DDIT (E) I (2), MUMBAI V. THE AMERICAN SCHOOL OF BOMBAY EDUCATION TRUST, MUMBAI

ITA 5581/MUM/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 119 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 1264 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 year(s) 2 month(s) 23 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 28-11-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 26-10-2016
• Assessment Year: 1998-1999
• Appeal Filed On: 04-09-2014
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Reasonable cause; Corroborative evidences
• Section: 143(3); 12A; 147; 10

Judgement Text

AAYAKR APILAIYA AIQAKRNA AAYAKR APILAIYA AIQAKRNA AAYAKR APILAIYA AIQAKRNA AAYAKR APILAIYA AIQAKRNA A NYAAYAPIZ MAMUBA[ NYAAYAPIZ MAMUBA[ NYAAYAPIZ MAMUBA[ NYAAYAPIZ MAMUBA[- -- - MAO. MAO. MAO. MAO. IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL A BENCH, MUM BAI , , BEFORE SRI MAHAVIR SINGH, JM AND SRI MANOJ KUMAR AG GARWAL, AM AAYAKR APILA SAM AAYAKR APILA SAM AAYAKR APILA SAM AAYAKR APILA SAM . / ITA NO. 5581/MUM/2014 ( INAQA-ARNA BAYA- / ASSESSMENT YEAR 1998-99) DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX-(E) I(2), MUMBAI VS. THE AMERICAN SCHOOL OF BOMBAY EDUCATION TRUST, SF-2, G-BLOCK, BANDRA KURLA COMPLEX ROAD, BANDRA (E), MUMBAI ( APILAAQAI APILAAQAI APILAAQAI APILAAQAI - -- - / APPELLANT) .. ( P`%YAQAAI P`%YAQAAI P`%YAQAAI P`%YAQAAI- -- - / RESPONDENT) . / PAN NO. AAATT 9038 K SAM SAMSAM SAM . /CO NO. 16/MUM/2016 ( ARISING IN ITA NO. 5581/MUM/2014 FOR AY 1998 -99) THE AMERICAN SCHOOL OF BOMBAY EDUCATION TRUST, SF-2, G-BLOCK, BANDRA KURLA COMPLEX ROAD, BANDRA (E), MUMBAI VS. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX-(E) I(2), MUMBAI ( APILAAQAI APILAAQAI APILAAQAI APILAAQAI - -- - / APPELLANT) .. ( P`%YAQAAI P`%YAQAAI P`%YAQAAI P`%YAQAAI- -- - / RESPONDENT) ! / APPELLANT BY : SHRI ANADI VARMA, CIT-DR #$ ! / RESPONDENT BY : SHRI PORUS KAKA & SHRI DIVESH CHAWLA, ARS ! &' / DATE OF HEARING: 26 .1 1 .2018 ! &' / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 28 . 1 1 .2018 AADOSA AADOSA AADOSA AADOSA / O R D E R PER MAHAVIR SINGH, JM: THIS APPEAL BY THE REVENUE AND CROSS OBJECTION BY A SSESSEE ARE ARISING OUT OF THE ORDER OF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-I, 2 ITA NO. 5581/MUM/2014 & CO NO. 16/MUM/2016 MUMBAI, IN APPEAL NO. CIT(A)-I/IT-E2(88)/2013-14 VI DE DATED 27-06-2014. THE ASSESSMENT WAS FRAMED BY THE ASST. DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX(EXEMPTION)-II(2), MUMBAI FOR THE AY 1998-99 VID E ORDER DATED 28-03- 2013 UNDER SECTION 143(3) READ WITH SECTION 253 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (HEREINAFTER THE ACT). 2. THE ONLY ISSUE IN THIS APPEAL OF REVENUE IS AGAI NST THE ORDER OF CIT(A) GRANTING EXEMPTION U/S. 10(22) OF THE ACT BY TREATING THE ASSESSEE AS EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTE, EXISTED PURELY FOR EDUCAT ION. FOR THIS, REVENUE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING FOUR EFFECTIVE GROUNDS: 1. 'WHETHER ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE C ASE, AND IN LAW, THE CTT(A) WAS JUSTIFIED IN DIRECTING THE AO TO GRANT EXEMPTIO N U/S. 10(22) OF THE I.T. ACT, 1961 INSPITE OF THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSES CANNOT B E TREATED AS EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTION FOR EXEMPTION AS THE ACTIVITIES OF THE ASSESSEE ARE BUSINESS IN NATURE 2. 'WHETHER ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE C ASE, AND IN LAW, THE CIT(A) WAS JUSTIFIED IN DIRECTING THE AO TO GRANT EXEMPTIO N U/S. 10(22) OF THE I.T. ACT, 1961 INSPITE OF THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE TRUST IS A BENEFICIARY TRUST WHOSE BENEFICIARIES ARE FOREIGNERS.' 3. 'WHETHER ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE C ASE, AND IN LAW, THE CIT(A) WAS JUSTIFIED IN DIRECTING THE AO TO GRANT EXEMPTIO N U/S. 10(22) OR THE I,T. ACT, 1961 INSPITE OF THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE WAY RECE IVING PART FEES FROM STUDENTS IN INDIA AND PART OF FEES WAS COLLECTED IN FOREIGN EXCHANGE ABROAD BY AN ARRANGEMENT WITH AN ORGANIZATION SAIESF (SOUTH ASIA INTERNATIONAL EDUCATION SERVICE FOUNDATION), PRINCETON, NEW JERSEY, USA) WH ICH IS OUT OF PURVIEW OF AUDIT IN INDIA AND HOW THE FUNDS ARE UTILIZED BY TH E SAID ORGANIZATION CANNOT BE ASCERTAINED. 4. ''WHETHER ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, AND IN LAW, THE CIT(A) WAS JUSTIFIED IN DIRECTING THE AO TO GRANT EXEMPTIO N U/S. 10(22) OF THE I.T. ACT, 1961 INSPITE OF THE DIRECTION GIVEN BY CBDT IN F.NO .L94/16/77-IT(AI) DATED 29/10/1977 - CBDT BULLETIN TECH XXIII/330 WHEREIN I T HAS BEEN CLEARLY STATED THAT WHERE, IF SURPLUS CAN BE USED FOR NON-EDUCATIO NAL PURPOSES, IT CANNOT BE SAID, THAT THE INSTITUTION IS EXISTING SOLELY FOR E DUCATIONAL PURPOSES AND SUCH INSTITUTION WILL NOT BE LIABLE FOR EXEMPTION UNDER SECTION 10(22]. 3 ITA NO. 5581/MUM/2014 & CO NO. 16/MUM/2016 3. BRIEFLY STATED FACTS ARE THAT ORIGINAL ASSESSMEN T WAS FRAMED BY THE AO U/S. 143(3) READ WITH SECTION 147 VIDE ORDER DAT ED 27-02-2006, DENYING EXEMPTION U/S. 10(22) OF THE ACT BY PROCEED ING ON THE BASIS THAT ASSESSEE HAS CLAIMED EXEMPTION U/S. 10(23C) OF THE ACT, WHICH WAS REJECTED BY CBDT. THE TRIBUNAL RESTORED THE MATTER TO THE FILE OF AO IN ITA NO. 2582/MUM/2008, VIDE ORDER DATED 31-03-2011, DIRECTING THE AO FOR DENOVO ADJUDICATION THE ISSUE WITH REFERENCE TO SECTION 10 (22) OF THE ACT. THE TRIBUNAL CATEGORICALLY NOTED AND ORDERED I N THE FOLLOWING MANNER: 2. AT THE OUTSET, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSE E SUBMITTED THAT AS FAR AS ASSESSMENT YEAR 1998-99 IS CONCERNED, THE ENTIRE PR OCEEDINGS PROCEEDED ON THE PREMISE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD CLAIMED EXEMPTION UNDER SECTION 10(23C)(VI), WHEREAS, THE ASSESSEE WAS ENTITLED TO EXEMPTION UNDER SECTION 10(22). HE, THEREFORE, SUBMITTED THAT THE MATTER N EEDS TO BE RESTORED BACK TO THE FILE OF ASSESSING OFFICER FOR EXAMINING ASSESSE E TRUSTS INCOME IN THE LIGHT OF THE PROVISIONS CONTAINED UNDER SECTION 10(22) OF TH E ACT AS THE SAME HAS NOT BEEN CONSIDERED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. .. 5. WE HAVE HEARD RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND GONE THROUGH THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS, P ERUSED THE ORDERS OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES AND THE MATERIALS AVAILABLE ON RE CORD. IN VIEW OF THE SUBMISSIONS NOTED ABOVE, WE SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT(A) FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 1998-99 AND RESTORE THE MATTER BACK TO THE FILE OF ASSESSING OFFICER FOR DECIDING THE ISSUE DENOVO WIT H REFERENCE TO SECTION 10(22) IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW. 3.1. THE AO FRAMED ASSESSMENT U/S. 143(3) READ WITH SECTION 253 OF THE ACT VIDE ORDER DATED 28-03-2013, JUST REPEATING THE EARLIER ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 27-02-2006. THE ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MA TER BEFORE THE CIT(A) AND CIT(A) PASSED ORDER U/S. 251 OF THE ACT, AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSIONS OF ASSESSEE VIDE ORDER DATED 27-06-2014 , ALLOWED THE CLAIM OF EXEMPTION U/S. 10(22) OF THE ACT VIDE PARAS 7 TO 7.5 AS UNDER: 4 ITA NO. 5581/MUM/2014 & CO NO. 16/MUM/2016 7. I HAVE CONSIDERED THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, SUBMISSIONS OF THE APPELLANT AND THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. IT IS NOTI CED THAT THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS WERE RESTORED BACK TO THE A.O. FOR DECI DING THE ISSUE OF TAXABILITY AND COMPUTATION OF INCOME IN REFERENCE TO SECTION 1 0(22) OF THE I.T. ACT, 1961. IT HAS BEEN NOTED BY A.O. ON PAGE 3 OF THE ASSESSME NT ORDER AS ALSO REPRODUCED ABOVE THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS ENGAGED IN IMPARTING EDUCATION BUT WAS CARRYING OUT BUSINESS ACTIVITY FOR THE PURPOSE OF EARNING PROFIT AS PER FINDINGS GIVEN IN THE ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT ORDER PAS SED ON 27.02.2006. THE A.O. HAS FURTHER CONCLUDED THAT ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUM STANCE OF THE CASE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS ASSESSED THE INCOME OF THE AS SESSEE AT 17,50,02,804/- UNDER VARIOUS RECEIPTS. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, THE ASSESSEE IS NOT ENTITLED FOR EXEMPTION U/S. 10(22) FOR THE INCOME ASSESSED IN TH E ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT ORDER. (PARA 4 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER). THE SPE CIFIC DIRECTION UNDER THE ORDER OF HON'BLE TRIBUNAL DATED 31.03.2011 FOR DECIDING THE ISSUE OF EXEMPTION U/S.10(22) HAS NOT BEEN ADDRESSED BY TH E A.O. THE A.O. HAS RELIED ON THE ASSESSMENT ORDER WHICH HAS BEEN REJECTED/ RE STORED BACK TO A.O. BY THE HON'BLE TRIBUNAL ON THE ISSUE OF EXEMPTION U/S. 10( 22) OF THE I.T. ACT. THEREFORE RELIANCE PLACED BY THE A.O. ON THE SAID EARLIER ASS ESSMENT ORDER AND RE- ENDORSING THE SAME WITHOUT CONSIDERING THE ISSUES I N REFERENCE TO SECTION 10(22) OF THE I.T. ACT IS ERRONEOUS AND VOID BECAUS E THE HON'BLE TRIBUNAL IN ITA NO. 2582, 2583, 2584, 2585/MUM/2008 DATED 31.03.201 1, HAS CATEGORICALLY NOTED AND ORDERED IN THE FOLLOWING MANNER- 2. AT THE OUTSET, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT AS FAR AS ASSESSMENT YEAR 1998-99 IS CONCERNED, THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS PROCEEDED ON THE PREMISE THAT THE ASSES SEE HAD CLAIMED EXEMPTION UNDER SECTION 10(23C)(VI), WHEREA S, THE ASSESSEE WAS ENTITLED TO EXEMPTION UNDER SECTION 10 (22). HE, THEREFORE, SUBMITTED THAT THE MATTER NEEDS TO BE RE STORED BACK TO THE FILE OF ASSESSING OFFICER FOR EXAMINING ASSESSE E TRUSTS INCOME IN THE LIGHT OF THE PROVISIONS CONTAINED UNDER SECT ION 10(22) OF THE ACT AS THE SAME HAS NOT BEEN CONSIDERED BY THE ASSE SSING OFFICER. .. 5. WE HAVE HEARD RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND GONE THROUGH THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. THE RIVAL SUBMISSION S, PERUSED THE ORDERS OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES AND THE MATERIALS A VAILABLE ON RECORD. IN VIEW OF THE SUBMISSIONS NOTED ABOVE, WE SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT(A) FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 1998- 99 AND RESTORE THE MATTER BACK TO THE FILE OF ASSES SING OFFICER FOR DECIDING THE ISSUE DENOVO WITH REFERENCE TO SECTION 10(22) IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW. 5 ITA NO. 5581/MUM/2014 & CO NO. 16/MUM/2016 7.1 IT HAS BEEN REITERATED AND SUBMITTED BY THE APP ELLANT THAT THE RELEVANT PROVISION UNDER WHICH EXEMPTION HAS BEEN CLAIMED BY THE APPELLANT FOR THE CURRENT ASSESSMENT YEAR (1998-99) IS SECTION 10(22) OF THE I.T. ACT. IT HAS FURTHER BEEN SUBMITTED THAT THE ONLY CONDITION FOR EXEMPTION U/S. 10(22) IS EXISTENCE OF INSTITUTION FOR EDUCATIONAL PURPOSES A ND NOT FOR THE PURPOSE OF PROFIT. THE APPELLANT HAS SUBMITTED DETAILS OF RECO GNITION AND AFFILIATION OF VARIOUS COURSES TAUGHT BY THE APPELLANT, AND THE AM BIT OF ITS ACTIVITIES CONFINED TO THE EDUCATIONAL PURPOSES, AS SUMMARILY REPRODUCE D BY WAY OF RELEVANT SUBMISSIONS OF THE APPELLANT ABOVE. THERE IS NO DIS CUSSION AND MATERIAL BRINGING OUT BUSINESS ACTIVITY FOR THE PURPOSE OF E ARNING PROFIT SO AS TO DENY EXEMPTION U/S. 10(22) OF THE I.T.ACT AS CLAIMED BY THE APPELLANT IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER UNDER APPEAL. THE OBSERVATIONS CON TAINED IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER RELATING TO VARIOUS ADDITIONS ARE MAINLY CONN ECTED TO TUITION FEES- RS.2,02 , 46,320/- + RS. 2,02,46,320/-, DONATIONS-RS.5,73,69, 137/-, INTEREST INCOME -RS-1,53,897/- AND OTHER INCOME RS.85,739/- (PAGE 1 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER) WHICH PRIMA FACIE DO NOT REFLECT OR DENOTE ANY ACTIVITY AND INCOME FOR THE EARNING PROFIT SO AS TO DEBAR THE AP PELLANT UNDER SECTION. 10(22) OF THE I.T. ACT, 1961. 7.2 SECTION 10(22) OF THE I.T. ACT, WAS OMITTED BY FINANCE (NO.2) ACT, 1998 W.E.F. 1-4-1998 I.E. WAS APPLICABLE FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 1998-99 (F.Y, ENDING MARCH,1998) WHICH IS THE CURRENT YEAR UNDER APPEAL. THEREFORE, THE REASON GIVEN BY A.O. FOR DENIAL OF EXEMPTION U/S 10(22) OF THE IT ACT IN ABSENTIA, WITHOUT TAKING INTO ACCOUNT THE EXISTENCE AND APPLI CABILITY OF SECTION 10(22) IS PRIMA FACIE INVALID AND CONTRARY TO LAW. IN THIS C ONTEXT, THE A.O. HAS NOTED ON- PAGE 3 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER THAT 'MOREOVER, IT IS PERTINENT TO MENTION HERE THAT THE PREDECESSOR ASSESSING OFFICER HAS PASSED THE ASSESSMENT ORDER ON 27.2.200 6, AND AT THAT TIME THE SAID SECTION 10(22) IS NOT THERE IN THE STATUTE BOOK. BUT ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE ASSESSING OFFICE R-HAD ASSESSED INCOME OF THE ASSESSES AT RS.17,50,02,804/- UNDER VARIOUS RECEIPTS. IN VIE W OF THE ABOVE, THE SSSESSEE IS NOT ENTITLED FOR EXEMPTION U /S.10(22) FOR THE INCOME ASSESSED IN THE ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT ORDER.' 7.3 THE APPELLANT IN ITS SUBMISSION HAS EXPLAINED T HAT THE REJECTION OF EXEMPTION U/S. 10(23C) BY THE CBDT FOR THE APPELLAN T, WHICH HAS LATER BEEN, GRANTED VIDE ORDER F.NO.CCLT/MUM/10(23C)(VI)/152/20 07-08 DATED 31.03.2008, FILED BY THE APPELLANT DURING THE APPEL LATE PROCEEDING, PLACED ON RECORD, W.E.F. A.Y.2007-08 ONWARDS AND IRREGULARITI ES IN RESPECT OF TUITION FEES COLLECTION WHICH ALSO BEEN CONDONED BY THE RBI VIDE ITS LETTER NO.FE.CO/NRFAD/796/22.18./2005-06 DATED JULY 12, 2006 PARA 3 BY STATING THAT IN VIEW OF THE CIRCUMSTANCES EXPLAIN ED BY YOU, IT HAS BEEN DECIDED TO CONDONE THE LAPSE', AS SUCH HAVE NO BEARING TO THE EXEMPTION 6 ITA NO. 5581/MUM/2014 & CO NO. 16/MUM/2016 U/S.10(22) OF THE I.T. ACT FOR THIS PARTICULAR ASSE SSMENT YEAR. AS PER THE LEGAL PROVISIONS OF SECTION 10(22) UNDER THE INCOME TAX A CT,196L, APPLICABLE FOR A.Y.1998-99, THE REQUIREMENTS FOR EXEMPTION ARE CLE ARLY LAID DOWN. THE CONDITION PRECEDENT FOR CLAIMING EXEMPTION U/S.10(2 2) WAS THAT 'THE_EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTION_MUST_EXIST SOLELY FOR EDUCATIONAL PURPOSES AND NOT FOR PROFIT AND ONCE THIS CONDITION WAS FULFILLED TH E FACT THAT THE RECIPIENT OF INCOME WAS A PERSON OTHER THAN THE EDUCATIONAL INST ITUTION WOULD NOT AFFECT THE POSITION'. I.T.O. VS. SHRI BHUVANENDRA COLLEGE TRUS T [1983] 4 ITD (BANG.) IT WAS ALSO LAID DOWN IN SHANTI DEVI PROGRESSIVE EDUCATION AL SOCIETY VS. ASST. DIRECTOR (1999) 68 ITD (DEL.) THAT EXEMPTION U/S.10(22) NOT TO BE DENIED_SINCE REVENUE COULD NOT POINT OUT ANY CASE WHERE ANY PART OF PROFIT/INCOME BEING DIVERTED FOR PURPOSE OTHER THAN FOR EDUCATIONAL PUR POSE. THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE OF THE APPELLANT FOR CLAI M OF EXEMPTION U/S.10(22) OF THE I.T. ACT FIND SUPPORT AND ARE ENDORSED BY THESE JUDICIAL DECISIONS. N ' '. V. .' * - ' '. 7.4 THE LEGAL POSITION VIZ. SECTION 10(22) OF T HE I,T. ACT, 1961 IN RESPECT OF FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE OF THE APPE LLANT IS WELL SETTLED IN THE FOLLOWING DECISIONS OF THE HON'BLE HIGHER JUDICIAL AUTHORITIES - . 1. EXEMPTION CANNOT TIE DENIED MERELY BECAUSE THE RE IS A SURPLUS - AFTER MEETING THE EXPENDITURE, IF ANY SURPLUS RES ULTS INCIDENTALLY FROM THE ACTIVITY LAWFULLY CARRIED ON BY THE EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTION, IT WILL NOT CEASE TO BE ONE EXISTING SOLELY FOR EDUCATIONAL PURPOSES, SINCE THE OBJECT IS NOT ON E TO MAKE PROFIT. THE DECISIVE OR ACID TEST IS WHETHER ON AN OVERALL! VIEW OF THE MATTER THE OBJEC T IS TO MAKE PROFIT. IN EVALUATING OR APPRAISING THE ABOVE, ONE SHOULD ALSO BEAR IN MIND THE DISTINCTION/DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE CORPUS, THE OBJECTS AND THE POWERS OF T HE CONCERNED ENTITY - ADITANAR EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTION V ADDL. CIT [1997] 90 TAXMAN 528/224 ITR 310 (SC) 2. INCOME FROM ANY OTHER SOURCE WILL ALSO BE EXEMPT, IF THAT INCOME IS USED FOR EDUCATIONAL PURPOSES - IF AN INSTITUTION EXISTS SOLELY FOR THE PURPOSE OF EDUCATION AND IT DERIVES INCOME FROM ANY OTHER SOURCE AND IF THAT INCOME IS USED ONLY FOR THE PURPOSE OF EDUCATION, THEN IT WILL COME UNDER SECTION 10(22) - BRAHMIN EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY V. ASSTT, CIT [1996] 89 TAXMAN 434 (KER.). 7.5. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE SETTLED POSITIONS FOR APP LICABILITY OF SECTION 10(22) OF THE I.T. ACT, 1961, IT IS FOUND THAT ME APPELLANT H AD CARRIED OUT EDUCATIONAL ACTIVITIES -DURING THE YEAR WHICH IS NOT UNDER QUES TION EITHER IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER OR ELSE AND ALSO THERE ARE NO FACTS AND REASO NS POINTED OUT BY A.O. SHOWING THAT THE APPELLANT HAS CARRIED OUT BUSINES S ACTIVITIES FOR EARNING PROFIT. UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES, IT IS HELD THAT THE APPELL ANT IS ENTITLED FOR EXEMPTION UNDER SECTION.10(22) OF THE I.T.ACT, 1961 FOR THE Y EAR UNDER THIS APPEAL I.E, A.Y. 1998-99. IN VIEW OF ABOVE AND FOR THE REASONS THEREIN, GROUN D NOS.9 TO 20 OF APPEAL ARE ALLOWED. 7 ITA NO. 5581/MUM/2014 & CO NO. 16/MUM/2016 AGGRIEVED, REVENUE IS IN SECOND APPEAL BEFORE THE T RIBUNAL. 4. BEFORE US, LD.CIT-DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE SH RI ANADI VARMA, FIRST OF ALL TOOK US THROUGH THE ASSESSMENT ORDER A ND STATED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT PRODUCED THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OR D OCUMENTS TO PROVE ITS CLAIM OF EXEMPTION MADE U/S. 10(22) OF THE ACT THAT THE ASSESSEE-TRUST SOLELY EXISTED FOR EDUCATIONAL PURPOSES. HE STATED THAT EVEN THE DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT MADE ENQUIRIES AND POINT ED OUT CERTAIN INCONSISTENCIES. EVEN THE CBDT HAS REJECTED THE AP PLICATION MADE BY ASSESSEE U/S. 10(23C)(VI) OF THE ACT AND IN ABSENCE OF REGISTRATION U/S. 12A OF THE ACT, THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT ENTITLED FOR E XEMPTION U/S. 11 OF THE ACT. THEREFORE, HE ARGUED THAT THE AO HAS RIGHTLY D ENIED THE CLAIM OF EXEMPTION TO ASSESSEE U/S. 10(22) OF THE ACT. IT W AS THE FINDING OF AO THAT THE ASSESSEE IS UNABLE TO PRODUCE ANY EVIDENCE RELA TING TO CORRECTNESS OF ITS ACCOUNTS OF SOUTH ASIA INTERNATIONAL EDUCATION SERVICE FOUNDATION (SAIESF). AO OBSERVED THAT THE EXPENDITURE CLAIMED BY ASSESSEE INCURRED BY SAIESF ON BEHALF OF ASSESSEE IS NOT ALL OWABLE AS THE ACCOUNTS OF SAIESF WERE NOT AUDITED BY CPA IN USA O R BY ANY CHARTERED ACCOUNTANT IN INDIA. ACCORDING TO HIM, THE COMPLET ENESS AND AUTHENTICITY OF THE ACCOUNTS COULD NOT BE PROVED WITH REGARD TO THE CLAIM MADE BY ASSESSEE. ACCORDINGLY, LD. CIT-DEPARTMENTAL REPRES ENTATIVE SUPPORTED THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AND URGED TO RESTORE THE ORDER OF ASSESSING OFFICER. 5. ON THE OTHER HAND, LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SHRI PORUS KAKA ARGUED THAT THE ASSESSEE IS ELIGIBLE FOR EXEMPTION U/S. 10(22) OF THE ACT CONSIDERING THAT IT FULFILLS THE REQUIREMENT THAT I T IS AN INSTITUTION EXISTING SOLELY FOR EDUCATIONAL PURPOSES AND NOT FOR THE PUR POSE OF PROFIT. IT WAS CONTENDED THAT ASSESSEE IS FOLLOWING INTERNATIONAL CURRICULUM. THE INTERNATIONAL BACCALAUREATE (IB) PROGRAM WAS ESTABL ISHED AT ASB IN 1998. 8 ITA NO. 5581/MUM/2014 & CO NO. 16/MUM/2016 ASB HAS BEEN AUTHORISED BY THE INTERNATIONAL BACCAL AUREATE, AN INTERNATIONAL EDUCATIONAL FOUNDATION HEADQUARTERED IN GENEVA, SWITZERLAND TO OFFER THE IB PRIMARY YEARS PROGRAM ( PYP) AND THE IB DIPLOMA PROGRAM, AND IS THUS, RECOGNIZED AS AN IB WORLD SCHOOL. THE IB DIPLOMA, IS RECOGNIZED BY UNIVERSITIES ACROSS TH E WORLD. IT HAS ALSO BEEN RECOGNIZED IN INDIA SINCE 1983 BY THE ASSOCIAT ION OF INDIAN UNIVERSITIES (AIU) AN ORGANIZATION RESPONSIBLE FOR DETERMINING EQUIVALENCY OF FOREIGN DEGREES/CERTIFICATES IN INDIA, AS AN ENT RY QUALIFICATION TO INDIAN UNIVERSITIES. IT EQUATES THE IB DIPLOMA PROGRAM WI TH GRADE 12 (10+2) OF AN INDIA BOARD ASSESSMENT. 5.1. LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE DREW OUR ATTENTIO N THROUGH ASSESSEES PAPER BOOK, WHEREIN THE FOLLOWING DOCUMENTS ARE ENC LOSED: SR. NO. PARTICULARS PAGE NOS. 1 COPY OF THE TRUST DEED OF THE ASSESSEE DATED 10 MAY 1990 AS AMENDED TILL DATE 1-35 2 COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 16 JUNE 1988 ISSUED BY THE MINISTRY OF EXTERNAL AFFAIRS GRANTING APPROVAL TO THE AS SESSEE TO OPEN A SCHOOL IN INDIA 36-37 3 COPY OF THE CERTIFICATION OF ACCREDITATION ISSUED B Y INTERNATIONAL BACCALAUREATE (IB) AUTHORIZING THE AMERICAN SCHOOL OF BOMBAY (ASB OR THE SCHOOL) TO OFFER THE IB DIPLOMA PROGRAM 38 4 COPY OF LETTER DATED 14 DECE MBER 2010, ISSUED BY THE ASSOCIATION OF INDIAN UNIVERSITIES RECOGNIZING IB C OURSES IN INDIA 39 5 INFORMATION RELATING TO INDIAN UNIVERSITIES THAT RE COGNIZE IB COURSES 40-44 6 COPY OF THE BROCHURE OF THE SCHOOL FOR SCHOOL YEA R 2003-04 45-67 9 ITA NO. 5581/MUM/2014 & CO NO. 16/MUM/2016 IT WAS ARGUED BY THE LD. COUNSEL THAT ASB HAS RECEI VED FULL ACCREDITATION FROM MIDDLE STATE ASSESSMENT OF COLLEGE AND SCHOOLS OF USA AND MSA IS ONE OF THE SIX REGIONAL ACCREDITING ORGANISATIONS T HAT TOGETHER SERVE INSTITUTIONS IN THE USA IN MANY OTHER COUNTRIES ARO UND THE WORLD. 5.2. LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE ALSO STATED THAT ASSESSEE HAS MAINTAINED COMPLETE RECORDS, BUT BOOKS OF ACCOUNT W HICH WERE DAMAGED IN THE FLOODS I.E., IN THE UNPRECEDENTED HEAVY RAIN FALL WHICH STRUCK MUMBAI ON 26TH JULY, 2005. HE STATED THAT THE SCHOOL IS L OCATED AT BANDRA KURLA COMPLEX, A LOW LYING AREA, WHICH IS BORDERED BY THE MITHI RIVER. IT WAS STATED THAT THE ENTIRE SCHOOLS AREA INCLUDING THE B ASEMENT WHERE THE DOCUMENTS WERE STORED WAS DESTROYED DUE TO WATER LO GGING CAUSED FROM FLOODING OF THE MITHI RIVER. MANY DOCUMENTS/COMPUT ERS CONTAINING RECORDS INCLUDING SUPPORTING OF EXPENSES WERE DESTR OYED. THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO FILED FIRST INFORMATION REPORT (FIR) WITH THE LOCAL POLICE AND COPY OF FIR IS NOW ENCLOSED IN ASSESSEES PAPER BOOK AT PAGE NO. 78. LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE STATED THAT THE LEDGER ACC OUNTS EXTRACTED FROM COMPUTER WERE PRODUCED BEFORE THE AO AND VOUCHERS W ERE DESTROYED IN THE FLOOD COULD NOT BE PRODUCED. LD. COUNSEL ALSO SUBMITTED THAT THIS ISSUE HAS BEEN CONSIDERED BY THE HON'BLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN W.P.(C) NO. 2186/2014 AND CM NO. 4561/2015, DATED 13TH AUGU ST, 2015 HAS GIVEN A FINDING THAT THE ASSESSEE EXISTS SOLELY FOR THE EDUCATIONAL PURPOSES AND NOT FOR THE PURPOSE OF PROFIT AND THE RELEVANT FINDING IN PARA 6, READS AS UNDER: 6. THE ONLY QUESTION THAT SURVIVES BEFORE US IS WH ETHER WE REMIT THE MATTER TO THE CBDT ONCE AGAIN FOR IT TO DECIDE THE QUESTION O F APPROVAL OR ON THE BASIS OF AVAILABLE MATERIAL, WE DIRECT THE CBDT TO GRANT THE APPROVAL. WE HAVE NOTED THAT IN DIGEMBER JAIN SOCIETY (SUPRA) THIS COURT HA D IN FACT ISSUED A MANDAMUS DIRECTING THE REVENUE TO GRANT EXEMPTION TO THE PET ITIONER THEREIN UNDER SECTION 10(23C)(VI) OF THE SAID ACT. THE COURT, WHILE DOIN G SO, ALSO DIRECTED THAT THE 10 ITA NO. 5581/MUM/2014 & CO NO. 16/MUM/2016 CONCERNED AUTHORITY WOULD BE FREE TO INCORPORATE ST IPULATIONS AND CONDITIONS IN TERMS OF THE THIRD PROVISO. WE FIND THAT IT IS AN ADMITTED FACT IN THE PRESENT CASE THAT THE PETITIONER EXISTS SOLELY FOR EDUCATIONAL P URPOSES AND NOT FOR THE PURPOSES OF PROFIT. THESE ARE THE ONLY REQUIREMENT S FOR GRANT OF APPROVAL AND, THEREFORE, IN THE SAME MANNER AS IN THE CASE OF DIG EMBER JAIN SOCIETY (SUPRA) WE ISSUE A WRIT OF MANDAMUS DIRECTING THE RESPONDEN TS TO GRANT APPROVAL TO THE PETITIONER UNDER SECTION 10(23C)(VI) OF THE SAID AC T FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 1999-2000 TO 2001-02. HOWEVER, WE ARE MAKING IT CL EAR THAT AS THE ASSESSMENTS FOR THE THREE YEARS IN QUESTION ARE OPE N, THE ASSESSING OFFICER CAN CERTAINLY GO INTO THE QUESTION AS TO WHETHER THE CO NDITIONS STIPULATED IN THE THIRD PROVISO AND THE 13 TH PROVISO TO SECTION 10(23C)(VI) OF THE SAID ACT HAV E BEEN MET AND APPROPRIATE ORDERS CAN BEEN PASSED BY THE A SSESSING OFFICER IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW. THE WRIT PETITION IS ALLOWED TO THE AFORESAID EXTENT. THERE SHALL BE NO ORDER AS TO COSTS. IT WAS CONTENDED THAT THE SLP FILED BY THE DEPARTME NT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT OF HON'BLE DELHI HIGH COURT WAS DISMISSED BY THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT VIDE ORDER DATED 18-07-2016. THE COP IES ARE ENCLOSED IN ASSESSEES CASE LAW PAPER BOOK. LD. COUNSEL ALSO D REW OUR ATTENTION TO THE JUDGMENT OF HON'BLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN W.P. N OS. 4333 TO 4336 OF 2013, WHEREIN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT HAS DECIDED VI DE ITS JUDGMENT DATED 12-11-2013, WHEREIN THE ISSUE RELATING TO AYS 1998- 1999, 1999-2000, 2000-2001 AND 2001-2002, REGARDING EXEMPTION APPLIC ATION FILED WITH CBDT U/S. 10(23C)(VI) OF THE ACT. THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT WHILE GIVING FINDING ON THE ASPECT OF CLAIM OF EXEMPTION U/S. 10 (22) OF THE ACT FOR THE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEAR 1998 HAS ALSO SET ASIDE TH E ORDER OF LOWER AUTHORITIES AND DIRECT THE CIT(A) TO FRAME THE APPE LLATE ORDER AFRESH VIDE PARA 7 AS UNDER: 7. SO FAR AS ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 28 MARCH 2013 FOR THE A.Y. 1998-1999 IS CONCERNED, THERE WAS NO DIRECTION BY THE TRIBUNAL T O AWAIT THE RESULT OF ANY APPLICATION MADE TO THE CBDT. THUS, THERE IS NO DI SOBEDIENCE OF THE ORDER DATED 31 MARCH 2011 OF THE TRIBUNAL. IN THE CIRCUM STANCES, SO FAR AS THE ORDER DATED 28 MARCH 2013 OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR TH E A.Y. 1998-1999 IS CONCERNED, THE PETITIONERS ARE AT LIBERTY TO AVAIL OF THE REMEDIES AVAILABLE UNDER THE ACT. HOWEVER, IN VIEW OF THE FACT THAT THESE P ETITIONS WERE PENDING IN THE 11 ITA NO. 5581/MUM/2014 & CO NO. 16/MUM/2016 COURT, THE DELAY IN FILING AN APPEAL AGAINST THE OR DER DATED 28 MARCH, 2013 IN RESPECT OF A.Y. 1998-1999 BEFORE THE COMMISSIONER O F INCOME TAX (APPEALS) IS CONDONED, IF IT IS FILED WITHIN A PERIOD OF THREE W EEKS FROM TODAY BEFORE THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS). THE COMMISSI ONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) IS DIRECTED TO ENTERTAIN THE APPEAL, IF S O FILED, ON MERITS. 6. WE HAVE GONE THROUGH THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. WE FIND FROM THE FACTS OF THE CASE THAT DURING THE INFAMOUS FLOOD HIT OCCURRED IN MUMBAI, THE ASSESSEES SCHOOL BEING LOC ATED IN A LOW LYING AREA AS A RESULT, FLOOD WATER ENTERED THE SCHOOL PR EMISES AND CAUSED DAMAGES TO THE DOCUMENTS AS WELL AS VARIOUS RECORDS , ARTICLES AND GOODS LYING IN THEIR PREMISES. THE COPIES OF PHOTOGRAPHS ALSO REVEAL THESE FACTS OF DAMAGES. FROM THE PHOTOGRAPHS WE FIND THAT DAMA GES TO THE RECORDS AND DOCUMENTS AND GOODS LYING IN THE PREMISES ARE C LEARLY VISIBLE. THEREFORE, ASSESSEES LIABILITY TO FURNISH THE SUPP ORTING DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCES WAS CAUSED BY THESE CIRCUMSTANCES WHICH C OULD BE CONSIDERED AS REASONABLE CAUSE. MOREOVER, FROM THE HEADS OF E XPENSES CLAIMED IN THE INCOME AND EXPENDITURE STATEMENTS IT IS EVIDENT THAT THESE ARE THE EXPENSES WHICH ARE NECESSARILY REQUIRED TO HAVE INC URRED FOR THE PURPOSES OF RUNNING THE SCHOOL. WITHOUT THE TEACHE RS AND STAFF TO WHOM SALARIES ARE REQUIRED TO BE PAID, SCHOOL ADMINISTRA TION CANNOT BE RUN. SIMILARLY WITHOUT THE ELECTRICITY THE SCHOOL CANNOT FUNCTION. THE SCHOOL PREMISES ARE TAKEN BY ASSESSEE ON RENTAL BASIS WITH OUT WHICH ONE CANNOT RUN A SCHOOL. SIMILARLY REPAIRS AND MAINTENANCE EX PENSES, LEGAL AND PROFESSIONAL FEES, GENERAL EXPENSES, ADMINISTRATION EXPENSES ETC., ARE ALL FOUND TO BE IN RELATION TO THE RUNNING OF SCHOOL. WITHOUT INCURRING THESE EXPENSES, IT IS NOT POSSIBLE TO RUN A SCHOOL. THERE FORE, THE AO IN OUR VIEW WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN DISALLOWING THE ENTIRE EXPENSE S CLAIMED IN THE INCOME AND EXPENDITURE STATEMENT FILED ALONG WITH THE RETU RN OF INCOME, MERELY 12 ITA NO. 5581/MUM/2014 & CO NO. 16/MUM/2016 ON THE GROUND THAT ASSESSEE COULD NOT FURNISH THE D ETAILS AND SUPPORTING EVIDENCES. THE AO HAS ALSO NOT APPRECIATED THE FAC T THAT THE RECORDS OF ASSESSEE PERTAINING TO THESE EXPENSES WERE DESTROYE D DURING THE WORST FLOOD HIT OF MUMBAI. DESPITE THE FACT THAT THE REC ORDS WERE DAMAGED IN THE FLOOD AND ALSO FILING OF FIR COPY WITH THE AO, THE AO IS FOUND SIMPLY DISBELIEVED THE ASSESSEES CLAIM AND MERELY ON THE GROUND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT REPORTED THE DAMAGE OF COMPUTER TH E DETAILS COULD BE EXTRACTED, TREATED THE ENTIRE EXPENDITURE AS INADMI SSIBLE. BUT WITHOUT SPECIFICALLY POINTING OUT ANY INADMISSIBLE EXPENSES , THE AO HAS ALSO TO APPRECIATE THE FACT THAT FOR RUNNING THE SCHOOL, TH E EXPENSES ARE NECESSARILY TO BE INCURRED WITHOUT WHICH THE SCHOOL CANNOT BE RUN. THEREFORE, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT IN THIS CASE THE CIT(A) HAS RIGHTLY DIRECTED AO TO ALLOW THESE EXPENSES. 6.1. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE FACTS, WE HAVE GONE THROU GH THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 10(22) OF THE ACT (NOW OMITTED WITH EFFECT FROM 01-04-1999 BY THE FINANCE (NO.2) ACT, 1998) ON EXAMINATION OF THIS PR OVISION OF THE ACT, THE CONDITIONS PRECEDENT TO THE AVAILABILITY OF EXEMPTI ON TO AN EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTE UPTO AY 1998-99, THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERA TION BEFORE US IN THE CASE OF ASSESSEE, CAN BE STATED AS UNDER: (A) THE EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTION MUST ACTUALLY EXIS T FOR THE APPLICATION OF THE SAID SECTION AND THE MERE TAKING STEPS WOULD NOT BE SUFF ICIENT TO ATTRACT THE EXEMPTION; (B) THE EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTION NEED NOT BE AFFILIA TED TO ANY UNIVERSITY OR BOARD, IN FACT A SOCIETY NEED NOT ITSELF BE IMPARTING EDUCATI ON AND IT IS ENOUGH IF IT RUNS SOME SCHOOLS OR COLLEGES; (C) THE EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTION MUST EXIST SOLELY F OR EDUCATIONAL PURPOSES AND NOT FOR PURPOSES OF PROFIT BUT MERELY BECAUSE THERE IS A SURPLUS, THAT IS TO SAY, A SURPLUS OF RECEIPTS OVER EXPENDITURE, IT CANNOT BE SAID THAT THE EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTION EXISTS FOR PROFIT; 13 ITA NO. 5581/MUM/2014 & CO NO. 16/MUM/2016 (D) AN ENTITY MAY BE HAVING INCOME FROM DIFFERENT S OURCES BUT IF A PARTICULAR INCOME IS FROM AN EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTION WHICH EXI STS SOLELY FOR EDUCATIONAL PURPOSES AND NOT FOR PURPOSES OF PROFIT, THEN THAT INCOME WOULD BE ENTITLED TO EXEMPTION AND FURTHER THE INCOME SHOULD BE DIRECTLY RELATABLE TO THE EDUCATIONAL ACTIVITY. 6.2. WE FIND THAT EVEN THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF AMERICAN HOTEL & LODGING ASSOCIATION, EDUCATIONAL I NSTITUTE VS. CBDT [301 ITR 86 (SC)] HAS CONSIDERED THE ENTITLEMENT TO CLAIM EXEMPTION U/S. 10(22) OF THE ACT IN RESPECT OF ITS VARIOUS AMOUNTS OF INCOME FROM THE FOLLOWING SOURCES IN INDIA: (A) CONDUCTING VARIOUS COURSES AND CERTIFICATION P ROGRAMMES IN HOSPITALITY MANAGEMENT AND OPERATIONS; (B) PROVIDING EDUCATIONAL AND TRAINING MATERIALS; (C) CONDUCTING SEMINARS, WORKSHOPS AND OTHER PROGR AMMES; (D) PROVIDING TRAINING, COURSE MATERIALS AND INS TRUCTIONAL RESOURCES TO THE IN-HOUSE FACULTY OF VARIOUS INSTITUTIONS. 6.3. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE INTERPRETATION BY THE HON 'BLE SUPREME COURT AND GIVEN THE FACTS OF THE CASE, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT UNLIKE THE PRESENT SECTION 10(23C)(VI) OF THE ACT, THERE ARE NO CONDIT IONS IN RELATION TO OBTAINING APPROVAL, AUDIT OF ACCOUNTS, APPLICATION OF INCOME ETC. THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 10(22) OF THE ACT FOR CLAIMIN G EXEMPTION, THE REQUIREMENT IS THAT THE UNIVERSITY OR THE EDUCATION AL INSTITUTE MUST EXIST SOLELY FOR EDUCATIONAL PURPOSES IN INDIA. IN OTHE R WORDS, THE RECIPIENT OF THE INCOME MUST HAVE THE CHARACTER OF AN EDUCATIONA L INSTITUTE IN INDIA AND ITS CHARACTER OUTSIDE INDIA OR IT BEING A PART OF UNIVERSITY EXISTING OUTSIDE INDIA IS NOT RELEVANT FOR DECIDING WHETHER ITS INCOME WOULD BE EXEMPT U/S. 10(22) OF THE ACT OR NOT. IN THE PRESE NT CASE, THERE IS NO 14 ITA NO. 5581/MUM/2014 & CO NO. 16/MUM/2016 CHARGE BY AO OR NOW BY LD.CIT-DEPARTMENTAL REPRESEN TATIVE THAT THE ASSESSEE DOES NOT EXIST SOLELY FOR THE PURPOSE OF E DUCATION, HENCE WE FIND NO INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER OF CIT(A), ALLOWING THE CLAIM OF EXEMPTION TO ASSESSEE-INSTITUTION U/S. 10(22) OF THE ACT. ACCOR DINGLY, WE DISMISS THE APPEAL OF REVENUE. 7. AS REGARDS THE CROSS-OBJECTION RAISED BY ASSESSE E, LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT ARGUED THE SAME. HENCE, THE SA ME IS ALSO DISMISSED AS NOT PRESSED. 8. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF REVENUE AS WELL AS THE CROSS-OBJECTION OF ASSESSEE, BOTH ARE DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 28 -11-2018 AADOSA KI GAAOYANAA KULAO MAO IDNAMK AADOSA KI GAAOYANAA KULAO MAO IDNAMK AADOSA KI GAAOYANAA KULAO MAO IDNAMK AADOSA KI GAAOYANAA KULAO MAO IDNAMK 28 -11- 2018 KAO KI GA[ KAO KI GA[ KAO KI GA[ KAO KI GA[- -- - . .. . SD/- SD/- ( / MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL) ( /MAHAVIR SINGH) ( / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) ( / JUDICIAL MEMBER) MUMBAI, DATED: 28 -11 - 2018 TNMM 15 ITA NO. 5581/MUM/2014 & CO NO. 16/MUM/2016 COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : BY ORDER, ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT, MUMBAI 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT. 3. THE CIT (A), MUMBAI. 4. CIT 5. DR, ITAT, MUMBAI 6. GUARD FILE. //TRUE COPY//