ITO(E), Jaipur V. PANCHYATI DHARMSHALA, Jaipur

ITA 901/JPR/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 130 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 5663 (ITAT-JAIPUR)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 month(s) 28 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 11-01-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2012-2013
• Appeal Filed On: 14-10-2016
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: R A VERMA
• Keywords: Charitable institution; Question of law; Capital expenditure
• Section: 143(3); 14A; 12; 11

Judgement Text

VK;DJ VIHYH; VF/KDJ.K] T;IQJ U;K;IHB] T;IQJ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES, 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 YA DAV, AM VK;DJ VIHY LA- @ ITA NOS. 901 & 902/JP/2016 FU/KZKJ.K O'K Z @ ASSESSMENT YEARS : 2012-13 & 2013-14. INCOME TAX OFFICER (EXEMPTION), WARD-1, JAIPUR. CUKE VS. M/S PANCHAYATI DHARAMSHALA, NEAR RAILWAY STATION, STATION ROAD, JAIPUR. LFKK;H YS[KK LA-@THVKBZVKJ LA-@ PAN/GIR NO.: AAATP 2585 K VIHYKFKHZ@ APPELLANT IZR;FKHZ@ RESPONDENT JKTLO DH VKSJ LS @ REVENUE BY : SHRI R.A. VERMA (ADDL.CIT) FU/KZKFJRH DH VKSJ L S@ ASSESSEE BY : SHRI VIJAY GOYAL (CA) LQUOKBZ DH RKJH[ K@ DATE OF HEARING : 03/01/2017 MN?KKS'K.KK DH RKJH[ K@ DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT :11 /01/2017 VKNS'K@ ORDER PER: KUL BHARAT, J.M. THESE ARE THE APPEALS FILED BY THE REVENUE ARISE AG AINST THE TWO SEPARATE ORDERS DATED 28/07/2016 PASSED BY THE LD. CIT(A)-III, JAIPUR PERTAINING TO ASSESSMENT YEARS 2012-13 AND 2013-14. IN BOTH THE APPEALS, THE REVENUE HAS TAKEN ONLY ONE EFFECTIVE S IMILAR GROUND OF APPEAL, WHICH IS AS UNDER:- A. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CA SE AND IN LAW, THE LD. CIT(A)-3, JAIPUR HAS ERRED IN ALLOWIN G THE EXEMPTION U/S 11 AND 12 OF THE ACT BY HOLDING THAT THE ACTIVITIES OF THE APPELLANT AUTHORITY ARE ITA 901 & 902/JP/2016_ ITO(E) VS M/S PANCHAYATI DHARAMSHALA 2 CHARITABLE EVEN THOUGH RECEIPT OF RENT, WHICH IS PREDOMINANT ACTIVITY, EXCEEDED THE PRESCRIBED LIMIT OF RS. 25 LACS AND HIT BY THE AMENDED PROVISIONS OF SECTION 13(8) R.W. 1 ST AND 2 ND PROVISO OF SECTION 2(15) OF THE ACT. B. ANY OTHER QUESTION OF LAW AS DEEMED FIT IN THE FA CTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE MAY ALSO BEEN FRAMED BEFORE THE HONBLE TRIBUNAL IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTI CE. 2. BOTH THE APPEALS ARE BEING HEARD TOGETHER, THERE FORE, FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE AND BREVITY, A COMMON ORDER IS BEING PASSED. 3. FIRSTLY WE TAKE ITA NO. 901/JP/2016 FOR A.Y. 2012 -13 . BRIEFLY STATED FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE WAS PICKED UP FOR SCRUTINY ASSESSMENT U/S 143(3) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (HEREINAFTER REFERRED AS THE ACT) AND THE ASSESSMENT WAS FRAMED VIDE ORDER DATED 20/03/2015. WHILE FRAMING T HE ASSESSMENT, THE ASSESSING OFFICER REJECTED THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSE E FOR EXEMPTION U/S 11&12 OF THE ACT THEREBY THE SURPLUS GENERATED WAS A DDED BACK TO THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. 4. BEING AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OF FICER, THE ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MATTER BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A), W HO AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSIONS, PARTLY ALLOWED THE APPEAL. THEREBY, THE LD CIT(A) ALLOWED EXEMPTION U/S 11 AND DIRECTED THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO ASSESS ITA 901 & 902/JP/2016_ ITO(E) VS M/S PANCHAYATI DHARAMSHALA 3 THE ASSESSEE SOCIETY IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROVISIO NS OF SECTION 11 AND 12 OF THE ACT. 5. NOW THE REVENUE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. THE LD. SR . DR HAS VEHEMENTLY ARGUED THAT THE LD. CIT(A) WAS NOT JUSTIF IED IN ALLOWING THE EXEMPTION AND HE SUPPORTED THE ORDER PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 6. ON THE CONTRARY, THE LD AR OF THE ASSESSEE HAS S UBMITTED THAT THE ISSUE UNDER APPEAL IS SQUARELY COVERED IN THE FAVOU R OF THE ASSESSEE BY THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE ITAT, JAIPUR BENCH, JAIP UR DECISION PASSED IN THE ASSESSEES OWN CASE IN ITA NO. 809/JP/2013 FOR T HE A.Y. 2010-11 ORDER DATED 01/01/2016. 7. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS OF BOTH THE PARTIES, PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON THE RECORD AND ALSO GONE THROUGH THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. IT IS UNDISPUTED FACT THAT TH E LD. CIT(A) HAS DECIDED THE ISSUE UNDER CONSIDERATION BY FOLLOWING T HE DECISION OF THE COORDINATE BENCH PASSED IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR T HE A.Y. 2010-11. THE LD. CIT(A) HAS OBSERVED AS UNDER:- 4.3 I HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE FACTS OF THE C ASE, FINDINGS OF THE A.O. AND SUBMISSION OF THE APPELLANT. IT IS PER TINENT TO MENTION THAT IN THE CASE OF APPELLANT ITSELF IN A.Y . 2010-11, SIMILAR ACTION WAS MADE BY A.O. AND AFTER CONSIDERIN G THE OBJECTS AND ACTIVITY OF APPELLANT, LD. CIT(A) VIDE O RDERS ITA 901 & 902/JP/2016_ ITO(E) VS M/S PANCHAYATI DHARAMSHALA 4 DATED 01/08/2013 ALLOWED THE EXEMPTION AVAILABLE U/S 11 AND 12 OF THE ACT. THESE FACTS WERE SUBMITTED BEFORE A.O. DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS WHICH WERE NOT ACCEPTED SINCE DEPARTMENT HAD PREFERRED FURTHER APP EAL BEFORE ITAT. NOW HONBLE ITAT VIDE ORDER DATED 01/01/2016 IN ITA NO. 809/JP/2013 HAS UPHELD THE OR DER OF CIT(A), BY GIVING THE FOLLOWING FINDING:- 5.3. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUSE D THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. THE ASSESSEE SOCIETY BEING REGISTERED IS GOVERNED BY THE PROVISIONS OF SOCIETI ES REGISTRATION ACT, 1860 AND NOW THE RAJASTHAN SOCIET IES REGISTRATION ACT, 1958 REGULATES THE AFFAIRS OF THE SOCIETIES ESTABLISHED FOR CHARITABLE PURPOSES. THE AO NOTED T HAT THE ACTIVITIES OF THE ASSESSEE TRUST, ITS CHARITABLE PU RPOSE IS THAT OF ADVANCEMENT OF GENERAL PUBLIC UTILITY. THE AO PLACING RELIANCE ON THE DECISION OF HONBLE JURISDI CTIONAL HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. PARAMHANS ASHRAM TRUST (2009) 184 TAXMAN 204 (RAJ.) OBSERVED THAT THE CHARITABLE PURPOSE OF THE ASSESSEE SOCIETY IS THAT OF ADVANCEMENT OF GENERAL PUBLIC UTILITY. THUS, THE AS SESSEE WAS REQUIRED TO EXPLAIN AS TO WHY IN VIEW OF THE AM ENDED PROVISIONS OF SECTION 2(15), APPROPRIATE ACTION U/S 13(8) BE NOT TAKEN. ON THE EXPLANATION FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE, THE AO WAS NOT SATISFIED. THEREFORE, HE F ORFEITED THE EXEMPTION ALLOWABLE TO THE ASSESSEE TRUST U/S 1 1 & 12 OF THE IT ACT BY APPLYING FIRST PROVISO TO SECTION 2(15) READ WITH SECTION 13(8) OF THE IT ACT, 1961. THE AO HAS ALSO NOT ALLOWED CAPITAL EXPENDITURE ON THE GROUND THAT SINCE HE HAS FORFEITED THE EXEMPTION. THE LD. CIT (A) ALL OWED THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE FOR THE REASONS GIVEN IN PARA 4 TO 4.3 OF HIS ORDER AS UNDER:- 4. I HAVE CONSIDERED SUBMISSIONS OF THE APPELLANT AND HAVE ALSO GONE THROUGH THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. IT IS SEEN THAT THE AO HAS DISALLOWED THE EXEMPTION ON TH E GROUND THAT MAINTAINING OF DHARAMSHALA WAS AN ITA 901 & 902/JP/2016_ ITO(E) VS M/S PANCHAYATI DHARAMSHALA 5 ACTIVITY OF ADVANCEMENT OF GENERAL PUBLIC UTILITY A ND WAS, THEREFORE, HIT BY THE AMENDED PROVISIONS OF SECTION 2(15) AS ITS RECEIPTS EXCEEDED THE MAXIMUM LIMIT OF RS. 10 LACS AS MENTIONED IN THE PROVISO. 4.1 IT IS, HOWEVER, NOTICED THAT THE FIRST AND SECO ND PROVISO TO SECTION 2(15) COME INTO PLAY ONLY WHEN T HE ACTIVITY BEING CARRIED OUT BY THE ASSESSEE IS IN TH E NATURE TRADE, COMMERCE OR BUSINESS. THIS IS ALSO OBVIOUS FROM CBDTS CIRCULAR NO. 11 OF 2008 DATED 19.12.2008 WHICH EXPLAINS THE RATIONALE OF BRINGING THIS AMENDMENT. THIS CIRCULAR READS AS UNDER :- .. THE NEWLY INSERTED PROVISO TO SECTION 2(15) WILL AP PLY ONLY TO ENTITIES WHOSE PURPOSE IS ADVANCEMENT OF A NY OTHER OBJECT OF GENERAL PUBLIC UTILITY I.E. THE FO URTH LIMB OF THE DEFINITION OF CHARITABLE PURPOSE CONT AINED IN SECTION 2(15). HENCE, SUCH ENTITIES WILL NOT BE ELIGIBLE FOR EXEMPTION UNDER SECTION 11 OR UNDER SECTION 10(23C) OF THE ACT IF THEY CARRY ON COMMERC IAL ACTIVITIES. WHETHER SUCH AN ENTITY IS CARRYING ON A N ACTIVITY IN THE NATURE OF TRADE, COMMERCE OR BUSINE SS IS A QUESTION OF FACT WHICH WILL BE DECIDED BASED ON T HE NATURE, SCOPE, EXTENT AND FREQUENCY OF THE ACTIVITY . THERE ARE INDUSTRY AND TRADE ASSOCIATIONS WHO CLAIM EXEMPTION FROM TAX U/S 11 ON THE GROUND THAT THEIR OBJECTS ARE FOR CHARITABLE PURPOSE AS THESE ARE COV ERED UNDER ANY OTHER OBJECT OF GENERAL PUBLIC UTILITY. UNDER THE PRINCIPLE OF MUTUALITY, IF TRADING TAKES PLACE BETWEEN PERSONS WHO ARE ASSOCIATED TOGETHER AND CONTRIBUTE TO A COMMON FUND FOR THE FINANCING OF SO ME VENTURE OR OBJECT AND IN THIS RESPECT HAVE NO DEALI NGS OR RELATIONS WITH ANY OUTSIDE BODY, THEN ANY SURPLU S RETURNED TO THE PERSONS FORMING SUCH ASSOCIATION IS NOT CHARGEABLE TO TAX. IN SUCH CASES, THERE MUST BE COMPLETE IDENTITY BETWEEN THE CONTRIBUTORS AND THE PARTICIPANTS. ITA 901 & 902/JP/2016_ ITO(E) VS M/S PANCHAYATI DHARAMSHALA 6 THEREFORE, WHERE INDUSTRY OR TRADE ASSOCIATIONS CLA IM BOTH TO BE CHARITABLE INSTITUTIONS AS WELL AS MUTUA L ORGANIZATIONS AND THEIR ACTIVITIES ARE RESTRICTED T O CONTRIBUTIONS FROM AND PARTICIPATION OF ONLY THEIR MEMBERS, THESE WOULD NOT FALL UNDER THE PURVIEW OF THE PROVISO TO SECTION 2(15) OWING TO THE PRINCIPLE OF MUTUALITY. HOWEVER, IF SUCH ORGANIZATIONS HAVE DEALINGS WITH NON-MEMBERS, THEIR CLAIM TO BE CHARITABLE ORGANIZATIONS WOULD NOW BE GOVERNED BY THE ADDITIONAL CONDITIONS STIPULATED IN THE PROVISO TO SECTION 2(15). IN THE FINAL ANALYSIS, HOWEVER, WHETHER THE ASSESS EE HAS FOR ITS OBJECT THE ADVANCEMENT OF ANY OTHER OB JECT OF GENERAL PUBLIC UTILITY IS A QUESTION OF FACT. I F SUCH ASSESSEE IS ENGAGED IN ANY ACTIVITY IN THE NATURE O F TRADE, COMMERCE OR BUSINESS OR RENDERS ANY SERVICE IN RELATION TO TRADE, COMMERCE OR BUSINESS, IT WOULD N OT BE ENTITLED TO CLAIM THAT ITS OBJECT IS CHARITABLE PURPOSE. IN SUCH A CASE, THE OBJECT OF GENERAL PUB LIC UTILITY WILL BE ONLY A MASK OR A DEVICE TO HIDE TH E TRUE PURPOSE WHICH IS TRADE, COMMERCE OR BUSINESS OR THE RENDERING OF ANY SERVICE IN RELATION TO TRADE, COMM ERCE OR BUSINESS. EACH CASE WOULD, THEREFORE, BE DECIDED ON ITS OWN FACTS AND NO GENERALIZATION IS POSSIBLE. ASSESSEES, WHO CLAIM THAT THEIR OBJECT IS CHARITAB LE PURPOSE WITHIN THE MEANING OF SECTION 2(15), WOULD BE WELL ADVISED TO ESCHEW ANY ACTIVITY WHICH IS IN THE NATURE OF TRADE, COMMERCE OR BUSINESS OR THE RENDERING OF ANY SERVICE IN RELATION TO ANY TRADE, COMMERCE OR BUSINESS. IT IS, THUS, CLEAR FROM THIS CIRCULAR THAT EXEMPTIO N SHALL NOT BE AVAILABLE TO THE ENTITIES WHO ARE ENGAGED IN COMMERCIAL ACTIVITIES IN THE GARB OF CHARITY. THE I SSUE, THEREFORE, IS AS TO WHETHER THE APPELLANT IS ENGAGE D IN COMMERCIAL ACTIVITIES OR NOT. 4.2. AS EXPLAINED BY DELHI HIGH COURT (133 ITR 470), FOR ANY ACTIVITY TO BE DEFINED AS BUSINESS, PROFIT MO TIVE IS AN IMPORTANT FACTOR. PROFIT MOTIVE MAY NOT BE TH E SOLE CRITERIA FOR AN ACTIVITY TO BE DEFINED AS BUSI NESS ITA 901 & 902/JP/2016_ ITO(E) VS M/S PANCHAYATI DHARAMSHALA 7 BUT NEVERTHELESS IT IS AN IMPORTANT CRITERIA, PARTI CULARLY WHEN IT IS A CASE OF A TRUST OR SOCIETY AND IT IS W ITH REFERENCE TO A FISCAL STATUTE. IN THE PRESENT CASE IT IS SEEN THAT THE SOCIETY IS REGISTERED UNDER THE SOCIE TIES REGISTRATION ACT, 1860 AND IS NOW GOVERNED BY THE RAJASTHAN SOCIETY REGISTRATION ACT, 1958. SEC. 14A OF THIS ACT PROVIDES THAT UPON DISSOLUTION OF THE SOCI ETY ALL THE ASSETS SHALL GO TO THE STATE GOVERNMENT. APART FROM THIS, IT MAY ALSO BE NOTED THAT THE TERMS OF T HE SOCIETY CLEARLY PROVIDE THAT ALL THE MOVEABLE AND IMMOVABLE PROPERTY, IN RESENT OR IN FUTURE, SHALL BELONG TO THE SOCIETY AND ALL THE SAVINGS OF INCOME AND EXPENDITURE ACCOUNT SHALL BE UTILIZED FOR THE DEVELOPMENTAL WORK OF THE SOCIETY. CLAUSE 4(C) OF T HE SOCIETYS CONSTITUTION READS AS UNDER:- ** X BL LALFKK DH PY&VPY LAIFRR TKS BL LE; EKSTWN GS VKSJ HKFO'; ESA GKSXH] OKS LKJH LALFKK DH GKSXH RFKK BLDH VKENUH LS TKS CPR GKSXH OG LC LALFKK DS FODKL DK;KS Z ESA [KPZ DH TK LDSXH A** HENCE, THERE DOES NOT APPEAR TO BE ANY PROFIT MOTIV E IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE AS THE EXCESS OF INCOME OVER EXPENDITURE CANNOT BE DISTRIBUTED AMONGST ITS MEMBERS EITHER IN THE COURSE OF ITS ACTIVITY OR IN THE EVENT OF ITS DISSOLUTION. THEREFORE, ONE OF THE IMPORTANT INGREDIENTS FOR TREATING THE ACTIVITY OF THE APPELLANT AS BUSINESS I.E., PROFIT MOTIVE IS MISSIN G IN THIS CASE. SINCE THERE IS NO PROFIT MOTIVE INVOLVE , THE ACTIVITIES CARRIED OUT BY THE APPELLANT CANNOT BE DESCRIBED AS BUSINESS. IN SUCH A SITUATION, AS EXPLAINED BY CBDT VIDE ITS CIRCULAR (SUPRA), THERE WOULD BE NO APPLICATION OF PROVISO TO SECTION 2(15) . 4.3. MOREOVER, AS HELD BY THE APEX COURT IN THE CAS E OF SURAT ARTS SILK (121 ITR 1), WHAT IS IMPORTANT IN TH E CASE OF TRUST OR INSTITUTION IS THE PRIMARY OR DOMI NANT PURPOSE. IF THE DOMINANT PURPOSE IS CHARITABLE, ANOTHER OBJECT WHICH BY ITSELF MAY NOT BE CHARITABL E, WOULD NOT PREVENT THE TRUST OR INSTITUTION FROM BEI NG A VALID CHARITY. IT IS NOTED IN THIS CASE THAT THE C HARGES ITA 901 & 902/JP/2016_ ITO(E) VS M/S PANCHAYATI DHARAMSHALA 8 FOR THE ROOM ARE VERY NOMINAL, STARTING FROM A MERE RS. 40/-. THIS ALSO INDICATES THAT THERE IS NO PROF IT MOTIVE INVOLVED IN THIS CASE. CONSIDERING ALL THE L EGAL AND FACTUAL POSITION, IT IS APPARENT THAT THE DOMIN ANT MOTIVE IN THIS CASE IS NOT EARNING PROFIT BUT TO DO CHARITY IN THE FORM OF PUBLIC SERVICE BY PROVIDING ACCOMMODATION TO THE COMMON MAN AT AFFORDABLE RATES. THE ACTIVITIES OF THE ASSESSEE, THEREFORE, CA NNOT BE CHARACTERIZED AS BUSINESS ACTIVITIES. HENCE, PRO VISO TO SECTION 2(15) IS NOT ATTRACTED IN THIS CASE AND, THEREFORE, THE DISALLOWANCE OF EXEMPTION U/S 11 & 1 2 IS UNJUSTIFIED. THE AO IS, ACCORDINGLY, DIRECTED TO ASSESS THE SOCIETY AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 11 & 12, AND GRANT THE REQUISITE EXEMPTION. THE ISSUE IS SQUARELY COVERED IN FAVOUR OF APPELLANT . UNDER THESE CIRCUMSTANCES BY RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE OR DER OF THE HONBLE ITAT IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE AND CONSIDER ING THE REASONS STATED ABOVE, THE A.O. IS, ACCORDINGLY, DIRECTED TO ASSESS THE SOCIETY AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF SECT ION 11 AND 12 AND GRANT THE REQUISITE EXEMPTION. FROM THE ABOVE, IT IS EVIDENT THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HA S FOLLOWED THE DECISION OF THE COORDINATE BENCH PASSED IN ASSESSEE S OWN CASE IN ITA NO. 809/JP/2013. THE FACTS AND IDENTICAL AND THERE I S NO CHANGE INTO THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THEREFORE BY T AKING A CONSISTENT VIEW, WE ARE HEREBY UPHELD THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A ). ACCORDINGLY, THE GROUND RAISED BY THE REVENUE IN APPEAL IS DISMISSED . 8. NOW WE TAKE ITA NO. 902/JP/2016 FOR THE A.Y. 2013- 14. ITA 901 & 902/JP/2016_ ITO(E) VS M/S PANCHAYATI DHARAMSHALA 9 IN THIS YEAR ALSO, THE REVENUE HAS TAKEN THE SAME G ROUND AS TAKEN IN THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2012-13. WE FIND THAT THERE IS NO C HANGE INTO THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE FOR THE ASSESSMENT YE AR 2013-14, THEREFORE, SIMILAR FINDING HAS BEEN GIVEN IN THE AP PEAL OF REVENUE FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2013-14. ACCORDINGLY, GROUND RAISED BY THE REVENUE IN THE CASE FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2013-14 IS DISMISSED. 9. IN THE RESULT, BOTH THE APPEALS FILED BY THE REV ENUE ARE DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 11/01/2017. SD/- SD/- FOE FLAG ;KNO DQY HKKJR (VIKRAM SINGH YADAV) (KUL BHARAT) YS[KK LNL;@ ACCOUNTANT MEMBER U;KF;D LNL;@ JUDICIAL MEMBER TK;IQJ@ JAIPUR FNUKAD@ DATED:- 11 TH JANUARY, 2016 * RANJAN VKNS'K DH IZFRFYFI VXZSFKR@ COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. VIHYKFKHZ@ THE APPELLANT- THE ITO (EXEMPTION), WARD-1, JAIPUR. 2. IZR;FKHZ@ THE RESPONDENT- M/S PANCHAYATI DHARAMSHALA, JAIPUR. 3. VK;DJ VK;QDR@ CIT 4. VK;DJ VK;QDR@ CIT(A) 5. FOHKKXH; IZFRFUF/K] VK;DJ VIHYH; VF/KDJ.K] T;IQJ@ DR, ITAT, JAIPUR 6. XKMZ QKBZY@ GUARD FILE (ITA NO. 901 & 902/JP/2016) VKNS'KKUQLKJ@ BY ORDER, LGK;D IATHDKJ@ ASST. REGISTRAR