JYOTI VIDYAPEETH TRUST, Jaipur V. PRINCIPAL CCIT, Jaipur

ITA 696/JPR/2015

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 128 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 2082 (ITAT-JAIPUR)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 8 month(s) 15 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 29-05-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: Not Allotted
• Assessment Year: misc
• Appeal Filed On: 14-09-2015
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: B K GUPTA CIT DHK
• Keywords: Charitable institution
• Section: 143(3); 131

Judgement Text

VK;DJ VIHYH; VF/KDJ.K] T;IQJ U;K;IHB] T;IQJ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHE S, JAIPUR JH DQY HKKJR] U;KF;D LNL; ,OA JH FOE FLAG ;KNO] YS [KK LNL; DS LE{K BEFORE: SHRI KUL BHARAT, JM & SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YAD AV, AM VK;DJ VIHY LA-@ ITA NO.696/JP/15 FU/KZKJ.K O'K Z@ ASSESSMENT YEAR : JYOTI VIDYAPEETH TRUST, 143, GOMS DEFENCE COLONY, VAISHALI NAGAR, JAIPUR. CUKE VS. THE PR. CCIT, JAIPUR. LFKK;H YS[KK LA-@THVKBZVKJ LA-@ PAN NO.: AAATJ4910C VIHYKFKHZ@ APPELLANT IZR;FKHZ@ RESPONDENT FU/KZKFJRHDH VKSJ LS@ ASSESSEE BY : SHRI RAJEEV SOGANI (C.A.) JKTLO DH VKSJ LS@ REVENUE BY : SHRI B.K. GUPTA (CIT) LQUOKBZ DH RKJH[K@ DATE OF HEARING : 15/05/2017 ?KKS'K .KK DH R KJH[K @ DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 29/05/2017. VKNS'K@ ORDER PER: SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, A.M. THIS IS AN APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER OF LD. PR. CCIT, JAIPUR DATED 30.07.2015 WHEREIN THE GRANT OF APPROVAL U/S 10(23C)(VI) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 FOR THE FIN ANCIAL YEAR 2013-14 RELEVANT TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2014-15 AND ONWARDS WAS DENIED TO THE APPLICANTS TRUST. 2. BRIEFLY THE FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSES SEE TRUST MOVED AN APPLICATION BEFORE THE LD. PR. CCIT FOR SEEKING APP ROVAL U/S 10(23C)(VI) OF THE ACT ON 22.07.2014. ON PERUSAL OF THE TRUST DEED AND OTHER DOCUMENTS FURNISHED IN SUPPORT OF THE APPLICATION, THE PR. CC IT OBSERVED THAT VARIOUS CLASSES IN THE TRUST DEED ARE NOT AS PER THE PROVIS IONS OF SECTION 10(23C)(VI) ITA NO. 696/JP/15 JYOTI VIDYAPEETH TRUST VS. PR. CCIT, JAIPUR 2 OF THE ACT AND THE TRUST WAS ACCORDINGLY HELD AS NO T EXISTING SOLELY FOR EDUCATIONAL PURPOSES AND ITS APPLICATION WAS REJECT ED. IN ITS ORDER, THE LD. PR. CCIT STATED THAT THE TRUST IS HAVING MULTIPLE O BJECTIVES AND THEREFORE, IT IS NOT EXISTING SOLELY FOR EDUCATIONAL PURPOSES, AL L THE POWERS ARE WITH THE FOUNDER TRUSTEES AND THE TRUST IS AT THE SOLE DISCR ETION OF FOUNDER TRUSTEES AND DR. PANKAJ GARG AND MS. VIDUSHI GARG WHO ARE T HE FOUNDER TRUSTEES ARE TAKING UNDUE BENEFITS BY DRAWING HUGE REMUNERAT ION FROM THE TRUST WHICH IS CONTRARY TO TRUST DEED AND THE TRUST HAS F AILED TO JUSTIFY THE SAME. ACCORDINGLY, HE HELD THAT LOOKING AT THE CLAUSES OF THE TRUST DEED, THE TRUST CANNOT BE HELD EXISTING SOLELY FOR EDUCATIONAL PURP OSES AND APPLICATION SEEKING APPROVAL UNDER SECTION 10(23C)(VI) WAS REJE CTED. 3. DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING, THE LD. AR SUBMITT ED THAT THE ISSUE OF THE SCOPE OF ENQUIRY FOR APPROVAL UNDER 10(23C)(VI) AS WELL AS ISSUES REQUIRING CONSIDERATIONS AT THE TIME OF GRANT OF AP PROVAL CAME UP FOR CONSIDERATION BEFORE THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN T HE CASE OF AMERICAN HOTEL & LODGING ASSOCIATION, EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTE V/S CBDT(301 ITR 86). THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT ANALYZED THE PROVISIONS O F SECTION 10(23C)(VI) AND VARIOUS PROVISOS THERETO. THE HONBLE SUPREME C OURT CAME TO THE CONCLUSION THAT THERE ARE A LOT MANY MONITORING MEC HANISMS PROVIDED IN DIFFERENT PROVISOS TO CHECK ABUSE OF EXEMPTION PROV ISION. THESE REGULATORY MECHANISMS ARE NOT TO BE ANALYSED AT THE TIME OF GR ANT OF APPROVAL. COMPLIANCE OF THESE CONDITIONS HAS TO BE SEEN SUBSE QUENT TO GRANT OF APPROVAL AT THE TIME OF ASSESSMENT ON YEAR-ON-YEAR BASIS. HOWEVER, FOR GRANT OF APPROVAL, THE ONLY THRESHOLD CONDITION TO BE ANALYSED IS THE FACT OF ACTUAL EXISTENCE OF INSTITUTION FOR THE SOLE PURPOS E OF EDUCATION. THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT AT PARA 34 OF THE ORDER, OBSERVED THAT IF AFTER GRANT OF APPROVAL IT IS BROUGHT TO THE NOTICE OF PRESCRIBED AUTHORITY THAT REGISTERED/PRESCRIBED CONDITIONS ARE BREACHED THEN THE PRESCRIBED ITA NO. 696/JP/15 JYOTI VIDYAPEETH TRUST VS. PR. CCIT, JAIPUR 3 AUTHORITY CAN WITHDRAW THE APPROVAL BY FOLLOWING TH E PROCEDURE MENTIONED IN THAT PROVISO. 3.1 IT WAS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE CBDT HAS ISSU ED CLARIFICATION VIDE CIRCULAR NO. 14/2015 DATED 17/08/2015, CLARIFYING C ERTAIN ISSUES RELATED TO GRANT OF APPROVAL U/S 10(23C)(VI). AT PARA 1 OF THE SAID CIRCULAR, CBDT HAS CLARIFIED THE SCOPE OF ENQUIRY WHILE GRANTING APPRO VAL. IT HAS FOLLOWED THE GUIDELINES PRESCRIBED BY THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF AMERICAN HOTEL & LODGING ASSOCIATION, EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTE (SUPRA). AT PARA 5, CBDT HAS CLARIFIED THE IMPACT OF EXTRA-O RDINARY POWER OF MANAGING TRUSTEE TO APPOINT, REMOVE OR NOMINATE OTH ER TRUSTEES. CBDT HAS CLARIFIED THAT THERE IS NO PROVISION UNDER THE ACT WHICH CALLS FOR DENIAL OF APPROVAL ON ACCOUNT OF SUCH POWERS BEING EXERCISED OR BEING PROVIDED IN THE TRUST DEED. 3.2 IN THE ABOVE BACKGROUND OF LAW, DECISION OF HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN AMERICAN HOTEL & LODGING ASSOCIATION, EDUCATIONA L INSTITUTEAND CBDT CIRCULAR DATED 17/08/2015, THE DENIAL OF APPROVAL B Y PR. CCIT IS UNJUSTIFIED AS SUBMITTED BELOW: A) TRUST IS HAVING MULTIPLE OBJECTS AND, THEREFORE, IS NOT EXISTING SOLELY FOR EDUCATION. UNDOUBTEDLY, THE APPELLANT TRUST HAD MULTIPLE OBJEC TS IN ITS TRUST DEED DATED 14/11/2003, HOWEVER, THE SAID TRUST DEED WAS AMENDED SUBSEQUENTLY VIDE TRUST DEED DATED 26/07/2015, WHER EIN ALL OTHER OBJECTS OTHER THAN EDUCATION WERE DELETED. OTHERWISE ALSO, HAVING MULTIPLE OBJECTS CANNOT BE A REASON FOR DENIAL FOR APPROVAL AS HAS BEEN HELD BY THE DIFFERENT HIGH COU RTS IN THE UNDER NOTED CASES: ITA NO. 696/JP/15 JYOTI VIDYAPEETH TRUST VS. PR. CCIT, JAIPUR 4 I. C.P. VIDYA NIKETAN INTER COLLEGE SHIKSHAN SOCIETY(2 013) 359 ITR 322 (ALLAHABAD) II. GEETANJALI EDUCATION SOCIETY (2014) 267 CTR 369 (KA RNATAKA) III. NEERAJ JANHITKARI GRAMIN SEWA SANSTHAN(2014) 360 IT R 168 (ALLAHABAD) IV. DIGEMBER JAIN SOCIETY FOR CHILD WELFARE(2010) 329 I TR 459 (DELHI) V. HARF CHARITABLE TRUST (REGD.) (2015) 376 ITR 0110 ( P&H) APPELLANT TRUST IS NOT INVOLVED IN ANY ACTIVITY OTH ER THAN EDUCATION. NO CONTRARY FINDING IS THERE IN THE ORDER OF LD. PR. C CIT OR IN ANY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDERS U/S 143(3). B) TRUSTEES HAVE DERIVED BENEFITS BY DRAWING SALARY WHICH IS CONTRARY TO TRUST DEED THE TWO TRUSTEES NAMELY DR. PANKAJ GARG AND MRS. VI DHUSHI GARG WERE RENDERING FULL TIME SERVICES TO THE UNIVERSITY IN T HEIR CAPACITY AS ADVISOR AND CHAIRPERSON RESPECTIVELY. THESE POSTS HAVE BEEN NOT IFIED BY THE STATE GOVERNMENT BY WAY OF GAZETTE NOTIFICATION FOR RUNNI NG THE UNIVERSITY. BOTH THE TRUSTEES ARE HIGHLY QUALIFIED. DR. PANKAJ GARG IS B.H.M.S. AND MRS. VIDHUSHI GARG IS M.SC. (MICROBIOLOGY). LD. PR CCIT HAS WRONGLY REFERRED TO CLAUSE 14 OF TH E TRUST DEED DATED 14/11/2003 . THE SAID CLAUSE OF THE TRUST DEED PROHIBITS TRUSTE ES TO DRAW ANY REMUNERATION FOR THEIR ACTING AS TRUSTEES. IT M AY BE NOTED THAT TRUSTEES CAN ACT IN DUAL CAPACITIES I.E. ONE IN THE CAPACITY AS TRUSTEE AND OTHER IN THEIR OWN PERSONAL PROFESSIONAL CAPACITY. THIS REMU NERATION IS DRAWN BY THESE TWO TRUSTEES IN THEIR CAPACITY AS ANY OTHER E MPLOYEE OF THE TRUST RENDERING SERVICES TO THE TRUST. THERE IS NO PROHIB ITION IN THE TRUSTDEED IN SUCH SITUATION, FOR THE TRUSTEES TO DRAW REMUNERATI ON ACTING IN INDIVIDUAL PROFESSIONAL CAPACITY. ITA NO. 696/JP/15 JYOTI VIDYAPEETH TRUST VS. PR. CCIT, JAIPUR 5 IT IS BROUGHT TO THE NOTICE THAT THE SAME REMUNERAT ION IS NOT FOUND VIOLATIVE OF THE PROVISIONS OF THE ACT FOR THE A.Y. 12-13 IN THE SCRUTINY ASSESSMENT U/S 143(3) DATED 20/03/2015. WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO ABOVE, IT IS SUBMITTED THAT RE ASONABLENESS OR OTHERWISE OF THE REMUNERATION IS BEYOND THE SCOPE OF ENQUIRY AT THE STAGE OF GRANT OF APPROVAL. THIS IS THE REGULATORY REQUIREMENT TO BE SEEN AT THE TIME OF ASSESSMENT ON YEAR-ON-YEAR BASIS AS HAS BEEN SO HEL D BY THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF AMERICAN HOTEL & LODGI NG ASSOCIATION, EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTE (SUPRA) AND THE CBDT IN ITS C IRCULAR DATED 17/08/2015. C)TRUST IS DISCRETIONARY TRUST, WHERE SOLE POWERS A RE AT THE DISCRETION OF FOUNDER TRUSTEES LD. PR CCIT HAS WRONGLY DECLARED THE APPLICANT TRUS T AS DISCRETIONARY TRUST. THE TERM DISCRETIONARY IN THE INCOME TAX PA RLANCE IS USED IN A DIFFERENT CONTEXT. DISCRETIONARY TRUST UNDER THE IN COME TAX TERMINOLOGY IS A TRUST IN WHICH EITHER THE BENEFICIARIES ARE NOT DEF INED OR THEIR SHARE IS INDETERMINABLE OR UNKNOWN. THIS IS CLEAR FROM THE P ROVISIONS OF SECTION 164(1). THIS CONCEPT OF DISCRETIONARY TRUST IS AP PLICABLE ONLY ON PRIVATE TRUSTS AND NOT ON CHARITABLE TRUST (APPELLANT IS A CHARITABLE TRUST). THIS IS CLEAR FROM CBDT CIRCULAR NO. 45 DATED 2 ND SEPTEMBER 1970, CBDT CIRCULAR NO. 281 DATED 22 ND SEPTEMBER 1980(1981) 131 ITR ST 4 AND CBDT CIRCULA R NO. 387DATED 6 TH JULY 1984 (1985) 152 ITR ST. 18. THUS, LD. PR CCIT HAS ERRED IN CATEGORIZING THE APP ELLANT CHARITABLE TRUST AS DISCRETIONARY TRUST AND THEREBY REJECTING THE APPLI CATION ON HIS WRONG UNDERSTANDING OF LAW. THE CBDT VIDE CIRCULAR DATED 17/08/2015 HAS CLARIFI ED THAT THERE IS NO LAW TO DENY APPROVAL ON ACCOUNT OF SO CALLED EXCESSIVE POWERS ENTRUSTED WITH THE FOUNDER TRUSTEE. ITA NO. 696/JP/15 JYOTI VIDYAPEETH TRUST VS. PR. CCIT, JAIPUR 6 OTHERWISE ALSO, PARA 9 OF THE TRUST DEED WAS DELETE D AND PARA 12 OF THE TRUST DEED WAS SUITABLY MODIFIED . FURTHER ATTENTION IS DRAWN TOWARDS THE FOLLOWING CL AUSES OF THE TRUST DEED WHICH DEMONSTRATE THAT MANAGEMENT OF THE TRUST IS T HROUGH THE TRUSTEES. PARA 13 (J): TO APPOINT SUB-COMMITTEES COMPRISING ONE TRUSTEE O R MORE FOR CARRYING OUT THE OBJECTS AND PURPOSES OF TRUST AND/OR MATTER S CONNECTED WITH THE TRUST AND/OR ITS AFFAIRS. PARA16 (1): THE TRUSTEES MAY FROM TIME TO TIME, FRAME RULES FO R THE CONDUCT OF THE ADMINISTRATION OF THE TRUST AND REGULATING THE MEET INGS OF TRUSTEES. IN ABSENCE OF SUCH REGULATIONS:- (1) ALL THE MATTERS WILL BE DECIDED BY MAJORITY AND THE QUORUM FOR THE MEETING SHALL BE TWO THIRD D) PROVISOS THIRD AND THIRTEENTH TO SECTION 10(23C) (VI) HAVE BEEN VIOLATED LD. PR CCIT HAS MISDIRECTED HIMSELF IN REFERRING TO CLAUSE 6.22 - CLAUSE 6.3 IN AMENDED TRUST DEED REPRODUCED IN HIS ORDER AT A S UNDER: TO INVEST THE TRUST FUND IN THE VARIOUS FINANCIAL GAIN PROJECTS/SCHEMES FOR THE PURPOSE OF RAISING FUNDS OF THE TRUST TO SPEND THE SAME FOR THE FULFILLMENT OF OBJECTS OF THE TRUST. LD. PR CCIT HAS OBSERVED THAT THE ABOVE CLAUSE IS V IOLATIVE OF PROVISOS THIRD AND THIRTEENTH OF SECTION 10(23C)(VI). PROVISO THIRD PROVIDES FOR APPLICATION OF INCOME TO THE EXTENT OF 85% AND PROVISO THIRTEENTH PROVIDES FOR WITHDRAWAL OF APPRO VAL ON CERTAIN CONDITIONS INCLUDING NON-COMPLIANCE TO THIRD PROVISO. ITA NO. 696/JP/15 JYOTI VIDYAPEETH TRUST VS. PR. CCIT, JAIPUR 7 BOTH THE ABOVE PROVISOS STIPULATE THE REGULATORY ME CHANISM. THESE ARE TO SEEN AT THE TIME OF ASSESSMENT AND NOT AT THE TIME OF GRANT OF APPROVAL. REFERENCE IS MADE TO HONBLE SUPREME COURT DECISION IN AMERICAN HOTEL & LODGING ASSOCIATION, EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTE (SUPRA) AND THE CBDT IN ITS CIRCULAR DATED 17/08/2015. PROVISO THIRTEENTH GRANTS AUTHORITY TO PRESCRIBED A UTHORITY FOR WITHDRAWAL OF APPLICATION UNDER CERTAIN CIRCUMSTANCES. IT, IN ITS ELF, MANIFESTS THAT THIS IS TO BE SEEN POST GRANT OF APPROVAL. WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO ABOVE, IT IS SUBMITTED THAT TI LL DATE THERE IS NO FINDING THAT ABOVE CLAUSE OF TRUST DEED HAS ACTUALLY RESULT ED INTO VIOLATION OF THIRD AND THIRTEENTH PROVISOS. LD. PR. CCIT HAS REJECTED THE APPLICATION ONLY ON APPREHENSION OF VIOLATION. 4. THE LD DR IS HEARD WHO HAS VEHEMENTLY ARGUED THE MATTER AND DRAWN REFERENCE TO THE OBJECT CLAUSE OF THE TRUST DEED HA VING MULTIPLE OBJECTS AND WHICH HAS NO CONNECTION WITH THE OBJECT OF EDUCATIO N. FURTHER, HE SUBMITTED THAT THE AMENDMENT IN THE OBJECT CLAUSE W HERE SO DONE BY THE ASSESSEE TRUST CAN ONLY APPLY PROSPECTIVELY AND IN SUPPORT, DRAWN RELIANCE TO THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE MADRAS HIGH COURT IN CASE OF B.S. ABDUR RAHMAN INSTITUTE OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY VS CCIT, CHENNAI (2017) 78 TAXMANN.COM 336 (MAD). 5. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. THE SCOPE OF ENQUIRY TO BE CAR RIED OUT AT THE TIME OF GRANT OF APPROVAL U/S 10(23C)(VI) OF THE ACT OF THE ACT HAD COME UP BEFORE THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN CASE OF AMERICAN HOTEL & LODGING ASSOCIATION (SUPRA) AND SUBSEQUENTLY THE CENTRAL BOARD OF DIREC T TAXES AS ALSO COME OUT WITH A CIRCULAR NO. 14/15 DATED 17.08.2015 CLAR IFYING THE ISSUES RELATING TO GRANT OF APPROVAL AS WELL AS TO FOLLOW THE GUIDE LINES AS PRESCRIBED BY THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN CASE OF AMERICAN HOTEL & L ODGING ASSOCIATION. ITA NO. 696/JP/15 JYOTI VIDYAPEETH TRUST VS. PR. CCIT, JAIPUR 8 APPARENTLY THE ORDER UNDER APPEAL HAS BEEN PASSED B Y THE LD. PR. CCIT ON 30.07.2015 AND HE THEREFORE DOES NOT HAVE THE BENE FIT OF GOING THROUGH THE SAID CBDT CIRCULAR WHICH IS BINDING ON THE REVE NUE AUTHORITIES. 5.1 AS PER THE SCHEME OF THE ACT AS WELL AS THE LEG AL PROPOSITION LAID DOWN BY THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT, WHAT IS TO BE SE EN AT THE TIME OF GRANT OF APPROVAL IS WHETHER THE ASSESSEE TRUST EXIST SOL ELY FOR EDUCATION PURPOSES. IN THIS REGARD, LD PR.CCIT HAS NOTED THA T THE ASSESSEE TRUST HAS MULTIPLE OBJECTIVES IN ITS TRUST DEED. IN COMPLIAN CE, THE ASSESSEE TRUST HAS AMENDED ITS TRUST DEED DATED 26 TH JULY, 2015 REMOVING ALL THE OBJECTS OTHER THAN OBJECTS RELATING TO EDUCATION. WHAT THEREFORE HAS TO BE EXAMINED IS WHETHER THE AMENDED OBJECT CLAUSE SATISFY THE REQUI REMENT OF LAW OR NOT. FURTHER, WHERE THE ASSESSEE TRUST IS ALREADY IN EXI STENCE, AT THE TIME OF SEEKING THE APPROVAL, THE REVENUE CAN EXAMINE WHETH ER ITS ACTIVITIES ARE BEING CARRIED OUT FOR EDUCATION PURPOSES OR NOT. IN THIS REGARD, THE LD AR HAS SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE TRUST IS INVOLVED I N EDUCATIONAL ACTIVITIES AND IS RUNNING JYOTI VIDYAPEETH MAHILA VISHWAVIDYAL YA HAVING MORE THAN 2200 STUDENTS. HOWEVER, THERE IS FINDING GIVEN BY THE LD. PR.CCIT IN THIS REGARD. THE MATTER RELATING TO POWERS ENTRUSTED TO THE TRUS TEES AND ITS RELEVANCE AT THE TIME OF GRANT OF APPROVAL HAS BEEN DISCUSSED IN THE CBDT CIRCULAR WHICH SHOULD BE TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION. REGARDING THE MATTER RELATING TO PAYMENT OF REMUNERATION, THERE ARE COUNTER-CLAIMS W ITHOUT ANY BASIS TO SUPPORT THE CONTENTIONS OF EITHER OF THE PARTIES. 5.2 IN LIGHT OF ABOVE, AS THERE IS NOT ENOUGH MATER IAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD TO ADJUDICATE ON THE MATTER AND THE FACT THAT THE G UIDELINES LAID DOWN BY HONBLE SUPREME COURT AND CBDT WHILE GRANTING THE A PPROVAL NOT BEEN CONSIDERED, WE HEREBY SET ASIDE THE MATTER TO FILE OF LD. PR. CCIT TO EXAMINE THE SAME A FRESH AS PER LAW, TAKING INTO CONSIDERAT ION THE GUIDELINES LAID ITA NO. 696/JP/15 JYOTI VIDYAPEETH TRUST VS. PR. CCIT, JAIPUR 9 DOWN BY THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN CASE OF AMERIC AN HOTEL & LODGING ASSOCIATION AND THE SUBSEQUENT CBDT CIRCULAR DATED 17.08.2015, AFTER PROVIDING REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE TR UST. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 29/05/2017. SD/- SD/- DQY HKKJR FOE FLAG ;KNO (KUL BHARAT) (VIKRAM SINGH YADAV) U;KF;D LNL;@ JUDICIAL MEMBER YS[KK LNL;@ ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JAIPUR DATED:- 29/05/2017 SANTOSH VKNS'K DH IZFRFYFI VXZSF'KR@ COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. VIHYKFKHZ@ THE APPELLANT- JYOTI VIDYAPEETH TRUST, 143, GOMS DEFENCE COLONY, VAISHALI NAGAR, JAIPUR. 2. IZR;FKHZ@ THE RESPONDENT- THE PR. CCIT, JAIPUR. 3. VK;DJ VK;QDR@ CIT 4. VK;DJ VK;QDRVIHY@ THE CIT(A) 5. FOHKKXH; IZFRFUF/K] VK;DJ VIHYH; VF/KDJ.K] T;IQJ@ DR, ITAT, 6. XKMZ QKBZY@ GUARD FILE (ITA NO.696/JP/2015) VKNS'KKUQLKJ@ BY ORDER, LGK;D IATHDKJ@ ASSISTANT. REGISTRAR.