Sree Gangadhareshwara Education Trusts, Bangalore V. DDIT(Exemptions), Bangalore

ITA 787/BANG/2009

• Counselvise Citation: [2010] 136 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 8507 (ITAT-BANGALORE)
• Duration Of Justice: 7 month(s) 26 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 31-03-2010
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 29-03-2010
• Assessment Year: 2004-2005
• Appeal Filed On: 05-08-2009
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: PREETHI GARG
• Assessee Lawyers: H N KHINCHA
• Keywords: Reopening of assessment; Source of fund; Non compliance; Condonation of delay; Ignorance of law; Set aside
• Section: 234B; 12A; 12AA; 143(2); 13; 148; 144; 11

Judgement Text

PAGE 1 OF 13 ITA NO.787 & 1175/BANG/2009 1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, BANGALORE BENCH B' BEFORE DR. O K NARAYANAN, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI GEORGE GEORGE K., J.M. ITA NO.787 & 1175/BANG/2009 (ASST. YEAR 2004-05 & N.A.) SREE GANGADHARESHWARA EDUCATIONAL TRUST, NO.241, MAGADI MAIN ROAD, SUNKADAKATTE, VISHWANEEDAM POST, BANGALORE 560 091. : APPELLANT VS. THE DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS), BANGALORE. : RESPONDENT APPELLANT BY : SHRI H.N. KHINCHA, C.A. RESPONDENT BY : SMT. PREETHI GARG, CIT(DR) O R D E R PER GEORGE GEORGE K., JUDICIAL MEMBER THESE APPEALS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE DISPOSED OF BY THIS CONSOLIDATED ORDER SINCE IT PERTAINS TO THE SAME AS SESSEE AND COMMON ISSUES ARE INVOLVED. ITA NO.1175/BANG/2009 2. LET US NOW TAKE UP THE ISSUE OF DENIAL OF REGIS TRATION U/S 12AA OF THE ACT BY THE DIT(EXEMPTIONS). THIS A PPEAL IS PAGE 2 OF 13 ITA NO.787 & 1175/BANG/2009 2 DIRECTED AGAINST THE DIT(EXEMPTIONS)'S ORDER PASSED U/S 12AA(1)(B)(II) DATED 26.10.2009. 3. BRIEFLY STATED THE FACTS ARE AS FOLLOWS:- THE APPELLANT TRUST WAS CONSTITUTED BY THE TRUST DEED DATED 27.7.1992. THE ASSESSEE TRUST HAS BEEN RUNNI NG VARIOUS EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTIONS SINCE ITS INCEPTION. APPL ICATION FOR REGISTRATION U/S 12A OF THE ACT WAS FILED BY THE AP PELLANT TRUST FOR THE FIRST TIME ON 2.2.2005. FORM NO.10A WAS ENCLOS ED WITH UNCERTIFIED COPY OF THE TRUST DEED. THE APPLICAT ION WAS DEFECTIVE, SINCE THE CERTIFIED TRUST DEED WAS NOT ENCLOSED AND ALSO THE COPIES OF THE ACCOUNTS FOR THE LAST THREE YEARS AS REQUIRE D U/S 12AA OF THE ACT WAS NOT FURNISHED. THE TRUST WAS GIVEN OPPORTU NITY TO CURE THE DEFECTS AND SINCE THERE WAS NO RESPONSE FROM TH E TRUST, THE DIT(EXEMPTIONS) PASSED AN ORDER U/S 12AA REJECTING THE APPLICATION OF THE TRUST ON THE GROUND OF NON COMPL IANCE OF DEFECT MEMO VIDE DIT(EXEMPTIONS) ORDER DATED 5.8.2005. TH E APPELLANT TRUST HAD NOT TAKEN UP THIS ORDER OF DIT(EXEMPTIONS ) IN FURTHER APPEAL. 3.1 THEREAFTER, THE ASSESSEE TRUST HAD FILED FRESH APPLICATION IN FORM NO.10A ON 31.1.2007 AND SAME WA S PROCESSED BY THE DIT(EXEMPTIONS) AFRESH VIDE ITS OR DER DATED 31.3.2007 GRANTING REGISTRATION TO THE TRUST WITH E FFECT FROM 1/4/2006. PAGE 3 OF 13 ITA NO.787 & 1175/BANG/2009 3 3.2 AGAINST THE ORDER OF DIT(EXEMPTIONS) DATED 31.3.2007, THE APPELLANT TRUST FILED AN APPEAL TO T HE TRIBUNAL WITH A PRAYER FOR GRANTING REGISTRATION PRIOR TO 1/4/2006. THE TRIBUNAL, VIDE ITS ORDER DATED 31ST MARCH, 2009 IN ITA NO.142 7/BANG/2008, DISPOSED OF THE MATTER DIRECTING THE DIT(EXEMPTIONS ) TO RECONSIDER THE CONDONATION PETITION. THE RELEVANT FINDING OF THE TRIBUNAL READS AS FOLLOWS:- 'HOWEVER, THE DIT(EXEMPTIONS) GRANTED REGISTRATION ONLYW.E.F. 01.04.2006 ON THE GROUND THAT THERE WAS NO GROUND FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY. THUS, THE DIT(EXEMPTIONS) AFTER REFUSING CONDONATION OF DELAY GRANTED THE AFORESAID REGISTRATION W.E.F. 01.04.2006. IN THIS REGARD, THE STAND OF THE LEARNED AR IS THAT THE DIT(EXEMPTIONS) HAS NOT GRANTED PROPER OPPORTUNITY BEFORE REJECTING THE REQUEST OF THE ASSESSEE. IN THE LARGER INTEREST OF JUSTICE, WE SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF DIT(EXEMPTIONS) AND RESTORE THE MATTER TO HIM WITH A DIRECTION TO DECIDE THE SAME AFTER PROVIDING DUE OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE IS ALSO DIRECTED TO COOPERATE IN THE PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE DIT(EXEMPTIONS)'. 3.3 ON FRESH CONSIDERATION, PURSUANT TO TRIBUNAL O RDER, THE DIT(EXEMPTIONS) REJECTED THE ASSESSEE'S PLEA TO CONDONE DELAY IN FILING THE APPLICATION OF REGISTRATION AND TRUST WAS GRANTED REGISTRATION WITH EFFECT FROM 1/4/2006. THE RELEVA NT PORTION OF THE DIT(EXEMPTIONS)'S ORDER DATED 26/10/2009 READS AS F OLLOWS:- PAGE 4 OF 13 ITA NO.787 & 1175/BANG/2009 4 'I HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE APPLICANT IN LIGHT OF THE DECISIONS QUOTED THEREIN AND FACTS OF THE CASE. THE FINDINGS ARE AS UNDER:- 1. THE APPLICANT TRUST WAS ESTABLISHED BY WAY OF A TRUST DEED DATED 27.7.1992. WHEREAS THE FIRST APPLICATION IN FORM NO.10A FOR REGISTRATION WAS FILED ON 2.2.2005. THUS, THERE WAS DELAY OF MORE THAN 12 YEARS IN FILING APPLICATION. IN THE MEANTIME THE APPLICANT TRUST HAD ESTABLISHED MANY EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTIONS AND OBTAINED PERMISSION FROM CONCERNED VARIOUS AUTHORITIES TO RUN THE SAID INSTITUTIONS AND THE INSTITUTIONS WERE DEVELOPED FROM STRENGTH TO STRENGTH. THUS, IT IS HARD TO BELIEVE THAT THE TRUSTEES WERE UNAWARE OF PROVISIONS RELATING TO REGISTRATION U/S 12A OF THE I T ACT. MOREOVER, IT IS ESTABLISHED LAW OF JURISPRUDENCE THAT 'IGNORANCE OF LAW IS NO EXCUSE'. THUS, THE REASONS FOR DELAY ADDUCED BY THE APPLICANT TRUST ARE LAME EXCUSES AND CANNOT BE CONSIDERED AS 'SUFFICIENT CAUSE'. 2. FURTHER, THE FIRST APPLICATION WAS FILED BY THE APPLICANT ON 2.2.2005 AND THE APPLICANT HAD NOT MADE A CLAIM OF CONDONATION OF DELAY IN THAT APPLICATION. THIS APPLICATION WAS REJECTED BY THE DIT(EXEMPTIONS) UNDER ORDER DATED 5.8.2005 ON THE GROUND OF NON- COMPLIANCE AS DISCUSSED EARLIER. THIS ORDER WAS NOT CONTESTED BY THE APPLICANT IN APPEAL AND HENCE, REACHED FINALITY. THUS, THE ISSUE OF CONDONATION OF DELAY HAS BEEN SETTLED UP TO THE DATE OF EARLIER ORDER I.E. 5.8.2005. A SUBSEQUENT ORDER PAGE 5 OF 13 ITA NO.787 & 1175/BANG/2009 5 CANNOT HAVE OVERRIDING EFFECT OF AN EARLIER ORDER WHICH HAS REACHED FINALITY. THUS, I HAVE NO AUTHORITY UNDER LAW TO CONSIDER THE ISSUE OF CONDONATION OF DELAY FOR THE PERIOD BEFORE 6.8.2005. 3. AS REGARDS DELAY IN FILING SECOND APPLICATION I.E. IN RESPECT OF THE PERIOD OF DELAY BETWEEN 5.8.2005 TO 3.1.2007 THE APPLICANT HAS NOT ADDUCED ANY REASON INSPITE OF SPECIFIC REQUEST WAS MADE IN THIS REGARD THROUGH THIS OFFICE LETTER DATED 15.5.2009. THE REASONS FOR DELAY FURNISHED BY THE APPLICANT IN THE COURSE OF PROCEEDINGS AGAINST SECOND APPLICATION ARE QUOTED IN PARAGRAPH 4 SUPRA. THE REASONS ADDUCED ARE THAT THE TRUSTEES WERE UNAWARE OF THE PROVISIONS OF THE ACT AND IN THE INITIAL PERIOD THEY WERE EXTREMELY ENGAGED IN UPBRINGING THE TRUST AS EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTION. THESE REASONS ARE NOT TRUE AND UNTENABLE AS THE TRUST HAD EARLIER FILED AN APPLICATION ON 2.2.2005 AND IT WAS REJECTED FOR NON COMPLIANCE. HENCE, FOR DELAY IN FILING SECOND APPLICATION THE REASONS GIVEN BY THE APPLICANT DOES NOT HOLD GOOD AND AGAINST THE FACTS. 4. THE APPLICANT HAS RELIED UPON THE DECISION OF THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF COLLECTOR, LAND ACQUISITION V MST. KATIJI & OTHERS (167 ITR 471). IN THIS CASE, THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT HAS HELD THAT COURTS SHOULD HAVE LIBERAL AND PRACTICAL APPROACH WHILE EXERCISING POWER OF CONDONATION OF DELAY. THE DECISION OF THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IS NO DOUBT GUIDING PRINCIPLE ON THE ISSUE. AT THE SAME TIME, REASONS FOR DELAY ALSO PAGE 6 OF 13 ITA NO.787 & 1175/BANG/2009 6 CONSTITUTE BASIC FACTOR ON THE BASIS OF WHICH THE AUTHORITY CONCERNED NEEDS TO TAKE DECISIONS. TO TAKE LIBERAL DECISION ALSO THERE MUST BE SOME REASON FOR DELAY. IN THE CASE OF THE APPLICANT, THE APPLICANT HAS NOT FURNISHED ANY REASON FOR DELAY IN FILING SECOND APPLICATION AFTER RECEIPT OF REJECTION ORDER OF EARLIER APPLICATION. AS REGARDS PERIOD UP TO THE DATE OF REJECTION ORDER OF FIRST APPLICATION, I HAVE NO AUTHORITY UNDER LAW TO PASS ANY ORDER FOR THE REASONS DISCUSSED ABOVE. 5. AS REGARDS THE DECISION OF THE ITAT IN THE CASE OF EDITH WILKINS HOPE FOUNTAIN V DIT(E)(2008) 296 ITR (AT) 60 (KOLKATA) AND THE DECISION OF HON'BLE ITAT IN THE CASE OF PEEDS V ITO (2008) 296 ITR 36 (CHENNAI), IT IS OBSERVED THAT THE FACTS OF THE APPLICANT ARE DIFFERENT THAT THOSE CASES. IN THE CASE OF EDITH WILKINS HOPE FOUNTAIN V DIT(E)(2008) 296 ITR (AT) 60 (KOLKATA), THE DELAY IN FILING APPLICATION WAS ONLY 2 YEARS WHEREAS IN THE CASE OF APPLICANT, THE DELAY IN FILING ORIGINAL APPLICATION WAS MORE THAN 12 YEARS AND ALSO SAID APPLICATION WAS DEFECTIVE AND NOT PURSUED BY THE APPLICANT WHICH RESULTED IN REJECTION. SIMILARLY, IN THE CASE OF OF PEEDS V ITO (2008) 296 ITR 36 (CHENNAI), THE ORIGINAL APPLICATION WAS FILED ON 4.11.1993 WHEREAS REJECTION ORDER WAS PASSED ON 4.9.2002 AND HENCE, THE ORDER OF THE DIT(E) WAS CONSIDERED AS INVALID ON ACCOUNT OF LIMITATION. WHEREAS, IN THE CASE OF THE APPLICANT, THE REJECTION ORDER WAS PASSED ON VALID GROUNDS AND WELL WITHIN THE TIME OF 6 MONTHS AND IT HAS REACHED FINALITY PAGE 7 OF 13 ITA NO.787 & 1175/BANG/2009 7 UNCONTESTED. THUS, THE DECISIONS IN BOTH THE CASES ARE NOT APPLICABLE TO THE FACTS OF THE APPLICANT'. 3.4 THE ASSESSEE BEING AGGRIEVED BY THE ABOVE ORDE R OF THE DIT(EXEMPTIONS) DATED 26.10.2009, HAS FILED THI S APPEAL RAISING THE FOLLOWING EFFECTIVE GROUNDS:- I) IN ANY CASE WITHOUT PREJUDICE, THE LEARNED DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS) HAS ERRED IN REJECTING THE APPLICATION FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY AND CONSEQUENTLY IN GRANTING REGISTRATION U/S 12A OF THE I T ACT, 1961 ONLY FROM 1/4/2006. II) THE REASONS GIVEN BY THE DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS) FOR REJECTING THE APPLICATION FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY ARE NOT PROPER AND LEGAL AND ARE WITHOUT BASIS. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND ON PROPER APPRECIATION OF EVIDENCE AVAILABLE, THE DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS) SHOULD HAVE CONDONED THE DELAY AS REQUESTED FOR BY THE APPELLANT. III) IN ANY CASE WITHOUT PREJUDICE, THE LEARNED DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS) HAVING ADMITTED THAT THE FIRST APPLICATION FOR REGISTRATION WAS FILED BY THE APPELLANT ON 2.2.2005. AT LEAST THE APPELLANT HAS BEEN GRANTED REGISTRATION FROM 1.4.2004. IV) IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE AND ON OTHER GROUNDS TO BE ADDUCED AT THE TIME OF HEARING, IT IS REQUESTED THAT THE IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED BE QUASHED OR ATLEAST DELAY IN FILING THE APPLICATION BE CONDONED AND REGISTRATION U/S 12AA OF PAGE 8 OF 13 ITA NO.787 & 1175/BANG/2009 8 I T ACT, 1961 BE GRANTED TO THE APPELLANT FROM 1.4.2004. 3.5 THE REASONS STATED FOR DELAY IN FILING APPLICA TION FOR REGISTRATION OF TRUST ARE AS FOLLOWS:- 'THE TRUSTEES OF THE TRUST WERE UNAWARE OF THE PROVISIONS OF THE ACT AND IN THE INITIAL PERIOD, THEY WERE EXTREMELY ENGAGED IN UPBRINGING THE TRUST AS EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTION. THEY WERE BUSY IN THE ACTIVITIES OF THE TRUST IN ADDITION TO THEIR REGULAR EMPLOYMENT AND OTHER COMMITMENTS. PROPER PERSON WAS NOT EMPLOYED IN THE BEGINNING PERIOD TO DISCHARGE THE OBLIGATION OF THE VARIOUS ACTS DUE TO LACK OF FINANCE AND ETC. AND HENCE, WAS UNABLE TO APPLY FOR REGISTRATION U/S 12A OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 IN TIME. THE DELAY IN FILING THE APPLICATION FOR REGISTRATION U/S 12 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 WAS NOT INTENTIONAL ONE AND IT WAS BEYOND THE KNOWLEDGE AND CONTROL OF THE TRUSTEES. HENCE, WE REQUEST YOUR HONOUR TO KINDLY CONDONE THE DELAY IN FILING THE APPLICATION FOR REGISTRATION U/S 12A OF THE INCOME TAX ACT AND OBLIGE'. 3.6 THERE IS A DELAY OF MORE THAN 12 YEARS IN FILI NG THE APPLICATION FOR REGISTRATION. THE ASSESSEE TRUST H AS ESTABLISHED MANY EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTIONS AND OBTAINED PERMISSI ON FROM VARIOUS AUTHORITIES TO RUN THE SAID INSTITUTIONS AN D THE INSTITUTIONS WERE DEVELOPED FROM STRENGTH TO STRENGTH. THE REAS ONS STATED BY THE TRUST FOR DELAY IN FURNISHING THE APPLICATION F OR REGISTRATION IS FAR FROM TRUTH AND THERE IS NO SUFFICIENT AND REASO NABLE CAUSE FOR CONDONING DELAY. PAGE 9 OF 13 ITA NO.787 & 1175/BANG/2009 9 3.7 WE ARE OF THE FIRM VIEW, THE REASONING OF THE DIT(EXEMPTIONS) IS WELL FOUNDED AND THE ASSESSEE HA S NOT PRODUCED ANY MATERIAL TO REBUT THE FINDINGS/CONCLUS ION OF THE DIT(EXEMPTIONS). 4. IN THE RESULT, THIS APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS D ISMISSED. ITA NO.787/BANG/2009 5. THIS APPEAL IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE CIT(APPEALS ) ORDER DATED 10.6.09 IN RELATION TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2004-05. THE CIT(APPEALS) ORDER EMANATES FROM THE ORDER OF DDIT( E) PASSED U/S. 144 R.W.S. 147 OF THE I.T. ACT. THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED 8 GROUNDS. 6. THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED EIGHT GROUNDS. THE 1S T AND 8TH GROUNDS ARE GENERAL IN NATURE AND NO SPECIFIC A DJUDICATION IS CALLED FOR AND HENCE THESE GROUNDS ARE DISMISSED. 7TH GROUND REGARDING LEVY OF INTEREST U/S. 234A, 234B & 234C O F THE ACT IS CONSEQUENTIAL, HENCE THE SAME IS DISMISSED. IN THE 6 TH GROUND, IT IS PLEADED THAT EXEMPTION U/S. 11 IS TO BE GRANTED. T HE ASSESSEE HAS NOT BEEN GRANTED REGISTRATION U/S. 12A OF THE ACT F OR THE RELEVANT PERIOD AND THIS ISSUE IS DISPOSED OF IN ASSESSEES APPEAL IN ITA NO.1175/09. THEREFORE, THIS GROUND RAISED IS DISMI SSED. THE REMAINING EFFECTIVE GROUNDS VIZ., GROUNDS 2 TO 5 RE ADS AS FOLLOWS: 2. THE LEARNED DDIT ERRED IN PASSING THE ORDER U/S. 144 & 147 ON THE BASIS OF INVALID RETURN OF PAGE 10 OF 13 ITA NO.787 & 1175/BANG/2009 10 INCOME WHICH HAS BEEN ERRONEOUSLY UPHELD BY THE LEARNED CIT(A). 3. WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE ABOVE, THE REOPENING IS WITHOUT PROPER REASON U/S 148(2) AND HENCE INVALID. 4. THE LEARNED AUTHORITIES ERRED IN DENYING THE BENEFIT OF S.10(23C)(IIIAD) TO THE THREE SEPARATE INSTITUTIONS RUN WITH REFERENCE TO THE TOTAL RECEIP T OF THE TRUST (AND NOT THE INSTITUTION). 5. THE LOWER AUTHORITIES FAILED TO APPRECIATE THAT FOR DIFFERENT EXEMPTION UNDER DIFFERENT SECTIONS FOR DIFFERENT SOURCES OF INCOME THERE IS NO NEED FOR DIFFERENT ASSESSMENTS AND HENCE DENIAL OF BENEFIT OF S.10(23C)(IIIAD) TO EACH OF THE INSTITUTION ON THE GROUND THAT IT IS NOT SEPARATELY ASSESSED IS NO T TENABLE IN LAW. 6.1. BRIEFLY STATED, THE FACTS ARE AS FOLLOWS. TH E ASSESSEE FILED A RETURN OF INCOME ON 28.3.07 DECLARING NIL I NCOME AFTER CLAIMING EXEMPTION U/S. 10(23C)(IIIAD) AMOUNTING TO RS.39,17,721. THE LEARNED DDIT ISSUED NOTICE U/S. 148 ON 22.11.07. SINCE THERE WAS NO RESPONSE TO NOTICE U/S . 148(1) THE LEARNED DDIT PRESUMED THE RETURN OF INCOME FILED ON 28.3.07 AS THE ONE FILED IN RESPONSE TO NOTICE U/S. 148 AND PR OCEEDED TO ISSUE NOTICE U/S. 143(2) AND PROPOSAL TO ASSESS THE INCOM E AT RS.42,38,670. THE ASSESSEE APPEALED TO LEARNED CIT (A)-V CONTENDING THAT THERE ARE NO PROPER REASONS RECORDE D U/S 148(2) AND THAT ISSUE OF NOTICE ON INVALID RETURN FILED ON 28.3.07 AND COMPLETION OF ASSESSMENT IS INVALID. FURTHER IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THE EXEMPTION U/S. 10(23C)(IIIAD) IS FOR THE INCOME OF THE INSTITUTION AND NOT THAT OF THE TRUST AND SINCE EAC H OF THE THREE PAGE 11 OF 13 ITA NO.787 & 1175/BANG/2009 11 INSTITUTES ARE HAVING RECEIPTS LESS THAN RS.1 CRORE , THE EXEMPTION U/S 10(23C)(IIIAD) IS ALLOWABLE AND THE EXEMPTION S HOULD NOT BE DENIED WITH REFERENCE TO TOTAL RECEIPTS OF THE TRUS T. THE CIT(A) DISMISSED THE APPEAL HOLDING THAT ASSESSMENT U/S. 1 44 R.W.S. 147 IS VALID AND SINCE THE THREE INSTITUTIONS ARE NOT SEPA RATELY ASSESSED THE A.O IS CORRECT IN CONSIDERING THE TOTAL RECEIPT S OF THE TRUST AND NOT THE INSTITUTION FOR THE PURPOSE OF 10(23C)(IIIA D) OF THE ACT. 6.2. THE ASSESSEE REITERATED THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BEFORE THE AUTHORITIES BELOW AND THE LD. DR SUPPORTED THE FINDINGS OF THE CIT(APPEALS). 6.3. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERU SED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD. IN THE INSTANT CASE, RETURN WA S FILED BELATEDLY BY THE ASSESSEE ON 28.3.07. IN THE RETURN, THE ASS ESSEE HAD CLAIMED NIL INCOME AFTER CLAIMING EXEMPTION U/S. 10(23C)(II IAD) AMOUNTING TO RS.39,17,721. NOTICE U/S 148 WAS ISSU ED ON 22.11.07 AFTER RECORDING OF REASONS. THERE WAS NO RESPONSE BY THE ASSESSEE TO THE 148 NOTICE. LATER NOTICE U/S 143(2 ) WAS ISSUED ON 12.8.08 AND ON 16.9.08 FOR WHICH THERE WAS NO RESPO NSE FROM THE ASSESSEES SIDE. FURTHER A LETTER WAS ISSUED ON 8. 10.08 PROPOSING TO COMPLETE THE ASSESSMENT U/S. 147 ON A TOTAL INCO ME OF RS.42,38,670. IN RESPONSE TO THIS LETTER, THE AR O F THE ASSESSEE REQUESTED TIME UPTO 5.11.08, BUT SINCE THERE WAS NO APPEARANCE TILL 5.11.08, ASSESSMENT WAS COMPLETED U/S. 144 R.W.S. 1 47 OF THE ACT. WE FIND THAT ASSESSEES CONTENTION THAT REASONS REC ORDED FOR PAGE 12 OF 13 ITA NO.787 & 1175/BANG/2009 12 REOPENING OF ASSESSMENT SHOULD BE FURNISHED TO THE ASSESSEE IS WITHOUT MUCH SUBSTANCE SINCE THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT A SKED FOR THE REASONS SO RECORDED. ON THE CONTRARY, THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN NON- COOPERATIVE AND THERE WAS NO RESPONSE TO 148 NOTICE , SEVERAL 143(2) NOTICES AND IT IS IN THIS CONTEXT BEST JUDGM ENT ASSESSMENT WAS COMPLETED. NOTICE U/S 148 HAS BEEN ISSUED FOR THE PURPOSE OF REGULARIZATION OF BELATED RETURN OF THE ASSESSEE AN D FOR EXAMINATION OF THE CLAIM OF EXEMPTION U/S. 10(23C)( IIIAD) OF THE ACT. HENCE, WE ARE OF THE FIRM VIEW THAT REOPENING OF ASSESSMENT IS AS PER LAW AND JUSTIFIED. IN THE RESULT, GROUND S 2 AND 3 ARE DISMISSED. 6.4. AS REGARDS ISSUE ON MERITS, IT IS CONTENDED BY THE ASSESSEE TRUST RUNS 3 EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTIONS AND GROSS RECEIPTS ARE RS.74,37,225, RS.12,60,600 AND RS.40,26,600 RESPECT IVELY. EACH INSTITUTION MAINTAINS SEPARATE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS. SINCE GROSS RECEIPT FOR EACH INSTITUTION WAS LESS THAN RS.ONE C RORE, IT WAS SUBMITTED, ASSESSEE IS ENTITLED TO CLAIM EXEMPTION U/S. 10(23C)(IIIAD). IN THIS CONTEXT, WE FIND THAT, AS RIGHTLY POINTED OUT BY THE CIT(APPEALS), THESE THREE INSTITUTIONS ARE N OT SEPARATELY ASSESSED TO TAX BUT AS A SINGLE UNIT OF ASSESSMENT UNDER THE TRUST VIZ., SREE GANGADHARESHWARA EDUCATIONAL TRUST. THE REFORE, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THERE IS NO CASE FOR THE ASSES SEE TO TREAT EACH INSTITUTION AS A SEPARATE ENTITY AND CLAIM THRESHOL D LIMIT OF RS. ONE CRORE IS COMPLIED WITH FOR CLAIMING EXEMPTION U/S 1 0(23)(IIIAD) OF THE ACT. PAGE 13 OF 13 ITA NO.787 & 1175/BANG/2009 13 7. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSE E IS DISMISSED. PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THIS 31ST DAY OF M ARCH, 2010 . SD/- SD/- (DR. O K NARAYANAN) (GEORGE GEORGE K) VICE PRESIDENT JUDICIAL MEMBER COPY TO : 1. THE ASSESSEE 2.THE REVENUE 3. THE CIT (A) CONCERNED.4. THE CIT CONCERNED. 5. THE DR 6. GUAR D FILE. 7. GF, ITAT, NEW DELHI. MSP/31.3. BY ORDER ASST. REGISTRAR, ITAT, BANGALORE.