M/s Prathima Educational Society, Hyderabad V. Dy.CIT, Central Circle-1, Hyderabad

ITA 729/HYD/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2015] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 87238 (ITAT-HYDERABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 8 month(s) 16 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 09-01-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 29-12-2014
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 23-04-2014
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: D SUDHAKAR RAO
• Assessee Lawyers: K C DEVADAS
• Keywords: Depreciation; Charitable institution; Tax effect; Capital receipt; Benefit of exemption; Cancellation of registration
• Section: 263; 12; 153A; 12AA

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCH B', HYDERABAD BEFORE SHRI P.M.JAGTAP, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SMT.ASHA VIJAYARAGHAVAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO.724/HYD/14 : ASSESSMENT YEAR 2004 - 05 ITA NO.725/HYD/14 : ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005 - 06 ITA NO.726/HYD/14 : ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006 - 07 ITA NO.727/HYD/14 : ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007 - 08 ITA NO.728/HYD/14 : ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008 - 09 ITA NO.729/HYD/14 : ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009 - 10 ITA NO.730/HYD/14 : ASSESS MENT YEAR 2010 - 11 M/S. PRATHIMA EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY, HYDERABAD (PAN AAA TP 3833 E ) V/S. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME - TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE 1, HYDERABAD (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI K.C. DEVADAS RESPONDENT BY : S HRI D.SUDHAKAR RAO, DR DATE OF HEARING 29.12.2014 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 09.01.2015 O R D E R PER BENCH : THESE SEVEN APPEALS FIL E D BY THE ASSESSEE ARE DIRECTED AGAINST A COMMON ORDER DATED 26.3.2O014 PASS E D BY THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME - TAX CENTR A L CIRCLE 1, HYDERABAD UNDER S.263 R E VISIN G THE RE - ASSESSMENT S MADE B Y THE ASSESSING OFFICER UN D ER S.143(3) READ WITH S .153A OF THE AC T FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2004 - 05 TO 2010 - 11. I TA NO. 724 TO 730/H YD/20 14 M/S. PRATHIMA EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY, HYDERABAD 2 2. THE ASSESSEE IN THE PRESENT CA S E IS AN EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY , WHICH IS RUN N IN G A MEDICAL COLLEGE AND HOSPI T AL. A SEARCH AN D SEIZURE ACTION UNDER S.132 OF THE A CT W A S CONDUCTED IN TH E CA S E OF THE ASSESSEE SOC IE TY AS WELL AS ITS TRUSTEES AND OTHER RELATED PERSONS ON 10.9.2009. SUBSEQUENTLY, NOTICES UNDER S.153A OF THE AC T WERE ISSUED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON 13. 7 .2010 FOR THE YEARS UNDER CONSIDERATION IN R E SPON S E TO WHICH RETURNS WERE FIL E D BY THE ASSESSEE SOC IETY ON 11.1.2011. IN THE ASSESSMENTS COMPL E TED UNDER S.143(3) READ WITH S .153A OF THE AC T VIDE ORDERS D A TED 30.12.2014, THE TOTAL IN C OM E O F TH E ASSESSEE FOR TH E YEARS UNDER CONSIDERATION WAS DETERMINED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AS UNDER - S.NO. A . Y . INCOME RETURNED INCOME ASSESSED RETURNED U/S.153A 1 2004 - 05 ( - )18,26,68,815 ( - ) 5,80,59,501 2 2005 - 06 ( - )5,59,67,152 ( - ) 2,38,62,471 3 2006 - 07 ( - )7,09,71,311 4,42,66,317 4 2007 - 08 ( - )4,55,14,612 2,90,17,942 5 2008 - 09 ( - )2,42,49,506 5,10,20,887 6 2009 - 10 ( - )1,53,67,242 8,07,88,658 7 2010 - 11 NIL 8,83,71,660 3. RECORDS OF THE ABO V E ASSESSMENT S MADE IN TH E CA S E OF T H E ASSESSEE SUBSEQUENTLY CAME TO BE EXAMINED BY THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER AND ON SUCH EXAMINATION, HE FOUND TH A T TH E RE WERE FOLLO W IN G ERRORS IN TH E ASSESSMENT S MADE BY TH E ASSESSING OFFICER UNDER S.143(3) READ WITH S .53A, WHICH W ERE PREJUDICIAL TO THE IN T ER E STS OF THE REVENUE - I TA NO. 724 TO 730/H YD/20 14 M/S. PRATHIMA EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY, HYDERABAD 3 .. ( A ) CLAIMING OF DEPRECIATION ON HOSPITAL EQUIPMENT SL. NO. A.Y. DEPRECIATION ALLOWED ON HOSPITAL EQUIPMENT 1 2004 - 05 1,41,01,785 2 2005 - 06 1,41,01,785 3 2006 - 07 91,84,861 4 2007 - 08 91,84,861 5 2008 - 09 78,50,432 6 2009 - 10 69,91,979 7 2010 - 11 49,21,447 T HE ASSESSEE GROUPED ALL THE HOSPITAL EQUIPMENT INTO ONE GROUP AND CLAIMED DEPRECIATION @40%. AS PER DEPRECIATION SCHEDULE ONLY CERTAIN LIFE SAVING MEDICAL EQUIPMENT VIZ., MRI, SURGICAL LASERS ETC. WERE ONLY ELIGIBLE @ 40% DEPRECIATION. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD NOT OBTAINED COMPLETE DETAILS OF EQUIPMENT AND NOT SEGREGATED ITEMS WHICH ARE ALLOWABLE / NOT ALLOWABLE AT APPLICABLE RATE. (B) UNSECURED LOANS ( IN RUPEES) AS SEEN FROM SCHEDULE - 2 UNSECURED LOANS OF THE BALANCE SHEET, FOLLOWING ARE THE UNSECURED LOANS INTRODUCED DURING THE YEAR WHICH ARE GIVEN BELOW . THE AO WHILE COMPLETING THE SCRUTINY ASSESSMENT HAS NOT CALLED FOR THE CONFIRMATION OF THE BALANCES WITH REFERENCE TO LENDERS FROM WHOM UNSECURED LOANS WERE OBTAINED. S. NO A.Y. M/S. PACT SECURITIES & FIN. SERVICES LTD. SRI B.SRINIVASA RAO M/S. PRATIMA ESTATES LTD. & NET X CELL LTD. 1 2004 - 05 1,02,76,822 1,14,89,581 2 2005 - 06 2,81,82,597 3 2006 - 07 1,12,11,163 4 2007 - 08 1,67,11,403 5 2009 - 10 1,28,80,000 92,15,777 I TA NO. 724 TO 730/H YD/20 14 M/S. PRATHIMA EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY, HYDERABAD 4 (C) CORPUS RECEIPTS AS SEEN FROM THE BALANCE SHEET, DURING THE ASSESSMENT YEARS, FOLLOWING ARE THE AMOUNTS RECEIVED TOWARDS CORPUS FUND. THE AO WHILE COMPLETING THE ASSESSMENT HAS REJECTED THE CLAIM U/S. 10(23)(C)(VI)/1 1 . HENCE, THE AO SHOULD HAVE BROUGHT THE CORPUS FUND TO TAX - NET . S.NO A. Y . CORPUS RECEIPTS 1 2006 - 07 4,00,66,991 2 2007 - 08 2,42,40,388 3 2008 - 09 3,89,75,045 4 2009 - 10 4,51,38,800 5 2010 - 11 2,07,10,623 (D) DEPRECIATION ON FURNITURE: AS SEEN FROM THE BALANCE SHEET, DURING THE ASSESSMENT YEARS DEPRECIATION ON FURNITURE WAS CLAIMED @ 15 % AS AGAINST THE ELIGIBLE RATE OF 10%. THE AO SHOULD HAVE DISALLOWED THE EXCESS DEPRECIATION CLAIMED WHICH ARE GIVEN BELOW: SL. NO. A.Y. EXCESS DEPRECIATION ALLOWED 1 2006 - 07 8,47,429 2 2008 - 09 14,13,486 3 2009 - 10 15,42,614 4 2010 - 11 11,29,089 (E) UNDER ASSESSMENT OF INCOME: FOR THE ASST. YEAR 2010 - 11, THE AO ERRED IN ARRIVING EXCESS OF INCOME OVER EXPENDITURE AS PER INCOME & EXPENDITURE ACCOUNT TO THE TUNE OF RS.7,90,43,030/ - . 4. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME - TAX THEREFORE ISSUED A SHOW CAUSE NO T I C E TO THE ASSESSEE POINTING OUT THE ABOVE ERRORS AND SEEKING I T S EXPLANATION AS TO WHY THE ORDER S PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER UNDER S.143(3) READ WITH S.153A FOR THE YE A RS UNDER CONSIDERATION SHOULD NO T B E REVISED BY EXERCISING HI S I TA NO. 724 TO 730/H YD/20 14 M/S. PRATHIMA EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY, HYDERABAD 5 POWER UNDER S.263. IN RESPONSE TO THE SAID NOTICE, THE FOLLO W IN G SUBMI S SION S WERE MADE BY THE ASSESSEE IN WRITING - 'WITH REFERENCE TO THE ABOVE WE SUBMIT THE FOLLOWING LINES FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION AND NECESSARY ACTION. 1 ) OUR SOCIETY WAS INITIALLY REGISTERED AS PUBLIC CHARITABLE ENTITY UNDER SECTION 12AA ON 04.10.2000. LATER, ON 26.03.2008, THE SOCIETY WAS ALSO GRANTED EXEMPTION UNDER SECTION 10(23C} OF INCOME TAX ACT, 1961. 2 ) SUBSEQUENT TO SEARCH ACTION CONDUCTED ON 10 - 09 - 2009 ON THE OFFICES OF SOCIETY AND RESIDENCE OF T H E CHAIRMAN OF THE SOCIETY, THE ABOVE TWO REGISTRATIONS WERE RESCINDED. 3 ) THE SOCIETY CHALLENGED THE RESCINDING ORDERS OF HON. DIRECTOR GENERAL OF INCOME TAX IN HON. HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH. THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT SUSPENDED THE ORDERS OF HON'BLE DGIT TILL FURTHER ORDERS. COPIES OF ORDERS OF THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT ARE ENCLOSED. 4 ) THE 12AA REGISTRATION CANCELLATION ORDERS PASSED BY YOUR GOODSELVES WERE CHALLENGED BEFORE THE HON'BLE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL , HYDERABAD. THE HON'BLE TRIBUNAL, AFTER HEARING BOTH SIDES, HAS RESTORED THE 12AA REGISTRATION VIDE THEIR ORDERS DATED 08.11.2013. COPY OF THE SAID ORDER IS ENCLOSED. 5 ) AS THINGS WERE STANDING AS ABOVE, QUANTUM APPEALS HAVE COME UP FOR HEARING BEF ORE THE HON'BLE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS). AFTER HEARING THE ASSESSEE SOCIETY AND TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION THE ORDERS OF HON. ITAT, MADAM COMMISSIONER HAS DELETED THE MOST VEXED ADDITIONS, LIKE, ALLEGED COLLECTION OF CAPITATION FEE, ETC. IT IS WORTH NOTING HERE THAT THESE ADDITIONS WERE THE BASIS FOR RESCINDING OF RECOGNITION UNDER SECTION 10(23C ) AND CANCELLATION OF REGISTRATION UNDER SECTION 12AA. 6 ) THE BRIEF BACK GROUND FOR CLAIMING THE DEPRECIATION FOR INCOME TAX RULES AND PLEA NOT TO TAX C ORPUS DONATION IS AS FOLLOWS: A ) BEFORE THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS UNDER SECTION 153A WERE CONDUCTED, AS SUBMITTED EARLIER, THE HON BLE DGIT HAS ALREADY RESCINDED THE GRANT OF EXEMPTION GIVEN UNDER I TA NO. 724 TO 730/H YD/20 14 M/S. PRATHIMA EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY, HYDERABAD 6 SECTION 10(23C) OF THE ACT. BASED ON RESCINDING ORDERS OF THE HON'BLE DGIT THAT WERE AVAILAB LE ON HAND, THE THEN LEARNED AO PROPOSED TO DECLINE NOT ONLY THE BENEFITS OF SECTION 10(23C) OF THE ACT BUT ALSO OF SECTION 11 OF THE ACT, MEANING THEREBY THAT THE LEARNED AO INTENDED TO TAX THE ASSESSEE AS AN ORDINARY AOP. WHILE DOING SO THE LEARNED AO HAS IGNORED THE DETAILED SUBMISSIONS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE SOCIETY IN THIS REGARD. DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS THE ASSESSEE PUT FORTH THE FOLLOWING LEGITIMATE CLAIMS WHICH ARE AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF THE ACT : IT WAS REQUESTED THAT: I . TO PERMIT THE SOCIETY TO CLAIM DEPRECIATION ON VARIOUS ASSETS AS PER INCOME TAX RULES. THE REQUEST WAS A NATURAL AND LEGITIMATE COROLLARY OF THE PROPOSED ACTION. OF AD TO TREAT THE ASSESSEE AS AN ORDINARY ADP AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF THE ACT. HITHERTO, THE SOCIETY WAS CLAIMING DEPRECIATION AT RATES THAT WERE DIFFERENT FROM THE RATES PRESCRIBED UNDER INCOME TAX RULES. THE LEARNED AD, AFTER EXAMINING THE SOCIETY'S CLAIM, HAD KINDLY ACCEPTED THE PLEA AND ASKED THE SOCIETY TO PREPARE AND SUBMIT A DETAILED DEPRECIATION STATEMENT AS PER INCOME TAX RULES. II . TO CONSIDER THE CORPUS DONATIONS RECEIVED BY THE SOCIETY (WHICH WERE CLAIMED AS CAPITA L RECEIPTS AT THE TIME OF FILING THE ORIGINAL RETURNS CONSIDERING THE 12AA/10(23C) REGISTRATIONS ON HAND) AS CAPITAL RECEIPTS WHICH ARE NON - TAXABLE. FOR THIS PURPOSE EXTRACTS FROM THE BOOK OF SRI RAKMNNAM AND OTHERS IN THEIR BOOK 'LAW AND PROCEDURE ON CHARITABLE TRUSTS AND RELIGIOUS INSTITUTI ONS' TENTH REVISED EDITION, WAS PRODUCED WHERE IN THE LEARNED AUTHORS HAVE OPINED THAT CORPUS DONATIONS RECEIVED BY THE CHARITABLE ENTITIES, WHETHER REGISTERED OR NOT UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961, ARE EXEMPT FROM TAX (A COPY OF THE SAID EXTR ACT IS ENCLOSED TO THIS LETTER FOR THE READY REFERENCE OF YOUR QOODSE L VES): THE LEARNED AD AFTER CONSIDERING OUR SUBMISSIONS HAD KINDLY ACCEPTED THIS PLEA AS WELL AND DID NOT BRING THESE AMOUNTS TO TAX. I TA NO. 724 TO 730/H YD/20 14 M/S. PRATHIMA EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY, HYDERABAD 7 7 ) HAVING SUBMITTED A BRIEF BACK GROUND FOR THE CLAIM OF DEPRECIATION AS INCOME TAX RULES AND NON TAXABILITY OF CORPUS DONATIONS, WE SUBMIT HEREUNDER OUR DETAILED SUBMISSIONS AS WHY CORPUS DONATIONS SHOULD NOT BE TAXED. A DETAILED READING OF THE RELEVANT PROVISIONS OF THE ACT AS APPLICABLE TO CHARITABLE TRUSTS (SECTION 11, 12 AND 13 ) READ WITH THE DEFINITION OF VOLUNTARY CONTRIBUTIONS AS APPEARING IN SECTION WOULD REVEAL THE FOLLOWING: A ) SECTION 2(24) (II I ) REFERS TO THE INCOME OF A TRUST OR CHARITABLE INCOME BY WAY OF VOLUNTARY CONTRIBUTION AS INCOME CHARGEABLE TO TAX. HERE THERE IS MENTION OF VOLUNTARY CONTRIBUTION BY WAY OF CORPUS DONATION. B) SECTION 12 DEEMS THE VOLUNTARY CONTRIBUTION AS TAXABLE AND SUBJECTS SUCH CONTRIBUTIONS TO THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 11 AND 13. THIS EXCLUDES VOLUNTARY CONTRIBUTION BY WAY OF CORPUS DONATION FROM THE AMBIT OF THE SECTION. C) SECTION 11 WHILE LISTING OUT THE RECEIPTS OF THE TRUST SUBJECT TO TAX SPECIFICALLY EXCLUDES VOLUNTARY CONTRIBUTION BY WAY OF CORPUS DONATION FROM THE AMBIT OF INCOME UNDER THE SAID SECTION. D) SECTION 13 ALSO DOES NOT COVER CORPUS DONATIONS WHICH ARE SPECIFICALLY EXCLUDED BY THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 12 AND 11(1)(D). THIS SECTION SPECIFICALLY LISTS OUT THE INFRINGEMENTS WHICH WOULD RESULT IN WITHDRAWAL OF EXEMPTION. E) THUS FOR ALL PURPOSES VOLUNTARY CONTRIBUTION BY WAY OF CORPUS DONATION DOES NOT COME WITHIN THE DEFINITION OF INCOME OR WITHIN THE AMBIT OF SECTION 11,12 AND 13. THE ONLY REQUIREMENT IS THAT IT SHOULD BE RECEIVED BY A TRUST OR INSTITUTION FROM A DONOR WITH A SPECIFIC DIRECTION THAT THE SAME WOULD CONSTITUTE THE CORPUS. IT IS NOT MATERIAL WHETHER THE TRUST IS REGISTERED UNDER IT ACT OR NOT OR REGISTRATION UNDER SECT ION 12AA OR 10(23)(VI) HAS BEEN CANCELLED OR NOT. IT IS SUBMITTED THAT WHEN THE REGISTRATION GRANTED IS CANCELLED, THE SAME WOULD NOT AUTOMATICALLY LEAD TO TAXATION OF CORPUS DONATION. I TA NO. 724 TO 730/H YD/20 14 M/S. PRATHIMA EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY, HYDERABAD 8 F) WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO ABOVE, IT IS SUBMITTED THAT THE REGISTRATION UNDER SECTION12AA HAS BEEN RESTORED BY THE ITAT. THEREFORE, ON ACCOUNT OF NON - REGISTRATION - ALSO CORPUS DONATION CANNOT BE TAXED. AT THIS JUNCTURE, THE ISSUE THAT INVITES THE ATTENTION IS WHETHER THESE BENEFICIAL SECTIONS VIZ., SECTIONS 11 AND 10(23C ) OPERATE BY SUPPLEMENTING EACH OTHER OR MUTUALLY EXCLUDE THE OTHER? IT IS SUBMITTED THAT IF REGISTRATION IS SUBSISTING BY ONE OF THE SECTIONS, THE ASSESSEE IS ENTITLED TO ALL THE BENEFITS AVAILABLE UNDER THE ACT. FOR THIS PURPOSE SUPPORT WAS DRA WN FROM THE DECISIONS OF JURISDICTIONAL HON'B L E HIGH COURT AND THE HON'BLE I TAT, WHEREIN I T WAS CATEGORICALLY HELD THAT BOTH THESE PROVISIONS ARE NOT MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE AND AN ASSESSEE CAN POSSESS EITHER OF THE REGISTRATIONS AND CAN STILL CLAIM EXEMPTION FOR THE INCOME. RELIANCE IS PLACED ON THE FOLLOWING DECISIONS: I ) C I T V RIDING CLUB 64 CTR 118(AP) II) AD IT V . RAVI RISHI EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY, HYD 1289/HYD/2010 III) ADIT V NATIONAL I NST OF TOURISM ITA NO 1203/HYD/2010 DT11 - 03 - 2011 G) THERE ARE A LARGE NUMBER OF DECISIONS WHEREIN THE JURISDICTIONAL I TAT HAS CONSISTENTLY HELD THE VIEW THAT THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 12AA CAN BE INDEPENDENTLY APPLIED TO GRANT BENEFIT OF EXEMPTION UNDER SECTION 11 IRRESPECTIVE OF WHETHER THERE IS EXEMPTION UNDER SECTION 10(23C) OR NOT. IN THE LIGHT OF THIS, THERE IS NO QUESTION OF TREATING CORPUS DONATION AS TAXABLE 8 ) WITH REGARD TO MINOR ERRORS THAT WERE NOTICED IN THE CLAIM OF DEPRECIATION IS CONCERNED, AS SUBMITTED IN THE EARLIER PARAGRAPHS, THE CLAIM FOR DEPRECIATION AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF INCOME TAX ACT WAS PERMITTED IN THE LAST MOMENT OF COMPLETION OF ASSESSMENT. THE ASSESSEE HAD TO, WITHIN A SHORT SPAN OF TIME, HAS TO RECOMPUTE THE DEPRECIATION AMOUNT BY CATEGORIZING THEM UNDER VARIOUS BLOCKS AND NUMBER OF DAYS THE ASSETS WERE PUT I TA NO. 724 TO 730/H YD/20 14 M/S. PRATHIMA EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY, HYDERABAD 9 TO USE IN THE INITIAL YEAR OF PURCHASE. IN THIS PROCESS FEW ERRORS HAVE CREPT IN THE COMPUTATION AND THE SAME HAS OCCURRED ON BATH WAYS I.E., ON SOME ASSETS HIGHER DEPRECATION WAS CLAIMED AND IN CASE OF SOME OTHERS, A LOWER RATE WAS CLAIMED. THE DETAILS H AVE BEEN WORKED OUT AND THE SAME ENCLOSED TO THIS LETTER FOR YOUR READY REFERENCE . 9 ) SO FAR AS CONFIRMATIONS FOR THE LOAN CREDITS ARE CONCERNED, THEY HAVE BEEN SUBMITTED DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING ITSELF. HOWEVER, WE HAVE FILED ONE MORE SET OF THOSE CONFIRMATIONS ON 18.02.2014 IN YOUR OFFICE VIDE OUR LETTER DATED 18.02.2014. 10) IT IS FURTHER SUBMITTED ALL THE ASPECTS RELATING TO CORPUS D ONATIONS WERE PLACED BEFORE ASSESSING OFFICER WHO AFTER DUE APPLICATION OF MIND HAS EXCLUDED THE SAME FROM THE AMBIT OF TOTAL INCOME. THE PRESENT PROPOSAL BY THE CI T WOULD AMOUNT TO A CHANGE OF O PINION. LAW I S WELL SETTLED THAT AN ISSUE WHICH IS SUBJECTED TO TWO INTERPRETATIONS - ONE HELD BY THE A O AND THE OTHER HELD BY THE REVISING AUTHORITY, SUCH AN ORDER IS NOT ERRONEOUS. AS HONBLE CIT IS WELL AWARE OF, AN ORDER TO COME UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF 263, THE SAME SHOULD BE ERRONEOUS AND PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF REVENUE. CUMULATIVE SATISFACTION OF BOTH THE CONDITIONS I S A REQUIREMENT UNDER LAW. SATISFACTION OF THE TWIN CONDITIONS IS MANDATORY REQUIREMENT UNDER LAW TO REVISE THE ASSESSMENT. IN THIS REGARD THE ASSESSEE PLACES RELIANCE ON THE FOLLOWING DECISIONS. A ) IN THE CASE OF STATE OF KERALA V/S. KM CHERIA ABDULLA AND CO 1965 16 STC 875, THE SCOPE OF REVISIONAL JURISDICTION CAME UP FOR CONSIDERATION BY THE APEX COURT. IT WAS HELD THAT THE REVISIONAL PREROGATIVE CONFERRED BY THE STATUE HAS TO BE ESSENTIALLY SUBJECT TO THE SCHEME OF THE ACT SO MUCH SO THAT THE REVISING AUTHORITY IS NOT EQUIPPED WITH THE DOMINION TO RE - LAUNCH ENQUIRIES AT LARGE SO AS TO THE TRENCH UPON THE POWERS WHICH HAS BEEN EXCLUSIVELY RESERVED BY THE ACT FOR ANOTHER AUTHORITY. IN THE ABOVE ORDER OF THE APEX COURT, IT WAS HELD THAT AN ERRONEOUS ORDER CANNOT BE EQ UATED WITH A WRONG ORDER AS UNDERSTOOD IN THE COMMON PARLANCE AND AN ORDER OF ASSESSMENT PASSED WITHIN THE LIMITS OF JURISDICTION OF THE ASSESSING AUTHORITY EVEN IF CONSIDERED WRONG BY THE REVISIONAL AUTHORITY WOULD NOT ATTRACT THE INVOCATION OF SUO MOTU POWERS OF I TA NO. 724 TO 730/H YD/20 14 M/S. PRATHIMA EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY, HYDERABAD 10 REVISION. THE COURT OBSERVED AS UNDER: 'THE REVISIONAL AUTHORITY FOR VARIOUS GOOD REASONS MAY BE INCLINED TO VIEW ON ASSESSMENT ORDER FROM A NEGATIVE STAND POINT. THE REVISIONAL AUTHORITY, MAY LIKEWISE DISAGREE WITH THE VIEWS OF THE PRIMARY AUT HORITY IN INTERPRETATION OF LAW IMPOSING A LIABILITY OR EXTENT OR QUANTUM THEREOF. IT MAY DISAGREE WITH PRIMARY AUTHORITY WITH REGARD TO THE DETERMINATION OF THE AMOUNT OF TAX TO BE PAID. IT MAY DISAGREE WITH PRIMARY AUTHORITY ON MATTERS RELATING TO DEDUCT IONS ALLOWABLE UNDER THE STATUE. ALL SUCH LITIGATIONS AS AFORESAID MAY RENDER THE ORDER OF THE PRIMARY AUTHORITY WRONG OR ERRONEOUS AS COMMONLY SUNDER STOOD. SUCH SITUATIONS HOWEVER, WOULD NOT BE FACETS OF AN ERRONEOUS DECISION IN SO FAR THE MEANINGS OF TH E SAID EXPRESSION AS APPEARING IN SECTION 36 OF THE ACT ARE CONCERNED' . THE REVISIONAL POWERS CONFERRED UNDER MADRAS GENERAL STATE TAX ACT ARE PARI MATERIAL WITH THE POWERS CONFERRED UNDER SECTION 263 OF IT ACT. THEREFORE, THE ABOVE PRINCIPLES DECIDED IN THE CONTEXT OF THE SAID ACT ARE EQUALLY APPLICABLE TO A CASE OF REVISION UNDER IT ACT . II) I N THE CASE OF C I T V GABRIEL I NDIA LTD TAXMAN 71 TAXMAN 585 B OMBAY , I T WAS HELD THAT IF AN ITO ACTING IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW MAKES A CERTAIN ASSESSMENT, THE SAME CANNOT BE BRANDED AS ERRONEOUS BY THE COMMISSIONER SIMPLY BECAUSE, ACCORDING TO HIM, THE ORDER SHOULD HAVE BEEN WRITTEN MORE ELABORATELY. THIS SECTION DOES NOT VISUALISE A CASE OF SUBSTITUTION O F . THE JUDGMENT OF THE COMMISSIONER FOR THAT OF THE ITO, WHO PASSED THE ORDER, UNLESS THE DECISION IS HELD TO BE ERRONEOUS. CASES MAY BE VISUALISED WHERE THE ITO WHILE MAKING AN ASSESSMENT EXAMINES THE ACCOUNTS, MAKES ENQUIRIES, APPLIES HIS MIND TO THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND DETERMINES THE INCOME EITHER BY ACCEPTING THE ACCOUNTS OR BY MAKING SOME ESTIMATE HIMSELF. THE ENDORSEMENT IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER SHOWS APPLICATION OF MIND AFTER EXAMINATION OF BOOKS. III) I N THE CASE OF CIT V GOYAL PRIVATE FAMILY SPECIFIC TRUST 1988, 171 ITR 698 701 - 202 ALLD, IT WAS HELD THAT THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER MAY BE BRIEF AND CRYPTIC I TA NO. 724 TO 730/H YD/20 14 M/S. PRATHIMA EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY, HYDERABAD 11 BUT THAT BY ITSELF IS NOT SUFFICIENT REASON TO BRAND THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AS ERRONEOUS AND PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF REVENUE. WRITING OF AN ORDER MAY BE A REQUI REMENT BUT NON FULFILLING OF THE SAME, CANNOT BE SAID TO BE ERRONEOUS AND PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF REVENUE. WHEN THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS COMPLETED THE ASSESSMENT AFTER VERIFICATION OF BOOKS AND OTHER FACTUAL AND LEGAL ISSUES, THERE IS NO ROOM FOR INVOKING THE JURISDICTION UNDER SECTION 263. IV) THE ERROR ENVISAGED UNDER SECTION 263 IS NOT ONE WHICH DEPENDS UPON THE POSSIBILITY OR PROBABILITY OF AN ISSUE. IT SHOULD EITHER BE AN ERROR OF FACT OR LAW. C I T V TRUSTEES OF ANUPAN CHARITABLE TRUST 167 ITR 129 RAJ. THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE DOES NOT POINT TO ANY SPECIFIC LAPSE THAT IN THE ORDER PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. NO OBJECTIVE MATERIAL HAS BEEN BROUGHT ON RECORD TO SUPPORT THE FINDING. V ) IN THE CASE OF APPOLLO CONSULTING SERVICES CORPORATION V . DIT( I NTERNATIONAL TAXATION)2012,54 SOT 82 MUM, IT WAS HELD THAT WHILE ACCEPTING THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE, IT IS NO T NECESSARY THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER MUST PASS A LENGTHY ORDER FOR JUSTIFYING THE ACCEPTANCE OF THE CONTENTION WHIC H ARE OTHERWISE ACCEPTABLE IN VIEW O F DOCUMENTS AND EVIDENCES FURNISHED BEFORE HIM. IN SUCH A SITUATION, WHEN COMMISSIONER IS HOLDING THE ORDER AS ERRONEOUS AND PREJUDICIAL TO THE I NT EREST OF REVENUE, HE MUST GIVE REASONS FOR HIS CONCLUSION THAT ASSESSMENT ORDER WHICH HAS BEEN PASSED, EVEN THO UGH IN A CRYPTIC MANNER, WAS ERRONEOUS IN LAW AND ON FACTS AND IS ALSO PREJUDICIAL TO . THE INTEREST OF REVENUE. IT IS HUMBLY REQUESTED THAT IN SUCH BACKGROUND THE ORDER PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER SHOULD NOT BE SUBJECT MATTER OF REVISION. VI ) IT IS SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE CANNOT BE FAULTED IF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER IS A CRYPTIC ONE AND THE ISSUE HAD BEEN DECIDED WITHOUT DISCUSSING IT IN DETAIL. THE ASSESSEE DOES N OT HAVE CONTROL OVER THE WAY AN ORDER IS DRAFTED BY THE AO . IN CASE OF C I T V . HONDA SIEL POWER PRODUCTS LTD 235 ITR 336/330 ITR 547 (DEL) IT WAS HELD THAT AFTER HAVING APPLIED HIS MIND ON THE ISSUE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS PASSED THE ORDER. VII) IT CANNOT BE HELD THAT LACK OF DEEPER ENQUIRY WOULD CALL FOR A REVISIONAL PROCEEDING. ITO V D G HOUSING PROJECT LTD. 2012, 343 ITR 329 DELHI. IT IS SUBMITTED THAT WHERE AN ASSESSMENT HAS BEEN COMPLETED AFTER ENQUIRY, VERIFICATION AND APPLICATION OF MIND, THE I TA NO. 724 TO 730/H YD/20 14 M/S. PRATHIMA EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY, HYDERABAD 12 COMMISSIONER CANNOT ASSUME PREJUDICE IN THE ABSENCE OF POSITIVE ERROR AND PREJUDICE. VIII ) IN SIRPUR PAPER MILLS LTD. V. ITO [1978J 114 ITR 404 (AP), IT HAS BEEN HELD THAT THE DEPARTMENT CANNOT BE PERMITTED TO BEGIN LITIGATION FRESH BECAUSE OF NEW V IEWS THEY ENTERTAIN ON FACTS OR NEW VERSIONS WHICH THEY PRESENT AS TO WHAT SHOULD BE THE INFERENCE OR THE PROPER INFERENCE EITHER ON THE FACTS DISCLOSED OR ON THE WEIGHT OF THE CIRCUMSTANCES. [PARA 18 ) . ASSESSEE CASE STANDS IN A BETTER FOOTING. IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE, THE OBSERVATIONS ARE IN GENERAL TERMS WITHOUT ANY COGENT REASONS AND THEREFORE THE SAME WOULD NOT CALL FOR ANY REVISIONAL PROCEEDINGS. THEREFORE, IN THE LIGHT OF ABOVE DETAILED SUBMISSIONS, WE REQUEST YOUR GOODSELVES TO DROP FURTHER PROCEEDINGS IN THIS REGARD AND OBLI G E, FOR WHICH KIND ACTION WE SHALL BE HIGHLY GRATEFUL. ' 5. AFTER T A KING INTO CON S I D ERATION, THE ABOVE SUBMI S SION S MADE BY T H E ASSESSEE AS WELL AS THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD, THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME - TAX WAS OF THE OPINION THAT THE ASSESSMENT S MADE UNDER S.143(3) R E AD WITH S.153A WERE COM PL ETED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN TH E CA S E OF THE ASSESSEE WITHOUT MAKING PROPER AND ADEQUATE ENQUI R I E S ON THE ISSUES POINTED OUT BY HIM. HE HELD THAT TH E FAILU R E O F THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO MAKE SUCH ENQUI R I E S B E FORE ALLO W IN G THE CORRESPO N DIN G CL A IM S OF THE ASSESSEE, MADE THE ASSESSMENT S COMPLETED UNDER S. 143( 3) READ WITH S.153A ERRONEOUS AS WELL AS PREJUDI C I A L TO THE INTERESTS OF TH E R E VE N UE. ACCORDIN G LY, RELYI N G ON THE VARIOU S JU D I C IAL PRONOUNCEMENTS DISCUSSED IN HIS IMPUGNED ORDER, THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER SET ASIDE T HE ASSESSMENTS MADE BY THE ASSESSING O FFICER UNDER S.143(3) READ WITH S.153A FOR ALL TH E Y E ARS UNDER CONSIDERATION , BY EXERCISING HIS POWERS UNDER S .263 WITH A DIRECTION TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO COMPL E TE THE SAME AFRESH, AFTER EXAMINING ALL THE ISSUES POINTED OUT BY HIM AND AFTER MA K IN G DE TAILED ENQUI R I E S AN D INVESTIGATIONS REL A TING TO TH E SAID ISSUES. HE I TA NO. 724 TO 730/H YD/20 14 M/S. PRATHIMA EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY, HYDERABAD 13 ALSO DIRECTED THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO TAKE INTO CON S I D ERATION THE SUBMI S SION S MADE BY THE ASSESSEE DURING THE COU R SE OF R E VISION PROCE E DIN G S FOR DECIDING THE RELEVANT ISSUES ON M E RITS, WHILE MAKING THE FRESH ASSESSMENTS. AGGRI E VED BY THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER PASSED UNDER S. 263, ASSESSEE HAS PREFERRED THE SE APPEALS BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. 6. THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE, AT THE OUTSET, S UB M I TTED THAT THE ASSESSMENT S UNDER S.143(3) R E AD WITH S .153A FOR ALL THE YEARS UNDER CONSIDERATION WERE COMPLETED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER, AFTER MAKING NECESSARY ENQUIRIES AND THERE WERE THUS NO ERRORS IN TH E O R DE R S PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AS ALL E GED BY THE LEARNED COMMISS IONER , I N HIS IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED UNDER S.263. AS RE G ARDS THE HIGHER DEPRECIATION ON HOSPITAL EQUIPMENT AND FURNITURE ALLEGEDLY ALLOWED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER, HE SUBMITTED THAT DEP RE CIATION SCHEDULE GIVING ALL THE RELEVANT DETAILS RELATING TO TH E CL AIM O F TH E ASSESSEE FOR DEP R E C IATION ON VARIO U S AS S ETS AS PER THE I NCOME - TAX RUL E S W AS SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE DURING TH E COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCE E DIN G S B E FORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER, AND AFTER EXAMINING AND VERIFYING THE SAME, TH E CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE FOR DEPRECIATION WAS ALLO W ED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. HE SUBMI T TED THAT DEPRECIATION AT HIGHER R A TE OF 40% , NO DO U BT , WAS ALLOWABLE ONLY IN RESPECT OF CERTAIN ITEMS AND ALTHOUGH THE ASSESSING OFFICER DID NO T CALL FOR THE REL E VANT DETAILS O F HOSP ITAL EQUIPM E N T IN O R DER TO ASCERTAIN AND VERIFY THE EXACT ITEMS ON WHI C H HIGHER RATE OF DEPRE C IAT I ON OF 50% WAS ALLOW A BL E TO TH E ASSESSEE , THIS BY ITSELF W OULD NO T MAKE TH E ASSESSMENTS MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON THIS ISSUE TO BE ERRONEOUS AND PREJU D I C I A L TO TH E INTERESTS OF THE REVENUE. I N SUPPORT OF THIS CON TEN TION, H E RELIED ON THE DECISION OF THE HON'BLE BOMBAY HIGH C OU R T IN TH E CA S E OF CIT V/S. NAGRI MILLS CO. LTD. ( 33 ITR 681 ) AND THAT OF HON'BLE I TA NO. 724 TO 730/H YD/20 14 M/S. PRATHIMA EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY, HYDERABAD 14 SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT V/S. EXCEL INDUSTRIES LTD. (350 ITR 295), WHEREIN IT WAS HELD THAT WHEN TH E RATE OF TAX REMAIN S THE SAME IN THE REL EV ANT YEAR AS WELL AS IN TH E SUB S EQUENT ASSESSMENT YEARS, THE DISPU T E RAISED BY THE REV ENUE IS ENTIRELY ACADE M IC OR AT B E ST MAY HAVE A MINOR TAX EFFECT. HE CONTENDED THAT THE ALLOWABILITY OF DEPRECIATION EITHER IN TH E Y EA R UNDER CONSIDERATION OR IN TH E SUBSEQUENT Y E AR THUS HAS H A RDLY ANY TAX EFFECT AND ANY ERROR IN ALLOWING HIGHER DEP R ECI AT I ON IN ONE YEAR CANNO T B E SAID TO BE PREJUDICIAL TO THE IN T ERE S TS OF REVENUE, ESPECIALLY WHEN TH E R A TE O F TAX REMAIN S THE SAME. HE ALSO S UBMI T TED THAT WHIL E GIVING EFFE C T TO THE APP E LL A TE ORDER PASSED BY THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME - TAX FOR ALL THE YE A RS UNDER CONSIDERATION , THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS FINALL Y ALLOWED THE DEPRECIATION AS P E R THE BOOKS AND NOT AS PER THE INCOM E - T AX RUL E S, AND THE ER R OR ALLE G EDLY POINT E D OUT BY THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER IN THE O R DERS OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN ALLOWING HIGHER DE P R ECIATION HAS NO T CAUSED ANY PREJU D I C E TO THE INTERESTS OF THE REVENUE. 7 . AS REGARDS THE ERROR ALLEGEDLY POIN T ED OUT BY THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER IN THE O R DER S OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER ACCEPTING TH E CLA IM O F T H E ASSESSEE OF H AVIN G OBTAINED UNSECURE D LOANS FROM THREE DIFFERENT PARTIE S WITHOUT OBTAINING THEIR CONFIRMATIONS, THE LEARNED COUNSEL F OR THE ASSESSEE REITERATED BEFORE US THAT SUCH CONFIRMATIONS WERE FIL E D BY THE ASSESSEE DURING THE COU R SE OF AS SESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. HE , HOW E VER , AGREED T H A T THERE IS NO EVIDENCE AVAILABLE WITH THE ASSESSEE TO SUPPORT AND SUBSTANTIATE ITS CLAIM. 8. AS REGARDS THE ERROR ALLEGEDLY POINTED OUT BY THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER IN TH E O R DERS OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN NO T BRINGING TO TAX THE CORPUS RECEIPTS IN THE H A N D S OF THE ASSESSEE , I TA NO. 724 TO 730/H YD/20 14 M/S. PRATHIMA EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY, HYDERABAD 15 EVEN AFTER REJ E CTING ITS C L A IM UNDER S.10(23 C )(VI ) / S. 1 1 OF TH E A C T, THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMI T TED T H A T ALTHOUGH THE REGISTRATION SOUGHT UNDER S.12AA OF THE AC T WAS ORI GINALLY DENIED TO TH E ASSESSEE , THE SAME WAS ULTIMATELY GRANTED BY THE TRIBUNAL VIDE ITS ORDER DATED 8.11.2013. HE SUBMI TTE D T H A T THIS FURTHER DEVELOPMENT W A S BROUGHT TO THE NO T I C E OF THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER BY THE ASSESSEE DURING THE COURSE OF REVISION P R OCEEDINGS, BUT HE TOTALLY OVERLOOKED TH E SAME. RELYING ON THE DECISION OF THE HON'BLE ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT IN TH E CA S E OF CIT V/ S AN D HRA PRADESH RIDING CLUB(168 I T R 393), HE CON TE NDED THAT IF AN ASSESSEE I S OTHERWISE ENTITLED TO EXEMPTION UNDER LAW OR UN D ER ANY OTHER RELEVANT PROVISION OF THE ACT , LIKE S.11, TH E CORP U S DONATION CANNOT BE BROUGHT TO TAX IN THE H A N D S O F THE ASSESSEE. HE ALSO PO I N TE D OUT TH A T THE DECI S ION OF TH E TRIBUNAL , GRANTING THE ASSESSEE REGISTRATION UNDER S.12A HAS BEEN SUBSEQUENTLY UPH E L D BY THE HON'BLE ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH C OU R T BY ITS JU D GM E NT DATED 30 TH J ULY,2014 . 9. IN SUPPORT OF HI S CON T ENTION THAT THE ADJU S TM ENT S MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER UNDER S.143(3) R E AD WITH S. 153A F OR ALL THE Y E ARS UNDER CONSIDERATION ARE NOT ERRONEOU S AS ALLEGED BY THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER, THE LEARNED COUN S EL FOR THE ASSESSEE RELIED INTER ALIA ON TH E DECISION OF TH E HON'BLE D ELHI HIGH COURT IN TH E CA S E OF CIT V/S. ANIL K UMAR SHARMA (335 ITR 83), WHEREIN IT WAS HELD T H A T THERE IS A DIFFER E NCE BETWEEN LACK OF ENQUIRY AND INADEQUATE ENQUIRY. HE ALSO CITED ANOTHER DECISION O F THE HON'BLE DELHI HIGH COU R T IN TH E CA S E OF CIT V/S. HINDUSTAN MARKETING AND ADVERTISING CO. LTD. (3 41 ITR 180), WHEREIN IT WAS HELD THAT REVISION UNDER S.263 WAS NOT PERMISSIBLE ON THE GROUND THAT THE ENQUIRY BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER SHOULD HAVE BEEN MORE DETAILED. HE ALSO CITED THE DECISION OF HON'BLE BOMBAY HIGH C OU R T IN THE CA S E I TA NO. 724 TO 730/H YD/20 14 M/S. PRATHIMA EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY, HYDERABAD 16 OF CIT V/S. GABRI EL I NDIA L TD. (282 ITR 108 ) , WHEREIN IT WAS H E L D THAT THE DECISION OF TH E ASSESSING OFFICER SHOULD NO T BE HELD ERRONEOUS SIMPLY BE C AU S E IN HIS OR D ER, HE DID NO T M AKE ANY ELABORATE DISCU SS ION. RELIANCE IS ALSO PL A CED BY THE LEARNED COUN S EL FO R THE ASSESSEE ON TH E DECISION OF TH E HON'BLE MADRAS HIGH COURT IN TH E CA S E O F CIT V/S. SMT. D.OORMILAMMA ( 230 ITR 695), WHEREIN THE O R DER PASSED BY THE COMMISSIONER UNDER S.263 SETTIN G ASIDE THE O R DER OF TH E ASSESSING OFFICER FOR L A CK OF APPLICATION OF MIND, WAS HELD T O BE UNSUSTAINABLE. 10. THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE ON THE OTHER HAN D , STRONGLY SUPPO R TED THE IMPU G N E D ORD E R PASSED BY THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER UNDER S.263. HE CON T ENDED THAT THE ORDERS PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER UNDER S.143(3) READ W ITH S.153A FOR ALL TH E Y E ARS UNDER CONSIDERATION CLEARLY SUFFERED F R OM SP E CIFI C ERRORS, AS POI N T E D OUT BY THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME - TAX. HE SUBMI T T E D T H A T ONLY SP EC IFIC ITEMS OF HOSPITAL EQUIPM E N T ARE ELIGIBLE FOR DEPR E CIATION AT HIGHER RATE O F 40%, BUT THE ASSESSING OFFICER ALLOWED D E PR E CI A T I ON AT HI G H E R RATE OF 40% ON THE ENTIR E BLOCK OF HOSPI TA L EQUIPM E N T O F TH E ASSESSEE WITHOUT VERIFYIN G THE RELEVANT DETAILS TO ASCERTAIN EXACTLY THE ITEMS ELIGIBLE FOR HIGHER DEPR E CI A TION AT 40%. HE SUBMI T TED THAT SIMILARLY, DEP R E C IATION AT HIGHER RATE OF 15% WAS ALLOWED BY TH E ASSESSING OFFICER ON FURNITURE AS AGAINST THE ADMISSIBL E RATE OF 10%, AND THERE WAS THUS OBVIOUS ERROR IN TH E O R DERS OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER, WHI C H W AS CLEARLY PREJUDICI A L TO THE INTER EST S OF TH E REVENUE. HE CON TE NDED THAT T H E CA S E - LAWS CITED BY THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE IN SUPPORT OF HIS CONTEN T ION S ON TH ESE I S SUES ARE N O T AP P LI C ABLE IN THE PRESENT CASE, AS TH E SAME WERE RENDERED IN ALTOGETHER DIFFERENT CONTEXT. HE ALSO SUBMITTED THAT THE CONFIRMATIONS FROM THE CONCERNED CREDITORS WERE NOT OBTAIN E D BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER DURING THE COU R SE OF ASSESSMENT I TA NO. 724 TO 730/H YD/20 14 M/S. PRATHIMA EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY, HYDERABAD 17 P R OCEEDIN G S AND THE UNSECURED LOANS REFLECTED IN THE BALANCE SH E ET OF THE ASSESSEE THUS W E RE ACCEPTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER WITHOUT MAKING P R O P ER AND ADEQUATE ENQUIRIES, AS RIGHTLY HELD BY THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER, MAKING THE O R D E RS OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER ERRON E OU S AS WELL AS PREJU DI CIAL TO THE INTERESTS OF THE REVENUE. AS REGARDS THE ISSUE O F TAXABILITY O F CORPUS DON ATIONS, RAISED BY THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER IN HIS IMPUGN E D ORDER, THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE SIMPLY RELIED ON THE ORDER O F THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER PASSED UNDER S.263 IN SUPPORT OF THE RE VENUES CA S E, W I T HOU T M AK ING ANY FU R TH ER SUBMISSIONS. H E , HOW E VER , CONTENDED THAT THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER IN HIS IMPUGNED ORD E R HAS NO T DECIDED ANY O F THE ISSUE S R AISED BY HIM ON MERITS, AND HAS SIMPLY DIRECTED THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO COMPLETE THE ASSESSMENTS AFRESH AFTER MAKING P ROPER AND ADEQUATE ENQUIRI E S ON THE I SSUES POINTED OUT BY HIM, WHICH TH E ASSESSING OFFICER HAD CLEARLY FAILED TO DO. HE CONTENDED THAT THE ASSESSEE T HUS IS FREE TO RAISE ALL HI S CON T ENTION S ON MERITS BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER DURING TH E COU R SE O F FRESH ASSESSMENT PROCE E DIN G S AND EVEN TH E LEARNED COMMISSIONER IN HIS IMPUGN E D ORDER HAS DIRE C TED THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO CONSIDER THE SUBMI S SION S OF TH E ASSESSEE, WHILE DECIDING THE RELEVANT ISSU E S ON M E RITS. THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE CONTENDED THAT TH E RE IS THUS NO INFI RMITY IN THE IMP UGNED ORDER OF THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER PASSED UNDER S.263 AND U R GED TH A T TH E SAME MAY BE UPHELD. 11. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSION AND ALSO PERUSED THE RELEVANT MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. IT IS OBSERVED THAT DEPRECIATION AT HIGHER RATE OF 15% WAS ALLOWED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON THE FURNITURE IN THE ASSESSMENTS COMPLETED UNDER S.143(3) READ WITH S.153A OF THE ACT FOR ASSESSMENT YEARS 2006 - 07 AND FROM 2008 - 09 TO 2010 - 11 AS AGAINST THE AP PLICABLE I TA NO. 724 TO 730/H YD/20 14 M/S. PRATHIMA EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY, HYDERABAD 18 RATE OF 10% AS PER THE RELEVANT I NCOM E T AX RULES A ND THE REL E VANT ORD E RS OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER THUS WERE CLEARLY ERRONEOUS ON THIS ISSUE. SIMILARLY, FOR ASSESSMENT YEARS 2004 - 05 TO 2010 - 11, DEP RE CIATION AT HIGHER R ATE O F 4 0% WAS ALLO W ABL E ONLY ON C ERTAIN ITEMS OF HOSPITAL EQUIPM E N T , AS PROVIDED IN TH E RELEVANT RULES, BUT THE CLAIM O F TH E ASSESSEE FOR HIGH E R DEPREC I ATION AT 40% WAS ALLOWED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON THE ENTIRE BLOCK OF HOSPITAL EQUIPMENT, WITHOUT VERIFYING THE DETAILS O F THE HO SPITAL EQUIPMENT IN ORDER TO FIND OUT THE EXACT ITEMS ON WHI C H SUCH HIGHER DEPRECIATION AT 40% WAS ALLO W ABL E . AS AGREED BY THE LEARNED COUN S EL FOR THE ASSESSEE AT THE TIM E O F H EA RING BEFORE US, THE REL E VANT DETAILS O F THE HOSPITAL EQUIPM E N T WERE NOT EVEN CALLED FOR BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER DURING THE COU RS E OF ASSESSMENT P R OCE E DIN G S. THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE FOR HIGHER DEPRECIATION AT 40% ON TH E ENTIRE BLOCK OF HOSPI T AL EQUIPM E N T THUS WAS ALLO W ED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER WITHOUT MAKING PRO PER AND ADEQUATE ENQUIRY, AS WARRANTED IN TH E FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES O F THE CA S E AND IN OUR OPINION, THE O R DERS PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ALLO W IN G TH E CLAIM OF TH E ASSESSEE FOR HIGHER DEPRECIATION AT 40% ON THE ENTIRE BLOC K OF HOSPI T AL EQUIPM E N T FOR ASSESSMENT YEARS 2004 - 05 TO 2010 - 11 WERE THUS ERRONEOUS ON THIS ISSUE. 12. AT THE TIME O F H E ARING BEFORE US, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR TH E ASSESSEE HAS RELIED ON TH E DECISION OF HON'BLE BOMBAY HIGH COU R T IN TH E CA S E OF CIT V/S. NAGRI MILLS CO. LTD. (SUPRA) AND THAT OF THE H ON BLE SUPREME COURT IN TH E C A S E OF EXCEL INDUST R IES (SUPRA), TO CON T END THAT THE ALLOWABILITY O F DEPR E CIATION IN ONE Y E AR OR THE OTH E R HAS HARDLY ANY TAX EFFECT, ESPECIALLY WHEN THE RATE OF TAX REMAINS THE SAME AND ANY ERROR IN ALLOWING HIGHER DEPRECIATION IN ON E YEAR WHICH I S OTHERWISE ALLOWABLE IN SUB S EQUENT YEAR/S, DOES NO T CAU S E ANY PREJUDICE TO THE INTEREST S OF THE REVENUE. W E ARE I TA NO. 724 TO 730/H YD/20 14 M/S. PRATHIMA EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY, HYDERABAD 19 UNABLE TO ACCEPT THIS CONTENTION OF THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE. IT IS OB S ERVED THAT THE DECISION S OF HON'BLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN TH E CA S E OF NAGRI MILLS CO. LTD. (SUPRA) AS WELL AS TH E H O N BLE SUPREME COURT IN TH E CA S E OF EXCEL INDUSTRIES LTD. (SUPRA) W E RE RENDERED IN ALTOGETHER DIFFERENT CONTE X TS AND NOT IN TH E CON T E X T OF THE P R O VI SION S OF S .263 WHICH EMPOWER THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER TO REVISE THE ASSESSMENT S MADE BY TH E ASSESSING OFFICER, WHICH ARE ERRONEOUS AND PREJU DI CIAL TO THE INTEREST S OF THE RE VE NUE. 13. I N T H E CA S E OF NA GRI MILLS CO. LTD. (SUPRA), THERE WAS A DISPU T E IN REG A RD TO THE BONUS PAYABLE TO THE WORKERS FOR THE Y E AR 1951, AND THE MATTER WAS REFERRED TO CONCILIATION. THE CONCILIATION BOARD GAVE ITS AWARD IN JUNE, 1952 AND THE BO N U S WAS ACTUALLY DISTRIBUTED IN DECEMBER, 1952. THE ASSESSEE COMPANY MAIN TA INING ACCOUN TS ON MERCANTILE BASIS, CL A IM E D THE DEDU C T I ON ON ACCOUNT OF BONUS IN THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 1952 - 53, RELEVANT TO ACCOUNTING YEAR 1951. THE INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT HO WE VER , TOOK A VIEW THAT THE DEDUCTION ON ACCOUNT OF BONUS WAS ALLOWABLE IN ASSESSM ENT YEAR 1953 - 54 REL E VANT TO ACCOUN T IN G YEAR 1952. WHEN THE MATTER REACHED THE HON'BLE BOMBAY HIGH COU R T, IT W AS OBSERVED BY TH E L ORDSHIPS THAT THE QUESTION AS TO THE Y E AR IN WHICH A DEDUCTION IS ALLOWABLE MAY BE MATERIAL WHEN TH E RATE O F TAX CHARGEABLE ON T H E ASSESSEE IN TWO DIFFERENT YEARS IS DIFFERENT. IT WAS OBSERVED THAT IN THE CA S E OF A COMPANY, WHERE TAX IS ATTRACTED AT A UNIFORM RATE, THE ISSUE AS TO WHETHER DEDUCTION IN RESPE C T OF BONUS WAS GRANTED IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 1952 - 53 OR 1 953 - 54 SHOULD BE A MATTER OF NO CON SE QUENCE TO THE DEPARTMENT AND ONE SHOULD HAVE THOUGHT THAT THE DEPARTMENT WOULD NO T FRITTER AWAY ITS ENERGIES IN FIGHTING MATTERS OF THIS KIND. IT IS IN T ERESTING TO NOTE THAT EVEN AFTER RECORDING THESE OBSERVATION S , TH E HON'BLE BOMBAY HIGH C OU R T I TA NO. 724 TO 730/H YD/20 14 M/S. PRATHIMA EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY, HYDERABAD 20 F INALLY DECIDED THE ISSUE ON MERITS HOL D IN G THAT THE DE D UC T ION ON ACCOUNT O F BONU S WAS ALLOWABLE IN THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 1952 - 53. 14. I N THE C A S E OF EXCEL IN D USTR I ES LTD. (SUPRA) , THE ISSUE BEFORE THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT WAS WH E TH E R THE BE NEFI T O F AN ENTITLEMENT TO MAKE DUTY FREE I M PO R T OF RAW MATERIALS OBTAINED BY THE ASSESSEE THROUGH A D V ANCE L ICENCES AND DU TY E NTITLEMENT P ASS B OOK ISSUED AGAINST EXPORT O B LIGATIONS IS INCOME IN THE Y E AR IN WHICH THE EXPORTS ARE MADE OR IN THE Y E AR IN WHI C H THE DUTY FREE IMPORTS ARE MADE. IN THIS CONTEXT, IT WAS NOTED BY THE H ON BLE SUPREME COURT THAT IN TH E S UB S E QU ENT ACCOUN T ING YEAR, THE ASSESSEE DID MAKE IMPORT S AND DID DERIVE BENEFITS UNDER THE AD V ANCE LICENCES AND DUTY ENTITLEMENT PAS S BOOK AND PAID TAX THEREON. IT WAS HELD BY THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT THAT IT WAS NOT AS IF THE RE VEN UE HAS BEEN DEP RI VED OF ANY TAX, A ND WITH TH E RATE OF TAX REMAI N ING THE SAME IN THE RELE V ANT ASSESSMENT YEAR AS WELL AS THE SUBSEQUENT YEAR, THE DISPUTE R AISED BY THE REV ENUE WAS ENTIRELY ACADEMIC OR AT B E ST MIGH T HAVE A MINOR TAX EFFECT. IT WAS HELD THAT THERE WAS THUS NO N EE D F O R THE REVENUE TO CONTINUE WITH THIS LITIGATION WHEN I T WAS QUITE CLEAR THAT NOT ONLY WAS I T FRUITLESS BU T ALSO THAT IT MAY NOT HAVE ADDED ANYTHING MU CH TO THE PUBLIC COFFER. THE CONTEXT IN WHICH THE DECI S ION S O F THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT IN TH E CA S E OF NAGRI MILLS CO. LTD. (SUPRA) AND OF THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN TH E CA S E OF EXCEL INDUSTRIES LTD. (SUPRA), WERE RENDERED THUS WAS ENTIRELY D I F FER E NT AND THE ISSUES INVOLVED IN THOSE CASES HAVING BEEN FINALLY D ECIDED ON MERIT S, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE OB S ERVATION S MADE THEREIN WHICH HAVE BEEN RELIED UPON BY THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE CANNOT BE AP P LI E D TO DECIDE THE ISSUE INVOLVED IN THE PR E SEN T CASE WHICH IS IN THE CONTEXT OF THE PROVISION S OF S.263. I TA NO. 724 TO 730/H YD/20 14 M/S. PRATHIMA EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY, HYDERABAD 21 1 5 . THE LEARNED COUN S EL FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO SUBMI T T E D THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER WHILE GIVING EFFECT TO THE APP E LL A TE ORD E R OF THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS FINALLY ALL OWED DEPRECIATION AS PER THE BOOKS AND NOT AS PER THE INCOME - TAX RUL E S FOR ALL THE Y E ARS UNDER CON S I D E R ATION AND TH E R E FORE, THE ERROR S ALLEGEDLY POINT E D OUT BY THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER IN THE OR D ERS OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN ALLO W IN G HIGHER DEP R ECIATION CANNOT B E SAID TO H A VE CAUSED ANY PREJU D ICE TO THE INTEREST S OF TH E REVENUE. IN THIS REGARD, I T I S OBSERVED THAT T H E O R DE R S GIVING EFFECT TO THE ORDERS OF THE LEARNED CIT(A) FOR ALL THE Y E ARS UNDER CON S I D E R ATION HAVE BEEN PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICE R ONLY AFTER THE IMPU G N ED ORDER UNDER S.263 CAME TO B E PASSED BY THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER AND BASED ON THIS SUBSEQU E N T DEVELOPMENT, I T CANNO T BE SAID THAT THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER UNDER S.263 EARLIER IS NO T SUSTAINABLE ON THE G R OUN D T H A T T HE ERRORS POINTED OUT BY THE COMMISSIONER DO NO T CAUSE ANY PREJU D I CE TO TH E INTEREST S OF THE REVENUE, AS A RESULT OF SUB S EQUENT DEVELOPMENT. MOREOVER, I F AT ALL TH E DEPR E CI A TION HAS BEEN FINALLY ALLOWED IN THE C A S E OF THE ASSESSEE AS PER THE BOOK S AND NO T AS PER INCOM E - TAX RUL E S, THERE WILL BE NO IMP A CT OF TH E ERRORS POINTED OUT BY THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER IN REL A TION TO HI G H E R DEP RE CI A TION ALLOWED IN TH E ORIGINAL ASSESSMENTS AS PER THE INCOM E - TAX RULES, AS THE ASSESSING OFFICER, IS FINALLY REQU IRED TO PASS FRESH ORDERS OF ASSESSMENT, WHICH ARE IN CONSONANCE WITH TH E ORDERS PASSED BY HIM GIVING EFFECT TO THE APPELLATE ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT(A). WE THEREFORE, FIND NO MERIT IN TH E CONTENTION S RAISED BY THE LEARNED COUNSEL FO R TH E ASSESSEE IN THIS RE G ARD, AND REJECT THE SAME ACCORDINGLY. 1 6 . IT IS ALSO OB S ERVED THAT THE SUBSTANTIAL UNSECURED LOANS TAKEN BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2004 - 05 TO 2007 - 08 AND 2009 - 10, WERE ACCEPTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER WITHOU T I TA NO. 724 TO 730/H YD/20 14 M/S. PRATHIMA EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY, HYDERABAD 22 EVEN OBTAINING THEIR CONFIRMATIONS. ALTHOUGH IT WAS SUBMITTED ON BEHALF O F THE ASSESSEE BEF OR E THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER AS WELL AS BEFORE US THAT SUCH C ON FI RM A TIONS W ERE FIL E D DURING TH E COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, NO EVI D ENCE WHATSO E VER HAS BEEN P R O D U C ED TO PROVE TH E SAME. IN OU R OPINION, THE CLAIM O F TH E ASSESSEE F O R UN S ECURED LOANS THUS WAS ACCEPTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER WITHOU T MAKING PROPER AND ADEQUATE ENQUIRY AS WARRANTED IN TH E FACTS AND CIR C UMSTA N CES OF THE C ASE, AND TH E ORDERS PASSED B Y THE ASSESSING OFFICER WERE CLEARLY ERRONEOUS AS WELL AS PREJU D I C I A L TO THE INTERESTS OF THE R E VENUE ON THIS IS S UE, AS RIGHTLY H E LD BY THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER REQUIRING REVISION UN D ER S.263. 1 7 . AS REGARDS THE ERROR POINTED OUT BY THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER IN THE ORDERS OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006 - 07 TO 2010 - 11 IN NOT BRING ING TO TAX THE CORPUS RECEIPTS IN TH E H ANDS OF TH E ASSESSEE, AFTER HAVING RE JE CTED THE ITS CLAIM UNDER S. 10(23C)(6) /11 , IT IS OB SERV E D T H AT ALTHOUGH THE REGISTRATION SOUGHT UNDER S.12A WAS ORIGINALLY DENIED TO THE ASSESSEE , TH E S AME WAS S UB S EQUENTLY GR A NTED BY THE TRIBUNAL VIDE ITS ORD E R D A TED 8.11.2013 . THE SAID ORD E R O F TH E TRIBUNAL GRANTING REGISTRATION U N DE R S .12A TO THE ASSESSEE W AS NO T ONLY AVAILABLE WHEN THE IMPUGNED ORD E R UNDER S.263 CAME TO BE PASSED BY THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER, BUT THE SAME WAS S PE C IFICALLY BROU G H T TO THE NOTICE O F THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER BY THE ASSESSEE DURING TH E COURSE OF REVISION PROCEEDINGS. IN THIS REGARD, THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS RELIED ON TH E DECISION OF THE HON'BLE ANDHRA PRADESH H IGH COU R T IN TH E CA S E OF ANDHRA PRADESH RIDIN G CLUB (SUPRA), WHEREIN IT WAS H E LD TH A T IF THE ASSESSEE I S OTH E RWI S E ENTIT LED TO E X EMPTION UNDER ANY RELEVANT PROVI SI ON OF THE ACT, LIKE S.11, THE CORPUS DONATION CANNOT BE BROUGHT TO TAX IN THE HANDS O F THE ASSESSEE . H E HAS ALSO POIN T ED OUT THAT THE DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL I TA NO. 724 TO 730/H YD/20 14 M/S. PRATHIMA EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY, HYDERABAD 23 GRANTING REGISTRATION UNDER S .12A TO THE ASSESSEE HAS B E EN SUBSEQUENTLY UPH E L D BY THE HON'BLE ANDHRA PRADESH BY ITS JUDGMENT DATED 30 TH J ULY, 201 4 . KEEPIN G IN V I EW THESE SUBMISSIONS MADE BY THE LEARNED COUN S EL FOR THE ASSESSEE, WE ARE O F TH E VI E W THAT THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER WAS NO T JU S TIFIED IN HOL D IN G THE ORDERS OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN NOT B R IN G ING TO TAX THE CO R PUS RECEIPTS IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE AS ERRONEOUS BY IGNORING THE DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL FORMING PART OF THE RECORDS BEFORE HIM , WHEREBY REGISTRATION UNDER S .12A WAS DULY GRANTED TO THE ASSESSEE. EVEN THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE AT THE TIM E O F HEARING B E FORE US, HAS NO T BEEN ABL E TO RAISE ANY M A TERIAL CONTENTION ON THIS I S SUE AND H A S SIMPLY RELIED ON TH E IMPU G N ED ORDER OF THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER IN SUPPORT OF THE REVENU ES CA S E. 1 8 . FO R THE REASON S GIVEN ABOVE, WE UPHOLD THE IMPU G N E D ORDER O F THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER HOLDING THE ORDE R S OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER PASSED UNDER S.143(3) READ WITH S.153A OF THE ACT FOR THE YEARS UNDER CONSIDERATION, TO BE ERRONEOUS AND PR EJUDI C I A L TO THE INTERESTS OF THE R E VE NU E ON THE ISSUES OF ALLO W IN G HIGHER DEP RE CI A TION ON FURNITURE AS WELL AS ON THE ISSUE OF ALLOWING CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE FOR HIGHER DEPRECIATION ON HOSPI T AL EQUIPMENT AND FOR UNSECURED LOANS WITHOUT MAKING P R OP E R AND A DEQUATE ENQUIRIES. WE HOWEVER, SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORD E R OF THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER ON THE ISSUE O F CORPUS RECEIPTS BY HOL D IN G THAT HE WAS NOT JU S TIF I ED IN TREATING THE ORDERS OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN NOT BRINGING TO TAX THE CORPUS RECEIPTS IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE AS ERRONEOUS AND PR E JUDI C I A L TO THE INTERESTS OF THE REVENUE. I TA NO. 724 TO 730/H YD/20 14 M/S. PRATHIMA EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY, HYDERABAD 24 1 9 . IN THE RESULT, APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE FOR ASSESSMENT YEARS 2006 - 07 TO 2010 - 11 ARE PARTLY ALLOWED, WHEREAS THE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE FOR ASSESSMENT YEARS 2004 - 05 AND 2005 - 06 ARE DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE COURT ON 9 TH JANUARY, 2015 SD/ - SD/ - ( ASHA VIJAYARAGHAVAN ) ( P.M.JAGTAP ) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DT/ - 9 TH JANUARY , 201 5 1 COPY FORWARDED TO: 1. M/S. PRATHIMA EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY, PRATIMA HOUSE, PLOT NO.213, ROAD NO.1, FILM NAGAR, HYDERABAD 2 . DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME - TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE 1, HYDERABAD 3. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME - TAX CENTRAL I, HYDERABAD 4. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE, ITAT, HYDERABAD B.V.S