Radha Mohan Mehrotra Medical Relief Trust, Lucknow V. Inocme Tax Officer-2(2), Lucknow

MA 48/LKW/2015

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 124 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 4097 (ITAT-LUCKNOW)
• Duration Of Justice: 10 month(s) 25 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 17-03-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 03-07-2015
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 22-04-2015
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SWATI RATNA
• Keywords: Charitable institution; Source of fund; Benefit of exemption
• Section: 12AA; 11

Judgement Text

1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL LUCKNOW BENCH B, LUCKNOW BEFORE SHRI SUNIL KUMAR YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI A.K. GARODIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER M.A. NO.48/LKW/2015 (ARISING OUT OF I.T.A.NO.724/LKW/2013) ASSESSMENT YEAR:2008 - 09 & M.A. NO.49/LKW/2015 (ARISING OUT OF I.T.A.NO.392/LKW/2013) ASSESSMENT YEAR:2009 - 10 & M.A. NO.50/LKW/2015 (ARISING OUT OF I.T.A.NO.391/LKW/2013) ASSESSMENT YEAR:2005 - 06 & M.A. NO.51/LKW/2015 (ARISING OUT OF I.T.A.NO.470/LKW/2011) ASSESSMENT YEAR:2006 - 07 RADHA MO HAN MEHROTRA MEDICAL RELIEF TURST, MANIK CHOWK, JAUNPUR. PAN:AAATR2198C VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER - 2(2), LUCKNOW. (APPLICANT) (RESPONDENT) APPLICANT BY SHRI ABHINAV MEHROTRA, ADVOCATE RESPONDENT BY SMT. SWATI RATNA, D.R. DATE OF HEARING 03/07/2015 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 1 3 /08/2015 O R D E R PER A. K. GARODIA, A.M. ALL THESE FOUR MISC. APPLICATIONS ARE FILED BY THE ASSESSEE POINTING OUT CERTAIN ALLEGED MISTAKE IN THE COMBINED TRIBUNAL ORDER FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005 - 06, 2006 - 07, 2008 - 09 AND 2009 - 10. [ 2 ] 2. ALL THESE MISC. APPLICATIONS ARE IDENTICAL AND THEREFORE, WE REPRODUCE THE MISC. APPLICATION NO. 48/LKW/2015, FOR THE SAKE OF READY REFERENCE: THE AFOREMENTIONED ARE APPEALS BY THE REVENUE AND ASSESSEE FOR SEVERAL ASSESSMENT YEARS . THERE ARE THREE APPEALS FILED BY THE REVENUE AND THE REMAINING ONE APPEAL IS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE. THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER, PASSED BY LEARNED CIT(A) DATED 18/05/2011 AND THE APPEALS FILED BY THE REVENUE ARE DIRECTED AGAIN ST THREE SEPARATE ORDERS OF LEARNED CIT(A) - I, LUCKNOW DATED 14/03/2013 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008 - 09, DATED 15/02/2013 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009 - 10 AND DATED 15/02/2013 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005 - 06. A CONSOLIDATED ORDER HAS BEEN PASSED BY THE HON'BLE TRIBUNAL, DISPOSING OFF THE APPEALS. DURING THE PASSING OF ORDER IN THE ABOVE APPEALS, THE FOLLOWING MISTAKE HAS CREPT IN THE ORDER OF THE HON'BLE I TAT. PARTICULARS OF MISTAKE SOUGHT TO BE RECTIFIED: OMISSION TO ADJUDICATE UPON AN ARGUMENT OF THE ASSESSEE, AS AD VANCED DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING OF THE APPEAL AND ADJUDICATION OF APPEALS BASED ON INCORRECT APPRECIATION OF FACTS. THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE ARE AS UNDER: 1 . THAT THE ASSESSEE IS AN ENTITY DULY REGISTERED UNDER SECTION 12AA/12A AND ALSO RUNS A HOSPITAL AT JAUNPUR, UTTAR PRADESH. A LIAISON OFFICE IS MAINTAINED BY THE TRUST AT MUMBAI. 2. THE RETURN OF INCOME OF THE TRUST IS FILED AT LUCKNOW. 3. THE ASSESSEE IS IN RECEIPT OF INCOME FROM THE FOLLOWING SOURCES : A. RECEIPTS FROM HOSPITAL AND CLINICS B. DIVIDEND INCOME, ARISING FROM SHARES, HELD UNDER CORPUS, DONATED IN THE YEAR 1980. C. BANK INTEREST INCOME: ON THE SURPLUS REMAINING AFTER YEARS OF ACTIVITY. [ 3 ] 4. THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT RECEIVED ANY MONEY IN THE FORM OF DONATION. 5. THE ASSESS EE WAS, SINCE INCEPTION, C LAIMING EXEMPTION, IN RELATION TO ITS RECEIPTS AND PAYMENTS (TOWARDS APPLICATION OF INCOME FOR CHARITABLE PURPOSES) UNDER SECTION 12A/12AA AND THE ENTITLEMENT WAS NEVER RELINQUISHED / SURRENDERED. 6. WITH THE INTRODUCTION OF SECT ION 10(23C)(IIIAE), VIDE FINANCE ACT (NO. 2) OF 1998 W.E.F. 1 - 04 - 1999, AN OPTION WAS GIVEN TO THE INCOME TAX ASSESSEE'S, IN RECEIPT OF 'ANY INCOME FROM HOSPITAL' TO CLAIM THE BENEFIT OF EXEMPTION FROM TAXATION, UNDER THIS SECTION, SUBJECT TO FULFI L LMENT OF THE CONDITIONS, PRESCRIBED. 7. THE HON'BLE TRIBUNAL, WHILE DECIDING THE APPEALS, SUPRA, WAS PLEASED TO HOLD IN PRINCIPAL THAT : A . RECEIPTS OF HOSPITAL ARE EXEMPT UNDER SECTION 10(23C)(IIIAE) B . DIVIDEND INCOME IS EXEMPT U/S 10(34) C . THE ASSESSEE IS NOT ENTITLED TO THE BENEFIT OF SECTION 10(23C)(IIIAE) OVER INTEREST INCOME. 8. IT IS A MATTER OF FACT THAT, DURING THE COURSE OF ARGUMENTS, THE AR OF THE ASSESSEE, HAS SUBMITTED THAT THE INTEREST INCOME MAY BE RECKONED FOR THE PURPOSE OF COMPUTATION UNDER SECTION 11 AS THE ENTITY IS DULY REGISTERED UNDER SECTION 12A/12AA. THIS ASPECT OF THE MATTER HAS INADVERTENTLY ESCAPED THE ATTENTION OF THE HON'BLE TRIBUNAL. 9. THE HON'BLE TRIBUNAL HAS OBSERVED AS UNDER 'IT IS NOTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT ALTHOUGH THE ASSE SSEE TRUST IS REGISTERED U/S 12AA WITH EFFECT FROM 03/02/82 BUT IN THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION, THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED EXEMPTI ON U/S LO(23C)(IIIAE) AND NOT U/ S 11 AS IT WAS CLARIFIED IN WRITING BY THE ASSESSEE. ON THIS BASIS, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HELD THAT CLAIM OF EXEMPTION U/S 11 CANNOT BE CONSIDERED.' [ 4 ] 10. THAT DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING, IT WAS CLARIFIED BY THE AR OF THE ASSESSEE, THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS INDEED PREFERRED HIS CLAIM TOWARDS RECEIPTS FROM HOSPITAL UNDE R SECTION 10(23C)(IIIAE) AND NOT UNDER SECTION 12A/12AA AND THAT THERE IS NO DISPUTE TO THE AFOREMENTIONED. HOWEVER, THE HON'BLE TRIBUNAL APPEARS TO HAVE TREATED THIS OBSERVATION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER AS A RELINQUISHMENT. BY THE ASSESSEE OF HIS CLAIM UN DER 12A/12AA. PER SE. WHICH IS CONTRARY TO THE FACTS OF THE CASE. 11. THE ASSESSEE COULD ONLY PERFORM HIS ACTIVITIES/OBJECTS AS A TRUST, OUT OF MONEY RECEIVED BY IT FROM DIVIDEND AND BANK INTEREST, AS THE OTHER SOURCES OF INCOME ARE INADEQUATE TO MEET ITS OBLIGATIONS. THIS IS APPARENT FROM A PERUSAL OF THE INCOME & EXPENDITURE ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE, AS WAS DEMONSTRATED DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING OF THE APPEALS. HENCE THE MONEY RECEIVED FROM BANK INTEREST AND DIVIDEND HAS BEEN APPLIED FOR CHARITABLE PUR POSES, ENTITLING THE SAME FOR COMPUTATION UNDER SECTION 11. 12. THE ASSESSEE'S RECEIPT OF INTEREST INCOME, IN ANY CIRCUMSTANCE IS LIABLE FOR COMPUTATION UNDER SECTION 11, AS THE ASSESSEE IS A REGISTERED ENTITY UNDER SECTION 12A/12AA. THIS ASPECT OF THE MATTER APPARENTLY GOT INADVERTENTLY OMITTED FROM THE KIND CONSIDERATION OF THE HON'BLE BENCH. 13. THE ASSESSEE HAS ALWAYS INSISTED UPON BEING CORRECTLY ASSESSED OF ITS TAX LIABILITIES, INCLUDING THE VARIOUS BENEFITS, THE SAME IS ENTITLED FOR AS WAS THE OB LIGATION OF THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER. 14. IT IS SETTLED POSITION OF LAW, THAT THERE CANNOT BE ANY 'ESTOPPLE AGAINST LAW' AND HENCE THE PRESENT RECTIFICATION PROCEEDINGS. PLEADINGS A) IN THE AFORESAID FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, DESCRIBED SUPRA, IT IS HUMBLY PRAYED THAT THE ARGUMENT OF THE ASSESSEE, THAT THE QUANTUM OF MONEY APPLIED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR THE ATTAINMENT OF ITS [ 5 ] PHILANTHROPIC OBJECTS, FOR THE PURPOSES OF SECT ION 12A/12AA, BE COMPUTED IN THE MANNER PRESCRIBED UNDER SECTION 11, HAS INADVERTENTLY ESCAPED THE ATTENTION OF THE HON'BLE TRIBUNAL AND IS PRAYED TO BE ADJUDICATED. B) BECAUSE THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT AS WELL AS THE HON'BLE APEX COURT HAS DULY ACCORDED ITS SANCTION TO THE ABOVE APPROACH, IN CERTAIN CASES AS PER THE DECISION IN RAJ RANI GULATI OF THE HON'BLE ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT. C) THAT IN THE AFORESAID FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE IT IS A FIT CASE BEFORE THE HON'BLE TRIBUNAL FOR INVOKING THE POWERS CONTAINED UNDER PROVISIONS OF SECTION 254(2) . D) THE HON'BLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF LAX MI ELECTRONIC CORPORATION LTD. V. CIT |1991| 188 ITR 398, HELD THAT IF THE TRIBUNAL FAILS OR OMITS TO DEAL WITH AN IMPORTANT CONTENTION AFFEC TING THE MAINTAINABILITY/MERITS OF AN APPEAL, IT MUST BE DEEMED TO BE A MISTAKE APPARENT FROM THE RECORD WHICH CAN BE RECTIFIED BY THE TRIBUNAL BY ITS SUBSEQUENT ORDER . E) IT IS SETTLED POSITION OF LAW, THAT THERE CANNOT BE ANY 'ESTOPPLE AGAINST LAW' AND HENCE THE NON - CONSIDERATION OF THE ARGUMENT OF THE ASSESSEE, DESERVED TO BE CORRECTED IN THESE RECTIFICATION PROCEEDINGS. F) IT IS HELD BY THE HON'BLE SC, IN THE CASE OF SAURASHTRA KUTCH STOCK EXCHANGE V ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, REPORTED AT 305 I TR 227 THAT NON - OBSERVATION AND CONSIDERATION OF THE ORDERS OF THE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT AND THAT OF THE CO - ORDINATE BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL, CONSTITUTES MISTAKE APPARENT FROM RECORD AND IS RECTIFIABLE U/S 254(2) OF THE ACT, WHICH IN THE INSTANT CASE IS DECISION REPORTED AT 216 CTR 167. PRAYER IN THE AFORESAID FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, IT IS HUMBLY REQUESTED THAT YOUR HONOUR BE PLEASED TO RECALL THE [ 6 ] ABOVE ORDER AND HEAR THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE/DEPARTMENT ON THIS ISSUE. MOST RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED. 3. DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING OF THE MISC. APPLICATIONS, SAME CONTENTIONS WERE RAISED BY LEARNED A.R. OF THE ASSESSEE AS ARE CONTAINED IN THE MISC. APPLICATION S . RELIANCE WAS PLACED ON A JUDGMENT OF HON'BLE APEX COURT IN THE CASE OF DUNLOP INDIA LTD. VS. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS AS REPORTED IN 1977 AIR 597 SC. LEARNED A.R. OF THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED A COPY OF THIS JUDGMENT, WHICH IS RUNNING IN 17 PAGES BUT IT WAS NOT POINTED OUT AS TO WHICH PAGE/ PARA OF THE JUDGMENT IS RELEVANT IN THE PRESENT CASE AND IN SUPPORT OF WHAT CONTENTION THE RELIANCE IS PLACED ON THIS JUDGMENT. 4. AS AGAINST THIS, IT WAS SUBMITTED BY LEARNED D.R. OF THE REVENUE THAT THERE IS NO MISTAKE IN THE TRIBUNAL ORDER. 5. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS. WE FIND THAT THE ONLY ALLEGED MISTAKE AS PER THE ASSESSEE IN THE IMPUGNED TRIBUNAL ORDER IS THAT IT WAS SUBMITTED BY LEARNED A.R. OF THE ASSESSEE IN COURSE OF HEARING OF THE APPEAL S THA T THE INTEREST INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE SHOULD BE CONSIDERED FOR THE PURPOSE OF COMPUTATION U/S 11 OF THE ACT BECAUSE THE ASSESSEE IS DULY REGISTERED U/S 12A/12AA OF THE ACT BUT THIS ASPECT OF THE MATTER HAS INADVERTENTLY ESCAPED THE ATTENTION OF THE TRIBUNA L. IN THIS REGARD, WE FEEL IT PROPER TO REPRODUCE PARA 4 OF THE TRIBUNAL ORDER AS UNDER: 4. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS. WE FIND THAT IN PARA 4 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, IT IS NOTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT ALTHOUGH THE ASSESSEE TRUST IS REGISTERED U/S 12AA WITH EFFECT FROM 03/02/82 BUT IN THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION, THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED EXEMPTION U/S 10(23C)(IIIAE) AND NOT U/S 11 AS IT WAS CLARIFIED IN WRITING BY THE ASSESSEE. ON THIS BASIS, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HELD THAT CLAIM OF EXEMPTION U/S 11 CANNOT BE CONSIDERED. HE ALSO NOTED THAT THE TRUST IS ENGAGED IN OTHER ACTIVITIES ALSO APART FROM RUNNING A HOSPITAL IN JAUNPUR. THEREAFTER, HE HAS NOTED THAT SECTION 10(23C)(IIIAE) [ 7 ] IS APPLICABLE IN CASE OF INCOME OF A HOSPITAL AND NOT O N THE ENTIRE INCOME OF THE TRUST. THEREAFTER, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS REPRODUCED THE INCOME AND EXPENDITURE ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE ON PAGE NO. 3 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. AS PER THE SAME, WE FIND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS REPORTED INCOME FROM HOSPITAL AT R S.3.42 LACS BUT THE ASSESSEE HAS REPORTED BANK INTEREST AT RS.14.35 LACS AND INCOME FROM INVESTMENT AT RS.62.64 LACS. ON DEBIT SIDE, THE ASSESSEE HAS DEBITED COST OF MATERIAL AT RS.3.79 LACS, REMUNERATION TO STAFF AT RS.5.73 LACS, REPAIR & MAINTENANCE AT RS.0.63 LAC AND ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES AT RS.3.39 LACS. THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO DEBITED DONATION OF RS.25.08 LACS AND NET EXCESS OF INCOME OVER EXPENDITURE WAS RS.41.79 LACS. THEREAFTER, ON PAGE NO. 5 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS REPRODUCED INCOME AND EXPENDITURE ACCOUNT OF MUMBAI LIAISON OFFICE AS PER WHICH THE CREDIT OF INCOME SIDE IS RS.9.12 LACS CONSISTING OF BANK INTEREST, DIVIDEND INCOME AND PROFIT ON REDEMPTION OF MUTUAL FUND AND AGAINST THIS, VARIOUS EXPENSES ARE DEBITED BY THE ASSESSEE INCLUDING SALARY TO ADMINISTRATIVE STAFF, PRINTING AND STATIONERY, POSTAGE AND TELEGRAM, TELEPHONE EXPENSES, TRAVELLING EXPENSES AND FINANCIAL AID TO POOR AND INDIGENTS PATIENTS AT RS.7,470/ - . THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS ALLOWED ALL OTHER EXPE NSES EXCEPT DONATION OF RS.25 LACS AND FINANCIAL AID TO POOR AND INDIGENT PATIENTS AT RS.7,470/ - AND WORKED OUT THE INCOME AT RS.71,93,691/ - . NOW THE QUESTION IS WHETHER THE ASSESSEE IS ELIGIBLE FOR EXEMPTION U/S 10(23C)(IIIAE) OF THE ACT. HENCE, WE REPR ODUCE THE PROVISIONS OF RELEVANT CLAUSE (IIIAE) OF SECTION 10(23C), WHICH IS AS UNDER: (IIIAE) ANY HOSPITAL OR OTHER INSTITUTION FOR THE RECEPTION AND TREATMENT OF PERSONS SUFFERING FROM ILLNESS OR MENTAL DEFECTIVENESS OR FOR THE RECEPTION AND TREATMENT O F PERSONS DURING CONVALESCENCE OR OF PERSONS REQUIRING MEDICAL ATTENTION OR REHABILITATION, EXISTING SOLELY FOR PHILANTHROPIC PURPOSES AND NOT FOR PURPOSES OF PROFIT, IF THE AGGREGATE ANNUAL RECEIPTS OF SUCH HOSPITAL OR INSTITUTION DO NOT EXCEED THE AMOUNT OF ANNUAL RECEIPTS AS MAY BE PRESCRIBED. 4.1 FROM THE ABOVE PROVISIONS, IT IS SEEN THAT ANY INCOME RECEIVED BY ANY HOSPITAL OR OTHER INSTITUTION FOR THE RECEPTION AND TREATMENT OF PERSONS SUFFERING FROM ILLNESS OR MENTAL DEFECTIVENESS OR FOR THE RECEPTIO N AND TREATMENT OF PERSONS DURING CONVALESCENCE OR OF PERSONS REQUIRING MEDICAL [ 8 ] ATTENTION OR REHABILITATION, EXISTING SOLELY FOR PHILANTHROPIC PURPOSES AND NOT FOR PURPOSES OF PROFIT, IF THE AGGREGATE ANNUAL RECEIPTS OF SUCH HOSPITAL OR INSTITUTION DOES NO T EXCEED THE AMOUNT OF ANNUAL RECEIPTS AS MAY BE PRESCRIBED IS ELIGIBLE FOR EXEMPTION. IN OUR CONSIDERED OPINION, THE INCOME EARNED BY MUMBAI OFFICE ON ACCOUNT OF BANK INTEREST AND DIVIDEND ETC. IS NOT ELIGIBLE FOR EXEMPTION UNDER CLAUSE (IIIAE) OF SECTIO N 10(23C) OF THE ACT. 5.1 WE FIND THAT IT IS NOTED BY THE TRIBUNAL THAT IN PARA 4 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER THAT IT IS NOTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT ALTHOUGH THE ASSESSEE TRUST IS REGISTERED U/S 12AA WITH EFFECT FROM 03/02/82 BUT IN THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION, THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED EXEMPTION U/S 10(23C)(IIIAE) AND NOT U/S 11 AS IT WAS CLARIFIED IN WRITING BY THE ASSESSEE. ON THIS BASIS, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HELD THAT CLAIM OF EXEMPTION U/S 11 CANNOT BE CONSIDERED. EVEN AFTER THIS, NO SUCH GROUN D HAS BEEN RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE CIT(A) ALSO THAT THE ASSESSEES CASE SHOULD BE CONSIDERED U/S 11 OF THE ACT. WE FIND THAT GROUND NO. 1 RAISED BEFORE CIT(A) IS GENERAL GROUND. GROUND NO. 2 IS REGARDING SERVICE OF NOTICE U/S 143(2) OF THE ACT. GR OUND NO. 3 IS REGARDING DETERMINING THE INCOME UNDER THE HEAD INCOME FROM BUSINESS OF LIAISON OFFICE AND THERE IS NO CLAIM THAT THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE SHOULD BE CONSIDERED U/S 11 OF THE ACT. GROUND NO. 4 IS REGARDING ADDITION OF RS.3,00,000/ - AND GROUN D NO. 5 IS REGARDING NOT ALLOWING THE CLAIM OF EXEMPTION U/S 10(34) OF THE ACT. GROUND NO. 6 IS ALSO REGARDING ALLOWABILITY OF EXEMPTION U/S 10(23C) AND 10(34) AND THERE IS NO MENTION OF SECTION 11. GROUND NO. 7 IS REGARDING CERTAIN OBSERVATIONS OF THE A .O. IN ASSESSMENT ORDER. GROUND NO. 8 IS REGARDING REJECTION OF THE CLAIM OF EXEMPTION OF DIVIDEND. GROUND NO. 9, 10 AND 11 ARE GENERAL. HENCE, IT IS SEEN THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS GIVEN IN WRITING TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT ALTHOUGH THE ASSESSEE TRUST IS REGISTERED U/S 12AA WITH EFFECT FROM 03/02/81 BUT THE ASSESSEE HAS CLAIMED EXEMPTION U/S 10(23C) AND NOT U/S 11 OF THE ACT. EVEN AFTER THIS [ 9 ] FINDING OF THE A.O. IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, NO SUCH GROUND WAS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE CIT(A) THAT THE CA SE OF THE ASSESSEE SHOULD BE CONSIDERED FOR EXEMPTION U/S 11 AND NO SUCH APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL ALSO BECAUSE OUT OF THESE 4 APPEALS, 3 APPEALS ARE FILED BY THE REVENUE AND ALTHOUGH AN APPEAL WAS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006 - 07, NO SUCH GROUND IS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THAT YEAR ALSO THAT THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE SHOULD BE CONSIDERED U/S 11 OF THE ACT. NOW BY WAY MISC. APPLICATION S , THE ASSESSEE IS RAISING THIS ARGUMENT/CONTENTION THAT THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE SHOULD HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED U/S 11 OF THE ACT. SUCH A CLAIM CANNOT BE ENTERTAINED IN MISC. APPLICATION PROCEEDINGS BECAUSE THE PROCEEDINGS U/S 254(2) ARE IN RESPECT OF ANY APPARENT MISTAKE IN THE TRIBUNAL ORDER AND WHEN NO SUCH CLAIM OF EXEMPTION U/S 11 WAS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER OR BEFORE CIT(A) OR BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL, IT CANNOT BE SAID TO BE AN APPARENT MISTAKE IN THE TRIBUNAL ORDER. HENCE, WE DO NOT FIND ANY MERIT IN ANY OF THE MISC. APPLICATIONS FILED BY THE ASSE SSEE. 6. IN THE RESULT, ALL THE MISC. APPLICATIONS OF THE ASSESSEE STAND DISMISSED. (ORDER WAS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THE DATE MENTIONED ON THE CAPTION PAGE) SD/. SD/. (SUNIL KUMAR YADAV) ( A. K. GARODIA ) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED: 1 3 /08/2015 *C.L.SINGH COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT. 3. CONCERNED CIT 4. THE CIT(A) 5. DR, ITAT, LUCKNOW ASSTT. REGISTRAR [ 10 ]