THE CATHEDRAL VIDYA TRUST, MUMBAI V. ITO (E) 2(4), MUMBAI

ITA 6997/MUM/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 112 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 5646 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 11 month(s) 27 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 27-11-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: E
• Assessment Year: 2012-2013
• Appeal Filed On: 30-11-2016
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: CHAITANYA ANJARIA
• Assessee Lawyers: RONAK G DOSHI
• Keywords: Charitable institution; Valuation report; Set aside
• Section: 12A; 201

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCHES E , MUMBAI BEFORE S HRI SHAMIM YAHYA (AM) AND SHRI RAM LAL NEGI (JM) ITA NO. 6997 /MUM/2016 ASSESSMENT Y EAR: 2012 - 13 THE CATHEDRAL VIDYA TRUST, 6, PURUSHOTTAMDAS THAKURDAS - MARG, FORT, MUMBAI - 400001 PAN: AABTT5706B VS. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER - (EXEMPTION) - 2(4), PIRAMAL CHAMBERS, LALGAUG, MUMBAI (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : SHRI RONAK G. DOSHI & SHRI HARDIK NIRMAL (A R) REVENUE BY : SHRI CHAITANYA ANJARIA (D R) DATE OF HEARING: 31 /08 /201 8 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 27 / 11 /201 8 O R D E R PER RAM LAL NEGI, JM THIS APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 20.09 .2016 PASSED BY THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) (FOR SHORT THE CIT (A)) - 1 , MUMBAI , FOR THE A S S ESSMENT YEAR 2012 - 13 , WHEREBY THE LD. CIT (A) HAS DISMISSED THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED U/S 143 (3) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (FOR SHORT THE A CT) . 2. BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE A CHARITABLE TRUST REGISTERED UNDER BOMBAY PUBLIC TRUST ACT AND REGISTERED AS A CHARITABLE ORGANIZATION WITH CHARITY COMMISSIONER AND CIT (E), MUMBAI U/S 12A OF THE ACT, FILED ITS RETURN OF INCOME FOR THE ASSESSMENT UNDER CONSIDERATION DECLARING THE TOTAL LOSS AT RS. 1,28,48,991/ - . SINCE, THE CASE WAS SELECTED FOR SCRUTINY, NOTICES U/S 143 (2) AND 142 (1) WERE ISSUED AND SERVED ON THE ASSESSEE. IN RESPONSE TO THE SAID NOTICES, THE AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIV E OF THE ASSESSEE ATTENDED THE 2 ITA NO. 6997 / MUM/2016 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2012 - 13 PROCEEDINGS FROM TIME TO TIME AND SUBMITTED THE DETAILS CALLED FOR. DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE AR WAS ASKED TO EXPLAIN AS TO WHY THE ACTIVITIES OF THE TRUST SHOULD NOT BE TREATED AS NON CHARITABLE. THE A SSESSEE CLAIMED THAT T HE TRUST IS REGISTERED U/S 12A OF THE ACT AS A CHARITABLE ENTITY AND THE OBJECTIVES OF THE TRUST ARE NOT DISPUTED. HOWEVER, THE AO HOLDING THAT THE ACTIVITIES OF CHARGING HUGE FEES FOR EDUCATIONAL ACTIVITIES CANNOT BE CONSIDERED TO BE CHARITABLE . THE AO DENIED THE EXEMPTION U/S 11 OF THE ACT ON THE GROUND THAT THE TRUST IS RUNNING AN INTERNATIONAL SCHOOL AND FEES CHARGED BY THE TRUST IS EXCESS , THE TRUST IS MAKING PAYMENT OF LEASE RENT TO A COMPANY IN WHICH TRUSTEES ARE DIRECTOR AND TH E RENT PAID IS UNREASONABLE. IN THE FIRST APPEAL, THE LD. CIT (A) AFFIRMED THE ACTION OF THE AO AND DISMISSED THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE TRUST. 3 . AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF LD. CIT (APPEAL S ), THE ASSESSEE HAS PREFERRED THIS APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUN AL ON THE FOLLOWING EFFECTIVE GROUND S : - 1. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE LEARNED CIT (A) ERRED IN UPHOLDING THE ACTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER BY DENYING THE EXEMPTION CLAIMED BY THE APPELLANT UNDER SECTION 11 OF THE ACT . 2. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE LEARNED CIT (A) ERRED IN CONFIRMING THAT THE ACTIVITY CARRIED OUT BY THE APPELLANT IS NON CHARITABLE. 3. THE LEARNED CIT (A) ERRED IN NOT RELYING UPON THE COMPARATIVE DATA OF FEE STRUCTURE OF OTHER SCHOOLS SUBMITTED BY THE APPELLANT TO DEMONSTRATE THAT THE APPELLANT HAS NOT CHARGED EXCESSIVE FEES TO THE STUDENTS. 4. THE LEARNED CIT (A) ERRED IN NOT DIRECTING THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO ALLOW RENT PAID TO VIDYA EDUCATION INVESTMENT PRIVATE LIMITED . HE FURTHER ERRED IN DISALLOWING THE SAM E UNDER SECTION 13(2)(G) OF THE ACT. 3 ITA NO. 6997 / MUM/2016 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2012 - 13 5. THE LEARNED CIT (A) ERRED IN NOT DIRECTING THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO GRANT THE EXEMPTION UNDER SECTION 11 TO THE APPELLANT FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION ON THE GROUND THAT ON SIMILAR FACTS AND ISSUES THE ASSESSING OFFICER GRANTED EXEMPTION UNDER SECTION 11 TO THE APPELLANT FOR THE EARLIER ASSESSMENT YEAR I.E. A.Y. 2010 - 11. 6. THE LEARNED CIT (A) ERRED IN CONFIRMING DISALLOWANCE OF PRIOR PERIOD EXPENSES OF RS. 2,63,650/ - CLAIMED B Y THE APPELLANT AS THE SAME WERE CRYSTALIZED ONLY IN THE PREVIOUS YEAR RELEVANT TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. 4. BEFORE US, THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE ISSUES INVOLVED IN THE PRESENT CASE ARE IDENTICAL TO THE FACT S OF THE CASE AND ISSUES INVOLVED IN THE ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR THE A.Y. 2011 - 12. THE MUMBAI BENCH OF ITAT HAS DECIDED THE SAID ISSUES IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE IN THE ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR THE A.Y. 2011 - 12 . THE LD. COUNSEL FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT S INCE THE IDENTICAL ISSUES ARE COVERED BY THE DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE, THE IMPUGNED ORDER IS LIABLE TO BE SET ASIDE. 5. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE (DR) DID NOT CONTROVERT THE FACTS THAT THE ISSUES INVOLVE D IN THE PRESENT APPEAL ARE IDENTICAL TO THE ISSUES INVOLVED IN THE ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR THE A.Y. 2011 - 12 AND THE ITAT HAS DECIDED THESE ISSUES IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE. 6. WE HAVE GONE THROUGH THE MATERIAL ON RECORD INCLUDING THE ORDER DATED 24.10 .2017 PASSED BY THE COORDINATE BENCH IN ASSESSEES CASE, ITA NO. 4958/MUM/2015 FOR THE A.Y. 2011 - 12. THE COORDINATE BENCH HAS DECIDED THE IDENTICAL ISSUES IN ASSESSEES FAVOUR. THE FIRST GROUND ON THE BASIS OF WHICH THE LD.CIT (A) HAS DENIED THE EXEMPTION U/S 11 OF THE ACT IS THAT THE ASSESSEE TRUST HAS BEEN CHARGING EXCESSIVE FEES AND EARNING EXORBITANT PROFIT , THEREFORE, THE ACTIVITIES OF THE TRUST DO NOT FALL WITHIN THE AMBIT OF CHARITABLE ACTIVITIES. THE COORDINATE BENCH HAS DECIDED THIS ISSUE IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE HOLDING AS UNDER: - 4 ITA NO. 6997 / MUM/2016 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2012 - 13 6. DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE AO ISSUED SHOW CASE NOTICE UNDER SECTION 142 (1) SEEKING EXPLANATION FROM ASSESSEE WITH REGARD TO (I) THAT ASSESSE IS RUNNING A LAVISH INTERNATIONAL SCHOOL, CHARGING HEAVY FEES FROM THE STUDENTS ON COMMERCIAL LINES. THE ASSESSEE IS CHARGING FEE OF RS. 4,65,000/ - P.A. FROM CLASS - IV TO CLASS VIII, RS. 4,65,000/ - FOR IGCSE* STUDENTS AND RS. 5,65,000/ - FROM I.B* (* NO DETAILS OF ABBREVIATIONS IS AVAILABLE IN RECORDED) ( II) NO CHARITABLE BENEFITS IS AVAILABLE TO POOR AND NEEDY STUDENTS AS A FEE WAIVER, OR SCHOLARSHIP ETC. THE ACTIVITIES OF INSTITUTION ARE NOT CHARITABLE AND COMMERCIAL IN NATURE (III) THE ASSESSEE TRUST HAS MADE THE PAYMENT OF RS. 2.75 CRORE TO M/S VIDYA E DUCATION PVT. LTD. WHICH IS AN EXCLUDED PERSON UNDER SECTION 13(3) OF THE ACT. THE ASSESSEE WAS ASKED TO JUSTIFY THE REASONABLENESS OF THE SAID PAYMENT IN TERM OF PROVISION OF SECTION 13(2) FAILING WHICH IT CAN BE PRESUMED THAT THIS JUST A TOOL FOR DIVERSI ON OF FUND IN THE HAND OF EXCLUDED PERSON AND THEREFORE, EXEMPTION UNDER SECTION 11 SHALL BE DENIED AND INCOME SHALL BE ASSESSED DISALLOWING THE PAYMENT OF RS. 2.75 CRORE. THE ASSESSEE FILED ITS REPLY VIDE REPLY DATED 13.03.2014. IN THE REPLY, THE ASSESSEE CONTENDED THAT THE ASSESSEE - TRUST IS DULY REGISTERED UNDER SECTION 12A. AS PER THE TRUST - DEED THE OBJECT OF TRUST IS TO PROMOTE EDUCATIONAL ACTIVITIES BY SETTING UP AND RUNNING SCHOLL AND ALLIED CHARITABLE OBJECTS. THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN PROMOTING EDUCATIO NAL ACTIVITIES SINCE INCEPTION , NO OTHER ACTIVITIES HAS BEEN CARRIED BY THE ASSESSEE TILL DATE. DURING THE AY 2010 - 11, THE AO HAS ALSO OBSERVED THAT THE OBJECT OF TRUST IS TO PROMOTE EDUCATIONAL ACTIVITIES BY SETTING UP AND RUNNING SCHOOL AND GRANTED EXEMP TION UNDER SECTION 11. FOR FEES STRUCTURE, THE ASSESSEE CONTENDED THAT THE SCHOOL WAS ESTABLISHED AND STARTED FROM 03.08.2008 AND IMPARTING EDUCATION FROM STD. IV TO STD. XI AND DIPLOMA COURSES. THE ASSESSEE IS IMPARTING WORLD CLASS EDUCATION WITH STRONG I NDIAN TRADTION AND VALUES WITH ADVANCE SCHOOL OF MODERN TECHNOLOGY. IN ORDER TO GET THE TEACHERS AND FACULTIES FOR IMPARTING GOOD EDUCATION, THE ASSESSEE IS REQUIRED TO PAY HIGH AMOUNT OF REMUNERATION TO TEACHERS OF THAT CALIBER. THERE WERE 300 STUDENTS AN D 65 TEACHING STAFF AND ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPORT STAFF. THE SCHOOL IS NOT ADDED BY THE GOVERNMENT SUPPORT AND ENTIRE EXPENDITURE IS INCURRED FROM THE FEES THAT ARE CHARGE FROM THE STUDENTS. THE FEE STRUCTURE AS 5 ITA NO. 6997 / MUM/2016 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2012 - 13 COMPARED TO THE OTHER INTERNATIONAL SCHOOL, THE FEE OF THE ASSESSEE IS ON LOWER SIDE. THE ASSESSEE SPECIFICALLY CONTENDED THAT NO PROFIT MOTIVE EMBEDDED IN THE CHARGING OF FEES. FOR PAYMENT OF LEASE RENT AT THE RATE OF RS. 25,00,000/ - PER MONTH, THE ASSESSEE CONTENDED THAT TRUST IS PAYING LEASE RENT TO VIDYA EDEUCATION INVESTMENT PVT. LTD. FOR THE PLOT OF LAND MEASURING 16.93 ACRE. THE LEASE DEED WAS EXECUTED ON 01.06.2008 FOR A PERIOD OF NINE YEARS. INITIALLY THE RENT WAS FIXED AT RS. 5,00,000/ - PER MONTH WHICH WAS GRADUALLY INCREASED FROM TIME TO TIME AND AT PRESENT THE ASSESSEE ALSO FILED A REPORT OF VALUER DATED 10.01.2014. THE ASSESSEE CONTENDED THAT AS PER THE VALUATION REPORT THE LEASE RENT OF THE LEASE D LAND IS AROUND RS. 32.31 LAKHS PER MONTH. THE ASSESSEE ALSO CONTENDED THAT FOR PRECEDING AY 20 08 - 09, ASSESSEE TRUST HAS NOT PAID THE LEASE RENT WHICH WAS WAIVED BY THE LESSER COMPANY BECAUSE OF FINANCIAL DIFFICULTIES FACED BY THE ASSESSEE. THE TOTAL COST OF THE LAND AND SCHOOL IS RS. 43,46,75,917/ - WHICH IS FUNDED BY VIDYA EDUCATION INVESTMENT PVT . LTD. (VEIPL). THE VEIPL HAS ALSO PROVIDED FURNITURE AND FIXTURE, COMPUTER, BOOKS, OFFICE EQUIPMENT ETC. REQUIRED FOR SCHOOL AND FURTHER INCURRED A COST OF RS. 300 LAKHS. THUS, IN SUM AND SUBSTANCES THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED THAT THE PAYMENT OF LEASE RENT IS R EASONABLE. THE CONTENTION RAISED BY ASSESSEE IN ITS REPLY WAS NOT ACCEPTED BY AO. THE AO CONCLUDED THAT THE ASSESSEE IS CHARGING HUGE FEE FOR EDUCATIONAL ACTIVITY WHICH CANNOT BE CONSIDERED AND TREATED AS CHARITABLE. THERE IS NO CO - RELATION OF FEE CHARGED AND THE EXPENSES INCURRED. THE EXCESSIVE FEE IS CHARGED TO GENERATE HUGE SURPLUS TO FUND THE LIABILITY OF RENT OF RS. 2.75 CRORE TO A PRIVATE LIMITED COMPANY OWNED AND MANAGED BY EXCLUDED PERSON. THE ASSESSEE URGED THE SIMILAR CONTENTION BEFORE LD. COMMISS IONER (APPEALS). THE LD. CIT (A) CONFIRMED THE ORDER OF ASSESSING OFFICER HOLDING THAT DURING THE COURSE OF SUBMISSION IT WAS DISCLOSED BY THE REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THEY ARE GIVING FREE EDUCATION TO ONE STUDENT, HOWEVER THE DETAILS OF THE STU DENT WAS NOT FURNISHED. FOR CHARGING OF THE HIGH AMOUNT OF FEE THE LD. COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) CONCLUDED THAT NO AUTHENTIC DATA IS PROVIDED. FOR PAYMENT OF LEASE RENT TO THE EXCLUDED PERSON THE LD. CIT (A) CONCLUDED PERSON THE LD. CIT (A) 6 ITA NO. 6997 / MUM/2016 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2012 - 13 CONCLUDED THAT NEI THER THE DECISION OF SUPREME COURT IN CASE OF QUEENS EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY (319 ITR 160) RELIED ON BEHALF OF ASSESSEE NOR THE ORDER OF CIT (A) FOR AY 2010 - 11 IS HELPFUL TO THE ASSESSEE. THE DECISION IN QUEENS EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY RELATES TO SECTION 10(23C), HOWEVER THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE IS HIT BY SECTION 13 OF THE ACT. FURTHER, THE ISSUE IN AY 2010 - 11 MAY BE RELEVANT FOR THE CONDITIONS OF SECTION 13(2)(C), HOWEVER THE PROVISION OF SECTION 13(2)(G) ARE APPLICABLE IN THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. MOREOVER, THE PRINCIPLE OF RESJUDICATA IS NOT APPLICABLE IN THE INCOME TAX PROCEEDINGS. 7. SINCE, THE IDENTICAL GROUND HAS BEEN DECIDED BY THE COORDINATE BENCH IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE IN THE ASSESSEES OWN CASE ITA NO. 4958/MUM/2015 FOR THE A.Y. 2010 - 11, WE RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF THE COORDINATE BENCH SET ASIDE THE FINDINGS OF THE LD.CIT (A) AND ALLOW THIS GR OUND OF APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE. 8. THE SECOND GROUND ON THE BAS I S OF WHICH THE LD.CIT (A) HAS CONFIRMED THE ORDER PASSED BY THE AO IS T HAT THE ASSESSEE TRUST HAS BEEN MAKING PAYMENT OF LEASE RENT TO A COMPANY IN WHICH THE TRUSTEES ARE DIRECTORS AND THE RENT PAID BY THE ASSESSEE IS NOT REASONABLE. THE COORDINATE BENCH HAS DECIDED THIS ISSUE IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE IN THE ASSESSEES CASE FOR THE A.Y. 2011 - 12 AFORESAID HOLDING AS UNDER: - 7. IN OUR VIEW, THE ONLY QUESTION FOR OUR CONSIDERATION IS WHETHER THE PAYMENT OF RENT/LEASE RENT PAID TO THE RELATED PARTY IS REASONABLE OR EXCESSIVE. THE EXEMPTION UNDER SECTION 11 CAN ONLY BE DENIED WH EN THE INCOME OF THE TRUST IS DIVERTED DURING THE PREVIOUS YEAR IN FAVOUR OF ANY PERSON REFERRED IN SECTION 13(3). SECTION 13(2) (G) SPECIFICALLY PROVIDES THAT WHEN THE INCOME OF THE TRUST IS DIVERTED DURING THE PREVIOUS YEAR IN FAVOUR OF ANY CONCERN AS PR OVIDED UNDER SECTION 13(3)(E) THE ASSESSEE WOULD NOT ENTITLED FOR EXEMPTION IF THE RENT PAID IS UNREASONABLE ONE. 8 THE PERUSAL OF THE LEASE DEED REVEALS THAT INITIALLY THE RENT WAS PAYABLE AT THE RATE OF RS. 5,00,000/ - P.M. THE LEASE DEED WAS EXECUTED ON 01.06.2008. THE ASSESSEE HAS DEBITED THE RENT 7 ITA NO. 6997 / MUM/2016 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2012 - 13 OF RS. 2,75,00,000/ - IN ITS P/L ACCOUNT. THUS, THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED THE PAYMENT OF RENT AT THE RATE OF RS. 25,00,000 / - PER MONTH TO THE COMPANY OWNED AND MANAGED BY THE TRUSTEES. THOUGH, THE ASSESSEE WITHIN FOUR YEARS FROM THE EXECUTION OF LEASE DEED INCREASED THE RENT FROM RS. 5. LACKS TO RS. 25.00 LACS PER MONTH. THERE IS NO DISPUTE ABOUT THE STATUS OF TRUSTEE IN ASSESSEE TRUST AND THE DIRECTORS IN THE LESSER COMPANY. THE ASSESSEE HAS PLACED ON RECORD THE C OPY OF VALUATION REPORT ABOUT THE RENTAL VALUE OF THE LEASED ASSET DATED 10.01.2014 AND CERTIFIED THAT THIS DOCUMENT WAS FILED BEFORE LOWER AUTHORITIES. IN THE VALUATION REPORT THE MONTHLY RENTAL VALUE IS ASSESSED AS RS. 32,31,367/ - . THE AREA OF LEASED LAN D IS IN THIS REPORT IS REFERRED ONLY 10 ACRE, HOWEVER IN THE REPLY BEFORE ASSESSING OFFICER THE AREA OF LAND WAS CLAIMED AS 16.93 ACRE (PAGE 8 PARA II OF AO ORDER). THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT GIVEN ANY FINDING ON THIS ACCOUNT. SIMILARLY, THE ASSESSING O FFICER HAS NOT BROUGHT ANYE EVIDENCE ON RECORD ABOUT ANY VALUATION OF COMPARABLE PROPERTY. SIMILARLY, THE LD. COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) HAS NOT MADE ANY COMMENT ON THE VALUATION REPORT FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE. IN OUR VIEW THIS DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE FURNISHED BY ASSESSEE IS NOT CONTROVERTED BY ASSESSING OFFICER BY BRINGING ANY INCRIMINATING EVIDENCE ON RECORD. THUS IN OUR VIEW IN ABSENCE OF ANY INCRIMINATING EVIDENCE THE PAYMENT OF RENT TO THE RELATED PARTY DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION IS REASONABLE ONE . 9 THE LD. AR FOR THE ASSESSEE DURING THE COURSE OF HIS SUBMISSION FILED A COPY OF THE ORDER IF LD. CIT (A) - 9 NEW DELHI DATED 18.02.2006, SHOWING THAT THE RENT PAID BY THE ASSESSEE WAS DULY SHOWN BY VIDYA EDUCATION INVESTMENT PVT. LTD. (VEIPL) AND WAS ASSESSED BY THE REVENUE. THE PERUSAL OF THIS ORDER REVEALS THAT VEIPL HAS SHOWN TO HAVE LET OUT THE LAND WITH SUPERSTRUCTURE TO THE ASSESSEE. VEIPL HAS OFFERED THE RENT RECEIVED FROM THEASSESSEE TO TAX. IN OUR OPINION IN ABSENCE OF ANY MATERIAL THE RENT PA ID BY THE ASSESSEE TO THE RELATED PARTY DURING THE YEAR IS REASONABLE ONE. WITH THESE OBSERVATION THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. 8 ITA NO. 6997 / MUM/2016 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2012 - 13 9. SINCE, THE COORDINATE BENCH HAS DECIDED THE AFORESAID ISSUE IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE IN THE ASS ESSEES OWN CASE REFERRED ABOVE, WE DO NOT FIND ANY REASON TO DEVIATE FROM THE VIEW TAKEN BY THE COORDINATE BENCH IN THE ASSESSEES OWN CASE. WE ACCORDINGLY SET ASIDE THE FINDINGS OF THE LD. CIT (A) AND DECIDE THIS ISSUE IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE. 10. S INCE, THE GROUND NO. 1 TO 5 PERTAIN TO THE ASSESSEES GRIEVANCE AGAINST THE ACTION OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW IN DENYING THE EXEMPTION U/S 11 OF THE ACT TO THE ASSESSEE TRUST DISCUSSED ABOVE , WE ALLOW GROUND NO. 1 TO 5 OF THE ASSESSEE S AND DIRECT THE AO TO ALLOW EXEMPTION U/S 11 OF THE ACT TO THE ASSESSEE TRUST . 11. VIDE GROUND NO. 6, THE ASSESSEE HAS CHALLENGED THE ACTION OF LD. CIT (A) IN CONFIRMING DISALLOWANCE OF PRIOR PERIOD EXPENSE OF RS. 2,63,650/ - CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE ON THE GROUND THAT THE SAME HAS BEEN CRYSTALLIZED ONLY IN THE PREVIOUS YEAR RELEVANT IN THE ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. 12. THE LD . COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE DOES NOT WANT TO PRESS GROUND NO. 6 OF THE APPEAL. IN VIEW OF THE SUBMISSION MADE BY THE LD. COUNSEL GROUND NO. 6 OF THE APPEAL IS DISMISSED AS NOT PRESSED. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR A SSESSMENT YEAR 2012 - 20 13 IS PARTLY ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 27 TH NOVEMBER , 2018 . SD/ - SD / - ( SHAMIM YAHYA ) ( RAM LAL NEGI ) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER MUMBAI ; DATED: 27 / 11 / 201 8 ALINDR A, PS 9 ITA NO. 6997 / MUM/2016 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2012 - 13 / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. / THE APPELLANT 2. / THE RESPONDENT. 3. ( ) / THE CIT(A) - 4. / CIT 5. , , / DR, ITAT, MU MBAI 6. / GUARD FILE . / BY ORDER, //TRUE COPY// / (DY./ASSTT. REGISTRAR) , / ITAT, MUMBAI