JCIT, Muzaffarnagar V. M/s. Shamli Samaj Kalayan Samiti, Muzaffarnagar

ITA 5781/DEL/2011

• Counselvise Citation: [2015] 121 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 1783 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 11 month(s) 4 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 30-11-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: G
• Next Hearing Date: 22-09-2015
• Assessment Year: 2003-2004
• Appeal Filed On: 26-12-2011
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: JAMES SINGSUN SENIOR
• Keywords: Depreciation; Charitable institution; Benefit of exemption; Reason to believe
• Section: 142(1); 12AA; 147; 148; 12; 11

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (DELHI BENCH G : NEW DELHI) BEFORE SHRI N.K. SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI A.T. VARKEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NOS.5781 & 5782/DEL./2011 (ASSESSMENT YEARS : 2003-04 & 2004-05) JCIT, RANGE 2, VS. M/S. SHAMLI SAMAJ KALYAN SAMIT I, MUZAFFARNAGAR. TALAB ROAD, SHAMLI DISTT., MUZAFFARNAGAR. (PAN : AAETS1104R) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : SHRI ANKIT GUPTA, ADVOCATE REVENUE BY : SHRI JAMES SINGSUN, SENIOR DR DATE OF HEARING : 22.09.2015 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 30.11.2015 O R D E R PER A.T. VARKEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER : THESE APPEALS, AT THE INSTANCE OF THE REVENUE, ARE FILED AGAINST THE ORDER OF CIT (APPEALS), MUZAFFARNAGAR DATED 12.09. 2011 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2003-04 & 2004-05. 2. THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL TAKEN BY THE REVENUE FOR T HE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2003-04 ARE AS UNDER :- 1. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CA SE, THE CIT (A) HAS ERRED IN LAW IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS .17,00,000/- MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON ACCOUNT OF INCOME SIPHONED OUT, AS THE AMOUNT WAS TRANSFERRED WITHOUT ANY AUTH ORITY TO ITA NOS.5781 & 5782/DEL./2011 2 TRANSFER THE FUNDS FROM ONE INSTITUTION BY ALLOWING THE EXEMPTION UNDER SECTION 10(23C)(IIIAD) OF THE I.T. ACT, 1961 WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE FULL FACTS OF THE CASE. 2. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CAS E, THE CIT (A) HAS ERRED IN LAW IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS .13,92,059/- MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON ACCOUNT OF EXCESS INCOME OVER EXPENDITURE BY ALLOWING THE EXEMPTION UNDER SE CTION 10(23C)(IIIAD) OF THE I.T. ACT, 1961 WITHOUT APPREC IATING THE FULL FACTS OF THE CASE. 3. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CAS E, THE CIT (A) HAS ERRED IN LAW IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS .1,03,900/- MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON ACCOUNT OF EXCESS INCOME OVER EXPENDITURE BY ALLOWING THE EXEMPTION UNDER SE CTION 10(23C)(IIIAD) OF THE I.T. ACT, 1961 WITHOUT APPREC IATING THE FULL FACTS OF THE CASE. 3. THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL TAKEN BY THE REVENUE FOR T HE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2004-05 ARE AS UNDER :- 1. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CA SE, THE CIT (A) HAS ERRED IN LAW IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS .22,99,500/- MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON ACCOUNT OF INCOME SIPHONED OUT, AS THE AMOUNT WAS TRANSFERRED WITHOUT ANY AUTH ORITY TO TRANSFER THE FUNDS FROM ONE INSTITUTION BY ALLOWING THE EXEMPTION UNDER SECTION 10(23C)(IIIAD) OF THE I.T. ACT, 1961 WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE FULL FACTS OF THE CASE. 2. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CAS E, THE CIT (A) HAS ERRED IN LAW IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS .2,29,950/- MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON ACCOUNT DEPRECIATI ON WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE FULL FACTS OF THE CASE AS THE ASS ESSING OFFICER HELD THAT THERE WAS NO CONSTRUCTION CARRIED OUT DUR ING THE YEAR. 3. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CAS E, THE CIT (A) HAS ERRED IN LAW IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS .1,94,609/- MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON ACCOUNT OF EXCESS INCOME OVER EXPENDITURE BY ALLOWING THE EXEMPTION UNDER SE CTION 10(23C)(IIIAD) OF THE I.T. ACT, 1961 WITHOUT APPREC IATING THE FULL ITA NOS.5781 & 5782/DEL./2011 3 FACTS OF THE CASE AS THE ASSESSING OFFICE HELD THAT THE SOCIETY IS NOT RUNNING THE INSTITUTION WHOLLY AND EXCLUSIVELY FOR EDUCATION AS THE SOCIETY IS RUNNING A HOSPITAL ALSO. 3. IN THESE APPEALS, IDENTICAL GROUNDS ARE RAISED E XCEPT FOR VARIANCE IN FIGURE. SINCE COMMON ISSUES ARE RAISED IN THESE AP PEALS AND THEY PERTAIN TO THE SAME ASSESSEE, THEY ARE DISPOSED OFF BY THIS CO NSOLIDATED ORDER. 4. FIRST, WE TAKE UP THE APPEAL FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2003-04 IN ITA NO.5781/DEL/2011. 5. THE FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE IS A SOCIETY WHICH GOT REGISTERED U/S 12AA OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961 (HE REINAFTER THE ACT) VIDE ORDER DATED 03.03.2008 WITH EFFECT FROM 29.03.2006. IT IS ENGAGED IN THE ACTIVITY OF RUNNING OF SCHOOL AND HOSPITAL. DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS FOR A.Y. 2005-06, IT WAS GATHERED BY TH E A.O. THAT THE EXEMPTION U/S 11 AND 10(23C)(IIIAD) WAS NOT ALLOWABLE TO THE ASSESSEE. ACCORDINGLY, HE MADE THREE ADDITIONS AND COMPLETED THE ASSESSMENT U /S 143 (3) OF THE ACT ON TOTAL INCOME OF RS.31,95,959/- AS UNDER :- INCOME AS PER 4.1 RS.13,92,059/- INCOME FROM DONATION RS. 1,03,900/- INCOME SIPHONED OUT RS.17,00,000/- TOTAL INCOME RS.31,95,959/- AGGRIEVED, THE ASSESSEE WENT IN APPEAL BEFORE THE C IT (A) AGAINST THESE DISALLOWANCES AND THE LD. CIT (A), AFTER GOING THRO UGH THE RECORDS AND THE SUBMISSIONS MADE ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE, DELETED THE AFORESAID ADDITIONS. ITA NOS.5781 & 5782/DEL./2011 4 THE REVENUE, BEING AGGRIEVED, IS IN APPEAL BEFORE U S. NOW, WE TAKE UP THE DELETION OF THE ADDITIONS CHALLENGED BY THE REVENUE GROUND-WISE. 6. GROUND NO.1 IS AGAINST THE DELETION OF ADDITION OF RS.17,00,000/- MADE BY THE AO ON ACCOUNT OF INCOME SIPHONED OUT. 7. THE ASSESSEE HAD MADE WITHDRAWAL OF RS.17,00,000 /- FROM THE CORPUS FUND OF SDRR PUBLIC SCHOOL. THE LIABILITY SIDE OF T HE BALANCE SHEET AS ON 31.03.2003 WAS REPRODUCED BY THE A.O. AS UNDER.- ' SHAMLI SAMAJ KALYAN SAMITI BALANCE BROUGHT FORWARD RS.1,33,32,987/- INCOME RS. 15,32,930/- RS.1,48,65,917/- PAID DURING THE YEAR 17,00,000/- RS .1,31,65,917/- SECURITY DEPOSIT RS. 4,90,000/- RS.1,36,55,917/- FROM THE PERUSAL OF SANCTION OF THE AMOUNT WITHDRAW N FROM THE CORPUS FUND OF SARTI DEVI RAJA RAM PUBLIC SCHOOL (HEREINAFTER THE SCHOOL), THE AO OBSERVED THAT THE AMOUNT WITHDRAWN WAS NOT FOR EDUC ATIONAL PURPOSE AND VOUCHERS RELATED TO RS.2,00,000/- WAS FOR SOCIAL WO RK BUT WAS CLAIMED TO HAVE MADE INVESTMENT AT RS.11,78,449/- IN THE CONSTRUCTI ON. THE AO FURTHER OBSERVED THAT THERE WAS NO AUTHORITY FOR SANCTION O F REMAINING RS.15,00,000/-. ACCORDINGLY, VIDE ORDER SHEET NOTING DATED 30.03.20 10, THE ASSESSEE WAS REQUIRED TO EXPLAIN HOW THE AMOUNT WITHDRAWN FROM C ORPUS FUND OF THE SCHOOL WAS UTILIZED. FOR THE SAKE OF CLARITY, THE SAME IS REPRODUCED AS UNDER:- ITA NOS.5781 & 5782/DEL./2011 5 ........ FROM THE -LETTER DATED 29-05-2002 ADDRESS ED TO MANAGER, SARTI DEVI RAJA RAM PUBLIC SCHOOL, REQUEST IS MADE BY THE SECRETARY OF THE SOCIETY TO MAKE ARRANGEMENT OF RS. 2,00,000/- FROM THE ACCOUNT OF SDRR PUBLIC SCHOOL AS SAME IS R EQUIRED FOR SOCIAL WORK OF SOCIETY. THE AMOUNT OF RS.2,00,0 00/- IS ISSUED VIDE CHEQUE NO. 051827 DATED 29-05-2002. IT SHOWS THAT THE SOCIETY IS NOT RUNNING THE INSTITUTION WHOLLY A ND EXCLUSIVELY FOR EDUCATION BUT ALSO FOR SOCIAL WORK. AGAIN THE I NCOME AND EXPENDITURE ACCOUNT OF THE SAMITI DOES NOT SHOW THI S EXPENDITURE. THE TOTAL AMOUNT PAID OUT OF FUNDS OF SDRR PUBLIC SCHOOL IS RS.17,00,000/- WHICH IS FOR SOCIAL WORK. IN RS.17 LAC RECEIVED FROM ITS UNIT NAMELY SARTI DEVI RAJA RAM PUBLIC SCHOOL AND ADVANCE OF RS.3,50,000/- TO OTHER UNIT NAMELY JEEVAN JYOTI HOSPITAL. IT IS FURTHER STATED THAT THESE ARE INTER-UNIT ENTRIES INVOLVING NO TAX REQUIRED IN HAN D OF THE ASSESSEE. HOWEVER THE REPLY IS CONTRARY TO THE FACT S. THE AMOUNT OF RS.17,00,000/- IS PAID FROM THE FUNDS OF SDRR PU BLIC SCHOOL OUT OF IT RS.2,00,000/- IS WITHDRAWN BY THE SECRETARY FOR ALLEGED SOCIAL WORK .... ' IN RESPONSE, THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE AMOUNT OF RS.17 LAKHS HAD BEEN TRANSFERRED THROUGH ACCOUNT PAYEE CHEQUES AND SAME WAS REFLECTED IN RELEVANT LEDGER ACCOUNT. THE ASSESSEE FURTHER EXPLAINED THAT THE RECEIPT OF RS.10 LAKHS WAS REQUIRED FOR SOCIAL PURPOSES AND WAS WELL WITHI N THE OBJECT OF THE ASSESSEE TO RUN THE EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTION WHICH W AS WHOLLY AND EXCLUSIVELY FOR EDUCATIONAL PURPOSE. BUT THE AO OBSERVED THAT H OWEVER, THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO GIVE THE AUTHORITY FOR TRANSFER OF AMOUNT OF RS.15 LAKHS OUT OF RS.17 LAKHS. THUS, THE AO VIDE NOTICE DATED 19.04.2010 RE QUIRED THE ASSESSEE AGAIN TO EXPLAIN THE PAYMENT OF RS.17 LAKHS FROM THE COR PUS FUND OF THE SCHOOL. IN RESPONSE, THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE TRUST HAD THREE UNITS, NAMELY, SARTI DEVI RAJA RAM PUBLIC SCHOOL, HINDU MA HILA MAHAVIDYALAYA ITA NOS.5781 & 5782/DEL./2011 6 AND JEEVAN JYOTI HOSPITAL AND IN RESPECT OF TRUST A ND THREE UNITS, SEPARATE ACCOUNTS WERE MAINTAINED AND WERE CONSOLIDATED IN T HE BALANCE SHEET OF THE TRUST. THE ASSESSEE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE TRUS T AND ITS THREE UNITS WERE ALL IN THE NATURE OF PUBLIC & CHARITABLE PURPOSE AND NO T FOR PROFIT AND AS SUCH, WERE GOVERNED BY PROVISIONS OF SECTION 11, 12 & 13 AS WELL AS SECTION 10(23C)(IIIAD) SPECIALLY MEANT FOR EDUCATIONAL INST ITUTIONS. THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THERE WAS NOTHING UNUSUAL IF THE FUN DS REQUIRED BY ONE UNIT WERE PASSED ON TO THE OTHER UNIT IN ACCOUNT (INVOLV ING NO INCOME OR EXPENDITURE UNDER EITHER OF THE UNIT). HOWEVER, THE AO OBSERVED THAT A PERUSAL OF BALANCE SHEET AS ON 31.03.2003 OF THE AS SESSEE TRUST REVEALED THAT THE TRUST HAD LENT A SUM OF RS.1,31,65,917.14 AS ON 31.03.2003 OUT OF CAPITAL OF SARTI DEVI RAJA RAM PUBLIC SCHOOL AND THE AMOUNT RECEIVED FROM THE SAID SCHOOL WAS NOT CLAIMED AS EXPENSES OR APPLICATION O F INCOME STRICTLY BY ACCOUNT PAYEE CHEQUES AND AS SUCH, THE SAME COULD N OT BE TREATED AS INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. FURTHER, IT WAS OBSERVED BY THE A O THAT AS PER THE ASSESSEE THERE WAS NO BAR IN LAW TO PERMIT FUNDS OF THE SOCI ETY TO BE USED BY UNITS OR FUNDS OF THE UNITS TO BE USED BY THE SOCIETY TRUST AS ULTIMATELY IT WAS THE TRUST WHICH WAS TO FORM THE CONSOLIDATED RESULTS; AND THE RE WAS ALSO NO REQUIREMENT FOR RECORDING SUCH ENTRIES IN THE MINUTE BOOK AS TH E SAME WAS PASSED ON BY THE AUTHORITY OF EXECUTIVE OF THE RELEVANT BODIES. HOWEVER, THE AO HELD THAT THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE AS UNSATISFACT ORY ON THE GROUND THAT ITA NOS.5781 & 5782/DEL./2011 7 THERE WAS NO AUTHORITY OR SANCTION TO TRANSFER THE AMOUNT FROM THE SCHOOL TO ANY OTHER ACCOUNT, WHEREAS THE VOUCHER HAVING SANCT ION OF EXPENDITURE/TRANSFER WERE MAINTAINED. ACCORDINGLY, THE AO CONCLUDED THAT THE EXPENDITURE ON ACCOUNT OF ADDITION TO CONSTRUCT ION OUT OF PAYMENT FROM CORPUS FUND WAS NOT GENUINE AND THE AMOUNT OF RS.17 ,00,000/- WAS ADDED TO THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. HE FURTHER OBSERVED THA T THE RUNNING OF HOSPITAL WAS ITSELF EVIDENCE THAT THE SOCIETY WAS NOT RUNNIN G THE INSTITUTION WHOLLY AND EXCLUSIVELY FOR EDUCATION AND THE ASSESSEE ITSELF H AS ACCEPTED THAT THE EXEMPTION UNDER SECTION 11 WAS NOT CLAIMED. THUS EX EMPTION OF TAX WAS NOT ALLOWED TO THE ASSESSEE. 8. LD. CIT (A), AFTER GOING THROUGH THE SUBMISSIONS MADE ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE AND THE REMAND REPORT SUBMITTED BY THE AO, DELETED THE ADDITION BY OBSERVING AS UNDER :- THE FACTS OF THE CASE, SUBMISSIONS MADE BY THE AP PELLANT, REMAND REPORT OF THE A.O. HAVE BEEN CAREFULLY CONSI DERED. APPELLANT HAS FURNISHED THE DETAILS OF UTILIZATION OF RS.17,00,000/- WHICH REVEAL THAT THE AMOUNT HAS BEE N UTILIZED IN CONSTRUCTION OF BUILDING (CONFERENCE HALL), COMP UTER/PRINTER, FURNITURE AND FIXTURE TO CONFERENCE HALL, ETC. THE APPELLANT HAS ALSO FURNISHED COPIES OF ACCOUNTS ALONG WITH BILLS AND VOUCHERS OF THE AFORESAID EXPENSES. THUS THE AMOUNT OF RS.17 ,00,000/- IS UTILIZED FOR EDUCATIONAL AND CHARITABLE PURPOSES. I T HAS BEEN SUBMITTED THAT RS.17,00,000/- HAS BEEN TRANSFERRED FROM SARTI DEVI RAJA RAM PUBLIC SCHOOL TO THE DIFFERENT SOCIET Y ACCOUNT FOR USE OF AMOUNT FOR CONSTRUCTION AND OTHER ACTIVI TIES FOR EDUCATION OF THE SCHOOLS. AS PER THE BALANCE SHEET OF THE APPELLANT SOCIETY AS ON 31.03.2003 THE AMOUNT OF RS.1,31,65,917/- HAS BEEN SHOWN ON THE ASSET SIDE O F THE BALANCE SHEET .AGAINST THE NAME OF SARTI DEVI RAJA RAM PUBLIC ITA NOS.5781 & 5782/DEL./2011 8 SCHOOL. THE AMOUNT OF RS.1,31,65,917/- IS ALSO REFL ECTED IN THE BALANCE SHEET OF SARTI DEVI RAJA RAM PUBLIC SCHOOL AS ON 31- 03-2003. AS PER COPY OF ACCOUNT OF SARTI DEVI RAJA RAM PUBLIC SCHOOL AS APPEARING IN THE BOOKS OF THE APPELLANT S OCIETY THE AMOUNT OF RS.17,00,000/- HAVE BEEN RECEIVED THROUGH CHEQUES WITH HAVE BEEN CREDITED TO ITS ACCOUNT AND THE AMOU NT OF RS.15,32,930/-BEING CORPUS DURING THE YEAR HAS BEEN DEBITED TO ITS ACCOUNT AND THE SAME IS REFLECTED IN THE BALANC E SHEET OF SARTI DEVI RAJA RAM PUBLIC SCHOOL AS INCOME OF THE YEAR. THIS IMPLIES THAT THE AMOUNT OF RS.1,31,65,917/- HAS BEE N DERIVED AFTER ACCOUNTING FOR THE AMOUNT OF RS.17,00,000/- I N THE BOOKS OF THE APPELLANT SOCIETY AND NO ADVERSE INFERENCE I S DRAWN. THE SOCIETY IS NOT REGISTERED U/S 12AA OF THE ACT. THER EFORE, THE BENEFIT OF EXEMPTION U/S 11 IS NOT PERMITTED TO IT. HOWEVER, THE SOCIETY IS DEFINITELY ENGAGED IN EDUCATIONAL ACTIVI TY WHICH IS CHARITABLE U/S 2(15) OF THE ACT AND HAS MAINTAINED SEPARATE ACCOUNTS IN RESPECT OF EACH EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTION . THE INSTITUTIONS OF THE SOCIETY IS ENTITLED FOR CLAIMIN G BENEFIT OF SECTION 10(23C)(IIIAD) OF THE ACT BEING INCOME OF E ACH EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTIONS BEING LESS THAN RS.1 CRORE . HENCE THE A.O. HAS WRONGLY INVOKED THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 11 OF THE ACT AS THE APPELLANT SOCIETY IS RUNNING EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTIONS WHICH ARE EXEMPT U/S 10(23C)(IIIAD) OF THE ACT. TH E APPELLANT HAS FULLY EXPLAINED THE OUT FLOW OF THE AMOUNT OF RS.17,00,000/- BY REQUISITE DETAILS/EVIDENCES FROM BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS WHICH WERE PRODUCED BEFORE THE A.O. ALSO A ND CLEARLY SHOWED THAT THE SAME HAS BEEN INVESTED IN EDUCATION AL ACTIVITIES OF CHARITABLE PURPOSES WHICH ARE EXEMPT U/S 10(23C) (IIIAD) OF THE ACT. THE A.O., JUST BASED HIS FINDINGS ON THE O UTFLOW WITHOUT EXAMINING ITS ULTIMATE USE AND ITS ACCOUNTI NG DONE BY THE APPELLANT. FURTHER, THE A.O. HAS NOT BROUGHT AN Y ADVERSE MATERIAL EVIDENCE ON RECORD TO CONCLUSIVELY HOLD TH AT THE AMOUNT OF RS.17,00,00/- WAS UTILIZED FOR OTHER THAN EDUCATIONAL /CHARITABLE PURPOSES. THUS INFERENCE DRAWN BY THE A .O. THAT EXPENDITURE ON ACCOUNT OF PAYMENT FROM CORPUS FUND IS NOT GENUINE HAS NO LEGS AND IS ACCORDINGLY REJECTED. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE FACTS, IT IS HELD THAT THE A.O . WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN MAKING ADDITION AT RS.17,00,000/-. THE SAME IS DIRECTED TO BE DELETED. GROUND NO.4 IS ALLOWED. ITA NOS.5781 & 5782/DEL./2011 9 9. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE M ATERIAL. WE FIND THAT THE AMOUNT OF RS.1,31,65,917/- HAS BEEN DERIVED AFT ER ACCOUNTING FOR THE AMOUNT OF RS.17,00,000/- IN THE BOOKS OF THE ASSESS EE AND NO ADVERSE INFERENCE CAN BE DRAWN. FURTHER, WE FIND THAT HOWE VER, THE SOCIETY IS DEFINITELY ENGAGED IN EDUCATIONAL ACTIVITY WHICH IS CHARITABLE U/S 2(15) OF THE ACT AND HAS MAINTAINED SEPARATE ACCOUNTS IN RESPECT OF EACH EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTION. THE INSTITUTIONS OF THE SOCIETY IS ENT ITLED FOR CLAIMING BENEFIT OF SECTION 10(23C)(IIIAD) OF THE ACT BEING INCOME OF E ACH EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTIONS BEING LESS THAN RS.1 CRORE, THEREFORE, WE OBSERVE THAT THE AO HAS WRONGLY INVOKED THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 11 OF THE ACT AS THE ASSESSEE SOCIETY IS RUNNING EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTIONS WHICH A RE EXEMPT U/S 10(23C)(IIIAD) OF THE ACT. WE ALSO FIND THAT THE A SSESSEE HAS FULLY EXPLAINED THE OUTFLOW OF THE AMOUNT OF RS.17,00,000/- BY REQU ISITE DETAILS/EVIDENCES FROM BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS WHICH WERE PRODUCED BEFORE T HE AO ALSO AND CLEARLY SHOWED THAT THE SAME HAS BEEN INVESTED IN EDUCATION AL ACTIVITIES OF CHARITABLE PURPOSES WHICH ARE EXEMPT U/S 10(23C)(IIIAD) OF THE ACT. WE OBSERVE THAT THE AO JUST BASED HIS FINDINGS ON THE OUTFLOW WITHOUT E XAMINING ITS ULTIMATE USE AND ITS ACCOUNTING DONE BY THE ASSESSEE. FURTHER, WE ALSO FIND THAT THE AO HAS NOT BROUGHT ANY ADVERSE MATERIAL EVIDENCE ON RECORD TO CONCLUSIVELY HOLD THAT THE AMOUNT OF RS.17,00,000/- WAS UTILIZED FOR OTHER THAN EDUCATIONAL ITA NOS.5781 & 5782/DEL./2011 10 /CHARITABLE PURPOSES. ACCORDINGLY, WE DO NOT FIND A NY INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT (A) ON THIS ISSUED AND THE SAME IS UPHE LD. THIS GROUND IS REJECTED. 10. GROUND NO.2 IS AGAINST THE DELETION OF ADDITION OF RS.13,92,059/- MADE BY THE AO ON ACCOUNT OF EXCESS INCOME OVER EXPENDIT URE BY ALLOWING THE EXEMPTION U/S 10(23C)(IIIAD) OF THE ACT. 11. THE FACTS RELATING TO THIS GROUND ARE AS FOLLOW S. DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS FOR AY 2005-06, THE AO OBSERVED THAT TH E EXEMPTION U/S 11 AND 10(23C)(IIIAD) WAS NOT ALLOWABLE TO THE ASSESSEE DU E TO THE FOLLOWING REASONS:- (I) SHRI ANAND CONTRACTOR ENGAGED FOR CONSTRUCTION WORK HAD MADE ADVANCE OF RS.6,70,000/- TO M/S GUPTA BUILDER IN WH ICH THE TRUSTEE IS PARTNER. THE SAID CONTRACTOR FURTHER ADV ANCED RS.2,00,000/- TO SH. MOHIT GUPTA, A CLOSE ASSOCIATE OF THE SECRETARY. IT SHOWED THAT THE INSTITUTION WAS NOT R UNNING WHOLLY AND EXCLUSIVELY FOR EDUCATION. (II) SH. ANAND, THE CONTRACTOR WAS HAVING BANK AC COUNT WITH UNION BANK OF INDIA, SHAMLI. THE CHEQUES ISSUED BY THE SO CIETY WERE DEPOSITED IN THE BANK BY THE EMPLOYEES OF THE TRUST . IT WAS ALSO EVIDENCED THAT THE SOCIETY WAS NOT RUNNING WHOLLY A ND EXCLUSIVELY FOR THE EDUCATION WHICH WAS AN ESSENTIA L CONDITION FOR EXEMPTION U/S 10(23C)(IIIAD) OF THE ACT. (III) THE ASSESSEE SOCIETY WAS ALSO RUNNING A HOSP ITAL IN THE NAME OF JEEVAN JYOTI CHARITABLE HOSPITAL. THUS AGAIN THE OB JECT OF THE SOCIETY WAS NOT WHOLLY AND EXCLUSIVELY FOR EDUCATIO N. ITA NOS.5781 & 5782/DEL./2011 11 THUS, THE AO ON THE BASIS OF ABOVE REASONING INITIA TED ACTION U/S 147 AND ISSUED NOTICE U/S 148 ON 15.07.2009 WITH THE REMARK THAT REQUEST TO ISSUE REASONS FOR ISSUING NOTICE U/S 148 BE MADE AFTER FI LING THE RETURN. HOWEVER, THE ASSESSEE DID NOT APPLY FOR SUPPLY OF COPY OF RE ASONS RECORDED AFTER FILING THE RETURN. THE REASONS U/S 147 OF THE ACT RECORDED BY THE AO ARE REPRODUCED HEREUNDER FOR THE SAKE OF CLARITY :- ' WHILE COMPLETING ASSESSMENT FOR AY 2005-06 FOLL OWING FACTS HAVE BEEN NOTICED :- (A) FROM THE COMPUTATION FILED ALONG WITH THE RETURN FO R ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06, THE ASSESSEE HAS CLAIMED E XEMPTION U/S 11 OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961. WHILE FILING TH E RETURN OF NIL INCOME, THE ASSESSEE WAS IN KNOWLEDGE THAT THE SOCIETY IS NOT REGISTERED U/S 11 AS THE APPLICATION FOR REGIST RATION IS FILED ON 26.03.2006 I.E. ONE DAY BEFORE FILING THE RETURN OF INCOME AND THE REGISTRATION IS ALSO GRANTED W.E.F. SAME DA Y. THUS EVEN ON THE DATE OF FILING RETURN IN COMPLIANCE TO NOTIC E U/S 148 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEW 2005-06, THE ASSESSEE WAS IN KNO WLEDGE THAT THE REGISTRATION WAS NOT ALLOWED FOR THAT YEAR . AS REGISTRATION U/S 12AA IS GRANTED VIDE LETTER DATED 03.03.2008 WITH EFFECT FROM 29.03.2009. THE BENEFIT OF EXEMPTI ON U/S 11 OF THE INCOME-TAX IS NOT ALLOWED FOR THE ASSESSMENT YE AR PRIOR TO A.Y. 2006-07. IN OTHER WORDS NO EXEMPTION UNDER SEC TION 11 IS ALLOWED FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. (B) HOWEVER FROM PERUSAL OF INCOME TAX RETURN FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06 IT WAS NOTICED THAT THE EXEMPTION WAS CLAIM ED U/S 10(23C)(IIIAD) OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT ACCORDING TO S ECTION THE EXEMPTION IS ALLOWED ONLY IF THE INSTITUTION IS RUN NING WHOLLY FOR THE EDUCATION AND NOT FOR THE PROFIT. IT IS IMP ORTANT FACTOR THAT SH. ANAND, CONTRACTOR ENGAGED FOR CONSTRUCTION WORK OF THE SCHOOL HAD MADE ADVANCE OF RS.6,70,000/- TO M/S GUP TA BUILDERS IN WHICH THE TRUSTEE (SECRETARY) IS PARTNE R. THE SAID CONTRACTOR FURTHER ADVANCED RS.2,00,000/- TO SH.MOH IT GUPTA, A CLOSE ASSOCIATE OF THE SECRETARY, THE RELEVANT EVID ENCES AVAILABLE ITA NOS.5781 & 5782/DEL./2011 12 ON THE INCOME-TAX RECORD OF SH. ANAND KUMAR (BALANC E SHEET AS ON 31.03.2005 AND 31.03.2006 SPECIFICALLY COPY OF A CCOUNT OF SH. ANAND KUMAR IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OF M/S GUPT A BUILDERS, SHAMLI DULY SIGNED BY THE SECRETARY IS ON THE RECORD AND IS ALSO PART OF ASSESSMENT FOR THAT YEAR. IT SH OWS THAT THE INSTITUTION IS NOT RUNNING WHOLLY AND EXCLUSIVELY F OR EDUCATION AS STIPULATED IN SECTION 10(23C)(IIIAD) OF THE INCO ME-TAX ACT. (C) AS DISCUSSED ABOVE IN THE CONSTRUCTION WORK SH. ANA ND KUMAR, CONTRACTOR IS ENGAGED. SH. ANAND KUMAR IS HA VING ACCOUNT IN THE UNION BANK OF INDIA, SHAMLI, THE BAN KING AUTHORITY FAILED TO INTIMATE NAME AND ADDRESS OF TH E PERSON WHO HAD INTRODUCED THE BANK ACCOUNT OF SH. ANAND KUMAR BUT ON PERUSAL OF THE RETURN OF SH. ANAND KUMAR IT IS NOTI CED THAT THE AMOUNT OF RS.6,70,000/- IS ADVANCED TO M/S GUPTA BU ILDERS IN WHICH, THE SECRETARY OF M/S SHAMLI KALYAN SAMITI, S HAMLI IS ONE OF THE PARTNER. IT SHOWS THAT TRUST, M/S SHAMLI KALYAN SAMITI, SHAMLI AND THE FUNDS OF THE INSTITUTION IS BEING DIVERTED FOR SOME PERSONAL USE OF THE TRUSTEES. (D) THE CHEQUES ISSUED BY THE ASSESSEE, M/S SHAMLI KALY AN SAMITI, SHAMLI IN FAVOUR OF 'ANAND CONTRACTOR' ARE BEING DEPOSITED IN BANK OF ANAND CONTRACTOR BY THE EMPLOY EES OF THE ASSESSEE'S TRUST. IT IS ALSO GATHERED THAT THE CHEQ UES ISSUED BY ANAND CONTRACTOR HAVE ALSO BEEN ENCASHED BY THE EMP LOYEE OF THE TRUST. THUS THE FUND IS BEING DIVERTED BY SHOWI NG CONSTRUCTION. (E) THE ASSESSEE M/S. SHAMLI KALYAN SAMITI, SHAMLI IS A LSO RUNNING A HOSPITAL WHICH MEANS THAT THE ASSESSEE M/ S SHAMLI KALYAN SAMITI, SHAMLI IS NOT WHOLLY AND EXCLUSIVELY FOR EDUCATION AND THE EXEMPTION IS NOT ALLOWED U/S 10(2 3C)(IIIAD) OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT. 1961. FROM THE PERUSAL OF RECORD, IT IS ALSO APPEARED THA T NEITHER ANY RETURN IS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE NOR ANY NOTICE U/S 148 HAS BEEN ISSUED FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2003-04 AND IN VIEW OF A BOVE, I AM HAVING REASON TO BELIEVE THAT THE EXEMPTION UNDER S ECTION 10(23C)(IIIAD) AS WELL AS U/S 11 OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961 IS NOT AVAILABLE TO THE ASSESSEE AND BY ESTIMATE INCOM E TO THE EXTENT OF RS.20,00,000/- IS ESCAPED ASSESSMENT. ISS UE NOTICE U/S 148 OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961.... ' ITA NOS.5781 & 5782/DEL./2011 13 SUBSEQUENTLY, THE A.O. ISSUED DETAILED SHOW CAUSE N OTICE U/S 142(1) BASED ON THE REASONS RECORDED FOR ISSUING NOTICE U/S 148 OF THE ACT REQUIRING THE ASSESSEE TO EXPLAIN WHY EXEMPTION U/S 11 AND 10(23C )(IIIAD) MAY NOT BE DENIED IN VIEW OF THE REASONS MENTIONED IN THE NOTI CE DATED 24.12.2009 ISSUED U/S 142(1) OF THE ACT. IN RESPONSE, THE ASSESSEE V IDE LETTER DATED 22.01.2009 CLAIMED THAT THE INCOME OF THE SOCIETY WAS NIL AND ACCORDINGLY THE RETURN DECLARING NIL INCOME WAS FILED. HOWEVER, THE AO REJ ECTED THE CONTENTION RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE. THE AO OBSERVED THAT THE A SSESSEE FILED THE RETURN IN COMPLIANCE TO NOTICE ISSUED U/S 148 OF THE ACT ON 1 2.11.2009 IN WHICH THE INCOME OR SURPLUS OF EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTION WAS DE DUCTED. THE AO, AFTER GOING THROUGH THE INCOME OF THE SOCIETY AND CONSOLI DATED INCOME AND EXPENDITURE ACCOUNT, OBSERVED THAT EXCESS OF INCOME WAS ARRIVED AT RS.13,92,059/- AFTER ADJUSTING SURPLUS OF INCOME O VER EXPENDITURE AS WELL AS THE EXCESS OF EXPENDITURE OVER INCOME IN DIFFERENT UNIT OF THE SOCIETY. THUS IT WAS INFERRED BY THE A.O. THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT DECLARED ITS CORRECT INCOME. ACCORDINGLY, THE AO HELD THAT THE CORRECT INCOME OF THE SOCIETY WAS RS.13,92,059/- AND NOT LOSS OF RS.1,13,447/- AND AS SUCH, HE ADDED THE AMOUNT OF RS.13,92,0591- TO THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. 12. THE LD. CIT (A) DELETED THE ADDITION BY OBSERVI NG AS UNDER :- THE FACTS OF THE CASE AS WELL AS SUBMISSIONS MADE BY THE APPELLANT HAVE CAREFULLY BEEN CONSIDERED. IT IS OBS ERVED THAT IN THE PRECEDING PARA IT IS HELD THAT THE APPELLANT'S INCOME FROM ITA NOS.5781 & 5782/DEL./2011 14 EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTIONS IS EXEMPT U/S 10(23C)(IIIA D) OF THE ACT. THUS EXCESS OF INCOME OVER EXPENDITURE IN SARTI DEV I RAJA RAM PUBLIC SCHOOL AT RS.15,32,930/- AND FROM HINDU MAHILA VIDHYALYA AT RS.2,16,117/- IS EXEMPT U/S 10(23C)(II IAD) OF THE ACT. THUS NET SURPLUS DETERMINED BY THE A.O. AT RS. 13,92,059/- HAS NO BASIS AND IS HELD AS UNTENABLE. ADDITION OF RS.13,92,9301- IS DIRECTED TO BE DELETED. 13. LD. DR RELIED ON THE ORDER OF THE AO. 14. LD. AR REITERATED THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BEFORE T HE LD. CIT (A) AND PRAYED THAT THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT (A) BE UPHELD. 15. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE SIDES AND PERUSED THE MA TERIAL ON RECORD. THE ISSUE INVOLVED IN THIS GROUND IS AGAINST THE DELETI ON OF ADDITION OF RS.13,92,059/- MADE BY THE AO ON ACCOUNT OF EXCESS INCOME OVER EXPENDITURE BY ALLOWING THE EXEMPTION U/S 10(23C)(I IIAD) OF THE ACT. WE HAVE CONCURRED WITH THE LD. CIT (A) THAT THE ASSESS EES INCOME FROM EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTIONS IS EXEMPT U/S 10(23C)(IIIA D) OF THE ACT. THUS, THE CONCLUSION OF LD. CIT (A) THAT EXCESS OF INCOME OVE R EXPENDITURE IN SARTI DEVI RAJA RAM PUBLIC SCHOOL AT RS.15,32,930/- AND F ROM HINDU MAHILA VIDHYALYA AT RS.2,16,117/- IS EXEMPT U/S 10(23C)(II IAD) OF THE ACT AND THUS, NET SURPLUS DETERMINED BY THE AO AT RS.13,92,059/- HAS NO BASIS, IS CORRECT AND NEEDS NO INTERFERENCE. THERE IS NO MERIT IN TH E CONTENTION OF THE REVENUE ON THIS GROUND AND SO DISMISSED. ITA NOS.5781 & 5782/DEL./2011 15 16. GROUND NO.3 IS AGAINST THE DELETION OF ADDITION OF RS.1,03,900/- ON ACCOUNT OF MEMBERSHIP FEE RECEIVED DURING THE YEAR AS THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT REGISTERED U/S 12AA OF THE ACT. 17. THE ASSESSEE WAS IN RECEIPT OF MEMBERSHIP FEE O F RS.1,03,900/- WHICH WAS ALSO HELD AS INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE AND AS SUCH ADDED TO ITS INCOME. THE LD. CIT (A) OBSERVED THAT THE AMOUNT OF RS.1,03,900 /- IS THE MEMBERSHIP FEES RECEIVED BY THE SOCIETY FROM ITS REGULAR AND NEW ME MBERS WHICH IS MEANT FOR CORPUS FUND OF THE SOCIETY. HE HELD THAT THE AO WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN IMPOSING HIS OWN JUDGEMENT IN RESPECT OF SUCH RECEIPTS SINCE THE SAME WAS SUPPORTED WITH DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCES WHICH HAD NOT BEEN REBUT TED BY THE AO EVEN IN THE REMAND REPORT. IN SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES, THE LD. CIT (A) HELD THAT THE NATURE OF THE RECEIPTS AS CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE WAS ACCE PTABLE AND THERE WAS NO REASON TO TAX THE SAME AS DONATION IN THE HANDS OF THE SOCIETY AND ACCORDINGLY, DELETED THE ADDITION. 18. LD. DR RELIED ON THE ORDER OF THE AO AND WANTS US TO REVERSE THE DECISION OF THE LD. CIT (A) AND UPHOLD THE AO. 19. LD. AR REITERATED THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BEFORE T HE LD. CIT (A) AND SUBMITTED THAT THE AO WAS ALSO INCORRECT AND UNJUST IFIED IN MAKING AN ADDITION OF RS.1,03,900/- TO THE INCOME OF THE ASSE SSEE, AS THE AMOUNT RECEIVED IS MEMBERSHIP FEES FROM REGULAR AND NEW ME MBERS HAVE BEEN CREDITED DIRECTLY TO THE CORPUS FUND IN THE BALANCE SHEET; AND THE AMOUNT ITA NOS.5781 & 5782/DEL./2011 16 CANNOT BE TAKEN AS INCOME OF THE SAMITI IN ANY CASE . ACCORDINGLY, THE LD. AR RELIED ON THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT (A) AND WANTED U S NOT TO INTERFERE WITH THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT (A). 20. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE SIDES AND PERUSED THE MA TERIAL ON RECORD. WE FIND THAT THE AMOUNT OF RS.1,03,900/- IS THE MEMBER SHIP FEES RECEIVED BY THE SOCIETY FROM ITS REGULAR AND NEW MEMBERS WHICH IS M EANT FOR CORPUS FUND OF THE SOCIETY. WE FURTHER FIND THAT SUCH RECEIPTS HAV E BEEN CORROBORATED WITH DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCES AND WHICH HAD NOT BEEN REBUTT ED BY THE AO EVEN IN THE REMAND REPORT, SO WE UPHOLD THAT THE NATURE OF THE RECEIPTS AS CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE WAS ACCEPTABLE AND THERE WAS NO REASON TO TAX THE SAME AS DONATION IN THE HANDS OF THE SOCIETY. WE FURTHER F IND THAT MEMBERSHIP FEES HAVE BEEN CREDITED DIRECTLY TO THE CORPUS FUND IN T HE BALANCE SHEET AND THE AMOUNT CANNOT BE TAKEN AS INCOME OF THE SAMITI IN A NY CASE. ACCORDINGLY, WE DO NOT FIND ANY INFIRMITY IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER OF THE LD. CIT (A), SO THE GROUND IS DISMISSED. 21. NOW, WE TAKE THE APPEAL FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 200 4-05 IN ITA NO.5782/DEL/2011. 22. GROUND NO.1 IS SIMILAR TO GROUND NO.1 FOR ASSES SMENT YEAR 2004-05. THE FACTS REMAINING THE SAME THIS YEAR TOO AND THE LD. DR FAILED TO BRING TO OUR NOTICE ANY CHANGE IN FACTS, SO WE COULD TAKE A DIFFERENT VIEW, SO WE DO NOT ITA NOS.5781 & 5782/DEL./2011 17 FIND ANY INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER OF THE CIT (A) AND WE UPHOLD THE SAME ON THIS ISSUE. IT IS ORDERED ACCORDINGLY. GROUND NO.1 IS REJECTED. 23. GROUND NO.2 IS AGAINST THE DELETION OF ADDITION OF RS.2,29,950/- ON ACCOUNT OF DEPRECIATION WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE FU LL FACTS OF THE CASE AS THE AO HELD THAT THERE WAS NO CONSTRUCTION CARRIED OUT DURING THE YEAR. 24. LD. CIT (A) OBSERVED THAT THE AO HAS MADE ADDIT ION OF RS.2,29,950/- IN THE COMPUTATION OF ASSESSMENT ORDER AND HAS NOT DISCUSSED THE IMPUGNED ISSUE AT ALL. AGAINST THE ADDITION MADE AT RS.2,29, 950/-, THE A.O. HAS ONLY MENTIONED DEPRECIATION ON RS.22,99,500/- NOT UTILIZ ED DURING THE YEAR. THE LD. CIT (A) FURTHER OBSERVED THAT THE AO HAS NOT BROUGH T ANY ADVERSE MATERIAL EVIDENCE ON RECORD TO CONCLUSIVELY HOLD THAT DEPREC IATION AT RS.22,99,500/- WAS NOT UTILIZED DURING THE YEAR AND THUS 10% OF TH E SAME AT RS.2,29,950/- WAS REQUIRED FOR DISALLOWANCE. ON THE OTHER HAND, T HE ASSESSEE HAS CONTENDED THAT IN THE BALANCE SHEET OF SHAMLI SAMAJ KALYAN SA MITI, THE ADDITION TO THE FIXED ASSETS I.E. BUILDING OF THE DEGREE COLLEGE IS WELL PROVED AND FULLY VERIFIABLE. THUS, THE LD. CIT (A) HELD THAT THE AO WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN ADDING THE AMOUNT OF RS.2,29,950/- TO THE INCOME OF THE AS SESSEE. THE SAME IS DIRECTED TO BE DELETED. 25. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE SIDES ON THE ISSUE AND P ERUSED THE MATERIAL. WE FIND THAT THE AO HAS NOT BROUGHT ANY ADVERSE MAT ERIAL EVIDENCE ON RECORD TO HOLD THAT DEPRECIATION @ 10% AT RS.22,99,500/- W AS REQUIRED FOR ITA NOS.5781 & 5782/DEL./2011 18 DISALLOWED. BEFORE US ALSO, THE LD. DR HAS NOT BRO UGHT ANY EVIDENCE TO SUBSTANTIATE THE ADDITION MADE BY THE AO. ACCORDIN GLY, WE DO NOT FIND ANY INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT (A) ON THIS I SSUE AND THE SAME IS UPHELD. THIS GROUND IS DELETED. 26. GROUND NO.3 IS SIMILAR TO GROUND NO.2 FOR ASSES SMENT YEAR 2004-05. THE FACTS REMAINING THE SAME THIS YEAR TOO AND THE LD. DR FAILED TO BRING TO OUR NOTICE ANY CHANGE IN FACTS, SO WE COULD TAKE A DIFFERENT VIEW, SO WE DO NOT FIND ANY INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER OF THE CIT (A) AND WE UPHOLD THE SAME ON THIS ISSUE. IT IS ORDERED ACCORDINGLY. GROUND NO.3 IS REJECTED. 27. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEALS OF THE REVENUE FOR B OTH THE YEARS ARE DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON THIS 30 TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2015. -SD- -SD- (N.K. SAINI) (A.T. VARKEY) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED THE 30 TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2015 TS COPY FORWARDED TO: 1.APPELLANT 2.RESPONDENT 3.CIT 4.CIT(A), MUZAFFARNAGAR. 5.CIT(ITAT), NEW DELHI. AR, ITAT NEW DELHI.