INDIAN INSTITUTE OF BANKING & FINANCE, MUMBAI V. DTI (E), MUMBAI

ITA 674/MUM/2012

• Counselvise Citation: [2014] 120 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6587 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 3 month(s) 6 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 07-05-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: I
• Next Hearing Date: 30-04-2014
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 01-02-2012
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: P K SHUKLA
• Keywords: Business income; Charitable institution; Cancellation of registration
• Section: 133A; 12A; 12AA; 11

Judgement Text

, VKBZ VKBZ VKBZ VKBZ , ,, , INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI - I BENCH MUMBAI , , / !' !' !' !' , ! ! ! ! BEFORE S/SH. VIJAY PAL RAO, JUDICIAL MEMB ER & RAJENDRA,ACCOUNTANT MEMBER /. ITA NO. 674/MUM/2012, # # # # $ $ $ $ / ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10 INDIAN INSTITUTE OF BANKING & FINANCE, TOWER-I KOHINOOR CITY COMMERCIAL- II,3 RD FLOOR, KIROL ROAD, KURLA(W), MUMBAI- 400070 VS. DTI (E) 6 TH FLOOR, PIRAM CHAMBERS, LALBAUG, PAREL, MUMBAI-400012 PAN: AAATT3309D ( %& / APPELLANT) ( '(%& / RESPONDENT) %& ) ! / APPELLANT BY : SHRI NITE SH JOSHI '(%& * ) ! / RESPONDENT BY : SHRI P.K.SHUKLA # # # # * ** * +, +, +, +, / DATE OF HEARING : 30-04-2014 -.$ * +, / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 07- 05- 2014 # # # # , 1961 * ** * 254 )1( ! !! ! +/+ +/+ +/+ +/+ !0 !0 !0 !0 ORDER U/S.254(1)OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT,1961(ACT) PER RAJENDRA,A.M: CHALLENGING THE ORDER PASSED U/S. 12AA(3) OF THE AC T OF THE DIRECTOR OF INCOME-TAX (EXEMPTION), MUMBAI(DIT)(E), DATED 28.12.2011, ASSESSEE HAS FILE D FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL: 1. THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL THAT FOLLOW ARE ALL INDEPE NDENT AND WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO EACH OTHER. 2. RE: LOCK OF ADEQUATE OPPORTUNITY/NON -CONSIDERATION OF SUBMISSIONS: 2.1 THAT, ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE LEARNED DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION) ERRED IN ISSUING A SHOW CAUS E NOTICE AT THE FAG END OF THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS AND IN NOT GRANTING ADEQUATE TIME AND OPPORTUNITY TO THE APPELLANTS IN THE MATTER. 2.2 THAT, ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE LEARNED DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION) ERRED IN NOT CONSIDERING THE SECOND WRITTEN SUBMISSION FILED BY THE APPELLANT VIDE LETTER DATED 27 TH DECEMBER 2011 ADDRESSED BY ITS AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVES, MIS CONTRACTOR, NAYAK & KISHNADWAL A. 3. RE: REGISTRATION UNDER SECTION 12A: 3.1 THAT, ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE LEARNED DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION) ERRED IN CANCELLING/WITHDRAW ING THE APPELLANTS APPLICATION FOR REGISTRATION UNDER SECTION 12A. 3.2 THAT, ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE LEARNED DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION) ERRED IN EXERCISING HIS POWE RS TO WITHDRAW/CANCEL THE 12A REGISTRATION CERTIFICATE, GRANTED TO THE APPELLANT AND FAILED TO APPRECIATE THE FACT THAT IN PURSUANCE TO THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 12AA(3), THE REGISTRATION ONCE GRANTED TO THE APPELLANT, COULD ONLY BE WITHDRAWN IN SPECIFIED SIT UATIONS NAMELY, WHERE THE ACTIVITIES OF THE APPELLANT ARE NOT GENUINE OR WHERE THE ACTIVITI ES ARE NOT CARRIED OUT IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE APPELLANTS OBJECTS. 3.3 THAT, ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE LEARNED DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION) ERRED IN HOLDING THAT THE AP PELLANTS ACTIVITIES DID NOT FALL WITHIN 2 ITA NO. 674/MUM 2012 INDIAN INSTITUTE OF BANKING & FINANCE. THE REALM OF EDUCATION BUT CAME WITHIN THE PURVIEW OF THE TERM ADVANCEMENT OF ANY OTHER OBJECT OF GENERAL PUBLIC UTILITY. 3.4 THAT, ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE LEARNED DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION) THUS ERRED IN HOLDING THAT T HAT THE APPELLANTS CASE WAS COVERED WITHIN THE AMBIT OF THE AMENDMENT MADE VIDE PROVISO TO SECTION 2)(15) W.E.F. 1 ST APRIL 2009, WHICH LAID DOWN THAT THE ADVANCEMENT OF ANY O THER OBJECT OF GENERAL PUBLIC UTILITY WOULD NOT BE CONSIDERED AS A CHARITABLE PURPOSE, IF IT ENTAILED CARRYING ON ANY ACTIVITY IN THE NATURE OF TRADE, COMMERCE OR BUSINESS OR ACTIVI TY OF RENDERING ANY SERVICE IN RELATION TO ANY TRADE, COMMERCE OR BUSINESS FOR A CESS OR FE E OR ANY OTHER CONSIDERATION 3.5 THAT, ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE LEARNED DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION) ERRED IN RELYING ON THE ORDE R PASSED BY THE CHIEF COMMISSIONER REJECTING THE APPELLANTS CLAIM FOR EXEMPTION UNDER SECTION 10(23CFLVI) TO JUSTIFY THE CANCELLATION OF THE 12A REGISTRATION CERTIFICATE GR ANTED TO THE APPELLANT. 4 YOUR APPELLANTS CRAVE LEAVE TO ADD, ALTER, AMEND, VARY, OMIT OR SUBSTITUTE THE AFORESAID GROUNDS OF APPEAL OR ADD A NEW GROUND OR GROUNDS OF APPEAL AT ANY TIME BEFORE OR AT THE TIME OF HEARING OF AS THE APPEAL THEY MAY BE ADVISE D. 2. DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING BEFORE US, AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE (AR) OF THE ASSESSEE STATED THAT GROUND NO.3.1 AND 3.2 ARE THE EFFECTIVE GROUND S OF APPEAL AND ARE TO BE ADJUDICATED UPON. CONSIDERING HIS SUBMISSIONS,WE ARE TAKING OF THE IS SUE OF REGISTRATION U/S. 12A OF THE ACT. THE ASSESSEE IS A COMPANY INCORPORATED U/S. 25 OF T HE INDIAN COMPANIES ACT.AS PER THE MEMORAN -DUM OF ASSOCIATION (MOA)PRINCIPLE OBJECT OF THE AS SESSEE WERE THE STUDY OF THE THEORY OF BANKING,TO INSTITUTE SCHEME OF EXAMINATION,TO PROMO TE INFORMATION ON BANKING ETC.DIT(E) RECEIVED A PROPOSAL FROM THE ADIT(E) II(1),MUMBAI F OR CANCELLATION OF REGISTRATION GRANTED TO THE ASSESSEE U/S. 12A OF THE ACT.ADIT IN ITS PROPOSAL S TATED THAT ASSESSEE WAS CARRYING ON ACTIVITIES IN THE NATURE OF TRADING, COMMERCE OR BUSINESS, THAT G ROSS RECEIPTS OF THE ASSESSEE WERE IN EXCESS OF RS.10 LAKHS, THAT PROVISIONS TO PROVISO TO SECTION 2(15) OF THE ACT WERE APPLICABLE IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE FROM AY 2009-10.VIDE,HIS LETTER DATED 21.12.2011.,DIT(E) ISSUED A SHOW CAUSE NOTICE TO THE ASSESSEE ASKING IT AS TO WHY THE REGI STRATION GRANTED TO IT SHOULD NOT BE WITHDRAWN BY INVOKING THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 12AA (3) OF THE ACT. IT WAS STATED IN THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE THAT THE ACTIVITIES AS CARRIED OUT BY THE ASSESSEE WERE IN NATURE OF TRADE, COMMERCE OR BUSINESS DURING THE AY 2009-10,THAT THE DETAILS OF THE INCOME IN TH E INCOME AND EXPENDITURE ACCOUNT SHOWED THAT ASSESSEE HAD EARNED INCOME OF RS. MORE THAN 10 LAKH S, THAT PROVISO TO SECTION 2(15) OF THE ACT WERE APPLICABLE IN ITS CASE, THAT THE OBJECTS WERE IN NATURE OF ADVANCEMENT OF ANY OTHER OBJECT OF GENERAL PUBLIC UTILITY. 3. ASSESSEE,VIDE ITS LETTER DTD.26.12.2011,MADE SUBMIS SIONS BEFORE THE DIT(E).AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE AND GOING THROUGH T HE FACTS OF THE CASE,HE HELD THAT IF ANY TRUST/INSTITUTION;WHOSE MAIN OBJECT WAS FOR ADVANCE MENT FOR ANY OTHER OBJECT AND GENERAL PUBLIC UTILITY WAS CARRYING OUT ANY ACTIVITY THAT WAS IN T HE NATURE OF ANY TRADE,COMMERCE OR BUSINESS THAN THE COVERED ACTIVITIES CARRIED OUT BY IT WOULD BE U NDER THE AMBIT OF AFORESAID PROVISO,THAT CCIT MUMBAI HAD HELD THAT;INSTITUTION WAS NOT IMPARTING FORMAL EDUCATION; WHILE DECIDING THE 3 ITA NO. 674/MUM 2012 INDIAN INSTITUTE OF BANKING & FINANCE. APPLICATION FILED BY IT U/S. 10(23)(VI) OF THE ACT, THAT THE ACTIVITIES CARRIED OUT BY IT WERE NOT IN THE FIELD OF EDUCATION, THAT ACTIVITIES OF THE INSTITUT ION SQUARELY FELL UNDER THE FIELD OF GENERAL PUBLIC UTILITY, THAT THE RECEIPT SHOWN BY THE TRUST WOULD COME UNDER THE FIELD OF BUSINESS INCOME, THAT SUMS RECEIVED BY IT INCLUDED CHARGES(RS.81.74 LAKHS ), EXAMINATION FEES (RS. 1.44 CRORES), INCOME FROM INVESTMENT (RS. 8.52 CRORES), EDUCATIONAL INCO ME (RS. 20.60 LAKHS), TUTORIAL CLASS (RS. 19.45 LAKHS),ROYALTY ON PUBLICATION (RS. 57.06 LAKHS),EXC ESS FEES WRITTEN BACK (RS. 6.28 LAKHS), MISCELLA -NEOUS INCOME (RS. 44.91 LAKHS) THAT SAME WERE IN T HE NATURE OF BUSINESS INCOME, THAT THE RECEIPTS WERE IN EXCESS OF MONITORY LIMIT OF RS. 10 LAKHS AS LAID DOWN IN THE PROVISO TO SECTION 2(15) OF THE ACT,THAT PROVISIONS OF THE PROVISO WERE EFFECTIVE F ROM AY.2009-10,THAT ONCE A CHARITABLE TRUST/ INSTITUTION WAS HIT BY THE AFORESAID PROVISO THAN T HERE WAS DEEMING PROVISION TO TREAT SUCH ENTITY AS NON-GENUINE,THAT THE ASSESSEE TRUST WAS NOT CAR RYING ACTIVITIES FOR CHARITABLE PURPOSES.FINALLY, HE HELD THAT ASSESSEE TRUST HAD BECAME NON-GENUINE FOR THE PURPOSE OF SECTION 11 OF THE ACT, THAT THE REGISTRATION ALLOWED TO IT IN EARLIER YEARS U/S .12AA WAS TO BE CANCELLED/WITHDRAWN W.E.F. AY 2009-10. 4. BEFORE US, AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE (AR) SUBMITTED THAT THERE WAS NO CHANGE IN THE OBJECTS OF THE TRUST,THAT IT WAS CARRYING THE SAME ACTIVITIES THAT WERE PART OF THE ACTIVITIES OF EARLIER YEARS, THAT PROVISO TO SECTION 2(15) WAS NOT APPLICABLE, THAT I NSTITUTION WAS CARRYING OUT ACTIVITIES THAT WERE HELD TO BE EDUCATIONAL BY THE TRIBUNAL IN THE EARLI ER YEARS, THAT BOTH THE CONDITIONS FOR APPLICATION OF PROVISO WERE NOT EXISTING.HE RELIED THE ORDERS O F COTTON TEXTILES EXPORT(44 TAXMANN.COM 168), KHAR GYMKHANA(ITA 373/MUM/2012,AY.2009-10,DAT ED10.07.2013,TAMIL NADU CRICKET ASSOCIATION(40TAXMANN.COM 250),VANITA SAMAJ (ITA/10 34/MUM/2012-AY.2009-10,DTD.26.02. 2014).REFERRING TO THE ORDERS OF THE TRIBUNAL FOR T HE AY 1996-97 TO 1998-99, HE CONTENDED THAT INSTITUTION WAS CARRYING OUT EDUCATIONAL ACTIVITIES .HE FURTHER ARGUED THAT REGISTRATION CAN BE CANCELLED U/S 12AA(3),IF THE ACTIVITIES OF TRUST WE RE NOT GENUINE OR ACTIVITIES WERE NOT CARRIED OUT IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE OBJECTIONS OF THE TRUST, THA T ACTIVITIES OF THE INSTITUTION WERE GENUINE IT WAS CONDUCTING EXAMINATION BESIDES SUPPLYING STUDY MATE RIAL TO PARTICIPANTS AND ORGANISING SEMINARS ETC.DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE(DR)ARGUED THAT ACTI VITIES CARRIED OUT BY THE ASSESSEE WERE FOR EARNING PROFIT, THAT DETAILS OF INCOME AND EXPENDIT URE THE ACTIVITIES TAKEN BY IT WERE NOT GENUINE ACCOUNT PROVED THE HUGE PROFIT WAS EARNING BY THE A SSESSEE,THAT SAME WAS NOT COMING OUT OF CHARITABLE ACTIVITIES,THAT IT WAS NOT CARRYING OUT ANY CHARITABLE ACTIVITIES,THAT INSTITUTION WAS IN T HE CONDUCTING EXAMS,THAT IT HAD COLLECTED RS.MORE THAN 10 LAKHS DURING THE YEAR UNDER APPEA,THAT IT WAS HIT BY THE PROVISIONS OF PROVISO TO SECTION 2(1 5). IN THE REJOINDER AR STATED THAT DIT(E) HAD NOWHERE STATED THAT ASSESSEE HAD MADE HUGE PROFIT,THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS IN DEFICIT,THAT AS PER THE PROVISI ONS OF THE ACT IT HAD TO MAKE INVESTMENTS, THAT IF 4 ITA NO. 674/MUM 2012 INDIAN INSTITUTE OF BANKING & FINANCE. INTEREST INCOMES AND INVESTMENTS MADE ACCORDING TO THE PROVISIONS OF LAW WERE IGNORED THERE WAS NO SURPLUS DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION.HE R EFERRED TO JUDGMENTS OF HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT AND PANJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT DELIVERED IN THE CASE OF VANITA VISHRAM TRUST (327 ITR 121) AND PINEGROVE INTERNATIONAL CHARITABLE TRUT (3 27ITR(73). 5. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED TH E MATERIAL BEFORE US. AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF THE ACT REGISTRATION OF A TRUST CAN BE CANCELLED IN TWO EVENTUALITIES ONLY-FIRST THAT THE ACTIVITIE S OF THE TRUST ARE NOT GENUINE AND SECONDLY THE ACTIV ITIES ARE NOT BEING CARRIED OUT IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE OBJECTS OF THE TRUST OR INSTITUTION.IF THESE CO NDITIONS ARE MISSING,REGISTRATION CANNOT BE WITHDRAWN. IN THE CASE UNDER CONSIDERATION,DIT-E HA S NOT ALLEGED THAT ACTIVITIES WERE NOT CARRIED OUT IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE OBJECTS OF THE TRUST.HE HAS HELD THAT ACTIVITIES WERE NOT GENUINE AND THE BASIS FOR HOLDING THE VIEW IS THAT THE TRUST HAD IN COME MORE THAN 10 LAKHS FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION AND THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS CARRYING OU T ACTIVITIES WHICH WERE IN THE NATURE OF GENERAL PUBLIC UTILITY. WE FIND THAT ACTIVITIES CARRIED OUT BY THE ASSESSEE IN EARLIER YEARS WERE CONTINUING IN THE YEAR UNDER APPEAL.IN THE EARLIER YEARS SAME WERE HELD TO BE EDUCATIONAL ACTIVITIES.DIT-E HAS NOT BROUGHT ON RECORD ANY FACT DEMONSTRATING THE DISCON TINUATION OF SUCH ACTIVITIES.LIKE EARLIER YEARS,ASSESSE WAS CONDUCTING EXAMS AND WAS SUPPLYIN G STUDY MATERIAL TO STUDENTS.THESE VERY ACTIVITIES WERE HELD TO BE EDUCATIONAL ACTIVITIES B Y THE TRIBUNAL ON MORE THAN ONE OCCASIONS AND THE ORDERS OF THE ITAT HAVE BECOME FINAL.THEREFORE, WITHOUT BRINGING SOMETHING POSITIVE ON RECORD TO DISTINGUISH THE FACTS OF EARLIER YEAR AND CURRENT YEAR,VIEW HAS TO BE TAKEN THAT ASSESSEE WAS IN THE FIELD OF EDUCATION. WE FURTHER FIND THAT IN THE CASE OF OXFORD ACADEMY FOR CAREER DEVELOPMENT HONBLE LUCKNOW BENCH OF ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT HAS DEALT WITH ALMOST SIMILAR ISSUE.IN THAT MATTER THE ASSESSEE WAS GRANTED REGISTRATION ON 01.04.1999.A SURVEY WAS CON DUCTED AT THE BUSINESS PREMISES OF THE ASSESSEE UNDER SECTION 133A OF THE ACT ON 20.09.200 2, WHEREIN DOCUMENTS WERE IMPOUNDED.ON THE BASIS OF THE INFORMATION, IT WAS FELT BY THE DE PARTMENTAL AUTHORITIES THAT THE SOCIETY WAS BEING RUN FOR THE PURPOSES OF PROFIT.THEREFORE,AFTER SERV ING A NOTICE,THE EARLIER REGISTRATION GRANTED UNDER SECTION 12A OF THE ACT WAS CANCELLED FOR THE REASON S THAT THE SURPLUS WAS QUITE HEAVY.IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER, IT WAS MENTIONED BY THE COMMISSIONE R OF INCOME-TAX THAT THERE WAS AN UNUSUAL HUGE MARGIN AND THE PETITIONER WAS ENGAGED IN THE C OMMERCIAL ACTIVITIES RATHER THAN CHARITABLE.AS PER THE BALANCE-SHEET, HUGE AMOUNT FROM THE STUDENT WAS CHARGED. THE PROFIT MARGIN EMBODIED IN THE CHARGES TAKEN FROM THE STUDENTS WAS SO HUGE AND IT PROVED THE PROFIT MOTIVE OF THE PETITIONER. WE FIND THAT SIMILAR ARGUMENTS WERE ADVANCED BY THE DR.DECIDING THE MATTER IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE,HONBLE HIGH COURT HAS HELD AS UNDER : 5 ITA NO. 674/MUM 2012 INDIAN INSTITUTE OF BANKING & FINANCE. IN THE INSTANT CASE, THE ASSESSEE IS PREPARING STU DENTS BY PROVIDING COACHING/GUIDELINES TO GET ADMISSIONS IN PROFESSIONAL INSTITUTIONS TO PURSUE T HEIR STUDIES.THE SENSE IN WHICH THE WORD ' EDUCATION' HAS BEEN USED IN SECTION 2(15) OF THE A CT IS THE SYSTEMATIC INSTRUCTION, SCHOOLING OR TRAINING GIVEN TO THE YOUNG IN PREPARATION FOR THE WORK OF LIFE. SIMILARLY, EXTENDING FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE/SCHOLARSHIP, ETC., TO STUDENTS FOR THEIR EDUCATIONAL PURPOSE WOULD SQUARELY AND FAIRLY FALL WITHIN THE CONNOTATION OF ' EDUCATION' AS PER THE RATIO LAID DOWN IN THE CASE OF CIT V. SARASWATH POOR STUDENTS FUND [1984]150 ITR 142 (KAR N). THUS, THE ASSESSEE IS ENGAGED IN ' EDUCATIONAL ACTIVITIES' .IN THE INSTANT CASE, THE A SSESSEE IS PREPARING STUDENTS BY PROVIDING COACHING/GUIDELINES TO GET ADMISSIONS IN PROFESSION AL INSTITUTIONS TO PURSUE THEIR STUDIES. THE SENSE IN WHICH THE WORD EDUCATION HAS BEEN USED IN SECTION 2(15) OF THE ACT IS THE SYSTEMATIC INSTRUCTION, SCHOOLING OR TRAINING GIVEN TO THE YOU NG IN PREPARATION FOR THE WORK OF LIFE. SIMILARLY, EXTENDING FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE/SCHOLARSHIP, ETC., T O STUDENTS FOR THEIR EDUCATIONAL PURPOSE WOULD SQUARELY AND FAIRLY FALL WITHIN THE CONNOTATION OF ' EDUCATION' AS PER THE RATIO LAID DOWN IN THE CASE OF CIT V. SARASWATH POOR STUDENTS FUND [1984] 150 ITR 142 (KARN).THUS, THE ASSESSEE IS ENGAGED IN ' EDUCATIONAL ACTIVITIES' (357ITR604) . WE FIND THAT ASSESSEE IS ALSO CARRYING OUT SIMILAR KIND OF ACTIVITIES I.E. EDUCATIONAL ACTIVITIES,SO,I N OUR OPINION PROVISO TO SECTION 2(15) IS NOT APPLICA BLE TO IT.SAID PROVISO IS APPLICABLE TO THOSE INSTITUTIONS THAT ARE INVOLVED IN THE ADVANCEMENT O F ANY OTHER OBJECT OF GENERAL PUBLIC UTILITY.IN THE CASE UNDER APPEAL THERE IS REASON AS WHY TO NOT TO TREAT IT AS EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTION. SECODLY, ISSUE OF REAL SURPLUS OR DEFICIT OF THE INCOME AND EXPENDITURE ACCOUNT HAS NOT BEEN LOOKED IN TO BY THE DIT-E,THOUGH HE HAD CONSIDERED VARIOUS FIGURES WHILE DECIDING THE ISSUE AGAINST THE ASSESSEE. IN ABSENCE OF A FINDING OF FACT THAT THERE WAS CHAN GE THE ACTIVITIES OF THE ASSESSEE DURING THE YEAR OR THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT CARRYING OUT ITS ACTIV ITIES AS PER THE MOA,WE ARE NOT INCLINED TO ENDORSE THE VIEWS OF THE DIT-E. CONSIDERING THE PEC ULIAR FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE,WE DECIDE EFFECTIVE GROUND OF APPEAL IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE. AS A RESULT,APPEAL F ILED BY THE ASSESSEE STANDS ALLOWED. 1+2 #3+ 4 5 * / 6+ * + 78 . ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 7 TH MAY,2014. !0 * -.$ ! 9 :# 7 EBZ , 2014 . * / ; SD/- SD/- ( / VIJAY PAL RAO ) ( !' / RAJENDRA ) /JUDICIAL MEMBER ! ! ! ! /ACCOUNTANT MEMBER / MUMBAI, :# /DATE: 07.05.2014 6 ITA NO. 674/MUM 2012 INDIAN INSTITUTE OF BANKING & FINANCE. SK !0 !0 !0 !0 * ** * '+ '+ '+ '+ , 4. THE CONCERNED CIT / = > 5. DR I BENCH, ITAT, MUMBAI / ?/ '+# VKBZ VKBZ VKBZ VKBZ , . . . 6. GUARD FILE/ / 1 (+ (+ (+ (+ '+ '+'+ '+ //TRUE COPY// !0# / BY ORDER, @ / 7 DY./ASST. REGISTRAR , /ITAT, MUMBAI