ANKUR UDBODAK SAMITI, Jaipur V. ITO, Jaipur

ITA 785/JPR/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 132 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 5142 (ITAT-JAIPUR)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 8 month(s) 29 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 19-07-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2005-2006
• Appeal Filed On: 21-10-2013
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: R A VARMAADDL CIT DHK
• Assessee Lawyers: S L PODDAR
• Keywords: Bonafide belief; Reasonable cause
• Section: 143(3); 12A; 10B

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. 785/JP/13 FU/KZKJ.K O'K Z@ ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2005-06 M/S ANKUR UDBODAK SA MITI, A-18, SHANTI PATH, TILAK NAGAR, JAIPUR CUKE VS. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 6(1), JAIPUR LFKK;H YS[KK LA-@THVKBZVKJ LA-@ PAN NO. AAATA 8893 P VIHYKFKHZ@ APPELLANT IZR;FKHZ@ RESPONDENT FU/KZKFJRH DH VKSJ LS@ ASSESSEE BY : SHRI S.L. PODDAR, ADV. JKTLO DH VKSJ LS@ REVENUE BY : SHRI R.A. VARMA(ADDL . CIT ) LQUOKBZ DH RKJH[K@ DATE OF HEARING : 14.07.2016 ?KKS'K .KK DH RKJH[K @ DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 19/07/2016. VKNS'K@ ORDER PER SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, A.M. THIS APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A)-II, JAIPUR DATED 06.08.2013 WHEREIN THE ASSE SSEE HAS TAKEN FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL: UNDER THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE THE L D. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE PENALTY OF RS. 53,651/- U/S 271B O F THE IT ACT, 1961 IMPOSED BY THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER. 2. BRIEFLY THE FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSES SEE SOCIETY WAS SET UP UNDER THE SOCIETIES ACT, 1958 AND DURING THE YEAR U NDER CONSIDERATION, THE ITA NO. 785/JP/13 M/S ANKUR UDHODHAK SAMITI. JAIPUR VS. ITO, WARD 6(1 ), JAIPUR 2 ASSESSEE WAS OPERATING TWO EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTES N AMELY SEEDLING NURSERY SCHOOL, JAIPUR AND SEEDLING MODERN PUBLIC SCHOOL, U DAIPUR. THE RETURN OF INCOME WAS FILED ON 30.03.2006 DECLARING TOTAL INCO ME AT RS. NIL. THE ASSESSEE HAS SHOWN GROSS RECEIPTS OF RS. 1,07,30,14 7/- AND WHICH IT HAS CLAIMED AS EXEMPT U/S 11(1)(A) OF THE ACT. GIVEN T HAT DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION, THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT REGISTERED U/S 12A OF THE ACT, THE AO ASSESSED THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE AT RS. 30,53,7 21/- U/S 143(3) OF THE ACT. THE AO ALSO INITIATED PENALTY U/S 271B FOR FAILURE TO GET THE ACCOUNTS AUDITED AND FILED AUDIT REPORT IN FORM NO. 3CD. SUBSEQUENT LY, PENALTY OF RS. 53,651/- WAS LEVIED BY THE AO VIDE ITS ORDER DATED 30.03.201 0 HOLDING THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT GOT ITS BOOKS OF ACCOUNT AUDITED. 2.1 BEING AGGRIEVED, THE ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MATTE R BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) WHO HAS CONFIRMED THE LEVY OF PENALTY AND HIS FINDI NGS ARE REPRODUCED AS UNDER: I HAVE CONSIDERED THE FACTS OF THE CASE, PENALTY O RDER AND APPELLANTS WRITTEN SUBMISSION. ASSESSING OFFICER LEVIED PENAL TY UNDER SECTION 271B ON THE GROUND THAT THE APPELLANT DID NOT SUBMIT THE TAX AUDIT REPORT AS REQUIRED U/S 44AB. IT IS NOT IN DISPUTE THAT APPEL LANT FILED TAX AUDIT REPORT WITH THE DEPARTMENT ONLY ON 30.03.2006 WHICH IS MUCH AFTER THE DUE DATE OF FILING THE RETURN OF INCOME U/S 139(1). WITH THE AMENDMENT TO SECTION 44AB WITH EFFECT FROM 1995, IT IS NOT ON LY REQUIRED TO GET THE ACCOUNTS AUDITED BUT ALSO REQUIRED TO FURNISH SUCH AUDIT REPORT TILL THE DUE DATE OF FILING THE RETURN, ADMITTEDLY THE APPEL LANT IS CLEARLY LIABLE FOR PENALTY U/S 271B. APPELLANT DID NOT SUBMIT ANY EXP LANATION FOR DELAYED SUBMISSION OF TAX AUDIT REPORT AND THEREFORE THE A PPELLANT DID NOT JUSTIFY THE DELAY BY ANY REASON. THE SUBMISSION THAT INCOM E WAS EXEMPT DOES NOT JUSTIFY THE DELAYED SUBMISSION OF TAX AUDIT REP ORT. THE JUDICIAL DECISIONS RELIED UPON ARE ONLY RELATING TO DIFFEREN T FACTS NOT APPLICABLE TO THE APPELLANTS CASE. CONSIDERING THIS, APPELLANT DID NOT EVEN ATTEMPT TO EXPLAIN THE REASONS FOR DELAYED SUBMISSION OF TAX A UDIT REPORT. ACCORDINGLY PENALTY IS CLEARLY LEVIABLE AND THEREFO RE THE SAME IS CONFIRMED. ITA NO. 785/JP/13 M/S ANKUR UDHODHAK SAMITI. JAIPUR VS. ITO, WARD 6(1 ), JAIPUR 3 2.2 DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING, THE LD. AR SUBMIT TED THAT THE RETURN WAS FILED ON 30.03.2006 DECLARING TOTAL INCOME AT RS. N IL AS THE ASSESSEE WAS UNDER A BONAFIDE BELIEF THAT BEING AN EDUCATIONAL INSTITU TE, ITS INCOME WAS EXEMPT UNDER THE VARIOUS PROVISIONS OF THE ACT SUCH AS 12A /11 AND 10(23)(C) OF THE ACT. THE ASSESSEE WAS ALSO UNDER A BONAFIDE BELIEF THAT THE IMPARTING OF EDUCATION WAS NOT A BUSINESS ACTIVITY AND THE PROVI SIONS OF SECTION 44AB WERE NOT APPLICABLE. HOWEVER THE ASSESSEE DIDNT THE BE NEFIT OF AN EXPERT ADVICE AND AS SUCH IT FAILED TO APPLY IN TIME FOR GETTING THE AFORESAID EXEMPTION U/S 12AA/10(23)()C). HOWEVER, THE ACCOUNTS OF THE ASSE SSEE WERE AUDITED AS THE ASSESSEE HAPPENED TO BE A SOCIETY AND A COPY OF THE AUDIT REPORT WAS ENCLOSED ALONGWITH THE RETURN OF INCOME FILED ON 30.03.2006. 2.3 THE LD AR FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE CRUX OF TH E MATTER IS THAT IN THE OPINION OF THE LD. AO, THE ASSESSEE WAS CARRYING ON BUSINESS AND AS SUCH SHOULD HAVE FILED AUDIT REPORT U/S 44AB IN DUE TIME AS THE TURNOVER EXCEEDED THE PRESCRIBED LIMIT. SINCE THE RETURN WAS FILED LATE BY FEW MONTHS AND IT SHOULD HAVE BEEN FILED BY 31.10.2005 WHEREAS THE SAME WAS FILED ON 31.03.2006 LATE BY FEW MONTHS. THE FACT OF FILING THE AUDIT REPORT ALONGWITH THE RETURN OF INCOME IS APPARENT FROM THE ASSESSMENT ORDER ITSELF WHICH IS QUOTED BELOW: AUDITORS REPORT, BALANCE SHEET AND INCOME & EXPEN DITURE ACCOUNT HAS BEEN ANNEXED TO THE RETURN OF INCOME. FORM NO. 10B HAS ALSO BEEN ANNEXED TO THE INCOME TAX RETURN. 2.4 THE LD AR FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER INITIATED PENALTY ON THE GROUND THAT ACCOUNTS WERE NOT AUDITED. THE EXACT LANGUAGE USED BY THE LD. AO IN ASSESSMENT ORDER IS QUOTED BELOW: ITA NO. 785/JP/13 M/S ANKUR UDHODHAK SAMITI. JAIPUR VS. ITO, WARD 6(1 ), JAIPUR 4 PENALTY U/S 271B IS ALSO BEING INITIATED FOR FAILU RE TO GET ACCOUNTS AUDITED AND FILE AUDIT REPORT IN FORM NO. 3CD. SUBSEQUENTLY PENALTY HAS BEEN IMPOSED BY THE LD. AO ON THIS VERY GROUND. THE LEVY OF PENALTY IS ILLEGAL AND UNLAWFUL SINCE T HE ACCOUNTS OF THE ASSESSEE WERE AUDITED. THE DEFAULT RELATED ONLY IN THE DELA Y IN FILING THE AUDIT REPORT ALONGWITH THE RETURN ON 30.03.2006. BUT THE LD. CI T(A) HAS CONFIRMED THE PENALTY ON A DIFFERENT GROUND. IT IS CLEAR THAT AC COUNTS OF THE ASSESSEE STOOD AUDITED AS SUCH THE CHARGE LEVIED BY THE LD. AO FOR INITIATING AND IMPOSING PENALTY DID NOT STAND THE TEST OF LAW. THE LD. CIT( A) HAS CONFIRMED THE PENALTY ON DIFFERENT GROUND I.E. THE AUDIT REPORT AS FILED LATE. IT IS SUBMITTED THAT LD. CIT(A) WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN CONFIRMING THE PENALTY ON A DIFFERENT GROUND THAN ON THE GROUND ON WHICH PENALTY WAS LEVIED. THE SUB MISSION OF THE ASSESSEE IS THAT THE PENALTY WAS WRONGLY INITIATED AND UNLAWFUL LY IMPOSED. THE LD. CIT(A) ALSO ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE SAME. THE SAME DESERVE D TO BE QUASHED. 2.5 THE LD AR FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT IT WAS UNDER A BONAFIDE BELIEF THAT IT NEVER CONDUCTED ANY BUSINESS AND IMPARTING OF EDUCA TION WAS AN ACTIVITY EXEMPT FROM TAX. SUBSEQUENTLY THE POINT OF THE ASS ESSEE STOOD VINDICATED AS IT WAS GRANTED REGISTRATION U/S 12A VIDE ORDER DATED 0 5.08.2008. THE REGISTRATION WAS MADE EFFECTIVE FROM 11.01.2008. A COPY OF THE REGISTRATION U/S 12A IS AVAILABLE ON PAPER BOOK PAGE NO. 35. THUS IT IS E STABLISHED BEYOND DOUBT THAT THE ACTIVITY OF THE ASSESSEE BEING OF CHARITABLE NA TURE WHICH INCLUDED IMPARTING OF EDUCATION WAS EXEMPT. IT IS ONLY DUE TO IGNORAN CE OF LAW AND BEING UNDER BONAFIDE BELIEF THAT TECHNICAL REQUIREMENTS WERE NO T MADE IN TIME FOR GETTING THE EXEMPTION AVAILABLE UNDER LAW. THUS THE ASSESSE E HAS BEEN PUNISHED BY THE LD. AO ONLY FOR TECHNICAL BREACH OTHERWISE IN S UBSTANCE THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT REQUIRED TO FILE EVEN RETURN OF INCOME. FILING OF AUDIT REPORT WAS ONLY A ITA NO. 785/JP/13 M/S ANKUR UDHODHAK SAMITI. JAIPUR VS. ITO, WARD 6(1 ), JAIPUR 5 TECHNICAL REQUIREMENT. THE LD. CIT(A) HAS DISREGARD ED THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSSEE IN A MECHANICAL MANNER AND HAS CONFIRMED THE LEVY OF PENALTY. THE RATIO OF THESE CASE LAWS IS THAT BONA FIDE BELIEF I S ADEQUATE GROUND AND THE SAME DESERVES TO BE CONSIDERED FAVOURABLY. SUNIL CHANDRA VOHRA VS. ACIT 127 TTJ (MUM) (U.O.) 100 R. WADIWALA & CO. VS. ACIT (2001) 72 TTJ (AHD) 34 2.6 THE LD AR FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT IN VIEW OF THE AFORESAID FACTS IT IS SUBMITTED THAT THE LD. AO AT FIRST ERRED IN INITIAT ING PENALTY U/S 271B ON A WRONG GROUND THAT NO AUDIT REPORT WAS SUBMITTED AND SECONDLY THE LD. AO FURTHER ERRED IN IMPOSING PENALTY ON THE GROUND THA T NO AUDIT REPORT WAS SUBMITTED AS PER PROVISIONS OF SECTION 44AB. THE GR OUNDS ON WHICH PENALTY HAS BEEN IMPOSED ARE WITHOUT ANY FOUNDATION IN AS MUCH AS THE ASSESSEE HAD SUBMITTED AUDIT REPORT ALONGWITH THE RETURN OF INCO ME AS DISCUSSED ABOVE. IN VIEW OF THIS IT IS PRAYED THAT THE PENALTY IMPOSED MAY KINDLY BE DELETED. THE FACTS THAT IN SUBSEQUENT YEAR THE ASSESSEE WAS GRAN TED REGISTRATION U/S 12A SPEAKS VOLUMES ABOUT THE BONAFIDES OF THE ASSESSEE. OTHERWISE ALSO ON A WHOLE THE DELAY ONLY OF FEW MONTHS, WHICH IN THE BA CKGROUND OF THE FACTS OF THE CASE, DESERVED CONDONATION. IT WAS NEVER A FIT CASE FOR INITIATING/LEVY OF PENALTY MUCH LESS FOR CONFIRMING THE SAME BY THE LD . CIT(A). THE HONBLE ITAT IS REQUESTED TO QUASH THE SAME. 2.7 THE LD. AR RELIED ON THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A ) AND SUBMITTED THAT THE PENALTY HAS BEEN RIGHTLY LEVIED BY THE AO AND CONFI RMED BY THE LD. CIT(A). 2.8 WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. IT WOULD BE RELEVANT TO REFER TO THE PR OVISIONS OF SECTION 44AB OF ITA NO. 785/JP/13 M/S ANKUR UDHODHAK SAMITI. JAIPUR VS. ITO, WARD 6(1 ), JAIPUR 6 THE ACT, GIVEN THAT THE AO HAS LEVIED PENALTY U/S 2 71B FOR VIOLATION OF THE SAID PROVISION. THE RELEVANT PROVISIONS OF SECTION 44AB ARE REPRODUCED AS UNDER: SECTION 44AB EVERY PERSON (A)CARRYING ON BUSINESS SHALL, IF HIS TOTAL SALES, TURNOVER OF GROSS RECEIPTS, AS THE CASE MAY BE , IN BUSINESS EXCEED OR EXCEEDS ONE CRORE RUPEES IN ANY PREVIOUS YEAR PROVIDED FURTHER THAT IN A CASE WHERE SUCH PERSON I S REQUIRED BY OR UNDER ANY OTHER LAW TO GET HIS ACCOUNTS AUDITED, IT SHALL BE SUFFICIENT COMPLIANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF THIS SECTION IF S UCH PERSON GETS THE ACCOUNTS OF SUCH BUSINESS OR PROFESSION AUDITED UND ER SUCH LAW BEFORE THE SPECIFIED DATE AND FURNISHES BY THAT DATE THE R EPORT OF THE AUDIT AS REQUIRED UNDER SUCH OTHER LAW AND A FURTHER REPORT (BY AN ACCOUNTANT) IN THE FORM PRESCRIBED UNDER THIS SECTION. 2.9 UNDISPUTEDLY, IN THE INSTANT CASE, THE PROVISO TO SECTION 44AB IS ATTRACTED. IT REQUIRES COMPLIANCE OF THREE CUMULAT IVE CONDITIONS: SUCH PERSON GETS THE ACCOUNTS OF SUCH BUSINESS OR P ROFESSION AUDITED UNDER SUCH LAW BEFORE THE SPECIFIED DATE AND FURNISHES BY THAT DATE THE REPORT OF THE AUDIT AS R EQUIRED UNDER SUCH OTHER LAW AND A FURTHER REPORT (BY AN ACCOUNTANT) IN THE FORM PRE SCRIBED UNDER THIS SECTION (FORM 3CD). IN THE INSTANT CASE, THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS HAVE BEE N AUDITED AND THE AUDITORS HAVE ISSUED AN AUDIT REPORT DATED 22.06.2005 WHICH IS WELL BEFORE THE SPECIFIED DATE AS PRESCRIBED FOR FILING THE RETURN OF INCOME UNDER SECTION 139(1) I.E 31 ST OCTOBER, 2005. THE AO HAS ALSO TAKEN COGNISANCE OF THE AUDITORS REPORT WHILE FRAMING THE ASSESSMENT. NOW COMING TO THE SECOND A ND THE THIRD CONDITIONS THAT THE REPORT OF SUCH AUDIT ALONGWITH OTHER REPOR T OF THE ACCOUNTANT (IN FORM NO. 3CD) IS ALSO REQUIRED TO BE FURNISHED BY 31.10. 2005, THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED THE RETURN OF INCOME ON 30.03.2006 ALONGWITH FORM N O. 10B. GIVEN THAT ALL THE THREE CONDITIONS NEED TO BE SATISFIED CUMULATIV ELY AND THE ASSESSEE HAS ITA NO. 785/JP/13 M/S ANKUR UDHODHAK SAMITI. JAIPUR VS. ITO, WARD 6(1 ), JAIPUR 7 FAILED TO FURNISH THE AUDIT REPORT WITHIN THE STIPU LATED TIME FRAME, THE PENALTY HAS RIGHTLY BEEN INITIATED BY THE AO. 2.10 THE ONLY LIMITED ISSUE THAT REMAINS IS WHETHER THERE IS A REASONABLE CAUSE FOR THE DELAY ON THE PART OF THE APPELLANT TO SUBMIT THE AUDIT REPORT BEFORE THE DUE DATE OF FILING THE RETURN OF INCOME. THE LD. AR SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS UNDER THE BONAFIDE BELIEF THAT RUN NING OF EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTES AND IMPARTING OF THE EDUCATION WAS NOT A BUSINESS ACTIVITY AND THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 44AB WERE NOT APPLICABLE AND EVEN THOUGH IT COULD NOT APPLY FOR THE AFORESAID EXEMPTION U/S 12A DURING TH E YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION, THE SUBSEQUENT REGISTRATION U/S 12A GRANTED BY THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX VIDE ITS ORDER DATED 5.0 8.2008 EFFECTIVE FROM 11.01.08 ESTABLISHES THAT THE ACTIVITY OF THE ASSES SEE OF IMPARTING OF EDUCATION WAS HELD CHARITABLE IN NATURE WHICH WAS ELIGIBLE FO R TAX EXEMPTION. FURTHER, THE ASSESSEE HAS SUBMITTED THE AUDIT REPORT IN FORM NO. 10B ALONG WITH THE RETURN OF INCOME WHICH AGAIN PROVES THE BONAFIDEE O F THE ASSESSEE. 2.11 IT IS ALSO NOTED THAT THE PENALTY U/S 271B IS IN RESPECT OF ASSESSEE CARRYING ON BUSINESS OR PROFESSION AND WHO ARE REQU IRED TO GET THEIR ACCOUNTS AUDITED AND FURNISH AUDITORS REPORT ALONGWITH TAX AUDIT REPORT IN FORM 3CD. HOWEVER, FOR THE CORRESPONDING PROVISION OF SECTION 12A(1)(B) IN THE CONTEXT OF EDUCATION INSTITUTION WHICH REQUIRE SUBMISSION OF R EPORT IN FORM 10B, THERE IS NO CORRESPONDING PROVISIONS FOR LEVY OF PENALTY U/ S 271B OR ANY OTHER SIMILAR PROVISIONS OF THE ACT. 2.12 IN OUR VIEW, THE ASSESSEES BELIEF THAT BEING A SOCIETY RUNNING EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTES IS NOT CARRYING ON BUSINESS IS A REASONABLE BELIEF WHICH IS ITA NO. 785/JP/13 M/S ANKUR UDHODHAK SAMITI. JAIPUR VS. ITO, WARD 6(1 ), JAIPUR 8 FORTIFIED BY SUBSEQUENT GRANT OF REGISTRATION UNDER SECTION 12A BY THE CIT. EVEN THOUGH GRANT OF REGISTRATION U/S 12A IS NOT A BASIS THAT THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE WOULD BE FULLY EXEMPT OR THE ASSESSEE WOUL DNT BE REQUIRED TO FILE ITS RETURN OF INCOME, IT IS ATLEAST A REASONABLE BASIS TO HOLD THAT THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 44AB ARE NOT ATTRACTED. BASIS SUCH BELIEF, WHERE THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 44AB HAVE NOT BEEN COMPLIED WITH, IT IS A M ATTER WHERE THE ASSESSEE HAS SHOWN REASONABLE CAUSE AND THE AO SHOULD HAVE E XERCISED HIS DISCRETION IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE IN NOT LEVYING THE IMPUNGED PENALTY. 2.13 FURTHER, FOR THE REASON THAT THERE WAS A DELAY IN SUBMISSION OF AUDIT REPORT WHERE SECTION 44AB IS ATTRACTED, THE AO HAS NOT GIVEN ANY ADVERSE FINDING THAT IT AFFECTED THE PROPER COMPUTATION OF INCOME IN TERMS OF PROVISIONS OF THE ACT OR ANY CLAIM TO ANY DEDUCTION BY THE ASSESSEE UNDER ANY PROVISIONS OF THE ACT. IN SUCH EVENT, THE BREACH RE MAINS A TECHNICAL BREACH OF THE PROCEDURAL REQUIREMENT AS THE INTENT BEHIND THE INTRODUCTION OF SECTION 44AB HAVE BEEN FULFILLED WHICH IS BASICALLY TO HELP SUPPORT THE AO TO COMPUTE TRUE INCOME IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE. 2.14 IN LIGHT OF ABOVE KEEPING THE ENTIRETY OF FACT S AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT PENALTY OF RS. 53,561 /- U/S 271B CANNOT BE LEVIED IN THE INSTANT CASE HENCE THIS SAME IS DELETED AND GROUND TAKEN BY THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. IN THE RESULT THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS A LLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 19/07 /2016. SD/- SD/- ( KUL BHARAT ) (VIKRAM SINGH YADAV) U;KF;D LNL;@ JUDICIAL MEMBER YS[KK LNL;@ ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 785/JP/13 M/S ANKUR UDHODHAK SAMITI. JAIPUR VS. ITO, WARD 6(1 ), JAIPUR 9 JAIPUR DATED:- 19/ 07/2016 PILLAI VKNS'K DH IZFRFYFI VXZSF'KR@ COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. VIHYKFKHZ@ THE APPELLANT- M/S ANKUR UDBODHAK SAMITI, JAIPUR 2. IZR;FKHZ@ THE RESPONDENT- THE ITO, WARD 6(1), JAIPUR 3. VK;DJ VK;QDR@ CIT II, JAIPUR 4. VK;DJ VK;QDRVIHY@ THE CIT(A)-II, JAIPUR 5. FOHKKXH; IZFRFUF/K] VK;DJ VIHYH; VF/KDJ.K] T;IQJ@ DR, ITAT, JAIPUR 6. XKMZ QKBZY@ GUARD FILE (ITA NO. 785/JP/2013) VKNS'KKUQLKJ@ BY ORDER, LGK;D IATHDKJ@ ASSISTANT. REGISTRAR.