Registrar, Punjab University, Chandigarh V. ACIT, Chandigarh

ITA 990/CHANDI/2011

• Counselvise Citation: [2011] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 51623 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 month(s) 10 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 20-12-2011
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 10-10-2011
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: AKHILESH GUPTA
• Assessee Lawyers: B M KHANNA
• Keywords: Non-deduction of tax; Difference of opinion; Competent authority
• Section: 201(1)

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CHANDIGARH BENCH A CHANDIGARH BEFORE MS.SUSHMA CHOWLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI MEHAR SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO.990 TO 992/CHD/2011 A Y: 2007-08 TO 2009-10 THE REGISTRAR, V ACIT (TDS), PUNJAB UNIVERSITY, CHANDIGARH. CHANDIGARH. PAN: PTLP-12829F (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY: SHRI B.M.KHANNA RESPONDENT BY : SHRI AKHILESH GUPTA DATE OF HEARING : 14.12.2011 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 20.12.2011 ORDER PER BENCH THE PRESENT APPEALS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE AGAIN ST THE ORDER DATED 16.08.2011 PASSED BY THE LD. CIT(A) U/S 250(6) OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT,1961 (IN SHORT 'THE ACT'). 2. THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED SIMILAR GROUNDS OF APPEA L FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08, 2008-09 AND 2009-10. HOWE VER, THE GROUNDS RAISED IN THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08 VIDE ITA NO. 990/CHD/2011 ARE REPRODUCED AS AN ILLUSTRATIVE CASE : 1. THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS FAILED TO APPRECIATE T HE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND HAS THEREBY ERRED IN SUSTAINING THE ORDER OF THE AO WHICH IS TOTALLY ERRONEOUS IN THE EYE OF LAW. 2. STANDARD RENT AS FIXED BY THE COMPETENT AUTHORITY I.E. SENATE HAD BEEN DEDUCTED FROM THE EMPLOYEES AND THERE IS NO SHORT DEDUCTION. THIS 2 FACT HAS BEEN COMPLETELY IGNORED BY THE AUTHORITY BELOW. 3. THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS FALLEN IN ERROR IN MISCONSTRUING THE PROVISION OF RULE 3(1) OF THE INCOME-TAX RULES,1961. 4. THAT THE ORDER PASSED BY LD. CIT(A) IS CONTRARY TO THE DECISION OF THE HON'BLE ITAT IN ITA NO.389/CHD/2010 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07 AND THUS CANNOT BE SUSTAINED IN LAW. 5. THE REVENUE IN ITS EAGERNESS TO CREATE DEMAND HAS COMPLETELY IGNORED THE 16A FORM ATTACHED WITH THE RETURN. MOST OF THE EMPLOYEE HAD INCOME BELOW THE TAXABLE LIMIT AND NO TAX WAS LIABLE TO BE DEDUCTED. IT IS THEREFORE, PRAYED THAT THE ORDER UNDER APPEAL BE QUASHED AND APPELLANT CASE IS COVERED UNDER RULE 3(1) OF THE INCOME-TAX RULES,1961. 3. THE LD. 'AR' CONTENDED THAT THE ISSUE IS SQUAREL Y COVERED BY THE DECISION OF THE CHANDIGARH BENCH IN ITA NO.389/CHD/2010 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07 IN THE CASE OF ITO (TDS) CHANDIGARH V PUNJAB UNIVERSITY, CHANDIGARH, DATED 30.06.2011. 4. LD. 'DR', ON THE OTHER HAND, REFERRED TO PARA 5. 12 OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE CIT(A) FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08 AND CONTENDED THAT THE UNIVERSITY IS NOT A STATE AN D HON'BLE PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT IN CWP NO. 2462 OF 1994 DATED 23.05.1994 DEFINED THE UNIVERSITY UNDER ARTICLE 1 2 AS STATE FOR THE LIMITED PURPOSE WHICH CANNOT BE APPLIED IN THE PRESENT APPEALS. HE WAS OF THE OPINION THAT THE UNIVERSITY IS NOT STATE OR CENTRAL GOVERNMENT. HE PLACED RELIANCE ON THE DE CISION OF THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT AS REPRODUCED BY THE CIT( A) IN PARA 3 5.12 OF HIS ORDER FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08 IN TH E CASE OF ARUN KUMAR & OTHERS V UNION OF INDIA, 286 ITR 89. A PERUSAL OF THE EXTRACT OF THE SAID DECISION, AS REPRODUCED BY THE LD. CIT(A), REVEALS THAT THERE IS A DIFFERENCE BETWEEN EMPLOYEES OF CORPORATIONS, COMPANIES AND OTHER UNDERTAKINGS VIZ- A-VIZ EMPLOYEES OF THE STATE AND CENTRAL GOVERNMENT AND C ONTENTION ON BEHALF OF THE EMPLOYEES THAT SUCH CORPORATIONS, COMPANIES AND UNDERTAKINGS WERE COVERED BY THE DEFINITION ST ATE WITHIN THE MEANING OF ARTICLE 12 OF THE CONSTITUTION WAS N EGATIVED BY THIS COURT HOLDING THAT APPLICATION OF PART XIV OF THE CONSTITUTION WOULD BE LIMITED TO THE SERVICES UNDER THE UNION AND THE STATES AND NOT TO THE EMPLOYEES (VIDE DR.S. L.AGARWAL V. GENERAL MANAGER, HINDUSTAN STEEL LTD. (1970) 1 SCC 177. IT IS SEEN THAT THE HON'BLE APEX COURT HAS NOT ADJUDICATE D THE ISSUE OF THE UNIVERSITY WHICH IS UNDER REFERENCE IN THE P RESENT APPEAL. HOWEVER, THE HON'BLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH CO URT HAS CATEGORICALLY HELD THE UNIVERSITY AS STATE AS IS EVIDENT FROM PARA 7 & (VIII) OF THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL DATED 30.06.2010 RELIED UPON BY THE LD. 'AR'. THE ISSUE, IN ALL THE SE APPEALS, IS SIMILAR AND COVERED BY THE DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF ITO (TDS)-I CHANDIGARH V REGISTRAR, PUNJAB UNIVE RSITY, CHANDIGARH (SUPRA). IT WOULD BE IN THE FITNESS OF THINGS TO REPRODUCE THE SAID DECISION FOR THE PURPOSE OF READ Y REFERENCE AND APPRECIATION OF THE FACTS AND FINDINGS OF THE H ON'BLE TRIBUNAL: THIS APPEAL BY THE REVENUE IS DIRECTED AGAINST TH E ORDER OF THE CIT(APPEALS) DATED 25.01.2010 PERTAINI NG TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07, WHICH IN-TURN ARISE S FROM AN ORDER PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER U/S 4 201(1) AND 201(1A) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 ( IN SHORT 'THE ACT') DATED 30.10.2009, WHEREBY THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN HELD TO BE IN DEFAULT FOR NON/SHO RT DEDUCTION OF TAX AT SOURCE AND INTEREST THEREON. 2. THE DISPUTE IN THE PRESENT CASE RELATES TO THE NON-DEDUCTION OF TAX AT SOURCE ON THE PERQUISITE VALUATION OF THE ACCOMMODATION PROVIDED TO THE EMPLOYEES OF THE UNIVERSITY ON CONCESSIONAL RENT OR FREE OF COST. AS PER THE ASSESSING OFFICER, IN TER MS OF SECTION 17(2) OF THE ACT READ WITH RULE 3(1) OF THE INCOME TAX RULES, 1962, THE ASSESSEE WAS REQUIRED T O DEDUCT TAX ON THE PERQUISITE VALUED AS IF THE ACCOMMODATION IS PROVIDED BY AN EMPLOYER OTHER THAN UNION OR STATE GOVERNMENT. ON THE CONTRARY, AS PER THE ASSESSEE, SECTION 17(2) OF THE ACT IS NOT ATTRA CTED AS NO CONCESSIONAL RENT HAS BEEN CHARGED BY THE UNIVERSITY. STANDARD RENT DETERMINED BY THE COMPET ENT AUTHORITY I.E. UNIVERSITY SENATE HAS BEEN CHARGED F ROM THE EMPLOYEES AS AMENDED FROM TIME TO TIME. IT IS CONTENDED THAT THE VALUATION OF THE PERQUISITE IS T O BE GOVERNED BY THE FIRST CATEGORY OF EMPLOYERS PROVIDE D IN RULE 3(1) OF THE ACT, ACCORDING TO WHICH WHERE THE ACCOMMODATION IS PROVIDED BY THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT OR ANY STATE GOVERNMENT TO THE EMPLOYEES, THE LICEN CE FEE DETERMINED BY THE RESPECTIVE GOVERNMENT IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE RULES FRAMED AS REDUCED BY THE RENT ACTUALLY PAID BY THE EMPLOYEE, IS TO BE TAKEN AS VALUE OF THE PERQUISITE. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HEL D THAT THE EMPLOYEES OF THE PUNJAB UNIVERSITY ARE NOT GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES AND THEREFORE, THEY WOULD NOT FALL IN SUB-CLAUSE (1) OF THE TABLE PROVIDED IN RUL E 3(1) OF THE RULES, BUT IT IS A CASE WHICH FALLS IN SUB-C LAUSE (2) OF THE TABLE (1) IN RULE 3(1) OF THE RULES. 3. THE CIT(APPEALS) HAS NOT UPHELD THE STAND OF TH E ASSESSING OFFICER. AS PER THE CIT(APPEALS), THE PUNJAB UNIVERSITY IS A GOVERNMENT ORGANIZATION UNDE R THE OVERALL SUPERVISION AND CONTROL OF THE CENTRAL 5 GOVERNMENT THROUGH ITS REPRESENTATIVES AND THEREFOR E, ITS EMPLOYEES ARE COVERED BY CLAUSE (1) OF TABLE (1 ) IN RULE 3(1) OF THE RULES. FOR THE ABOVE REASON, THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER TREATING ASSESSEE IN DEFAULT FOR SHORT/NON DEDUCTION OF TAX AT SOURCE IN TERMS OF SECTION 201(1) AND FOR INTEREST THEREON U/ S 201(1A) OF THE ACT HAS BEEN SET ASIDE. AGAINST SUC H DECISION, REVENUE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 4. BEFORE US, LEARNED DR HAS CONTESTED THE ORDER O F THE CIT(APPEALS) BY PLACING RELIANCE ON THE REASONI NG CONTAINED IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. AS PER THE LEAR NED DR, THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS QUITE RIGHT IN RELYIN G UPON THE DECISION OF THE HON'BLE ANDHRA PRADESH HIG H COURT IN THE CASE OF A.P.CIRCLE OF ALL INDIA BHARAT SANCHAR NIGAM LTD. EXECUTIVE ASSOCIATION & ANOTHER V GENERAL MANAGER & OTHERS, 283 ITR 388 WHICH WAS THE CASE OF THE EMPLOYEES OF BHARAT SANCHAR NIGAM LTD. (BSNL). AS PER LEARNED DR, BSNL WAS ALSO A CENTRAL GOVERNMENT SPONSORED UNDERTAKING BUT ITS EMPLOYEES HAVE BEEN HELD TO BE COVERED BY SUB-CLAUSE (2) OF R ULE 3(1) AND NOT AS PER SUB-CLAUSE (1) CONTENDED BY THE ASSESSEE. IT IS FURTHER POINTED OUT THAT THE ASSES SING OFFICER RELIED UPON THE DECISION OF THE AMRITSAR BE NCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN ITA NO. 543/ASR/2008 WHEREIN IT HAS BEEN HELD THAT THE EMPLOYEES OF GURU NANAK DEV UNIVERSITY COULD NOT BE CONSIDERED AS EMPLOYEES OF THE STATE GOVERNMENT AND THEREFORE, AS PER SUCH PARITY OF REASONING, THE EMPLOYEES OF THE PUNJAB UNIVERSITY CANNOT BE CONSIDERED AS EMPLOYEES OF A GOVERNMENT ORGANIZATION. 5. ON THE OTHER HAND, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENT ASSESSEE HAS DEFENDED THE IMPUGNED ORDER OF THE CIT(APPEALS) BY PLACING RELIANCE ON THE SAME . AS PER LEARNED COUNSEL, THE CIT(APPEALS) WAS JUSTIF IED IN TREATING THE EMPLOYEES OF THE RESPONDENT UNIVERS ITY AS A ONE EMPLOYED BY THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT BECAUSE OF THE FEATURES NOTED BY THE CIT(APPEALS) IN PARA 1 1 OF 6 THE IMPUGNED ORDER. AS PER THE LEARNED COUNSEL, NON E OF THE FEATURES HAVE BEEN CONTROVERTED BY THE REVEN UE AND THEREFORE, CIT(APPEALS) WAS JUSTIFIED IN CONCLU DING THE ISSUE IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE. APART THEREFR OM, IT IS POINTED OUT THAT PUNJAB UNIVERSITY IS A NON-TAXA BLE ENTITY FUNDED OUT OF A CONSOLIDATED FUND OF INDIA A ND ITS EMPLOYEES ARE AT PAR WITH THE GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES. FOR DAY-TODAY RUNNING OF THE UNIVERSITY AND FOR PAY ING SALARIES TO THE EMPLOYEES, THE PUNJAB GOVERNMENT AN D THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT THROUGH U.T. ADMINISTRATION RELEASES THE MAINTENANCE GRANT IN THE RATIO OF 40:6 0 RESPECTIVELY. IT IS ALSO POINTED OUT THAT WHATEVER GRANTS ARE GIVEN BY THE TWO SHARING GOVERNMENTS, TH E SAME ARE DISBURSED OUT OF THEIR NON-PLANNED FUNDS A ND ARE IN-TURN REFLECTED IN THEIR RESPECTIVE ANNUAL BU DGETS. IT WAS, THEREFORE SOUGHT TO BE POINTED OUT THAT THE EXPENDITURE ON PAYMENT OF SALARIES TO THE EMPLOYEES OF THE PUNJAB UNIVERSITY IS BEING MET FROM THE CONSOLIDATED FUND OF THE GOVERNMENT. IT IS FURTHER POINTED OUT THAT THE PAY SCALES GIVEN TO THE EMPLOY EES OF PUNJAB UNIVERSITY ARE DULY NOTIFIED BY THE PUNJA B GOVERNMENT AND THE SERVICE CONDITIONS ARE ALSO ADOPTED FROM PUNJAB CIVIL SERVICES RULES. WITH REG ARD TO THE REFERENCE MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO T HE DECISION OF THE AMRITSAR BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN I TA NO. 543/ASR/2008 (SUPRA), IT WAS POINTED OUT THAT T HE CIT(APPEALS) HAS FOLLOWED THE DECISION OF THE JURISDICTIONAL BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF PROF.- CUM-HEAD, DEPARTMENT OF MATHS, STATS & PHYSICS, PAU , LUDHIANA V ITO, (ITA 1085/CHANDI/2005) DATED 17.03.2006 WHICH HAS BEEN RENDERED IN RELATION TO T HE EMPLOYEES OF PUNJAB AGRICULTURAL UNIVERSITY, LUDHIA NA. AS PER THIS DECISION, WITH RESPECT TO THE CONCESSIO NAL ACCOMMODATION PROVIDED TO THE EMPLOYEES, THERE WAS NO PERQUISITE BECAUSE THE EMPLOYEES HAD PAID STANDA RD RENT FIXED BY THE UNIVERSITY. IT IS SUBMITTED THAT IN THE INSTANT CASE ALSO, THE UNIVERSITY HAS CHARGED STAND ARD RENT FROM THE EMPLOYEES AS DETERMINED BY THE 7 COMPETENT AUTHORITY WHICH WAS AMENDED FROM TIME TO TIME. IT WAS, THEREFORE CONTENDED THAT THE CIT(APPEALS) WAS JUSTIFIED IN REACHING TO A CONCLUS ION THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS NOT CORRECT IN TREAT ING THE ASSESSEE IN DEFAULT FOR NON-DEDUCTION OF TAX AT SOURCE U/S 201(1) OF THE ACT. 6. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS CAREFULLY. THE SHORT POINT INVOLVED IN THIS APPEAL RELATES TO DETERMINATION OF VALUE OF PERQUISITE DEF INED U/S 17(2) OF THE ACT RELATING TO ACCOMMODATION PROV IDED BY THE ASSESSEE TO ITS EMPLOYEES ON RENT FREE OR CONCESSIONAL BASIS. THE PERTINENT FACTS ARE THAT T HE ASSESSEE HAS PROVIDED CONCESSIONAL ACCOMMODATION TO ITS EMPLOYEES AND HAS CHARGED A STANDARD RENT AS DETERMINED BY ITS COMPETENT AUTHORITY, AND THE SAME HAS BEEN RECOVERED FROM SUCH EMPLOYEES WHO HAVE BEEN PROVIDED WITH THE ACCOMMODATION. THE RULES FO R VALUATION OF SUCH PERQUISITES ARE CONTAINED IN RULE 3(1) OF THE RULES. BROADLY SPEAKING, TABLE (1) OF RULE 3(1) PROVIDES FOR DETERMINATION OF THE VALUE IN THREE CATEGORIES. THE FIRST CATEGORY IS WHERE THE ACCOMMODATION IS PROVIDED BY THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT OR ANY STATE GOVERNMENT TO THE EMPLOYEES, EITHER HOLDING OFFICE OR POST IN CONNECTION WITH THE AFFAI RS OF THE UNION OR OF SUCH STATE OR SERVING WITH ANY BODY OR UNDERTAKING UNDER THE CONTROL OF SUCH GOVERNMENT ON DEPUTATION. THE SECOND CATEGORY IS WHERE THE ACCOMMODATION IS PROVIDED BY ANY OTHER EMPLOYER. THE THIRD CATEGORY IS WHERE THE ACCOMMODATION IS PROVIDED BY EITHER CATEGORY OF THE EMPLOYERS MENTIO NED ABOVE BUT IN A HOTEL. THE DIFFERENCE OF OPINION BETWEEN THE ASSESSEE AND THE REVENUE IS THAT AS PER THE ASSESSEE, IT IS COVERED IN THE FIRST CATEGORY WHEREAS, AS PER THE REVENUE, THE ASSESSEE FALLS IN SECOND CATEGORY, IT BEING ANY OTHER EMPLOYER. 7. IN THE CONTEXT OF THE ABOVE DISPUTE, IN OUR VIE W THE CIT(APPEALS) CORRECTLY NOTED IN PARA 10 THAT TH E 8 BASIC ISSUE TO BE ADDRESSED IS WHETHER THE RESPONDE NT I.E. PUNJAB UNIVERSITY IS A GOVERNMENT ORGANIZATION OR NOT ? IF IT IS FOUND THAT THE ASSESSEE IS A GOVERNM ENT ORGANIZATION WHICH QUALIFIES TO BE CENTRAL GOVERNM ENT OR STATE GOVERNMENT WITHIN THE MEANING OF CLAUSE (1) OF RULE 3(1), THEN THE PLEA OF THE ASSESSEE WOULD B E LIABLE TO BE UPHELD. IN THIS REGARD, THE CIT(APPEA LS) HAS ANALYZED THE MANNER IN WHICH ASSESSEE HAS BEEN SET UP UNDER AN ACT OF PARLIAMENT AND ALSO THE MANN ER IN WHICH IT IS GOVERNED. IN PARA 11 OF THE IMPUGNE D ORDER, THE CIT(APPEALS) HAS CULLED OUT THE FOLLOWIN G EIGHT FEATURES, WHICH ARE WORTHY OF NOTICE : IT IS EVIDENT FROM THE DOCUMENTS/RECORDS PLACED BE FORE ME THAT: (I) THIS UNIVERSITY WAS CONSTITUTED BY THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT BY THE ACT OF PARLIAMENT I.E. THE PUNJAB UNIVERSITY ACT, 1947. (II) THE DEFICITS OF THE UNIVERSITY IS FINANCED BY UT CHANDIGARH & PUNJAB STATE GOVERNMENT IN THE RATIO OF 60:40 RESPECTIVELY IN THE FORM OF MAINTENANCE GRANT. (III) THE RELEVANT EXTRACT OF THE MINUTES OF CONSULTATIVE COMMITTEE FOR THE PUNJAB UNIVERSITY, CHANDIGARH HELD ON FEBRUARY 13,1976 CHAIRED BY MINISTRY OF EDUCATION WITH MINISTRY OF FINANCE, HOME AFFAIRS, PLANNING COMMISSION, UGC, GOVERNMENT OF HARYANA & VICE /CHANCELLOR OF THE UNIVERSITY AS MEMBERS, PLACED BEFORE ME, READS AS FOLLOWS : AFTER SOME DISCUSSION, IT WAS UNANIMOUSLY AGREED THAT UNTIL A FINAL DECISION WAS TAKEN IN RESPECT OF HARYANA, THE DEFICIT IN THE MAINTENANCE OF PUNJAB UNIVERSITY SHOULD BE SHARED BY PUNJAB & CHANDIGARH ADMINISTRATION IN THE RATIO OF 40:60. IT WAS FURTHER DECIDED THAT THE ACCUMULATED DEFICIT OF THE PUNJAB UNIVERSITY ON ACCOUNT OF THE GOVERNMENT OF HARYANAS WITHDRAWAL FROM THIS ARRANGEMENT WHICH COMES TO APPROXIMATELY RS.42 LAKHS, SHOULD ALSO BE MADE UP BY THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT THROUGH THE CHANDIGARH ADMINISTRATION. IV) A COPY OF THE BUDGET OF UT CHANDIGARH WAS PLACED ON RECORD WHICH CLEARLY SHOWS THAT MAINTENANCE GRANT HAS BEEN MADE A PART OF NON- PLAN BUDGET OF THE UT, CHANDIGARH. ON SIMILAR 9 LINES, GOVERNMENT OF PUNJAB HAS ALSO BUDGETED THE MAINTENANCE GRANTS IN ITS NON-PLAN BUDGET. V) IT IS ALSO EVIDENT FROM RECORD THAT THE ASSET S OF THE UNIVERSITY COMPRISE OF LAND/BUILDING WHICH HAVE BEEN REQUIRED OUT OF THE FUNDS PROVIDED BY THE GOVERNMENT FROM TIME TO TIME. VI) FURTHER ALL TRANSACTIONS ARE PRE-AUDITED BY THE RESIDENT AUDIT OFFICER, LOCAL FUND EXAMINER, UT CHANDIGARH. APART FROM THIS, THE ANNUAL ACCOUNTS OF THE UNIVERSITY ARE SUBJECTED TO POST AUDIT BY CAG. VII) THE PUNJAB UNIVERSITY IS THE OWNER OF THE RESIDENTIAL PROPERTIES PROVIDED TO ITS EMPLOYEES. THE RULES & REGULATION FOR ALLOTMENT OF THE ACCOMMODATION ARE THE SAME AS THOSE FOLLOWED BY THE PUNJAB GOVERNMENT AND THE UT GOVERNMENT. VIII) THE PAY SCALES OF THE EMPLOYEES OF THE PUNJAB UNIVERSITY ARE NOTIFIED BY THE PUNJAB GOVERNMENT. SERVICE CONDITIONS GIVEN IN THE PUNJAB UNIVERSITY CALENDAR HAVE BEEN ADOPTED FROM THE PUNJAB CIVIL SERVICE RULES AND THAT THERE IS A SPECIFIC RULE FOR RESIDUARY CONDITIONS OF SERVICE INCORPORATED IN THE PUNJAB UNIVERSITY CALENDAR VOL.III(2005) AT PAGE 91, WHICH STATES THAT ANY CASE NOT COMING WITHIN THE PURVIEW OF THE REGULATIONS CONTAINED IN THIS STATUE MAY BE DECIDED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE RULES MADE BY THE PUNJAB GOVERNMENT FOR ITS EMPLOYEES OR IN SUCH MANNER AS THE SENATE IN THE CASE OF OFFICERS OF CLASS A AND THE SYNDICATE IN THE CASE OF OFFICES OF CLASS B MAY DEEM FIT. FURTHER MORE, IN PARA 18, IT HAS BEEN NOTED BY THE CIT(APPEALS) AS UNDER : FURTHER HON'BLE PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT IN CWP NO.2462 OF 1994 DATED 23.5.94 WHILE DECIDING THE IS SUE OF RESERVATIONS HAVE GIVEN A CATEGORICAL FINDING AS UNDER : WE ARE, THUS, OF THE OPINION THAT THIS COURT CANNO T ISSUE A MANDATE TO THE UNIVERSITY WHICH IS ADMITTED LY A STATE AS DEFINED UNDER ARTICLE 12 TO MAKE RESERVA TION IN FAVOUR OF MEMBERS OF SCHEDULED CASTES FOR APPOINTMENT TO TEACHING POSTS. 8. ON THE BASIS OF THE AFORESAID FACTUAL MATRIX, TO WHICH THERE IS NO NEGATION BY THE REVENUE, THE CIT(APPEALS) HAS HELD THAT THE ASSESSEE IS AN 10 ORGANIZATION UNDER THE CONTROL OF CENTRAL GOVERNMEN T THROUGH ITS REPRESENTATIVES AND THEREFORE, ITS EMPL OYEES ARE COVERED BY SUB-CLAUSE (1) OF TABLE 1 IN RULE 3( 1) OF THE RULES. IN OUR CONSIDERED OPINION, WE FIND NO INFIRMITY IN THE AFORESAID FINDING OF THE CIT(APPEA LS), WHICH IS PLACED ON RELEVANT MATERIAL. 9. IN SO FAR AS RELIANCE PLACED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON THE DECISION RENDERED BY THE AMRITSAR BE NCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN ITA NO. 543/ASR/2008 IS CONCERNE D, THE SAME IN OUR VIEW HAS BEEN RIGHTLY IGNORED BY TH E CIT(APPEALS) IN PREFERENCE TO THE PARITY OF REASONI NG LAID DOWN BY THE HON'BLE PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COUR T IN CWP NO. 2462 OF 1994 DATED 23.05.1994 REFERRED TO I N PARA 18 OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER. MOREOVER, THE DECIS ION OF THE CHANDIGARH BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF PROF.-CUM-HEAD, DEPARTMENT OF MATHS, STATS & PHYSIC S, PAU, LUDHIANA (SUPRA) ALSO SUPPORTS THE CONCLU SION DRAWN BY THE CIT(APPEALS).IN THE AFORESAID LIGHT, W E FIND NO JURISDICTION TO INTERFERE WITH THE CONCLUSION DR AWN BY THE CIT(APPEALS). IN FACT, THE RELIANCE BY LEARNED DR ON THE JUDGEMENT OF THE ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT IN T HE CASE OF ALL INDIA BHARAT SANCHAR NIGAM LTD. EXECUTI VE ASSOCIATION (SUPRA) IS ALSO DISTINGUISHABLE ON FACT S. IN THIS CASE, THE QUESTION RELATED TO THE INTERPRETATI ON OF RULE 3(1) OF THE RULES WITH REGARD TO EMPLOYEES OF BSNL. THE EMPLOYEES OF BSNL CONTENDED THAT THEY WERE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES WORKING ON DEEMED DEPUTATION TO BSNL, WHICH WAS AN UNDERTAKING UNDER THE CONTROL OF CENTRAL GOVERNMENT. HOWEVER, THE SAID PL EA WAS NOT UPHELD BY THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT. TO THE SIMILAR EFFECT IS THE DECISION OF THE HON'BLE ANDHR A PRADESH HIGH COURT, RELIED UPON BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. HOWEVER, THE PRESENT CASE STANDS ON A DIF FERENT FOOTING, SPECIALLY IN THE LIGHT OF THE OBSERVATION OF THE HON'BLE PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT IN CWP NO. 246 2 OF 1994 (SUPRA) WHEREBY A UNIVERSITY HAS BEEN OBSER VED TO BE A STATE. THEREFORE, IN VIEW OF THE PROPOSITI ON EXPLAINED BY THE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT, THE PAR ITY OF 11 REASONING LAID DOWN BY THE KERALA HIGH COURT IS NOT TO BE APPLIED IN THE PRESENT CASE. FURTHERMORE, CIT(APPEALS) HAS ALSO CORRECTLY DISTINGUISHED THE DECISION OF THE HON'BLE ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT I N THE CASE OF ANDHRA PRADESH CIRCLE OF ALL INDIA BHAR AT SANCHAR NIGAM EMPLOYEES (SUPRA) BY NOTICING THAT BS NL WAS A COMPANY REGISTERED UNDER THE COMPANIES ACT, 1956, WHEREAS THE FACTS IN THE PRESENT CASE ARE DIFFERENT. THE RESPONDENT IS SET UP UNDER A LEGISL ATION OF THE PARLIAMENT, NAMELY PUNJAB UNIVERSITY ACT, 19 47. 11. FOR ALL THE ABOVE REASONS, WE, THEREFORE AFFIR M THE ORDER OF THE CIT(APPEALS) AND ACCORDINGLY, APPEAL O F THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED. 5. RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF THE TRIBU NAL, IN THE ABOVE REPRODUCED CASE, ALL THE APPEALS OF THE ASSES SEE ARE ALLOWED. 6. IN THE RESULT, APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE ARE ALLOW ED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 20 TH DEC.,2011. SD/- SD/- (SUSHMA CHOWLA) (MEHAR SINGH) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBE R DATED: 20 TH DEC.,2011. POONAM COPY TO: THE APPELLANT, THE RESPONDENT, THE CIT(A), THE CIT ,DR ASSISTANT REGISTRAR, ITAT CHANDIGARH