M/s. Cane Development Council , Basti V. Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax, GONDA

ITA 613/LKW/2012

• Counselvise Citation: 61323714 RSA 2012
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 6 month(s) 20 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 08-07-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 04-06-2015
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 18-12-2012
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: O N PATHAK
• Assessee Lawyers: J N SHUKLA
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard
• Section: 143(3); 6; 11

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL LUCKNOW BENCH A, LUCKNOW BEFORE SHRI SUNIL KUMAR YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI. A. K. GARODIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO.613/LKW/2012 ASSESSMENT YEAR:2007-08 M/S CANE DEVELOPMENT COUNCIL BABHNAN, BASTI V. ACIT GONDA TAN/PAN:AAAAZ0217H (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY: SHRI. J. N. SHUKLA, ADVOCATE RESPONDENT BY: SHRI. O. N. PATHAK, D.R. DATE OF HEARING: 04 06 2015 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 08 07 2015 O R D E R PER SUNIL KUMAR YADAV: THIS APPEAL IS PREFERRED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A), INTER ALIA, ON THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS:- 1. THAT THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEAL)-II LUCKNOW COMMITTED MANIFEST ERROR OF LAW IN REJECTING THE FIRST APPEAL OF THE APPELLANT WITHOUT APPRECIATING FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE OF THE APPELLANT. 2. THAT THE APPELLANT IS A CANE DEVELOPMENT COUNCIL GOVERN BY U.P. CANE DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT ESTABLISHED BY THE ORDER OF THE CANE COMMISSIONER UTTAR PRADESH IT WORKS UNDER THE GUIDE LINES LAID DOWN BY THE CANE COMMISSIONER. THE ASSESSEE IS THE MARKETING OF AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE AND DEVELOPMENT OF SUGAR CANE. 3. THAT THE APPELLANT CANE DEVELOPMENT COUNCIL ENGAGED IN THE :- 2 -: BUSINESS OF CREDIT FACILITIES TO ITS MEMBERS. WHO ARE CANE GROWERS (AGRICULTURISTS) TO ENSURE REGULAR SUPPLY OF CANE FROM THE MEMBERS TO SUGAR MILLS AND TO PROCURE THE PAYMENT FROM SUGAR MILLS FROM THE AGRICULTURIST THIS COUNCIL IS ALSO ENGAGED IN PROVIDING LOAN TO ITS MEMBERS FOR THE PURCHASE OF AGRICULTURAL IMPLEMENT, SEEDS, FERTILIZERS. CANE DEVELOPMENT COUNCIL ENGAGED IN BUSINESS OF CREDIT FACILITIES AND ALSO COVERED UNDER SUB CLAUSE (III) AND SUB CLAUSE (IV) OF CLAUSE (A) OF SUB SECTION (2) OF SECTION 80P. 4. THAT THE APPELLANT IS A SEMI GOVERNMENT BODY AND ITS SECRETARY ALSO A GOVERNMENT OFFICER AND AS SUCH IS A GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENT AND LEVY OF SUCH PENALTY UPON THE APPELLANT WHO IS INCOME IS 100% DEDUCTABLE UNDER SECTION 80-P CANNOT BE DONE BY ONE GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENT TO THE OTHER DEPARTMENT OF THE GOVERNMENT WHICH IS ALSO AN INSTRUMENT AUTHORITY OF THE STATE UNDER ARTICLE 12 OF THE CONSTITUTION AND THE ACT WHICH IS DONE IN GOOD FAITH HENCE THE SAME SHALL DESERVES TO BE SET ASIDE. 5. THAT THE ORDER OF COMMISSIONER INCOME TAX (APPEAL)-II LUCKNOW DATED 09.11.2012 PASSED IN APPEAL NO. 144/143/ACIT/GONDA/09-10 IS LIABLE TO BE QUASHED AND FURTHER DEMAND OF RS.39,144/- UNDER SECTION 143(3) AND 147 ISSUED BY ACIT, GONDA MAY ALSO BE QUASHED OTHERWISE THE APPELLANT SHALL SUFFER IRREPARABLE LOSS AND INJURY. 6. THAT THE ORDER OF CIT (APPEAL)-II LUCKNOW DATED 09.11.2012 WAS SERVED ON THE APPELLANT ON 26.11.2012 AND AS SUCH THE PRESENT APPEAL IS WELL WITHIN TIME. 2. DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING, THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS SUBMITTED THAT THE IMPUGNED ISSUE IS SQUARELY COVERED BY THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF M/S CANE DEVELOPMENT COUNCIL, CHILWARIA, BAHRAICH VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER-1, BAHRAICH IN I.T.A. NO. 63/LKW/2014. COPY OF THE :- 3 -: ORDER IS PLACED ON RECORD. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS FURTHER CONTENDED THAT SINCE THE RECEIPTS OF THE ASSESSEE FROM THE GOVERNMENT ARE NOT AN INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE, THE SAME CANNOT BE TAXED UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES. THEREFORE, NO DISALLOWANCE CAN BE MADE IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE. 3. THE LD. D.R., ON THE OTHER HAND, HAS PLACED RELIANCE UPON THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A). 4. HAVING CAREFULLY EXAMINED THE ORDERS OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES AND THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF M/S CANE DEVELOPMENT COUNCIL, CHILWARIA, BAHRAICH VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER-1, BAHRAICH (SUPRA) IN THE LIGHT OF THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS, WE FIND THAT THE IMPUGNED ISSUE IS SQUARELY COVERED BY THE AFORESAID ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL, IN WHICH WE HAVE RESTORED THE MATTER TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO RE-EXAMINE THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE IN THE LIGHT OF THE ARGUMENTS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE. FOR THE SAKE OF REFERENCE, WE EXTRACT THE RELEVANT PORTION OF THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL AS UNDER:- 4. HAVING CAREFULLY EXAMINED THE ORDERS OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES IN THE LIGHT OF THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS, WE FIND THAT UNDISPUTEDLY AN IDENTICAL ISSUE WAS EXAMINED BY THE TRIBUNAL IN THE ASSESSEES OWN CASE IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10, IN WHICH THE TRIBUNAL HAS RESTORED THE MATTER TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THE RELEVANT OBSERVATIONS OF THE TRIBUNAL ARE EXTRACTED HEREUNDER FOR THE SAKE OF REFERENCE:- 9. HAVING CAREFULLY EXAMINED THE ORDERS OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES AND JUDGMENTS FILED BEFORE US IN THE LIGHT OF RIVAL SUBMISSIONS, WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED VIEW THAT SINCE THE ABOVE GRANTS OR RECEIPTS ARE RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE EITHER FROM THE GOVERNMENT OR ANY OTHER AGENCY FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE AND ASSESSEE HAS NO INDEPENDENT RIGHT OVER IT, IT WOULD NOT PARTAKE THE CHARACTER OF INCOME U/S 2 (24) OF THE ACT. THOUGH, THIS ARGUMENT WAS NOT RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE LOWER AUTHORITIES AND THE ASSESSEE HAD BEEN CLAIMING DEDUCTION U/S 80P (2) OF THE ACT OR EXEMPTION U/S 11 OF THE ACT, BUT THE GROUND OR ARGUMENT RAISED BEFORE US IS :- 4 -: PLAUSIBLE AND LEGAL. THEREFORE, IT REQUIRE THE PROPER ADJUDICATION. 10. IN THE AFORESAID ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL, IT HAS BEEN HELD THAT THE GRANT IN AID OR ANY OTHER RECEIPT WHICH WERE NOT PRODUCT OF NORMAL BUSINESS ACTIVITY OF THE ASSESSEE, IT COULD NOT BE TERMED AS REVENUE RECEIPT, SO AS TO FORM PART OF THE TOTAL INCOME. 11. IN THE CASE OF ITO VS CANE DEVELOPMENT COUNCIL (SUPRA), THE SIMILAR ISSUE WAS RAISED ON SIMILAR FACTS AND FINDING FORCE IN THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE, THE TRIBUNAL HAS RESTORED THE MATTER TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO EXAMINE THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE IN LIGHT OF THESE SUBMISSIONS. THE RELEVANT PORTION OF THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL IS EXTRACTED AS UNDER :- 9. CONSIDERING THE WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS FILED BEFORE THE BENCH, IT WAS SEEN THAT ON BEHALF THE ASSESSEE IT HAS BEEN CANVASSED THAT THE ASSESSEE COMPANY HAS BEEN ESTABLISHED BY AN ORDER DATED 06.04.1989 PASSED BY THE CANE COMMISSIONER OF U.P. IN EXERCISE OF POWERS U/S 5 OF THE U.P. SUGAR CANE (REGULATION OF SUPPLY AND PURCHASES) ACT 1953 R/W RULE 8 OF THE U.P. SUGAR CANE (REGULATION OF SUPPLY AND PURCHASES) RULES 1954. ON DIVISION OF THE U.P. STATE AND FORMATION OF UTTRAKHAND STATE LATER ON, THESE ACT AND RULES HAVE BEEN ADOPTED BY THE UTTRAKHAND STATE ALSO AS IT. THE FUNCTIONING AND ACTIVITIES OF THE ASSESSEE ARE STATED TO BE GOVERNED BY THE PROVISIONS MADE UNDER THIS ACT AND RULES. IT HAS ALSO BEEN SUBMITTED THAT AS PER SECTION 6 OF THE SAID ACT, THE FUNCTIONS OF THE ASSESSEEE ARE THAT IT CARRIES OUT ONLY THE DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITIES IN THE AREA ASSIGNED TO IT BY THE CANE COMMISSIONER OF THE STATE. IT WAS ALSO SUBMITTED IN THE WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS THAT THERE IS NO PROVISION UNDER THE SAID-ACT/RULE AUTHORIZING THE APPELLANT TO DO ANY BUSINESS ACTIVITY WITH PROFIT MOTIVE OR TO EARN ANY INCOME/PROFIT AND THE APPELLANT CARRIES OUT THE DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITIES AS SPECIFIED UNDER AFORESAID ACT ON NO PROFIT NO LOSS BASIS. THE APPELLANT IS MERELY A FUND MANAGEMENT BODY WITHOUT ANY RIGHT OF ABSOLUTE OWNERSHIP OVER THE FUNDS PLACED AT ITS DISPOSAL. IT IS FURTHER MENTIONED HERE THAT THE SAID ROADS, CULVERTS, ETC. ARE CONSTRUCTED BY THE APPELLANT ON THE LAND BELONGING TO THE GOVT. AND CONSTRUCTIONS MADE BY THE APPELLANT THERE ON ALSO BELONGS TO THE GOVT. AS ABSOLUTE OWNER AND NOT TO THE APPELLANT OR ANYBODY ELSE. THE FUNDS RECEIVED BY THE ASSEESSEE ARE EITHER BY WAY OF (A) VOLUNTARY GRANT FROM THE CENTRAL OR STATE GOVT. OR (B) CONTRIBUTION IN THE NAME OF :- 5 -: COMMISSION FROM THE SUGAR MILLS, AS PROVIDED U/S 8 OF THE AFORESAID ACT. AS PER RULE 49 OF THE AFORESAID RULES, THIS CONTRIBUTION AMOUNT IN THE NAME OF COMMISSION IS WORKED OUT THE SUGAR MILL WITH REFERENCE TO THE AMOUNT OF PURCHASE OF THE SUGAR CANE BY IT FROM THE CANE GROWERS ARE THE CANE GROWERS COOPERATIVE SOCIETY. ADDRESSING THE AMOUNT THE COMMISSION, IT IS STATED THAT IT IS WORKED OUT AND PAID BY THE SUGAR MILL TO THE APPELLANT, IS NOT SOLD/SUPPLIED BY THE APPELLANT TO THE SUGAR MILL NOR ANY SERVICE IS RENDERED BY THE APPELLANT TO THE SUGAR MILL PAYING AMOUNT IN THE NAME OF COMMISSION TO THE APPELLANT AS THERE IS NO PROVISION UNDER THE AFORESAID ACT AND RULE FOR IT, HENCE THE AMOUNT PAID BY THE SUGAR MILL TO THE APPELLANT THOUGHT IS IN THE NAME OF COMMISSION BUT, IN FACT, IT IS JUST A CONTRIBUTION AMOUNT. REFERRING TO THE MANDATORY PROVISION MADE UNDER RULE 49A, THE ENTIRE AMOUNT OF SAID COMMISSION, WHICH IS, IN FACT, JUST A CONTRIBUTION AMOUNT, IS REQUIRED TO BE UTILIZED ON SPECIFIC PURPOSE OF CONSTRUCTION OF ROAD ETC. AND OTHER DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITIES ARE ASSIGNED TO THE APPELLANT AND NOT OTHERWISE. IT IS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THERE IS NO PROVISION UNDER AFORESAID ACT/RULES MADE THERE UNDER AUTHORIZING THE APPELLANT TO UTILIZED THE SAID AMOUNT OF SAID CONTRIBUTION PAID IN THE NAME OF COMMISSION FOR ANY PURPOSE OR TO DISTRIBUTE IT OR ANY PART OF IT TO ANYBODY AS PROFIT/INCOME. IT IS ALSO BEEN SUBMITTED THAT IN THE PRESENT CASE THE ASSESSEE HAS NEITHER DISTRIBUTED THE SAID CONTRIBUTION AMOUNT RECEIVED IN THE NAME OF COMMISSION TO ANYBODY NOT UTILIZED IT FOR ANY PURPOSE OTHER THAN THAT FOR WHICH IT HAS BEEN PAID TO THE APPELLANT. IT HAS ALSO STATED THAT THERE IS NO FINDING BY ANY LOWER AUTHORITIES THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS UTILIZED THE COMMISSION AMOUNT FOR ANY PURPOSE SIMILARLY THE SURPLUS NOT SPEND IS FULLY COVERED BE THE ORDER OF THE DELHI BENCH IN N.S. COMMITTEE, VILLAGE THANABHAWAN, TEHSIL SHAMIL, DISTT.- MUZAFFARNAGAR ORDER COPY FILED. 10. IN THE LIGHT OF WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS ADVANCED BY THE ASSESSEE QUA THE DEPARTMENTAL GROUNDS AND GROUNDS OF THE ASSESSEE WHEREIN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE REVENUE HAVE ALREADY BEEN ADDRESSED IN THE EARLIER PART OF THIS ORDER. WE ARE THE VIEW THAT GROUND NO. 1, 2 & 3 IN THE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE DESERVES TO BE DISMISSED AS THE SAME HAVE NOT BEEN ADDRESSED IN THE WRITTEN SUBMISSION AND IT IS PRESUMED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOTHING TO SAY. THE FINDING OF THE CIT(A) REPRODUCED IN THE EARLIER PART OF THIS ORDER AS SUCH ARE CONFIRMED. QUA THE GROUNDS 4, 5 & 6 OF THE ASSESSEE AND :- 6 -: DEPARTMENTAL GROUNDS 1 & 2, THE FINDINGS ARRIVED AT IN PARA 6.6, THE SAME IS MODIFIED AND THE ISSUE IS RESTORED TO THE FILE OF THE AO WITH THE DIRECTION TO ADDRESS THE SPECIFIC PROVISIONS TO THE EXTENT THAT THE AO SHALL LOOK INTO THE SPECIFIC RULES AND SECTIONS WHICH THE ASSESSEE WANTS THE CANVASS IN SUPPORT ITS CLAIM FOR THE SAID PURPOSE, ASSESSEE HAS RELIED ON THE ORDER OF CO ORDINATE BENCH IN ITA NO.154/DEL/2008 IN THE CASE OF CIT VS N.S. COMMITTEE, VILLAGE THANABHAWAN, TEHSIL SHAMLI, DISTT. MUZAFFARNAGAR WHEREIN THE DEPARTMENTAL GROUNDS AGITATING THE ISSUE OF ANSHDAN AND NIRMAN YOGNA FUND HAS TAKEN A VIEW IN PARA 6 WHICH READS AS UNDER :- WE HAVE HEARD THE LD. DR AND GONE THROUGH FACTS ON THE CASE INDISPUTABLY, THE ANSH DAN AND FUND FOR NIRMAN YOJNA, WHERE GIVEN TO THE ASSESSEE BY THE STATE GOVERNMENT & SUGAR FACTORIES FOR SPECIFIC PROJECTS OF THE ROAD CONSTRUCTION AND AS POINTED OUT BY THE LD.CIT(A) THIS FUNDS HAVE BEEN SPEND ALSO FOR THOSE SPECIFIC PROJECT. THERE IS NOTHING TO SUGGEST THAT THE ASSESSEE IS CARRYING ON ANY BUSINESS ACTIVITIES, GENERATING INCOME. ACCORDINGLY, THE LD. CIT(A) CONCLUDED THAT THERE WAS NO SURPLUS WITH THE ASSESSEE AND THEREFORE, THERE WAS NO QUESTION OF ANY TAXABLE INCOME. ADMITTEDLY, THE GRANT-IN- AID IN QUESTION IS A FINANCIAL AID OR SUBSIDY GIVEN BY THE STATE GOVERNMENT OF UP AND SUGAR FACTORIES FOR THE SPECIFIC PURPOSE OF CONSTRUCTION OF ROADS. IN SECTION 2 (24) OF THE ACT, IT IS DECLARED THAT INCOME INCLUDES VARIOUS ITEMS WHICH ARE ENUMERATED THEREIN IN CLAUSES (I) TO (XV). IN THE SAID SECTION 2(24), SUCH A GRANT-IN-AID HAS NOT BEEN SPECIFICALLY INCLUDED AS AN INCOME OR A REVENUE RECEIPT. THEREFORE, CONSIDERING THE USE FOR THE WORKED INCLUDE IN SECTION 2(24), THE WORD INCOME SHALL BE CONSTRUED AS COMPREHENDING NOT ONLY THOSE ITEMS WHICH SAID SECTION DECLARED THAT THESE SHALL INCLUDE BUT ALSO SUCH ITEMS WHICH SAID SECTION DECLARES THAT THESE SHALL INCLUDE BUT ALSO SUCH ITEMS AS IT SIGNIFIED ACCORDING TO ITS NATURAL IMPORT. SINCE SECTION 2(24) HAS NOT DECLARED THAT SUCH A GRANT-IN-AID SHALL BE INCLUDED IN THE INCOME THE WORD REVENUE SHALL BE CONSTRUED AS COMPREHENDING WHAT IT SIGNIFIED ACCORDING TO ITS NATURAL IMPORT. IN RELATION TO A BUSINESS UNDERTAKING, THE WORD REVENUE CONNOTES INCOMINGS OF THE UNDERTAKING WHICH ARE PRODUCTS OF THE NORMAL WORKING OF THE UNDERTAKING. THE GIVING OF FINANCIAL AID OR SUBSIDY TO THE AFORESAID :- 7 -: COMMITTEE, WHICH ADMITTEDLY IS NOT CARRYING ON ANY BUSINESS, IS AT THE DISCRETION OF THE GOVERNMENT OR SUGAR FACTORS. THUS, THE GRANT-IN-AID IN QUESTION WAS NOT A PRODUCT OF THE NORMAL BUSINESS ACTIVITIES OF THE ASSESSEE COMMITTEE, ASSESSED BY THE AO AS A LOCAL AUTHORITY. THEREFORE, SUCH A GRANT-IN-AID COULD NOT BE TERMED AS A REVENUE RECEIPT SO AS TO FORM PART OF THE TOTAL INCOME. AS ALREADY POINTED OUT, THE LD CIT(A) CONCLUDED THAT THE AFORESAID FUNDS RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE FROM STATE GOVERNMENT AND SUGAR FACTORIES HAVE BEEN SPEND ONLY FOR THOSE SPECIFIC PROJECTS AND THERE WAS NO SURPLUS WITH THE ASSESSEE. SINCE THE REVENUE HAVE NOT PLACED BEFORE US ANY MATERIAL, CONTROVERTING THESE FINDINGS OF FACTS RECORDED BY THE LD. CIT(A) SO AS TO ENABLE US TO TAKE A DIFFERENT VIEW IN THE MATTER, THERE IS NO BASIS TO INTERFERE WITH HIS FINDINGS. CONSEQUENTLY, GROUND NO. 1 TO 3 IN THE APPEAL IS DISMISSED. ACCORDINGLY THE AO SHALL DECIDE THE ISSUE IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW QUA GROUND NO-4, 5 & 6 OF THE ASSESSEE AND GROUND NO-W & 2 OF THE REVENUE IN LINE WITH THE ORDER OF THE CO-ORDINATE BENCH. NEEDLESS TO SAY THAT THE ASSESSEE SHALL BE AFFORDING A REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD. 12. IN THE CASE OF CIT VS U.P. UPBHOKTA SAHKARISANGH LTD. (SUPRA), THE HONBLE ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT HAS HELD THAT WHERE THE AMOUNT WAS GIVEN BY THE STATE GOVERNMENT FOR SPECIFIC PURPOSE, IT DID NOT PARTAKE OF THE NATURE OF THE ASSESSEE. EVEN IF IT WAS TREATED AS AN INCOME, IT WOULD NOT BE LIABLE TO TAX AS IT WAS STATED THAT THERE WAS DIVERSION OF THE INCOME BY WAY OF OVERRIDING TITLES ON THE SAID AMOUNT BY THE WAY OF CONDITION. 13. IN THE CASE OF DIT VS. SOCIETY FOR DEVELOPMENT ALTERNATIVES IN ITA NOS.12 OF 2012 AND 18 OF 2012, THE HONBLE HIGH COURT OF DELHI HAS ALSO DEALT WITH SIMILAR ISSUE AND HAS HELD THAT WHERE ASSESSEE RECEIVED GRANTS FOR SPECIFIC PURPOSES FROM THE GOVERNMENT, NON GOVERNMENT AND FOREIGN INSTITUTION ETC. AND THESE GRANTS WERE TO BE SPENT AS PER TERMS& CONDITIONS OF THE PROJECT GRANT AND THE AMOUNT REMAINED UNSPENT AT THE END OF THE YEAR, GOT SPILLED OVER TO THE NEXT YEAR, IT WAS NOT AN INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. 14. SIMILAR IS THE POSITION IN THE INSTANT CASE AS THE ASSESSEE HAS NO INDEPENDENT RIGHT TO USE THE GRANT IN A MANNER IN WHICH IT LIKES. IT HAS TO BE UTILIZED FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE IN TERMS OF :- 8 -: GRANTS. SINCE THESE ARGUMENTS ARE RAISED FIRST TIME BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THIS ASPECT SHOULD BE EXAMINED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER WHILE ASSESSING THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. ACCORDINGLY, WE SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) & RESTORE THE MATTER TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER WITH THE DIRECTION TO THE REEXAMINE THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE IN THE LIGHT OF THE NEW ARGUMENT. 15. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSE. 5. SINCE THE TRIBUNAL, ON IDENTICAL ISSUE, HAS RESTORED THE MATTER TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN THE IMMEDIATELY PRECEDING YEAR, WE FIND NO JUSTIFICATION TO TAKE A CONTRARY VIEW IN THIS APPEAL AND WE ACCORDINGLY SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) AND RESTORE THE MATTER TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO RE-EXAMINE THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE IN THE LIGHT OF THE ARGUMENTS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IN TERMS INDICATED IN THE AFORESAID ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL. 5. WE, THEREFORE, FOLLOWING THE SAME, SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) AND RESTORE THE MATTER TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO RE- EXAMINE THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE IN THE LIGHT OF THE ARGUMENTS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IN TERMS INDICATED IN THE AFORESAID ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL. 6. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE STANDS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER WAS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THE DATE MENTIONED ON THE CAPTIONED PAGE. SD/- SD/- [A. K. GARODIA] [SUNIL KUMAR YADAV] ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED: 8 TH JULY, 2015 JJ:2206 COPY FORWARDED TO: :- 9 -: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT(A) 4. CIT 5. DR ASSISTANT REGISTRAR