COULD BE CARRIED OUT. TILL SUCH TIME THEY HAVE T O INCUR CERTAIN EXPENDITURES ON MAINTENANCE OF THESE PROPERTIES - IMMOVABLE AND MOVABLE - BY MA I NTAIN I NG STAFF AND HIRING LAWYERS TO FIGHT OUT THE VARIOUS CASES TO ENABLE T HE PROBATE TO BE ALLOWED BY THE HIGH COURT. THESE EXPENDITURES ARE ESSENTIAL TO SAVE THE TRUST AND ITS ASSETS AND THESE EXPENDITURES HAVE BEEN WRONGLY DISALLOWED IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. 8. FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2004 - 05, THE LD. CIT (A) ALLOWED TO THE ASSESSEE, THE BENEFITS OF EXEMPTION UNDER SECTIONS 11 AND 12 OF THE ACT, FOLLOWING THE IT AT ORDER DATED 19.12.2008, PASSED IN ITA NO.862 / DE L /20 08 , IN THE ASSESSEE'S CASE FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2004 - 05 (COPY AT PAGES 9 - 11 OF THE ASSESSEE'S PAPER BOOK) AND FOR ASSESS MENT YEAR 2008 - 09, THE LD. CIT (A) FOLLOWED TRIBUNAL ORDER DT. 18.02.2011, PASSED IN ITA NOS.5569, 5570 & 5571/DE1/2010 FOR ASSESSMENT YEARS 2002 - 03, 2006 - 07 AND 2007 - 08 (COPY AT APB PAGES 16 - 21). 9. BEFORE US, THE LD. DR HAS CONTESTED THE ACTION OF THE LD . CIT (A) F OR BOTH THE YEARS UNDER CONSIDERATION, CONTENDING T HAT THE LD. CIT (A) HAS ERRED IN ALLOWING TO THE ASSESSEE THE BENEFITS UNDER SECTIONS 11 AND 12 OF THE ACT, IGNORING THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE CONTINUES TO HOLD INVESTMENT IN SHARES OF INDIAN AND FOREIGN COMPANIES IN CONTRAVENTION OF SECTION 13(1)(D) OF THE ACT: AND ALSO IN ABSENCE OF ANY CHARITABLE ACTIVITY CARRIED OUT BY THE ASSESSEE. 10. THE ID. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE, ON THE OTHER HAND, HAS PLACED STRONG RELIANCE ON THE IMPUGNED ORDERS IN THIS REGARD. 11. THE TRIBUNAL, IN ITS ORDER DATED 19.12.200 8 (SUPRA), IN THE ASSESSEE'S CASE FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2004 - 0 - 3 HAS HELD AS FOLLOWS: - 'I HAVE GONE THROUGH THE ORDER OF LOWER AUTHORITIES AND FOUND THAT A. O . HAS DENIED BENEFIT OF SECTION 11 ON THE PLEA THAT VIOLATION OF 13 ITA 5292/DEL/2016 A.Y.:2012 - 13 ITO(E) VS. KHETRI TRUST, NEW DELHI PAGE 6 OF 11 ( 1 )(D) DURING THE YEAR UNDER CON SIDERATION. BEFORE THE CIT (A), AS THE APPEAL WAS FILED BELATEDLY BY 8 MONTHS AND 14 DAYS, THE CIT (A) DISMISSED THE APPEAL IN LIMINE, ON THE PLEA OF LATE FILING, AND THE MERITS WERE NOT CONSIDERED. WE FOUND THAT ASSESSEE HAS EXPLAINED THE REASONS FOR DELA Y AND AFTER GOING THROUGH THE SAME, WE FOUND THAT HE HAS EXPLAINED THE DELAY IN FILING THE APPEAL BEFORE CIT (A), WHICH DESERVES TO BE CONDONED IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND FAIR PLAY. AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 250, ORDER OF CIT (A) SHOULD BE IN WR ITING AND SHOULD STATE THE POINT FOR DETERMINATION, THE DECISION THEREON AND THE REASONS FOR THE DECISION. IN THE INSTANT CASE, THE CIT (A) HAS NOT DECIDED THE POINT FOR DETERMINATION, AND HE HAS DISMISSED THE APPEAL IN LIMINE JUST BY DECLINING THE ASSESSE E'S APPLICATION FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING THE APPEAL. AS WE HAVE ALREADY HELD THAT THERE WAS DELAY IN FILING THE APPEAL WHICH IS DULY SUPPORTED BY REASONS, WE RESTORE THE APPEAL BAC K TO THE FI L E OF THE CIT(A) FOR DECIDING THE APPEAL ON MERIT S. THE CIT (A) IS ALSO DIRECTED TO CONSIDER THE ORDER PASSED BY THE TRIBUNAL I N ASSESSEE'S OWN CASE FOR THE ASSTT. YEAR 01 - 02 AND 03 - 04 WHEREIN I SSUE OF EXEMPTION U / S 11 HAS BEEN DIS CUSSED BY THE TRIBUNAL ELABORATELY. WE DIRECT ACCOR DINGLY .' 1 2 . IN ITS ORDER D ATED 18.02.2011, IN THE ASSESSEE'S CASE FOR ASSESSMENT YEARS 2002 - 03, 2006 - 07 AND 2007 - 08, THE TRIBUNAL HAS HELD AS FOLLOWS: - '6. WE HAVE CAREFULLY PERUSED THE AFORESAID TRIBUNAL ORDERS PLACED ON RECORD. IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2001 - 02, THE TRIBUNAL VIDE O RDER DATED 21.2.2008 HAS DISCUSSED AND DECIDED THIS ISSUE BY OBSERVING AND HOLDING AS UNDER: - 4. THE ASSESSEE IS IN FURTHER APPEAL. RELIANCE IS PLACED ON THE RECORDS OF THE TRIBUNAL FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 1991 - 92 TO 1998 - 99 AS PER LIST GIVEN IN THE FIRST PAGE OF THE PAPER BOOK; COPIES OF THESE ORDERS HAVE ALSO BEEN F I LED . W E HAVE CAREFULLY PERUSED THESE ORDERS. IN THE ORDERS FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 1991 - 92 AND 1992 - 93, THE TRIBUNAL HAS NOT SPECIFICALLY DEALT WITH THE QUESTION OF APPLICATION OF THE INCOM E OF THE TRUST FOR CHARITABLE PURPOSES IN INDIA. HOWEVER, IN THE ORDER FO R THE ITA 5292/DEL/2016 A.Y.:2012 - 13 ITO(E) VS. KHETRI TRUST, NEW DELHI PAGE 7 OF 11 ASSESSMENT YEA R 1993 - 94 DATED 19.2.2002 IN ITA NO.1359/DE L /1997 , ONE OF THE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE ( G ROUND NO. 6) WAS THAT THE 'PROPERTIES AND ACCUMULATIONS COULD NOT BE APPLIED TO CHARITABLE OBJECTS AS THE ISSUE OF ADMINISTRATION WAS YET TO BE GRANTED BY THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT AND, THEREFORE, THE APPELLANT SHOULD HAVE BEEN HELD TO HAVE APPLIED AND THE ACCUMULATION FOR APPLICATION SHOULD HAVE BE EN PERMITTED'. AFTER NOTICING THIS GROUND, THE TRIBUNAL FOLLOWED ITS EARLIER ORDERS FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 1991 - 92 AND 1992 - 93 AND ALLOWED THE ASSESSEE'S APPEAL. IN PARAGRAPH 3 OF THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL, IT WAS FURTHER OBSERVED THAT ON BEING CONFRONTED WITH THE EARLIER ORDERS OF THE TRIBUNAL, THE DEPARTMENT CONCEDED THAT THE I SSUE OF EXEMPTION UNDER SECTION 11 IS COVERED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE. THIS ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 1993 - 94 WAS FOLLOWED BY THE TRIBUNAL FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 1994 - 95 TO 1996 - 97 AND 1998 - 99. IN VIEW OF THESE CONSISTENT ORDERS, IN ONE OF WHICH THE ASSESSEE'S GROUND TO THE EFFECT THAT IN VIEW OF THE LITIGATION PENDING BEFORE THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT THE INCOME COULD NOT BE APPLIED FOR CHARITABLE PURPOSES AND I T MUST BE TAKEN TO HAVE BEEN ACCUMULATED HAS ALSO BEEN CONSIDERED, WE HOLD THAT NOTWITHSTANDING THE REASON GIVEN BY THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER THAT THE ASSESSEE DID NOT APPLY ITS INCOME TO ANY CHARITABLE ACTIVITY IN INDIA DURING THE YEAR, THE ASSESSEE WOULD BE ELI GIBLE FOR THE EXEMPTION UNDER SECTION 11. ADMITTEDLY, THE FACTS FOR THE YEAR UNDER APPEAL ARE THE SAME IN THE EARLIER YEA R WHICH MEANS THAT THE QUESTION OF NON - APPLICATION OF ANY INCOME TO CHARITABLE PURPOSE S WAS ALSO PRESENT IN THE EARLIER YEARS, THOUGH THAT QUESTION MIGHT NOT HAVE BEEN 'SPECIFICALLY DEALT WITH IN THE ASSESSMENT OR IN THE APPELLATE ORDERS. WHEN THE FA C TS ARE THE SAME, THE RULE OF CONSISTENCY REQUIRES THAT THE SAME VIEW SHOULD BE TAKEN BY THE TRIBUNAL. FURTHER, IT IS REPRESENTED BEFORE US ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE THAT SOME OF THE EARLIER ORDERS OF ITA 5292/DEL/2016 A.Y.:2012 - 13 ITO(E) VS. KHETRI TRUST, NEW DELHI PAGE 8 OF 11 THE TRIBUNAL ARE PENDING IN APPEAL, BEFORE THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT. IN ANY CASE , THE LAW DOES NOT OBLIGE A PERSON TO DO SOMETHING WHICH IS IMPOSSIBL E. WHEN THE PROBATE MATTER IS PENDING BEFORE THE HON BLE HIGH COURT IT IS NOT POSSIBLE FOR THE TRUST, WHICH DERIVED ITS PROPERTIES AND ASSETS UNDER THE WILL OF THE LATE RAJA OF KHETRI, TO APPLY THE INCOME FROM THEM TO CHARITABLE PURPOSE IN INDIA, NOR IS IT PERMISSIBLE FOR THE TRUST TO DISGORGE THE OFFENDING INVESTMENTS IN THE FORM OF SHARES. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS HIMSELF STATED THAT THE INCOME HAS BEEN DEPOSITED IN THE BANK. IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, THE BETTER SOLUTION WOULD BE TO ALSO HOLD THAT THE INCOME OF THE TRUST IS BEING ACCUMULATED FOR BEING APPLIED TOWARDS CHARITABLE PURPOSES IN INDIA AND THAT THE NECESSARY PERMISSION FOR THE SAME HAS BEEN GIVEN BY THE INCOME TAX AUTHORITIES. FOR THESE REASONS AND RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE EARLIER ORDERS OF THE TRIBUNAL, WE HOLD THAT THE ASSESSEE IS ELIGIBLE FOR THE EXEMPTION UNDER SECTION 11 AND ALLOW THE APPEAL.' 7. THE AFORESAID TRIBUNAL'S ORDER FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2001 - 02 HAS BEEN FOLLOWED BY THE TRIBUNAL IN THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2003 - 04 VIDE ORDER DA TED 28.3.2008 IN ITA NO. 3887/DE L /2007. 8. IN THE LIGHT OF THE EARLIER ORDERS OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE MATTER AND THERE BEING NO CHANGE IN THE FACTS OF THE CASE IN THE PRESENT ASSESSMENT YEAR VIS A VIS THE FACTS IN THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2001 - 02 AND 2003 - 0 4, WE ARE INCLINED TO UPHOLD THE ORDER OF THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) IN HOLDING THAT THE ASSESSEE IS E NTITLED FOR EXEMPTION UNDER SECTION 11 AND 12 OF THE ACT. 13. FROM THE ABOVE, IT IS SEEN THAT THE TRIBUNAL, FOR THE NUMEROUS YEARS MENTIONED ABOVE, HAS UPHELD THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE FOR EMPTION UNDER SECTIONS 11 AND 12 OF THE ACT, AS CORRECTLY NOTED BY THE LD.CIT(A). T HE FACTS FOR BOTH THE YEARS PRESENTLY BEFORE US HAVE NOT BEEN POINTED OUT BY THE DEPARTMENT TO HAVE UNDERGONE ANY CHANGE. THEREFORE, FINDING NO ERROR WHATSOEVER THEREIN, THE ORDERS OF THE LD. CIT (A) FOR BOTH THE YEARS UNDER CONSIDERATION ARE UPHELD . ITA 5292/DEL/2016 A.Y.:2012 - 13 ITO(E) VS. KHETRI TRUST, NEW DELHI PAGE 9 OF 11 ACCORDINGLY, THE ONLY GROUND RAISED IN ITA NO.2944/DEL/2012 IS REJECTED AND GROUND NO. 1 TAKEN FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 20 08 - 09 IS ALSO REJECTED. 2.3. LD.AR SUBMITTED TH AT IN ASSESSMENT ORDERS IN SUBSEQUENT ASSESSMENT YEARS BEING 2013 - 14 AND 2014 - 15 LD. AO HAS HIMSELF GRANTED EXEMPTION UNDER SECTION 11 AND 12. A COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDERS HAS BEEN PLACED ON RECORD BY LD.AR . 2.4 . LD.D.R. ON THE OTHER HAND SUPPORTED ORDER OF LD.AO. 3. WE HAVE PERUSED THE SUBMISSIONS ADVANCED BY BOTH THE SIDES IN THE LIGHT OF THE MATERIALS AND VARIOUS ORDERS OF THIS T RIBUNAL / HON BLE DELHI HIGH COURT , AS WELL AS ASSESSMENT ORDERS PASS ED IN SUBSEQUENT ASSESSMENT YEARS . IT IS OBSERVED THAT THE FACTS AND ISSUES RAISED IN THE APPEAL BEFORE US ARE IDENTICAL TO THOSE ON WHICH RELIANCE HAS BEEN PLACED BY LD.AR . THE ISSUE BEFORE US STANDS SQUARELY COVERED BY ALL THESE ORDERS AND SINCE NO CONT RARY MATERIAL HAS BEEN PLACED ON RECORD BY THE REVENUE THE DECISION BY THIS T RIBUNAL IN ASSESSEE S OWN CASE BECOMES CONCLUSIVE. THEREFORE WE DO NOT FIND ANY ERROR WHATSOEVER IN THE ORDER OF LD.CIT(A) AND THE SAME IS UPHELD. ACCORDINGLY THE GROUND RAISED BY REVENUE STANDS DISMISSED. 4. IN THE RESULT APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE STANDS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 1 5 T H JANUARY, 2018. S D / - S D / - ( R .K. PANDA ) (BEENA A PILLAI) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED: 1 5 T H JANUARY, 2018 *MV ITA 5292/DEL/2016 A.Y.:2012 - 13 ITO(E) VS. KHETRI TRUST, NEW DELHI PAGE 10 OF 11 COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR 6. GUARD FILE BY ORDER ASST. REGISTRAR ITAT, DELHI BENCHES, NEW DELHI ITA 5292/DEL/2016 A.Y.:2012 - 13 ITO(E) VS. KHETRI TRUST, NEW DELHI PAGE 11 OF 11 S.NO. DETAILS DATE INITIALS DESIGNATION 1 DRAFT DICTATED ON DRAGON 10.01.18 SR. PS/PS 2 DRAFT PLACED BEFORE AUTHOR 1 2 .01.18 SR. PS/PS 3 DRAFT PROPOSED & PLACED BEFORE THE SECOND MEMBER JM/AM 4 DRAFT DISCUSSED/APPROVED BY SECOND MEMBER AM/AM 5 APPROVED DRAFT COMES TO THE SR. PS/PS SR. PS/PS 6 KEPT FOR PRONOUNCEMENT SR. PS/PS 7 FILE SENT TO BENCH CLERK SR. PS/PS 8 DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO HEAD CLERK 9 DATE ON WHICH FILE GOES TO A.R. 10 DATE OF DISPATCH OF ORDER