NATIONAL STOCK EXCHANGE INVESTOR PROTECTION FUND TRUST, MUMBAI V. ASST CIT (E) 2(1), MUMBAI

ITA 917/MUM/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2020] 111 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6974 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 11 month(s) 26 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 05-02-2020
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: Not Allotted
• Assessment Year: 2012-2013
• Appeal Filed On: 09-02-2017
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: RAHUL RAMANLD
• Assessee Lawyers: J D MISTRY LD SR
• Keywords: Charitable institution; Revised return; Set aside
• Section: 143(3); 244A; 12; 154

Judgement Text

ITA NOS.917 & 823/MUM/2017 & ASSESSMENT YEAR :2012-13 M/S. NATIONAL STOCK EXCHANGE INVESTOR PROTECTION FU ND TRUST 1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL B BENCH, MUMBAI , , BEFORE HONBLE SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, VP AND HONBLE SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, AM ./ I.T.A. NO.917/MUM/2017 ( / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2012-13 ) M/S. NATIONAL STOCK EXCHANGE INVESTOR PROTECTION FUND TRUST PLOT NO.C-1, BLOCK G, EXCHANGE PLAZA BANDRA (E) MUMBAI- 400 051. / VS. D CIT (E) - 2( 1 ), PIRAMAL CHAMBERS PAREL, MUMBAI- 400 012. %& ./ ./PAN/GIR NO. AAATN-2497-A ( &( /APPELLANT ) : ( )*&( / RESPONDENT ) & ./ I.T.A. NO.823/MUM/2017 ( / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2012-13 ) D CIT (E) - 2( 1 ), PIRAMAL CHAMBERS PAREL, MUMBAI- 400 012. / VS. M/S. NATIONAL STOCK EXCHANGE INVESTOR PROTECTION FUND TRUST PLOT NO.C-1, BLOCK G, EXCHANGE PLAZA BANDRA (E) MUMBAI- 400 051. %& ./ ./PAN/GIR NO. AAATN-2497-A ( &( /APPELLANT ) : ( )*&( / RESPONDENT ) ASSESSEE BY : SHRI J.D. MISTRY- LD. SR. COUNSEL REVENUE BY : SHRI RAHUL RAMAN-LD. CIT-DR / DATE OF HEARING : 13/01/2020 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 05/02/2020 / O R D E R MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) 1.1 AFORESAID CROSS APPEALS FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR [IN SHORT REFERRED TO AS AY] 2012-13, CONTEST THE ORDER OF LD. COMMISSI ONER OF INCOME-TAX ITA NOS.917 & 823/MUM/2017 & ASSESSMENT YEAR :2012-13 M/S. NATIONAL STOCK EXCHANGE INVESTOR PROTECTION FU ND TRUST 2 (APPEALS)-1, MUMBAI, [IN SHORT REFERRED TO AS CIT( A)], APPEAL NO. CIT(A)-I/E-II (55)/2015-16 ORDER DATED 02/11/2016. 1.2 THE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE READ AS UNDE R: - 1. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CAS E AND IN LAW, THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) ERRED IN CONFI RMING THE ADDITION OF RS.50,71,76,620/- BY UPHOLDING THE DENIAL OF EXEMPT ION U/S.11(2) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS 'THE ACT') WH ICH IS CONTRARY TO THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE PROVISIONS OF THE AC T AND THE RULES MADE THEREUNDER. 2. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CAS E AND IN LAW, THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) OUGHT TO HAVE DELETED INTEREST CHARGED BY THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER U/S. 234C OF THE ACT OF RS. 67,01,749/- AND NOT DOING SO IS WRONG AND CONTRARY TO THE FACTS OF THE CASE, THE PROVISIONS OF THE ACT AND RULES MADE THEREUNDER. 3. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CAS E AND IN LAW, THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) OUGHT TO HAVE DELETED INTEREST CHARGED BY THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER U/S. 234D OF THE ACT OF RS.3,73,828/- AND NOT DOING SO IS WRONG AND CONTRARY TO THE FACTS OF THE CASE, THE PROVISIONS OF THE ACT AND RULES MADE THEREUNDER. 4. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CAS E AND IN LAW, THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) OUGHT TO HAVE ALLOWED GROUND RELATING TO NON-RECEIPT OF REFUND OF RS.32,96,542/- BEING WRON GLY MENTIONED AS REFUNDED BY THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER IN THE INCOME TAX COM PUTATION FORM ACCOMPANYING THE ASSESSMENT ORDER U/S 143(3) THOUGH NO SUCH REFU ND WAS RECEIVED BY THE APPELLANT AND THEREBY ERRED IN DISMISSING THE SAID GROUND BY TREATING IT AS CONSEQUENT IN NATURE, WHICH IS WRONG AND CONTRARY T O THE FACTS OF THE CASE, THE PROVISIONS OF INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 AND RULES MADE T HEREUNDER. 5. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CAS E AND IN LAW, THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) OUGHT TO HAVE ALLOWED GROUND RELATING TO NON-RECEIPT OF REFUND OF RS.2,63,720/- BEING INTERE ST U/S 244A OF THE ACT WRONGLY MENTIONED AS REFUNDED BY THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFI CER IN THE INCOME TAX COMPUTATION FORM ACCOMPANYING THE ASSESSMENT ORDER U/S 143(3) OF THE ACT THOUGH NO SUCH REFUND WAS RECEIVED BY THE APPELLANT AND THEREBY ERRED IN DISMISSING THE SAID GROUND BY TREATING IT AS CONSEQ UENTIAL IN NATURE, WHICH IS WRONG AND CONTRARY TO THE FACTS OF THE CASE, THE PROVISIO NS OF THE ACT AND RULES MADE THEREUNDER. 1.3 THE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE REVENUE READ AS UNDER : - 1. WHETHER ON THE FACTS OF THE CASE AND IN LAW THE LD.CLT(A) ERRED IN ALLOWING THE EXEMPTION UNDER SECTION 10(23EA) OF THE IT. ACT, EV EN THOUGH THE CLAIM WAS NOT MADE BY THE ASSESSEE DURING THE FILLING OF RETURN O F INCOME BUT AS ALTERNATIVE AT THE APPELLATE STAGE BEFORE CIT(A)? 2. WHETHER ON THE FACTS OF THE CASE AND IN LAW THE LD.CLT(A) ERRED IN ALLOWING THE EXEMPTION UNDER SECTION 10(23EA) OF THE IT. ACT, RE LYING ON DECISION OF ID. CIT(A) IN ITA NOS.917 & 823/MUM/2017 & ASSESSMENT YEAR :2012-13 M/S. NATIONAL STOCK EXCHANGE INVESTOR PROTECTION FU ND TRUST 3 ASSESSEE'S OWN CASE FOR A.Y. 2011-12 WHICH WAS DECI DED BY RELYING UPON DECISION OF HON'BLE ITAT FOR A.Y. 2010-11, IGNORING THE FACT THAT THE REVENUE HAS NOT BEEN ACCEPTED THE SAID DECISIONS AND FILED AN APPEALS BE FORE HON'BLE HIGH COURT / ITAT WHICH IS PENDING FOR ADJUDICATION. 3. THE APPELLANT PRAYS THAT THE ORDER OF THE COMMIS SIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)- I, MUMBAI BE SET ASIDE AND THAT OF THE ASSESSING OF FICER BE RESTORED. 2. THE LD. SR. COUNSEL, AT THE OUTSET, PLACED ON RE CORD THE DECISION OF THIS TRIBUNAL IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE IN CROSS APPEA LS FOR AY 2011-12, ITA NOS.2359,2329/MUM/2016 ORDER DATED 19/12/2019 T O SUBMIT THAT SUBSTANTIAL ISSUES HAVE ALREADY BEEN DELVED UPON BY THE CO-ORDINATE BENCH OF THIS TRIBUNAL AND THEREFORE, SIMILAR VIEW MAY BE TAKEN IN THE MATTER. THE LD. SR. COUNSEL SUBMITTED THAT FACTS AN D CIRCUMSTANCES IN YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION ARE PARI-MATERIA THE SAME AS IN AY 2011-12. THE LD. CIT-DR RELIED UPON THE ORDER OF LD.AO BUT C OULD NOT CONTROVERT THE SAID POSITION. IN THE ABOVE BACKGROUND, WE PROC EED TO ADJUDICATE VARIOUS ISSUES INVOLVED IN CROSS-APPEALS. ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS 3.1 FACTS ON RECORD WOULD REVEAL THAT THE ASSESSEE BEING REGISTERED TRUST, WAS ASSESSED FOR YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION U/ S. 143(3) ON 12/03/2015 WHEREIN THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE WAS D ETERMINED AT RS.59.68 CRORES AFTER DENIAL OF EXEMPTION US 11 AS AGAINST NIL RETURN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ON 28/09/2012. THE INCOME, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, WAS ASSESSED AT RS.50.71 CRORES, THE FACTS OF WHICH SHA LL BE ENUMERATED SUBSEQUENTLY IN THE ORDER. 3.2 THE ASSESSEE TRUST WAS STATED TO BE ESTABLISHED ON 11/07/1995, WITH NATIONAL STOCK EXCHANGE (NSE) BEING THE SETTLO R AND THE TRUSTEE OF THE TRUST. THE SAID TRUST WAS STATED TO BE CREATED TO PROVIDE AN APPROPRIATE AVENUE FOR PAYMENT OF COMPENSATION UNDE R BYLAWS OF THE ITA NOS.917 & 823/MUM/2017 & ASSESSMENT YEAR :2012-13 M/S. NATIONAL STOCK EXCHANGE INVESTOR PROTECTION FU ND TRUST 4 SETTLOR NSE TO PERSONS ACTING AS A TRADING MEMBER O F THE SETTLOR NSE OR AS A CONSTITUENT OF THE TRADING MEMBER IN CASE OF L OSS SUBJECT TO CERTAIN TERMS AND CONDITIONS. 3.3 IT TRANSPIRED THAT THE ASSESSEE RECEIVED CONTRI BUTION EXCEEDING RS.50,000/- EACH FROM SETTLOR I.E. NSE AS WELL AS F ROM TRADING MEMBERS. ANOTHER FACT WAS THAT NSE AND TRADING MEMBERS WERE RELATED PARTIES IN TERMS OF SEC.13(3) OF THE ACT. UPON PERUSAL OF THE TERMS OF TRUST DEED, A CONCLUSION WAS DRAWN BY LD. AO THAT INCOME OF THE T RUST ENURES BENEFIT FOR TRADING MEMBERS OF NSE WHICH WAS EVIDENT FROM T HE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE PAID COMPENSATION TO ITS TRADING MEMBERS / THEIR CONSTITUENTS DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. ALL THESE FACT S LED LD.AO TO FORM A BELIEF THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS HIT BY PROVISIONS OF S EC. 13(1)(C)(I) & (II) OF THE ACT AND THEREFORE, NOT ENTITLED FOR EXEMPTION U /S 11 AND 12. 3.4 ALTHOUGH THE ASSESSEE DEFENDED ITS STAND BY SUB MITTING THAT IT WAS FORMED AS PER THE DIRECTIONS OF CENTRAL GOVERNMENT AND AS PER ITS OBJECTS, THE INCOME COULD NOT BE UTILIZED NOT FOR T HE BENEFIT OF TRADING MEMBERS ONLY FOR THE BENEFIT OF GENERAL INVESTORS A T LARGE WHEN ASSETS OF THE DEFAULTED MEMBER COULD NOT MAKE UP FOR THE LOSS . A PLEA WAS RAISED TO SUBMIT THAT COMPENSATION WAS PAID TO PUBLIC AT L ARGE ONLY. FURTHER, WHILE GRANTING REGISTRATION U/S 12AA, THE OBJECT OF THE ASSESSEE WERE DULY VERIFIED AND THEREFORE, THERE WOULD BE NO OCCA SION TO DENY THE EXEMPTION U/S 11 & 12. 3.5 HOWEVER, THE ARGUMENTS COULD NOT FIND FAVOR WIT H LD.AO WHO, IN THE FINAL ANALYSIS HELD THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS HIT BY TH E PROVISIONS OF SECTION ITA NOS.917 & 823/MUM/2017 & ASSESSMENT YEAR :2012-13 M/S. NATIONAL STOCK EXCHANGE INVESTOR PROTECTION FU ND TRUST 5 13(1)(C)(I) AS WELL AS (II) AND THEREFORE, EXEMPTIO N AS CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE U/S 11 & 12 WAS NOT AVAILABLE TO IT. 3.6 ANOTHER OBSERVATION WAS THAT SEC. 10(23EA) PROV IDES FOR SEPARATE EXEMPTION TO SUCH INVESTOR PROTECTION FUND AND THER EFORE, THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT CLAIM ITS RESIDUAL INCOME TO BE EXEMPT U/ S 11. RESULTANTLY, THE INCOME OF RS.59.68 CRORES WAS BROUGHT TO TAX. 3.7 AS AN ALTERNATIVE, IN THE EVENT OF ASSESSEE BE ING ALLOWED EXEMPTION U/S 11 AT A LATER STAGE BY ANY APPELLATE AUTHORITY, LD. AO NOTED THAT AS PER FORM NO. 10, THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED ACCUMULATION OF AN AMOUNT OF RS.50.71 CRORES WITHOUT SPECIFYING THE PU RPOSE OF ACCUMULATION BUT IT MERELY REPRODUCED ITS OBJECTS I N FORM NO.10 AND THEREFORE, THE INCOME TO THE EXTENT OF RS.50.71 CRO RES WAS TO BE TREATED AS ITS INCOME FOR THE YEAR. 3.8 IT IS QUITE DISCERNIBLE FROM THE QUANTUM ASSESS MENT ORDER THAT UNDER BOTH THE COMPUTATIONS, EXEMPTION U/S 10(23EA) AS CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE IN RETURN OF INCOME, HAS ALREADY BEEN ALLO WED BY LD. AO. PROCEEDINGS BEFORE LD. CIT(A) 4.1 AGGRIEVED, THE ASSESSEE CONTESTED THE STAND OF LD.AO BEFORE LD. CIT(A) BY WAY OF ELABORATE SUBMISSIONS WHICH HAS AL READY BEEN EXTRACTED IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER. HOWEVER, LD. CIT(A ), RELYING UPON ITS OWN ORDER FOR AY 2011-12, CHOSE TO TAKE SIMILAR STA ND AND PARTLY ALLOWED GROUND NOS. 1,3,4 OF THE APPEAL BUT DISMISSED GROUN D NO.2 OF ASSESSEES APPEAL. IN GROUND NOS.5 TO 9, THE ASSESSEE HAD CONT ESTED THE CHARGING OF INTEREST, FOR WHICH LD.AO WAS DIRECTED TO CHARGE INTEREST AS PER LAW. RESULTANTLY, THE APPEAL WAS PARTLY ALLOWED. ITA NOS.917 & 823/MUM/2017 & ASSESSMENT YEAR :2012-13 M/S. NATIONAL STOCK EXCHANGE INVESTOR PROTECTION FU ND TRUST 6 DECISION OF LD. CIT(A) IN AY 2011-12 4.2 THE STATED DECISION OF LD. CIT(A) FOR AY 2011-1 2, IN TURN RELIED UPON THE DECISION OF THIS TRIBUNAL IN ASSESSEES OW N CASE FOR AY 2010- 11, ITA NO. 1021/MUM/2014 ORDER DATED 23/05/2014 WH EREIN THE MATTER OF EXEMPTION U/S 11(2) WAS RESTORED BACK BY THE TRI BUNAL TO LD. AO FOR VERIFICATION OF CERTIFICATE OF AUDITORS AND RE-ADJU DICATION OF ISSUE IN THE LIGHT OF THE FACTS ARISING OUT OF THE CERTIFICATE. THE FRESH CLAIM OF EXEMPTION U/S 10(23EA) WAS ADMITTED BY TRIBUNAL FOL LOWING THE DECISION OF HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN CIT V/S PRUTHVI BROKERS & SHAREHOLDERS PVT. LTD. (349 ITR 336) AND LD. AO WAS DIRECTED TO ENTERTAIN THIS CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE AND ADJUDICATE THE SAME. ACCORDINGLY, LD. CIT(A) DIRECTED LD. AO TO FOLLOW T HE AFORESAID OBSERVATIONS / DIRECTIONS OF THE TRIBUNAL. HOWEVER, THE OBSERVATION OF LD. AO THAT THE PURPOSE OF ACCUMULATION AS MENTIONED IN FORM NO. 10 COULD NOT BE TOO GENERAL, WAS UPHELD BY LD. CIT(A) IN AY 2011-12. IN OTHER WORDS, THE EXEMPTION AGAINST ACCUMULATION OF INCOME AS PER FORM NO. 10 WAS DENIED TO THE ASSESSEE. AS STATED IN PARA 4.1, LD. CIT(A) MERELY FOLLOWED I TS AFORESAID ORDER FOR AY 2011-12. AGGRIEVED, THE REVENUE AS WELL AS ASSES SEE IS UNDER FURTHER APPEAL BEFORE US. THE ASSESSEE IS AGGRIEVED BY DENIAL OF EXEMPTION U/S 11(2) FOR RS.50.71 CRORES. IN GROUND NOS. 2 TO 9, THE ASSESSEE HAS CONTESTED THE ISSUE OF INTEREST. THE R EVENUE IS AGGRIEVED BY ALLOWANCE OF EXEMPTION U/S 10(23EA) EVEN THOUGH THE CLAIM WAS NOT MADE BY FILING REVISED RETURN OF INCOME. THE REVENU E HAS ALSO PLEADED ITA NOS.917 & 823/MUM/2017 & ASSESSMENT YEAR :2012-13 M/S. NATIONAL STOCK EXCHANGE INVESTOR PROTECTION FU ND TRUST 7 THAT IT HAS NOT ACCEPTED THE DECISION OF THE TRIBUN AL IN AY 2010-11 AND THEREFORE, THE DECISION HAS NOT ATTAINED FINALITY. OUR ADJUDICATION 5. UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, WE FIND THAT LEARNED CIT (A) HAS MERELY FOLLOWED ITS OWN ORDER FOR AY 2011-12, WHICH IN TUR N, RELIED UPON THE DECISION OF TRIBUNAL FOR AY 2010-11. 6. WE FIND THAT THE APPELLATE DECISION FOR AY 2011- 12 WAS SUBJECT MATTER OF CROSS-APPEAL BEFORE THIS TRIBUNAL VIDE IT A NOS.2359 & 2329/M/2016 ORDER DATED 19/12/2019. THE PARA-3 OF T HE SAID ORDER CONTAINS THE FINAL OUTCOME OF ISSUES IN AY 2010-11 WHEREIN IT HAS BEEN NOTED THAT PURSUANT TO THE DIRECTIONS OF TRIBUNAL, LD.AO PASSED AN ORDER GIVING EFFECT ON 08/08/2014 ALLOWING RELIEF UNDER S ECTION 11 AND DETERMINING THE INCOME AT NIL . IN THE MEANTIME, THE REVENUE CHALLENGED THE ORDER OF ITAT BEFORE HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT ON THE ISSUE OF CLAIM OF EXEMPTION U/S 10(23EA), WHICH WAS DISMISSE D VIDE ITA NO.12170 OF 2016 ORDER DATED 04/01/2019. FOLLOWING THE SAID DECISION OF HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT, THE APPEAL OF THE REVENU E, ON THE ISSUE OF EXEMPTION U/S 10(23EA), WAS DISMISSED. REGARDING ASSESSEES APPEAL ON DENIAL OF EXEMPTION U/S 11(2), THE FINDINGS OF TRIBUNAL WERE AS UNDER: - 7. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS OF BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD. UNDISPUTEDLY, THE ASSESSEE TRUST WAS FOR MED UNDER THE DIRECTION OF MINISTRY OF FINANCE AND SEBI AND THE ASSESSEE TRUST CAME INTO BEING ON 11.07.1995 WITH THE SOLE OBJECT OF SAFEGUARDING THE INTEREST O F THE INVESTORS/TRADING MEMBERS BY COMPENSATING THE LOSS WHICH THE INVESTORS OR MEMBER S MAY SUFFER DUE TO SETTLEMENT ON THE STOCK EXCHANGES. THE PROVISIONS OF THE ACT W ERE CHANGED FROM TIME TO TIME. EARLIER THE ENTIRE INCOME OF THE TRUST COMPRISING C ONTRIBUTION FROM THE MEMBERS, STOCK EXCHANGES AND INCOME ON INVESTMENTS WERE EXEM PT, HOWEVER W.E.F. 01.04.2007 THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 10(23EA) OF TH E ACT WERE AMENDED AND THE EXEMPTION WAS RESTRICTED ONLY TO THE CONTRIBUTIONS RECEIVED BY THE TRUST FROM STOCK ITA NOS.917 & 823/MUM/2017 & ASSESSMENT YEAR :2012-13 M/S. NATIONAL STOCK EXCHANGE INVESTOR PROTECTION FU ND TRUST 8 EXCHANGES AND ITS MEMBERS AND THUS THE ASSESSEE ST ARTED CLAIMING THE EXEMPTION UNDER SECTION 11(1) & 11(2) OF THE ACT QUA THE INCO ME FROM INVESTMENTS. DURING THE YEAR THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED THE ACCUMULATION TO T HE TUNE OF RS.33,19,23,133/- BY FILING FORM NO.10 ALONG WITH RETURN OF INCOME AND T HE PURPOSE OF ACCUMULATION WAS MENTIONED IN THE FORM 10 AS UNDER: '(I) TO COMPENSATE FOR ANY LOSS WHICH MAY BE SUFFER ED BY ANY PERSON INCLUDING A TRADING MEMBER OR A CONSTITUENT ARISING FROM A TRADING MEMBER BEING DECLARED AS A DEFAULTER BY THE SETTLER UNDER CHAPTER XII OF THE BYE-LAWS OF THE SETTLER, UPTO A LIMIT AS MAY BE DETERMINED B Y THE TRUSTEES. (II) FOR SUCH OTHER PURPOSE OF THE PUBLIC UTILITY A S THE TRUSTEES MAY DEEM FIT AND CONSISTENT WITH THE OBJECT OF THE TRUST. (III) TO UTILIZE INTEREST INCOME EARNED ON THE INVE STMENTS MADE OUT OF INVESTOR PROTECTION FUND EITHER IN PART OR IN WHOLE, FOR EDU CATING INVESTORS, CREATING AWARENESS AMONG THE INVESTOR COMMUNITY AT LARGE AND FOR ANY RESEARCH CONNECTED THEREWITH.' WE NOTE THAT THE AO HAS REJECTED THE CLAIM OF THE A SSESSEE ON THE GROUND THAT ASSESSEE HAS NOT MENTIONED SPECIFIC PURPOSES OF ACC UMULATION BUT ONLY STATED THE OBJECTS OF THE TRUST IN THE FORM NO.10. AFTER PERUS ING THE FACTS ON RECORDS, WE ARE OF VIEW THAT THE ASSESSEE TRUST HAS DULY MENTIONED THE PURPOSE OF ACCUMULATION I.E. TO COMPENSATE THE TRADING MEMBERS OR A CONSTITUENTS, W HERE A TRADING MEMBER BEING DECLARED A DEFAULTER ON THE STOCK EXCHANGE. TO OUR OPINION, THIS WAS THE SOLE OBJECT OF THE TRUST FOR WHICH THIS PROTECTION FUND WAS CRE ATED AND THUS SUFFICIENTLY SATISFY THE REQUIREMENTS OF SECTION 11(2) OF THE ACT. WE ALSO N OTE THAT SIMILAR CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN ALLOWED IN THE EARLIER YEARS BY T HE REVENUE. THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE FINDS SUPPORT FROM THE DECISION OF HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT(E) VS. BOCHASANWASI SHRI AKSHAR PURSHOTTAM PUBL IC CHARITABLE TRUST (SUPRA) WHEREIN HONBLE SUPREME COURT WHILE DISMISSING THE SLP FILED BY THE REVENUE UPHELD THE ORDER OF THE HONBLE GUJARAT HIGH COURT IN WHICH THE HONBLE HIGH COURT HAS HELD THAT NON SPECIFICATION OF PURPOSE FOR WHIC H THE FUNDS WERE ACCUMULATED BY ASSESSEE TRUST UNDER SECTION 11(2) WOULD NOT BE FAT AL TO THE EXEMPTION CLAIMED. IN THE CASE OF BHARATKALYAN PRATHISTAN VS. DDIT(E) (DE LHI HC) 299 ITR 406 THE HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT HAS HELD THAT SPECIFICATIO N OF CERTAIN PURPOSE OR PURPOSES IS NEEDED FOR ACCUMULATIONS OF THE TRUSTS INCOME U NDER SECTION 11(2) OF THE ACT HOWEVER, THE DETAILS OF THE PURPOSES FOR WHICH THE INCOME WAS ACCUMULATED NEED NOT BE SPECIFIED. WE, FURTHER, NOTE THAT THE DECIS ION OF HONBLE KOLKATA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF DIT(E) VS. TRUSTEES OF SINGAPORE CHARIT ABLE TRUST AS RELIED UPON BY THE AO IS DISTINGUISHABLE TO THE PRESENT CASE AS IN THA T CASE THE TRUST HAS MULTIPLE OBJECTS WHEREAS IN THE INSTANT CASE THE TRUST HAS O NLY ONE OBJECT AND THUS THERE IS NO QUESTION OF AMBIGUITY. ACCORDINGLY, WE SET ASID E THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A) AND DIRECT THE AO TO ALLOW THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE UN DER SECTION 11(2) OF THE ACT. THE GROUND NO.1 IS ALLOWED. IT IS EVIDENT THAT ASSESSEES APPEAL WAS ALLOWED PR IMARILY IN VIEW OF THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD ONLY ONE OBJECT AND HENC E, THERE WOULD BE NO AMBIGUITY IN SPECIFYING THE PURPOSE OF ACCUMULATION IN FORM NO. 10. ITA NOS.917 & 823/MUM/2017 & ASSESSMENT YEAR :2012-13 M/S. NATIONAL STOCK EXCHANGE INVESTOR PROTECTION FU ND TRUST 9 7. UPON PERUSAL OF FACTUAL MATRIX AS ENUMERATED IN PRECEDING PARAGRAPHS, IT APPEARS THAT FACTS ARE PARI-MATERIA THE SAME IN THIS YEAR. NOTHING HAS BEEN PLACED ON RECORD TO DEMONSTRATE AN Y DISTINGUISHING FEATURES. THEREFORE, KEEPING IN VIEW THE FACT THAT EXEMPTION U/S 11(2) WAS ULTIMATELY ALLOWED TO THE ASSESSEE IN AY 2010-1 1 AS WELL AS IN AY 2011-12. WE HOLD THAT THE ASSESSEE IS ENTITLED FOR EXEMPTION U/S 11(2). GROUND NO. 1 OF ASSESSEES APPEAL STAND ALLOWED. 8. THE REVENUE IS AGGRIEVED BY ADMISSION OF NEW CLA IM U/S 10(23EA). HOWEVER, AS NOTED BY US IN PRECEDING PARA 3.8, THIS EXEMPTION WAS ALREADY ALLOWED TO THE ASSESSEE BY LD. AO HIMSELF W HILE FRAMING QUANTUM ASSESSMENT ORDER. NEVERTHELESS, THIS ISSUE ALSO STOOD COVERED IN ASSESSEES FAVOR BY THE ORDER OF TRIBUNAL FOR AY 2011-12. IT IS ALSO NOTEWORTHY THAT SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (SLP) FILED BY THE REVENUE FOR AY 2010-11 HAS ALREADY BEEN DISMISSED BY HONBLE APEX COURT WHICH IS REPORTED AT 109 TAXMANN.COM 276 . THEREFORE, WE SEE NO REASON TO INTERFERE IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER, IN THIS REGARD. RE SULTANTLY, THE REVENUES APPEAL STANDS DISMISSED. 9. IN GROUND NOS.2 TO 5, THE ASSESSEE HAS CONTESTED LEVY OF INTEREST. IN VIEW OF OUR ADJUDICATION OF QUANTUM ADDITIONS IN ASSESSEES FAVOR, ALL THESE GROUNDS WOULD BECOME INFRUCTUOUS. NEVERTHELES S, RECTIFICATION APPLICATION U/S 154 AS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ON ALL THESE ISSUES IS ALREADY PENDING BEFORE LD.AO, WHO IS DIRECTED TO DI SPOSE-OFF THE SAME. IT WOULD SUFFICE TO SAY THAT INTEREST U/S 234C WAS TO BE CHARGED ON RETURNED INCOME AND NOT ON ASSESSED INCOME. IN GROU ND NOS.4 & 5, THE ASSESSEE HAS DISPUTED RECEIPT OF ANY REFUND, WHICH LD.AO IS DIRECTED TO ITA NOS.917 & 823/MUM/2017 & ASSESSMENT YEAR :2012-13 M/S. NATIONAL STOCK EXCHANGE INVESTOR PROTECTION FU ND TRUST 10 VERIFY. THE LD. AO IS ALSO DIRECTED TO RE-COMPUTE T HE INCOME IN TERMS OF THIS ORDER AND DETERMINE CORRECT TAX LIABILITY / RE FUND AGAINST THE ASSESSEE. ALL THESE GROUNDS STAND ALLOWED FOR STATI STICAL PURPOSES. CONCLUSION 10. THE REVENUES APPEAL STANDS DISMISSED WHEREAS T HE ASSESSEES APPEAL STAND PARTLY ALLOWED IN TERMS OF OUR ABOVE O RDER. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 05 TH FEBRUARY, 2020. SD/- SD/- (MAHAVIR SINGH) (M ANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL) / VICE PRESIDENT / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER MUMBAI; DATED : 05/02/2020 SR.PS, JAISY VARGHESE !'! / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. &( / THE APPELLANT 2. )*&( / THE RESPONDENT 3. 1 ( ) / THE CIT(A) 4. 1 / CIT CONCERNED 5. 23),4 , 4 , / DR, ITAT, MUMBAI 6. 3567 / GUARD FILE / BY ORDER, / (DY./ASSTT.REGISTRAR) , / ITAT, MUMBAI.