DDIT (E) - I,kolkata, Kolkata V. Sasha Association For Craft Products, Kolkata

ITA 914/KOL/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 132 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 4938 (ITAT-KOLKATA)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 4 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 27-04-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 30-03-2016
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 23-04-2013
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Charitable institution; Question of law; Benefit of exemption
• Section: 143(3); 80G; 12A; 11

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL KOLKATA BENCH A KOLKATA BEFORE SHRI WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI S.S.VISWANETHRA RAVI, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO. 914 / KOL / 2013 ASSESSMENT YEAR :2008-09 DDIT(E)-I, 5 TH FLOOR, 10B, MIDDLETON ROW, KOLKATA-700 071 V/S . SASHA ASSOCIATION FOR CRAFT PRODUCTS IC, CHAHATU BABU LANE, KOLKATA-700 014 [ PAN NO.AABTS 5580 N ] /APPELLANT .. / RESPONDENT /BY APPELLANT SHRI RAJAT KR. KUREEL, JCIT-SR-DR /BY RESPONDENT SHRI S.M.SURANA, ADVOCATE /DATE OF HEARING 30-03-2016 /DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 27-04-2016 / O R D E R PER WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:- THIS APPEAL BY THE REVENUE IS AGAINST THE ORDER OF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-JALPAIGURI DATED 20.02.2013. A SSESSMENT WAS FRAMED BY ITO(EXEMP.)-II KOLKATA U/S 143(3)/13(1)(C)/13(1) (D) R.W.S.13(2)(B) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS T HE ACT) VIDE HIS ORDER DATED 20.12.2010 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09. GROUNDS RAI SED BY REVENUE ARE REPRODUCED BELOW:- 1. THAT ON THE FACTS AND THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE C ASE AND ALSO IN THE QUESTION OF LAW, THE LD. CIT(A)/JALPAIGURI ERRED IN HOLDING THAT THOUGH NO RESJUDICATA OR ESTOPPELS APPLIES IN INCOME TAX PROCEEDINGS, CONSISTENCY SHOULD BE MAINTAINED IN ASSESSMENTS. ITA NO.914/KOL/2013 A.Y. 2008-09 DIT(E)- KOL. V. SASHA ASSO. FOR CRA FT PRODUCTS. PAGE 2 2. THAT ON THE FACTS AND THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE C ASE, THE LD. CIT(A)/JALPAIGURI ERRED IN HOLDING THAT INVESTMENT IN THE SHARE CAPITAL OF A PRIVATE LIMITED COMPANY OUT OF INCOME SET APART US. 11(20(B) DOES NOT VIOLATE THE PROVISION OF SECTION 11(5) O THE IT ACT. THE INTER-CONNECTED ISSUE RAISED BY REVENUE IN ITS APPEAL IS AS REGARDS THAT LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN HOLDING THAT INVESTMENT IN THE SHARE CAPITAL OF A PRIVATE LIMITED COMPANY OUT OF INCOME THAT SET APART UNDER SECTION 11(2)(B) OF THE ACT DOES NOT VIOLATE THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 11(5 ) OF THE ACT. SHRI S.M.SURAN, LD. AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE APPEA RING ON BEHALF OF ASSESSEE AND SHRI RAJAT KR. KUREEL, LD. DEPARTMENTA L REPRESENTATIVE APPEARING ON BEHALF OF REVENUE. 2. THE FACTS IN BRIEF ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE IN THE PRESENT CASE IS A REGISTERED CHARITABLE SOCIETY AND HAVING REGISTRATI ON UNDER SECTION 12A OF THE ACT VIDE-NO. 80E/209/8889 DATED 28-11-1990. THE MA IN ACTIVITY OF THE SOCIETY IS TO HELP THE ARTISANS AND HANDICRAFTS PEO PLE IN TERMS OF THEIR ENTERPRISE DEVELOPMENT, SKILL AND TECHNICAL UP-GRAD ATION SO AS TO PROMOTE THEIR PRODUCTS IN THE NATIONAL AND INTERNATIONAL MARKET. FOR ACHIEVING THE DESIRED OBJECT OF THE SOCIETY, THE ASSESSEE MADE A JOINT VE NTURE AGREEMENT WITH ANOTHER ASSOCIATION OF ITALY NAMELY CTM/ALTROMERKAT O TO FORM A PRIVATE LIMITED COMPANY WITH THE NAME M/S SASHA ALTEROMERCA TO (INDIA) PVT. LTD. FOR THIS PURPOSE, THE ASSESSEE SOUGHT THE PERMISSION FR OM GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, MINISTRY OF FINANCE, DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMIC AFFAIRS WHICH WAS ACCORDED ON DATED 24.1.2005 VIZ-A-VIZ FOR EQUITY PARTICIPATION UP TO RS. 50 LACS IN THE CAPITAL OF THE COMPANY. ACCORDINGLY, THE SOCIETY AN D THE ASSOCIATION ACQUIRED THE SHARES OF THE COMPANY IN THE AGREED RATIO. THE ASSESSEE MADE ITS REPRESENTATIVES AS DIRECTOR IN THE PRIVATE LIMITED COMPANY AND THESE REPRESENTATIVES WERE DIRECTORS IN THE COMPANY WITHO UT ANY SHAREHOLDINGS. THE SOCIETY (ASSESSEE) ACQUIRED 1 LAC SHARES @ RS. 10.0 0 PER SHARE, TOTAL VALUE RS. 10 LACS. DURING ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, ASSESSI NG OFFICER FOUND THAT THE ITA NO.914/KOL/2013 A.Y. 2008-09 DIT(E)- KOL. V. SASHA ASSO. FOR CRA FT PRODUCTS. PAGE 3 INVESTMENT OF RS. 10 LACS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE IN T HE COMPANY IS IN CONTRAVENTION OF THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 11(5) OF THE ACT AND AMOUNTS TO VIOLATION OF THE PROVISION OF SECTION 13(1)(D) OF T HE ACT. ACCORDINGLY THE AO ISSUED SHOW CAUSE NOTICE TO THE ASSESSEE FOR THE WI THDRAWAL OF THE EXEMPTION U/S 11 OF THE ACT. IN COMPLIANCE THERETO THE ASSESS EE SUBMITTED THAT 1) THE PURPOSE TO FORM A PRIVATE LIMITED COMPANY BY WAY TO JOINT VENTURE IS TO HELP THE ARTISANS AND CRAFTSMEN BY GETTING TH EM GOOD REMUNERATION FOR THEIR WORK OF ART AND CRAFT IN THE NATIONAL AND INTERNATIONAL MARKET. 2) BY WAY OF THIS JOINT VENTURE IT WAS POSSIBLE TO HAVE THE PERFECT KNOWLEDGE ABOUT THE REQUIREMENT AND INFORMATION REG ARDING THE DESIGN OF THE PRODUCT AND REASONABLE PRICING OF THE PRODUC T IN FOREIGN MARKET. 3) THE DIRECTORS OF THE COMPANY SHRI P.S. CHAWLA AN D SMT. ROOP MEHTA ARE THE REPRESENTATIVE OF THE SOCIETY AND THEY HAVE NO SUBSTANTIAL INTEREST IN THE COMPANY SO THERE IS NO VIOLATION OF SECTION 13(2)(H) OF THE ACT. 2.1 HOWEVER THE AO DISREGARDED THE PLEA OF THE ASSE SSEE BY HOLDING THAT AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 13(3) OF THE ACT T HE COMPANY IS AN INTERESTED PERSON TO THE ASSESSEE SOCIETY. AS PER SECTION 13(2 )(H) OF THE ACT THE EXEMPTION BENEFIT U/S 11 OF THE ACT WILL NOT BE AVA ILABLE TO THE SOCIETY IF ANY FUND IS INVESTED FOR ANY PERIOD DURING THE PREVIOUS YEAR IN ANY CONCERN IN WHICH ANY PERSON REFERRED TO IN SUB SECTION 13(3) H AS A SUBSTANTIAL INTEREST. SO THERE IS A CLEAR VIOLATION OF THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 13(1)(D) R.W.S 13(2)(H) OF THE ACT. ACCORDINGLY THE EXEMPTION BENEFIT U/S 1 1 OF THE ACT WAS DENIED TO THE ASSESSEE. 3. MATTER WAS CARRIED BEFORE THE FIRST APPELLATE AU THORITY, WHEREIN VARIOUS CONTENTIONS WERE RAISED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE A ND HAVING CONSIDERED THE SAME THE LD CIT(A) DELETED THE ADDITION MADE BY THE AO ON THE ISSUE BY OBSERVING AS UNDER : ITA NO.914/KOL/2013 A.Y. 2008-09 DIT(E)- KOL. V. SASHA ASSO. FOR CRA FT PRODUCTS. PAGE 4 . I HAVE ALSO CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE APPELLANT THAT THE CONTRIBUTION TO SHARE CAPITAL WAS MADE IN THE ASSES SMENT YEAR 2005-06 AND IN ALL THE ASSESSMENTS THEREAFTER EXCEPT THE AY IN QUE STION, ON SAME SET OF FACTS, THE AO HAS NOT DENIED THE EXEMPTION U/S 11. I FIND THAT THE ASSESSMENT FOR THE AY 2007-08 WAS COMPLETED U/S. 143(3) AND TH E FACT THAT THE INVESTMENT WAS MADE IN EARLIER YEARS HAVE NOT BEEN DENIED BY THE AO. THE AS FOR THE SUBSEQUENT YEAR I.E. AY 2009-10 WAS ALSO COMPLETED U/S. 143(3) WHEREIN ALSO THE CONTRIBUTION TO SHARE CAPITAL CONT INUED BUT EXEMPTION HAS BEEN ALLOWED TO THE APPELLANT SOCIETY. THE SOCIETY IS ENGAGED IN THE SAME ACTIVITIES AS IN ALL THE EARLIER YEARS. THEREFORE, ON THE PRINCIPLES LAID DOWN BY THE HON SUPREME COURT, IN THE CASE OF RADHO SAMISAT SANG 193 ITR PAGE 321, CONSISTENCY SHOULD HAVE BEEN MAINTAINED. IN TH E SAID JUDGMENT THE HON SUPREME COURT LAID DOWN THAT THE PRINCIPLES OF RESJ UDICATA OR ESTOPPELS DOES NOT APPLIED TO INCOME TAX PROCEEDINGS BUT A DECISIO N TAKEN IN OTHER YEARS ON SAME SET OF FACTS SHOULD NOT BE DISTURBED AND THE P RINCIPLES OF CONSISTENCY SHOULD BE FOLLOWED. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, THE AO IS DIRECTED TO ALLOW THE EXEMPTION U/S. 1 OF THE APPELLANT SOCIETY AND RE-CO MPUTE THE INCOME ACCORDINGLY. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL IS ALLOWED . BEING AGGRIEVED BY THIS ORDER OF LD CIT(A) REVENUE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 4. BEFORE US LD. DR SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HA S VIOLATED THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 11(5) OF THE ACT AND THEREFOR E THE BENEFIT OF SECTION 11 SHALL NOT BE AVAILABLE TO THE ASSESSEE, AS IT IS, P ROHIBITED AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 13(1)(D)(III) . ON THE OTHER HAND, LD. A R HAS TAKEN THE STAND THAT AS PER SECTION 11(4) OF THE ACT PROPERTY HELD UNDER AS SESSEE-TRUST INCLUDES BUSINESS UNDERTAKING AND BENEFITS OF INCOME EXEMPTI ON U/S 11 OF THE ACT WILL BE EQUALLY APPLIED TO SUCH UNDERTAKING IF THE BUSIN ESS IS INCIDENTAL TO THE ATTAINMENT OF OBJECTIVE OF THE TRUST AND SEPARATE B OOKS OF ACCOUNTS ARE MAINTAINED IN RESPECT OF SUCH BUSINESS AS PER SECTI ON 11(4A) OF THE ACT. THE LD. AR FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT IN THE INSTANT CASE T HE PROVISION OF SECTION 13(1)(D)(III) SHALL NOT BE APPLIED AS PER THE PROVI SO ATTACHED TO THIS SECTION WHICH ALLOWS SUCH INVESTMENT IF MADE OUT OF PROFIT AND GAINS. 5. WE HAVE HEARD RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIALS AVAILABLE ON RECORD. BEFORE US BOTH THE PARTIES RELIED ON THE OR DERS OF AUTHORITIES BELOW AS FAVOURABLE TO THEM. FROM THE FACTS OF THE CASE, WE FIND THAT AO DISALLOWED THE EXEMPTION BENEFIT AVAILABLE TO THE ASSESSEE IN SECT ION 11 OF THE ACT FOR THE ITA NO.914/KOL/2013 A.Y. 2008-09 DIT(E)- KOL. V. SASHA ASSO. FOR CRA FT PRODUCTS. PAGE 5 REASON THAT THE INVESTMENT MADE BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE SHARES OF THE PRIVATE LIMITED COMPANY IS IN CONTRAVENTION OF THE PROVISIO NS OF THAT SECTION 11(5) OF THE ACT. HOWEVER THE LD CIT(A) GRANTED THE RELIEF T O THE ASSESSEE ON THE GROUND THAT THE INVESTMENT IN SHARE CAPITAL WAS MAD E IN THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06 AND THE EXEMPTION BENEFIT HAS NOT BEEN DENI ED IN THE EARLIER ASSESSMENT YEARS ALSO AND SUBSEQUENT ASSESSMENT YEA R 2009-10 SO THERE IS CONSISTENCY IN CLAIMING THE EXEMPTIONS BENEFIT U/S 11 OF THE ACT. NOW THE QUESTION BEFORE US ARISES WHETHER THE INVESTMENT MA DE IN THE SHARE CAPITAL OF A PRIVATE LIMITED COMPANY BY THE ASSESSEE IS AGAINS T THE PROVISION OF SECTION 11(5) OF THE ACT. AT THIS JUNCTURE, IT IS IMPORTANT TO REPRODUCE THE RELEVANT PROVISIONS OF SECTION 13 OF THE ACT WHICH READS AS UNDER : 13(1) NOTHING CONTAINED IN SECTION 11 [OR SECTION 1 2] SHALL OPERATE SO AS TO EXCLUDE FROM THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE PREVIOUS YEAR OF THE PERSON IN RECEIPT THEREOF- (A) ANY PART OF THE INCOME FROM THE PROPERTY HELD U NDER A TRUST FOR PRIVATE RELIGIOUS PURPOSES WHICH DOES NOT ENURE FOR THE BEN EFIT OF THE PUBLIC; (B) IN THE CASE OF A TRUST FOR CHARITABLE PURPOSES OR A CHARITABLE INSTITUTION CREATED OR ESTABLISHED AFTER THE COMMENCEMENT OF TH IS ACT, ANY INCOME THEREOF IF THE TRUST OR INSTITUTION IS CREATED OR E STABLISHED FOR THE BENEFIT OF ANY PARTICULAR RELIGIOUS COMMUNITY OR CASTE; (C) . (D) IN THE CASE OF A TRUST FOR CHARITABLE OR RELIG IOUS PURPOSES OR A CHARITABLE OR RELIGIOUS INSTITUTION, ANY INCOME THEREOF, IF FOR A NY PERIOD DURING THE PREVIOUS YEAR - (I)ANY FUNDS OF THE TRUST OR INSTITUTION ARE INVEST ED OR DEPOSITED AFTER THE 28 TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 1983 OTHERWISE THAN IN ANY ONE OR MORE OF THE FORMS OR MODES SPECIFIED IN SUB-SECTION (5) OF SECT ION 11; OR (II) ANY FUNDS OF THE TRUST OR INSTITUTION INVESTED OR DEPOSITED BEFORE THE 1 ST DAY OF MARCH, 1983 OTHERWISE THAN IN ANY ONE OR MO RE OF THE FORMS OR MODES SPECIFIED IN SUB-SECTION (5) OF SECTION 11 CONTINUE TO REMAIN SO INVESTED OR DEPOSITED AFTER THE 30 TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 1983; OR (III) ANY SHARES IN A COMPANY, OTHER THAN (A) SHARES IN A PUBLIC SECTOR COMPANY; ITA NO.914/KOL/2013 A.Y. 2008-09 DIT(E)- KOL. V. SASHA ASSO. FOR CRA FT PRODUCTS. PAGE 6 (B) SHARES PRESCRIBED AS A FORM OR MODE OF INVESTM ENT UNDER CLAUSE (XII) OF SUB-SECTION (5) OF SECTION 11, ARE HELD BY THE TRUS T OR INSTITUTION AFTER THE 30 TH PROVIDED THAT NOTHING IN THIS CLAUSE SHALL APPLY IN RELATIO N TO (I) ANY ASSETS HELD BY THE TRUST OR INSTITUTION WHE RE SUCH ASSETS FORM PART OF THE CORPUS OF THE TRUST OR INSTITUTION AS O N THE 1 ST DAY OF JUNE, 1973; (IA) ANY ACCRETION TO THE SHARES, FORMING PART OF T HE CORPUS MENTIONED IN CLAUSE (I), BY WAY OF BONUS SHARES ALLOTTED TO THE TRUST OR INSTITUTION;] (II) ANY ASSETS (BEING DEBENTURES ISSUED BY, OR ON BEHALF OF, ANY COMPANY OR CORPORATION) ACQUIRED BY THE TRUST OR IN STITUTION BEFORE THE 1STD DAY OF MARCH, 1983; [(IIA) ANY ASSET, NOT BEING AN INVESTMENT OR DEPOSI T IN ANY OF THE FORMS OR MODES SPECIFIED IN SUB-SECTION (5) OF SECTION 11, W HERE SUCH ASSET IS NOT HELD BY THE TRUST OR INSTITUTION, OTHERWISE THAN IN ANY OF THE FORMS OR MODES SPECIFIED IN SUB-SECTION (5) OF SECTION 11, AFTER T HE EXPIRY OF ONE YEAR FROM THE END OF THE PREVIOUS YEAR IN WHICH SUCH ASSET IS ACQUIRED OR THE 31 ST DAY OF MARCH, [1993], WHICHEVER IS LATER;] (III) ANY FUNDS REPRESENTING THE PROFITS AND GAINS OF BUSINESS, BEING PROFITS AND GAINS OF ANY PREVIOUS YEAR RELEVANT TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR COMMENCING ON THE 1 ST DAY OF APRIL, 1984 OR ANY SUBSEQUENT ASSESSMENT YEAR. EXPLANATION.- WHERE THE TRUST OR INSTITUTION HAS AN Y OTHER INCOME IN ADDITION TO PROFITS AND GAINS OF BUSINESS, THE PROV ISIONS OF CLAUSE (III) OF THIS PROVISO SHALL NOT APPLY UNLESS THE TRUST OR IN STITUTION MAINTAINS SEPARATE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT IN RESPECT OF SUCH BUSINE SS.] 5.1 FROM THE PROVISO WE FIND THAT INVESTMENT IN SHA RES IN A PRIVATE LIMITED COMPANY IF MADE OUT OF THE PROFIT OF BUSINESS THEN THE EXEMPTION BENEFIT SHALL NOT BE DENIED TO THE ASSESSEE. IN THE INSTANT CASE THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED TO HAVE MADE THE INVESTMENT OUT OF THE FUND REPRESENTI NG THE PROFIT AND GAINS OF ASSESSEES BUSINESS AND THE LD. DR FAILED TO BRING ANYTHING ON RECORD CONTRARY TO THE POINT OF ARGUMENT OF THE LD. AR. AC CORDINGLY, IN OUR CONSIDERED VIEW, WE FIND THAT THERE IS NO VIOLATION OF THE PRO VISIONS OF SECTION 13 OF THE ACT AND THE ASSESSEE IS ENTITLED FOR EXEMPTIONS UND ER SECTION 11 OF THE ACT. WE ALSO FIND THAT THE PRIVATE LIMITED COMPANY WAS F ORMED FOR THE FURTHERANCE OF THE OBJECTS OF THE ASSESSEE AND BOTH THE SOCIETI ES WERE THE SHAREHOLDERS IN THE COMPANY. NONE OF THE DIRECTOR HAD ANY SUBSTANTI AL INTEREST IN THE ITA NO.914/KOL/2013 A.Y. 2008-09 DIT(E)- KOL. V. SASHA ASSO. FOR CRA FT PRODUCTS. PAGE 7 COMPANY. THE MEMBERS OF THE ASSESSEE SOCIETY WERE T HE DIRECTORS ONLY IN THE REPRESENTATIVE CAPACITY IN THE COMPANY. THEREFORE, IN THE INSTANT CASE BENEFIT UNDER SECTION 11 OF THE ACT CANNOT BE DENIED. IN TH IS CONNECTION WE ARE ALSO RELYING IN THE DECISION OF HIGH COURT OF DELHI IN T HE CASE OF DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION) VS. ACME EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY (2010 ) 326 ITR 0146 (DEL) WHEREIN IT WAS HELD THAT WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT INTEREST-FREE LOAN OF R S. 90,50,000 GIVEN BY THE ASSESSEE-SOCIETY TO NAV BHARTI EDUCATIONAL SOCI ETY DOES NOT VIOLATE S. 13(1)(D) R/W S. 11(5) OF ACT, 1961 AS THE SAID L OAN WAS NEITHER AN 'INVESTMENT' NOR A 'DEPOSIT'. THIS IS MORE SO AS BO TH THE SOCIETIES HAD SIMILAR OBJECTS AND WERE REGISTERED UNDER S. 12A OF ACT, 1961 AND HAD APPROVALS UNDER S. 80G OF THE ACT, 1961. THE FACT T HAT THE LOAN WAS INTEREST-FREE AND HAD BEEN SUBSEQUENTLY RETURNED IS ALSO SIGNIFICANT. IN VIEW OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE CIT(A) IN THE CASE OF NAV BHARATI EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY, MS. BANSAL'S ALLEGATION WITH R EGARD TO 'ENTRY SCAM' ALSO DOES NOT SURVIVE. CONSEQUENTLY, THERE IS NO SU BSTANTIAL QUESTION OF LAW INVOLVED IN THE PRESENT APPEAL AND ACCORDINGLY, APPEAL IS DISMISSED BUT WITH NO ORDER AS TO COSTS. SIMILARLY, WE ALSO FIND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN CLAIMING THE EXEMPTIONS BENEFIT UNDER SECTION 11 OF THE ACT FOR THE LAST SE VERAL YEARS BUT THE SAME WAS NOT DENIED THEREFORE IN OUR VIEW PRINCIPLE OF CONSI STENCY SHOULD BE APPLIED IN THE INSTANT CASE. IN THIS CONNECTION WE ARE RELYIN G IN THE DECISION OF HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF RADHASOAMI SATSANG VS. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (1992) 193 ITR 0321 (SC) WE ARE AWARE OF THE FACT THAT, STRICTLY SPEAKING, RES JUDICATA DOES NOT APPLY TO IT PROCEEDINGS. AGAIN, EACH ASSESSMENT YEA R BEING A UNIT, WHAT IS DECIDED IN ONE YEAR MAY NOT APPLY IN THE FO LLOWING YEAR BUT WHERE A FUNDAMENTAL ASPECT PERMEATING THROUGH THE D IFFERENT ASSESSMENT YEARS HAS BEEN FOUND AS A FACT ONE WAY O R THE OTHER AND PARTIES HAVE ALLOWED THAT POSITION TO BE SUSTAINED BY NOT CHALLENGING THE ORDER, IT WOULD NOT BE AT ALL APPROPRIATE TO ALLOW THE POSITION TO BE CHANGED IN A SUBSEQUENT YEAR. ONE THESE REASONING, IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY MATERIAL CHANGE JUSTIFYING THE REVENUE TO TAKE A DIFFERENT VIEW OF THE MATTER- AND, IF THERE WAS NO CHANGE, IT WAS IN SUPPORT OF THE ASSESSEE-WE DO NOT THINK THE QUESTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN REOPENED AND CONTRARY TO WHAT HAD BEEN DECIDED BY THE CIT IN THE EARLIER PROCEEDINGS, A DIFFERENT AND CONTRADICTORY STAND SHOULD HAVE BEEN TAKEN. WE ARE, THEREFORE, OF THE V IEW THAT THESE ITA NO.914/KOL/2013 A.Y. 2008-09 DIT(E)- KOL. V. SASHA ASSO. FOR CRA FT PRODUCTS. PAGE 8 APPEALS SHOULD BE ALLOWED AND THE QUESTION SHOULD B E ANSWERED IN THE AFFIRMATIVE, NAMELY, THAT THE TRIBUNAL WAS JUSTIFIE D IN HOLDING THAT THE INCOME DERIVED BY THE RADHASOAMI SATSANG WAS ENTITL ED TO EXEMPTION UNDER SS. 11 AND 12 OF THE IT ACT OF 1961. AFTER ANALYZING THE PROVISIONS OF THE ACT AND DIFFE RENT DECISIONS OF THE HON'BLE COURTS, WE FIND THAT THE INVESTMENT MADE BY THE ASS ESSEE IN THE AFORESAID PRIVATE LIMITED COMPANY IS OUT OF THE PROFIT AND GA INS OF ITS BUSINESS AND SAME WAS MADE FOR ACHIEVING THE OBJECTS OF THE ASSE SSEE-SOCIETY. IN THIS VIEW OF THE MATTER WE FIND NO INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A), HENCE, WE UPHOLD THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A). THE GROUNDS RAISED BY REVE NUE ARE DISMISSED. 6. IN THE RESULT, REVENUES APPEAL STANDS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT 27/ 04/2016 SD/- SD/- (S.S.VISHWANETHRA RAVI) (WASEEM AHMED) (JUDICIAL MEMBER) (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) KOLKATA, *DKP !- 27 / 04 /201 6 / COPY OF ORDER FORWARDED TO:- 1. /APPELLANT-DDIT(E)-I, 5 TH FL, 10B, MIDDLETON ROW, KOLKATA-71 2. /RESPONDENT- SASHA ASSOCIATION FOR CRAFT PRODUCTS, 1C, CHAHATU BABU LANE, KOLKATA- 14 3. ) *+ , , - / CONCERNED CIT JALPAIGURI 4. , , -- / CIT (A) JALPAITURI 5. 012 33*+, , *+ , / DR, ITAT, KOLKATA 6. 267 89 / GUARD FILE. BY ORDER/ , , /TRUE COPY/ / , *+ ,