CIT (EXEMPTION), Jaipur V. MODERN SCHOOL SOCIETY, DELHI

MA 53/JPR/2018

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 124 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6906 (ITAT-JAIPUR)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 month(s) 4 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 24-07-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Appeal Filed On: 19-04-2018
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: P P MEENA
• Assessee Lawyers: KAPIL GOEL DHK
• Keywords: Invalid notice; Opportunity of being heard; Retrospective amendment; Competent authority
• Section: 143(3); 263

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHE S, JAIPUR JH FOT; IKY JKWO] U;KF;D LNL; ,OA JH HKKXPUN ] YS[KK LNL; DS LE{K BEFORE: SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, JM AND SHRI BHAGCHAND, AM M.A. NO. 53/JP/2018 (ARISING OUT IF ITA NO. 1118/JP/2016) FU/KZKJ.K O'K Z@ ASSESSMENT YEAR : THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS), JAIPUR. CUKE VS. MODERN SCHOOL SOCIETY, C/O KAPIL GOEL, ADV., F-26/124, SECTOR-7, ROHINI, DELHI-110 085. LFKK;H YS[KK LA-@THVKBZVKJ LA-@ PAN NO. AAATM 7045 H VIHYKFKHZ@ APPELLANT IZR;FKHZ@ RESPONDENT JKTLO DH VKSJ LS@ REVENUE BY : SHRI P.P. MEENA (JCIT) FU/KZKFJRH DH VKSJ LS@ ASSESSEE BY : SHRI KAPIL GOEL (ADVOCATE) LQUOKBZ DH RKJH[K@ DATE OF HEARING : 20.07.2018. ?KKS'K .KK DH RKJH[K@ DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 24/07/2018. VKNS'K@ ORDER PER VIJAY PAL RAO, JM. THIS IS A MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION BY THE REVENUE AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 20 TH DECEMBER, 2017 IN ITA NO. 1118/JP/2016. THE REVEN UE HAS FILED A VERY ELABORATE AND DETAILED MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION AL LEGING VARIOUS MISTAKES IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL. 2. WE HAVE HEARD THE LD. D/R AS WELL AS THE LD. A/R AND CONSIDERED THE RELEVANT MATERIAL ON RECORD. THE LD. D/R HAS SUBMITTED THA T THE TRIBUNAL HAS SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT (EXEMPTIONS) WITHDRAWING THE A PPROVAL GRANTED UNDER SECTION 10(23C)(VI) OF THE I.T. ACT ON THE GROUND THAT THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE WAS NOT ISSUED BY THE LD. CIT (EXEMPTIONS) BUT IT WAS ISSUED BY TH E DCIT HEADQUARTERS. THE LD. D/R HAS FURTHER CONTENDED THAT WHEN THE PRIOR APPRO VAL WAS TAKEN BY THE DCIT 2 MA NO. 53/JP/2018 MODERN SCHOOL SOCIETY, KOTA. HQRS. FROM THE LD. CIT (EXEMPTIONS) FOR ISSUING THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE UNDER SECTION 10(23C)(VI) THEN IT AMOUNTS THAT THE NOTICE WAS ISS UED AS PER THE DIRECTIONS AND SATISFACTION OF THE LD. CIT (EXEMPTIONS) AND, THERE FORE, THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LD. CIT (E) IS VALID AND WITHIN JURISDICTION. THOUGH T HERE ARE OTHER AVERMENTS IN THE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION, HOWEVER, ALL THE OTHER C ONTENTS ARE IN THE NATURE OF ARGUMENTS AGAINST THE FINDING OF THE TRIBUNAL ON ME RITS. THUS THE LD. D/R HAS SUBMITTED THAT WHEN THE TRIBUNAL HAS NOT CONSIDERED THIS ASPECT THAT THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE WAS ISSUED WITH PRIOR APPROVAL AND AS PER THE DIRECTION OF THE LD. CIT (E), THEN THERE IS NO DEFICIENCY OR ILLEGALITY IN T HE SAID SHOW CAUSE NOTICE MERELY BECAUSE IT WAS SIGNED BY THE DCIT HQRS. ON BEHALF O F THE LD. CIT (E). 3. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LD. A/R OF THE ASSESSEE H AS SUBMITTED THAT THE REVENUE HAS NOT POINTED OUT ANY APPARENT MISTAKE IN THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL WHICH CAN BE RECTIFIED UNDER SECTION 254(2) OF THE IT ACT . HOWEVER, THE REVENUE IS RAISING THE OBJECTIONS AGAINST THE DECISION TAKEN ON MERITS . THE TRIBUNAL HAS DECIDED THE ISSUE ON MERITS AFTER CONSIDERING ALL THE CONTENTIO NS AND ARGUMENTS WHICH WERE RAISED BY THE REVENUE AT THE TIME OF HEARING AND, T HEREFORE, THE ALLEGATIONS MADE IN THE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION ARE NOT POINTING OUT ANY MISTAKE APPARENT ON RECORD. IN SUPPORT OF HIS CONTENTION, HE HAS RELIED UPON TH E FOLLOWING DECISIONS OF THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT :- T.S. BALARAM, ITO VS. VOLKART BROS., 82 ITR 50 (SC) ACIT VS. SAURASHTRA KUTCH STOCK EXCHANGE LTD. 305 ITR 227 (SC) 3 MA NO. 53/JP/2018 MODERN SCHOOL SOCIETY, KOTA. 4. HAVING CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AS WELL AS THE MATERIAL ON RECORD, WE NOTE THAT THE MAIN GRIEVANCE IN THE MISCELLANEOUS A PPLICATION FILED BY THE REVENUE IS AGAINST THE FINDING OF THE TRIBUNAL ON THE ISSUE OF VALIDITY OF SHOW CAUSE NOTICE AND CONSEQUENTIAL ORDER PASSED BY THE LD. CIT (E) UNDER SECTION 10(23C)(VI) OF THE ACT. WE FIND THAT THOUGH THE REVENUE HAS RAISED THE ISSU E THAT ONCE THE PRIOR APPROVAL WAS TAKEN FROM THE LD. CIT (E) FOR ISSUING THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE UNDER SECTION 10(23C)(VI) THEN THE SAID SHOW CAUSE NOTICE IS VALI D AND WILL BE CONSIDERED AS ISSUED BY THE CIT (E). HOWEVER, WE FIND THAT ALL THESE CO NTENTIONS WERE CONSIDERED BY THE TRIBUNAL WHILE PASSING THE IMPUGNED ORDER IN PARA 6 TO 10 AS UNDER :- 6. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AS WEL L AS RELEVANT MATERIAL ON RECORD. THERE IS NO DISPUTE THAT THE AD DITIONAL GROUND RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IS PURELY LEGAL IN NATURE AN D GOES TO THE ROOT OF THE MATTER. IT IS ALSO NOT DISPUTED THAT NO NEW FAC TS ARE REQUIRED TO BE EXAMINED NOR ANY FURTHER ENQUIRY WAS NEEDED FOR ADJ UDICATION OF THE ISSUE RAISED IN THE ADDITIONAL GROUND. FURTHER, THI S IS FIRST APPEAL AGAINST THE IMPUGNED ORDER AND NOT A CASE OF RAISIN G AFRESH PLEA FOR THE FIRST TIME BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL WITHOUT RAISING THE SAME BEFORE THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY. THE ASSESSEE COULD HAVE RAISED THIS GROUND IN THE ORIGINAL GROUNDS OF APPEAL WITHOUT SEEKING ANY LEAVE OF THE TRIBUNAL. THE ADDITIONAL GROUND WAS REQUIRED TO BE FILED BECAUSE OF THE REASON THAT THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT RAISE THE SAME I N THE FORM 36 ALONG WITH THE MEMO OF APPEALS. THEREFORE, IT IS ONLY MAT TER OF REVISING THE GROUNDS AS THIS ISSUE WAS RAISED IN THE ADDITIONAL GROUND WHICH WAS MISSED IN THE ORIGINAL GROUNDS. ACCORDINGLY, IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE WHEN THE ADDITIONAL GROUN D RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IS PURELY LEGAL IN NATURE AND DOES NOT REQ UIRE ANY NEW FACTS TO BE EXAMINED OR FURTHER ENQUIRY TO BE CONDUCTED F OR ADJUDICATION OF 4 MA NO. 53/JP/2018 MODERN SCHOOL SOCIETY, KOTA. THIS ISSUE, THEN IN VIEW OF THE DECISION OF HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN CASE OF NATIONAL THERMAL POWER CO. LTD. VS. CIT(SUP RA) WE ADMIT THE ADDITIONAL GROUND RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR ADJUDI CATION. 7. ON THE VALIDITY OF SHOW CAUSE NOTICE ISSUED U/S 10(23C)(VI)OF THE ACT, THE LD. AR OF THE ASSESSEE HAS SUBMITTED T HAT THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE DATED 08.07.2016 HAS BEEN ISSUED AND SIGNED BY DCIT(HQR.) AND NOT BY LD. CIT(E). THEREFORE, SHOW CAUSE NOTICE WAS NOT ISSUED BY THE COMPETENT AUTHORITY AND THE PROCEEDINGS BEST ON THE ILLEGAL SHOW CAUSE NOTICE AND CONSEQUENTIAL ORDER PASSED BY THE LD. CIT(E) ARE NOT VALID AND HENCE LIABLE TO BE QUASHED. AS PER THE PR OVISIONS OF SECTION 10(23C)(VI) OF THE ACT THE PRESCRIBED AUTHORITY CAN EXAMINE AND CONSIDER THE NON FULFILLMENT OF THE CONDITIONS UND ER THE SAID PROVISIONS BY THE INSTITUTIONS, TRUST ETC. AND THEREFORE, BEFO RE INITIATING THE PROCEEDING U/S 10(23C)(VI) R.W.S. 13 TH PROVISO TO THE SAID SECTION ONLY COMPETENT AUTHORITY CAN ISSUE A SHOW CAUSE NOTICE G IVING AN OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE TO REPLY AND EXPLAIN IT S CASE. SINCE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE IS NOT ISSUED BY THE COMPETENT AUTHORI TY, THEREFORE THE SAME IS NOT VALID AND IN THE ABSENCE OF A VALID NOT E THE PROVISION ASSUMED BY THE LD. CIT(E) IS BAD AND VOID AND LAD A ND HENCE, THE ORDER PASSED U/S 10(23C)(VI) OF THE ACT IS NOT SUST AINABLE. IN SUPPORT OF HIS CONTENTION, HE HAS RELIED UPON THE FOLLOWING DECISIONS:- KOLKATA ITAT DECISION DATED 20.03.2015 IN CASE OF A RUN KANTI, ORDER (ITA NO. 1516/KOL/2014) KOLKATA ITAT BENCH DECISION DATED 15.01.2016 IN CAS E OF M/S ASSAM BANGAL CARRIERS, ORDER (ITA NO. 706/KOL/2016) HONBLE ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT DECISION DATED 02.07.2 012 IN CASE OF RAJESH KUMAR PANDEY, ORDER (ITA NO. 47/2011) THE LD. AR HAS ALSO RELIED UPON THE VARIOUS OTHER D ECISIONS IN SUPPORT OF HIS CONTENTION AND SUBMITTED THAT THE ORDER PASS ED IN PURSUANT TO INVALID SHOW CAUSE NOTICE IS NOT SUSTAINABLE. 5 MA NO. 53/JP/2018 MODERN SCHOOL SOCIETY, KOTA. 8. NEXT CONTENTION OF THE LD. AR IS THAT THE ASSESS MENTS FOR PRIOR YEARS I.E. ASSESSMENT YEARS 2011-12, 2012-13 WERE C OMPLETED U/S 143(3) AND THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD NOT FOUND ANY VIOLATION OF THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 11(5) OR 13(3) OR ANY OTHER P ROVISIONS OF THE ACT WHILE COMPLETING THE SCRUTINY ASSESSMENT. HOWEVER, DUE TO IMPUGNED ORDER THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS REOPENED THE COMPLE TED ASSESSMENT OF THE EARLIER ASSESSMENT YEARS. THEREFORE, THE WITHDR AWAL OF APPROVAL WITH RETROSPECTIVE EFFECT IS NOT VALID AS THE IMPUG NED ORDER HAS BEEN PASSED ON THE BASIS OF THE REPORT OF THE AO FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2013-14. IN SUPPORT OF HIS CONTENTION HE HAS RELIED UPON THE DECISION OF HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN CASE OF STATE OF RAJAST HAN AND OTHERS VS. BASANT AGROTECH INDIA LTD. AND OTHERS 388 ITR 81 AN D SUBMITTED THAT ONLY A LEGISLATION CAN MAKE A LAW RETROSPECTIVE AND PROSPECTIVELY SUBJECT JUSTIFIABILITY AND ACCEPTABILITY WITHIN THE CONSTITUTIONAL PARA- METERS. THE SUBORDINATE LEGISLATION CAN BE GIVEN WI TH RETROSPECTIVE EFFECT IF A POWER IN THIS BEHALF IS CONTAINED IN TH E PRINCIPLE ACT. IN THE ABSENCE OF SUCH CONFERMENT OF POWER THE GOVERNMENT THE DELEGATED AUTHORITY HAS NO POWER TO ISSUE A NOTIFICATION WITH RETROSPECTIVE EFFECT. THEREFORE, IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY PROVISION CONTAINE D IN LEGISLATIVE ACT THE DELEGATEE CANNOT MAKE A DELEGATED LEGISLATION W ITH RETROSPECTIVE EFFECT. THE LD. AR HAS THUS CONTENDED THAT WHEN NO POWER HAS BEEN CONFERRED BY THE ACT ON THE COMPETENT AUTHORITY TO WITHDRAW THE APPROVAL RETROSPECTIVELY, THEN THE WITHDRAW OF THE APPROVAL U/S 10(23C)(VI) OF THE ACT CAN ONLY BE PROSPECTIVE. 9. ON OTHER HAND, THE LD. DR HAS SUBMITTED THAT THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE IS ISSUED BY THE CIT(E) AND THE DCIT(HQR.) H AS SIGNED THE SAME FOR AND ON BEHALF OF THE CIT(E). HENCE, NO FAULT CA N BE FOUND IN THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE ISSUED U/S 10(23C)(VI) R.W.S. 13 PROVISO. THE DECISION RELIED UPON BY THE LD. AR ARE NOT APPLICAB LE IN THIS CASE BECAUSE IN THOSE CASES IT WAS SHOW CAUSE NOTICE ISS UED U/S 263 FOR REVISION OF THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER WHER EAS IN THE CASE OF 6 MA NO. 53/JP/2018 MODERN SCHOOL SOCIETY, KOTA. THE ASSESSEE IT WAS FOR WITHDRAWAL OF THE APPROVAL GRANTED U/S 10(23C)(VI) BY THE SAME AUTHORITY. THUS, THE LD. D R HAS CONTENDED THAT MERE SIGNING OF THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE BY DCIT( HQR.) WOULD NOT RENDER IT INVALID WHEN IT IS ISSUED BY LD. CIT(E). THE LD. DR HAS POINTED OUT THAT THE LANGUAGE AND CONTENTS OF THE NOTICE AR E REQUIRED TO BE CONSIDERED NOT MERE SIGNATURE. FURTHER, IT IS WITHD RAWAL OF APPROVAL AND THEREFORE, THE SAME WOULD BE FROM THE DATE OF G RANT OF APPROVAL I.E. WITH RETROSPECTIVE EFFECT. 10. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AS WEL L RELEVANT MATERIAL ON RECORD. THE FIRST OBJECTION OF THE ASSE SSEE IS REGARDING THE VALIDITY OF SHOW CAUSE NOTICE THAT IT WAS NOT SIGN ED BY THE COMPETENT AUTHORITY AND THEREFORE, IT IS INVALID. THE POWER A ND JURISDICTION TO WITHDRAW THE APPROVAL GRANTED U/S 10(23C)(VI) OF TH E ACT IS PROVIDED UNDER 13 TH PROVISO TO THE SAID SECTION WHICH READS AS UNDER: - PROVIDED ALSO THAT WHERE THE FUND OR INSTITUTION REFERRED TO IN S UB-CLAUSE (IV ) OR TRUST OR INSTITUTION REFERRED TO IN SUB-CLAUSE (V) IS NOTIFI ED BY THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT 7 [OR IS APPROVED BY THE PRESCRIBED AUTHORITY, AS THE CASE M AY BE,] OR ANY UNIVERSITY OR OTHER EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTION REFERRED TO IN SUB-CLAUSE ( VI) OR ANY HOSPITAL OR OTHER MEDICAL INSTITUTION REFERRED TO IN SUB-CLAUSE (VIA ), IS APPROVED BY THE PRESCRIBED AUTHORITY AND SUBSEQUENTLY THAT GOVERNMENT OR THE PRESCRIBED AUTH ORITY IS SATISFIED THAT (I) SUCH FUND OR INSTITUTION OR TRUST OR ANY UNIVERSITY OR OTHER EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTION OR ANY HOSPITAL OR OTHER MEDICAL INSTIT UTION HAS NOT ( A ) APPLIED ITS INCOME IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROVISION S CONTAINED IN CLAUSE (A) OF THE THIRD PROVISO; OR ( B ) INVESTED OR DEPOSITED ITS FUNDS IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS CONTAINED IN CLAUSE (B) OF THE THIRD PROVISO; OR ( II ) THE ACTIVITIES OF SUCH FUND OR INSTITUTION OR TRUST OR ANY UNIVERSITY OR OTHER 7 MA NO. 53/JP/2018 MODERN SCHOOL SOCIETY, KOTA. EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTION OR ANY HOSPITAL OR OTHER ME DICAL INSTITUTION ( A ) ARE NOT GENUINE; OR ( B ) ARE NOT BEING CARRIED OUT IN ACCORDANCE WITH ALL OR ANY OF THE CONDITIONS SUBJECT TO WHICH IT WAS NOTIFIED OR APPR OVED, IT MAY, AT ANY TIME AFTER GIVING A REASONABLE OPPOR TUNITY OF SHOWING CAUSE AGAINST THE PROPOSED ACTION TO THE CONCERNED FUND OR IN STITUTION OR TRUST OR ANY UNIVERSITY OR OTHER EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTION OR ANY HOSPITAL OR OTHER ME DICAL INSTITUTION, RESCIND THE NOTIFICATION OR, BY ORDER, WITHDRAW THE APPROVAL, A S THE CASE MAY BE, AND FORWARD A COPY OF THE ORDER RESCINDING THE NOTIFICATIO N OR WITHDRAWING THE APPROVAL TO SUCH FUND OR INSTITUTION OR TRUST OR ANY UNIVERSITY OR OTHER EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTION OR ANY HOSPITAL OR OTHER MEDICAL INSTITUTION AND TO THE ASSESSING O FFICER THE 13 TH PROVISO TO SECTION 10(23C)(VI) CONFERS THE POWER/ JURISDICTION TO WITHDRAW THE APPROVAL TO THE GOVERNMENT OR THE PRES CRIBED AUTHORITY. IT FURTHER POSTULATES THAT THE PRESCRIBED AUTHORITY, I F SATISFIED THAT SUCH FUND OR INSTITUTION HAS NOT COMPLIED WITH THE CONDITIONS A S PROVIDED THEREUNDER, CAN WITHDRAW THE APPROVAL. FOR INITIATION OF PROCEEDING S TO WITHDRAW THE APPROVAL THE MANDATORY PRE-CONDITION IS THE SATISFACTION OF THE PRESCRIBED AUTHORITY. UNDISPUTEDLY THE PRESCRIBED AUTHORITY IS THE LD. CI T(E) AND THE SATISFACTION OF THE PRESCRIBED AUTHORITY IS A MUST BEFORE ISSUING T HE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE FOR WITHDRAWAL OF THE APPROVAL GRANTED U/S 10(23C)(VI) OF THE ACT. THEREFORE, WHAT IS MATERIAL AND MANDATORY CONDITION IS THE SAT ISFACTION OF THE PRESCRIBED AUTHORITY AND NON ELSE. IN CASE IN HAND THE IMPUGNE D SHOW CAUSE NOTICE DATED 08.07.2016 WAS SIGNED BY THE DCIT (HQR.) AND ISSUED AS PER DIRECTIONS OF THE LD. CIT(E). IN PARAS 2 AND 6 OF THE SHOW CAU SE NOTICE IN OUR OPINION ARE RELEVANT TO THE ISSUE AND THE SAME ARE REPRODUC ED AS UNDER:- 2. IN THIS REGARD, I AM DIRECTED TO STATE THAT YOU R INSTITUTION/SOCIETY HAS VIOLATED THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 10(23C)(VI) OF T HE ACT IN RESPECT OF FOLLOWING ISSUES:- XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX 8 MA NO. 53/JP/2018 MODERN SCHOOL SOCIETY, KOTA. 6. YOUR CASE IS FIXED FOR HEARING BEFORE THE COMMISSIONER O F INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS), JAIPUR ON 25.07.2016 AT 12.30 P.M. IN THE INCOME TAX OFFICE (EXEMPTIONS) ROOM NO. 303, 3 RD FLOOR, KAILASH HEIGHTS, LAL KOTHI, TONK ROAD, JAIPUR. YOU MAY ATTEND EITHER PERSONALLY OR THROUGH AN AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE IN THIS BEHALF (HOLDING VALID POWER OF ATTORNEY). ANY FAILURE TO COMPLY MAY LEAD TO THE CONCLUSION THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOTHING FURTHER TO SAY FROM HIS SIDE IN THIS REGARD, AND THE CASE MAY THER EFORE, BE ACCORDINGL Y DECIDED. THE LANGUAGE AND TENOR OF THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE DO NOT EXHIBIT ANY THOUGHT PROCESS OF LD. CIT(E) BUT IT REVEALS IT WAS ISSUED AND SIG NED BY DCIT(HQR.) AS PER INSTRUCTIONS AND DIRECTIONS OF LD. CIT(E). THE MATT ER WOULD HAVE BEEN DIFFERENT IF THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE BRINGS OUT THE THOUGHT PROCESS AN D APPLICATION OF MIND BY THE LD. CIT(E) BUT WAS ONLY SIGNED BY THE DCIT (HQR.). IN C ASE IN HAND IT IS APPARENT THAT THE LD. CIT(E) DELEGATED ITS POWERS TO DCIT (HQR.) TO ISSUE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE AND THEREFORE, IT IS BASED ON THE SATISFACTION OF THE DCIT (HQR.) AND NOT OF LD. CIT(E). PARA 2 AND 6 OF THE IMPUGNED SHOW CAUSE NOTICE CLE ARLY MANIFEST THAT IT WAS ISSUED BY THE DCIT (HQR.) AND NOT BY THE CIT(E). THE LANGU AGE OF THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE DOES NOT GIVE ANY IMPRESSION OR INFERENCE THAT IT I S AN EXPRESSION OF THE SATISFACTION OF LD. CIT(E). THE KOLKATA BENCH OF THIS TRIBUNAL I N CASE OF ARUN KANTI VS. CIT (SUPRA) WHILE CONSIDERING THE ISSUE OF VALIDITY OF SHOW CAUSE NOTICE ISSUED U/S 263 OF THE ACT NOT SIGNED BY THE LD. CIT HAS OBSERVED IN P ARA 5 AND 5.1 AS UNDER:- 5. INVESTMENT/DEPOSITS OF FUNDS NOT IN THE PRESCRIB ED MODES:- THE SUB CLAUSE (B) OF 3 RD PROVISO OF SECTION 10(23C) REQUIRES THE SOCIETY T O INVEST/DEPOSIT THE FUNDS IN THE MODES SPECIFIED UND ER SECTION 11(5) OF THE ACT. HOWEVER, IT IS NOTICED THAT THE SOCIETY HAS MA DE ADVANCES WHICH IS NEITHER AS PER THE OBJECTS NOR IN THE MODES PRESCRI BED U/S 11(5) OF THE ACT. IN THE BALANCE SHEET AS ON 31.03.2013, IT IS NOTICE D THAT THE SOCIETY HAS SHOWN LOANS AND ADVANCES IN THE FOLLOWING NAMES:- 9 MA NO. 53/JP/2018 MODERN SCHOOL SOCIETY, KOTA. S.NO. NAME AMOUNT 1. TRUMURTI COLONISERS & BUILDERS PVT. LTD. 1,38,00,000/ - 2. A.K. EDUCATION WELFARE SOCIETY 1,00,00,000/ - 3. AMBIENCE LAND DEVELOPER 60,07,953/ - 4. SURENDRA KUMAR MEENA 3,00,00,000/ - 5.1 M/S TRIMURTI COLONIZERS & BUILDERS PVT. LTD.: ON PERUSAL OF LEDGER ACCOUNTS OF M/S TRIMURTI COLON IZERS & BUILDERS PVT. LTD PRODUCED DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDING S, IT HAS BEEN REVEALED THAT THE BALANCE AS ON 31.03.2013 WAS OF RS. 1,38,0 0,000-. THE BALANCE ADVANCES AS ON 31.03.2014 IN THE NAME OF AFORESAID COMPANY IS ALSO SHOWN AS RS. 1,38,00,000/-. THE SOCIETY HAS SUBMITTED THA T IT HAS GIVEN ADVANCES TO AFORESAID COMPANY FOR PURCHASING OF LAND AND SOCIET Y HAS NOT CHARGED ANY INTEREST ON SUCH ADVANCES. PERUSAL OF 'APPLICATION FORM' SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE IN RESPECT OF ALLOTMENT OF PLOT, IT HAS BE EN REVEALED THAT DATE, AMOUNT AND PLACE ETC. ARE NOT MENTIONED ON THE SAID FORM. AS PER SUBMISSION OF THE SOCIETY, EVEN TILL TODAY ANY LAND/IMMOVABLE PROPERTY WAS NOT PURCHASED OUT OF THESE ADVANCES. ON GIVING SHOW CAUSE IN THIS REGARD VIDE ITS REPLY DATED 25.07.2016, THE A/R OF THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED AS UNDER: I) ADVANCE GIVEN TO TRIMURTI COLONIZERS & BUILDERS PVT. LTD- THE SOCIETY HAS GIVEN ADVANCES TO TRIMURTI COLONIZERS & BUILDERS PV T. LTD. FOR PURCHASING OF LAND AT THE FUTURE CITY AT PHAGI JAIPUR. THE ADVANC E WAS GIVEN FOR SETTING UP AN EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTION AT JAIPUR. M/S TRIMURTI COLONIZERS & BUILDERS COULD NOT GIVE US CONVERTED LAND BECAUSE THEY COULD NOT G ET LAND CONVERTED. YOUR GOOD SELF HAS MENTIONED THAT THIS ADVANCE GIVE N CANNOT BE SAID FOR CHARITABLE ACTIVITIES AND THERE IS VIOLATION OF SEC TION 11(5) OF THE IT ACT, 1961. SIR, THIS ADVANCE IS GIVEN FOR ACQUISITION OF LAND FOR OPENING OF SCHOOL AND IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE SOLE OBJECT OF THE SOCIETY. FUR THER CLAUSE (X) OF THE SECTION 11(5) PERMITS INVESTMENT IN IMMOVABLE PROP ERTY AS ONE OF THE MODES OF INVESTMENT OF FUNDS, SO THERE IS NO VIOLAT ION OF SECTION 11(5) OF THE ACT. 10 MA NO. 53/JP/2018 MODERN SCHOOL SOCIETY, KOTA. FURTHER VIDE REPLY DATED 10.08.2015 SUBMITTED AS UNDER: THE ABOVE PARTY HAS INFORMED US THE FINAL HEARING OF GUTAB KOTHARI V/S STATE HAS COMPLETED AND THEY ARE WAITING FOR DECISION, HO WEVER WE HAVE INFORMED THEM THAT EITHER THEY SHOULD GIVE US LAND BY END OF THIS MONTH OR RETURN OUR MONEY. PLEASE NOTE THAT THEY ARE NO WAY CONNECTED T O US OR NEITHER WE HAVE ANY BUSINESS RELATION WITH THEM EXCEPT FOR THIS PAR TICULAR DEAL. FURTHER VIDE REPLY DATED 02.09.2016 SUBMITTED AS UN DER:- REGARDING OUTSTANDING AMOUNT AS INFORMED IN OUR LET TER DATED 10.08.2016 THAT WE HAD GIVEN TIME TO PARTY EITHER TO GIVE LAND OR REFUND THE MONEY BEFORE THE END OF AUGUST, 2016, NOW THEY HAVE REQUE STED THAT THE PRESENT TIME IS VERY BAD FOR CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRIES AND TH EY WANTED TIME TILL END OF THIS YEAR. THEY ASSURED US THAT THEY WILL CERTAINLY FULFILL THEIR COMMITMENT. IN FACT WE ALSO DO NOT HAVE ANY OTHER OPTION TO WAIT T ILL YEAR END, OR TO FILE A CASE AGAINST THEM. A SIMILAR VIEW WAS TAKEN BY THE KOLKATA BENCH OF TH IS TRIBUNAL IN CASE OF M/S ASSAM BANGAL CARRIERS VS. CIT (SUPRA) IN PARAS 7 AN D 8 AS UNDER:- 7. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS. A PER USAL OF THE RECORDS SHOWS THAT THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE U/S 263 OF THE ACT DATED 26.02.2013 WAS SIGNED BY A.C.I.T.(HQ)-XXI, KOLKATA AND NOT BY C.I.T. THE QUESTION REGARDING VALIDITY OF THE ORDER PASSED U/S 263 OF THE ACT WHEN THE SHO W CAUSE NOTICE U/S 263 OF THE ACT IS NOT SIGNED AND ISSUED BY C.I.T. AND HAD COME FOR CONSIDERATION BEFORE THIS TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF BARDHMAN CO-OP MILK PRODUCERS UNION LTD. VS CIT, BURDWAN (SUPRA). THIS TRIBUNAL ON IDENTICAL FACTS AS IN THE PRESENT CASE HAS HELD AS FOLLOWS :- 4. WE HAVE CAREFULLY C ONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE RECORD AND WE FIND THAT DELAY OF 29 0 DAYS IN FILING IN THESE CASES HAS BEEN ATTRIBUTED TO MISTAKE ON THE PART OF ASSESSEES COUNSEL. THE COUNSEL HAS CLEARLY ADMITTED THE MISTAKE ON HIS PAR T. WHEN THE DELAY IN FILING OF THESE APPEALS IS ATTRIBUTED TO THE MISTAKE OF TH E CONSULTANT, IN OUR CONSIDERED OPINION, ASSESSEE SHOULD NOT BE PENALIZE D ON THIS COUNT. THE CASE LAW REFERRED BY THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE AL SO SUPPORTS THIS PROPOSITION. ACCORDINGLY, WE CONDONE THE DELAY. 5. AS REGARDS THE MATTER IN APPEAL, WE NOTE THAT THE SAME IS AGAINST ORDER PASS ED BY THE LD. CIT U/S. 263 OF THE ACT. AT THE OUTSET, IN THIS CASE, LD. COUNSE L FOR THE ASSESSEE POINTED 11 MA NO. 53/JP/2018 MODERN SCHOOL SOCIETY, KOTA. OUT THAT THE NOTICE TO THE ASSESSEE U/S. 263 OF THE ACT IN THESE CASE, WAS ISSUED BY LETTER DATED 06-03-2007. THE SAID NOTICE WAS SIGNED BY ACIT, HQRS., BURDWAN FOR COMMISSIONER. REFERRING TO THIS ASPECT, THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE PLEADED THAT SECTION 263 OF THE ACT PROVID ES FOR NOTICE AND ADJUDICATION BY THE LD. CIT. LD. COUNSEL FOR THE AS SESSEE CLAIMED THAT SINCE NOTICE U/S. 263 OF THE ACT HAS NOT BEEN SIGNED BY T HE LD. COMMISSIONER. THE JURISDICTION ASSUMED IS DEFECTIVE AND THE ORDER U/S 263 OF THE ACT, IS LIABLE TO BE QUASHED ON THIS GROUND ITSELF. IN THIS REGARD, L D. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE REFERRED TO THE DECISION OF HONBLE ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT IN THE COURSE OF CIT V. RAJESH KUMAR PANDEY (2012) 25 TAXMANN.COM 242 (ALL. ). THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE FURTHER REFERRED TO THE DECISION OF TH E TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF SATISH KUMAR KASHRI V. ITO 104 ITD 382 (PAT). ITA N O.706/KOL/2013 M/S. ASSAM BENGAL CARRIERS. A.YR.2008-09 4 6. LD. DR ON THE OTHER HAND SUBMITTED THAT ABOVE IS NOT THE MATERIAL DEFECT AND HE SUBMIT TED THAT THERE IS NO REASON TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER U/S. 263 OF THE ACT, ON THIS ACCOUNT. 7. WE HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED TH E RECORD. WE FIND THAT SECTION 263(1) OF THE ACT PROVIDES AS UNDER:- THE CIT MAY CALL FOR AND EXAMINE THE RECORD OF ANY PROCEEDING UNDER THIS ACT , AND IF HE CONSIDERS THAT ANY ORDER PASSED BY THE AO IS ERRONEOUS INSOFAR AS IT IS PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF REVENUE HE MAY, AFTER GIVING THE ASSESS EE AN OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD AND AFTER MAKING OR CAUSING TO BE MADE SUCH I NQUIRY AS HE DEEMS NECESSARY, PASS SUCH ORDER THEREON AS THE CIRCUMSTA NCES OF THE CASE JUSTIFY, INCLUDING AN ORDER ENHANCING OR MODIFYING THE ASSES SMENT, OR CANCELLING THE ASSESSMENT AND DIRECTING FRESH ASSESSMENT. NOW WE CAN ALSO REFER TO THE NOTICE U/S. 263 OF THE ACT ISSUED TO THE ASSESSEE. THIS NOTICE WAS SIGNED AS UNDER:- YOURS FAITHFULLY SD/- VIKRAMADITYA (VIKRA MADITDYA) ACIT, HQRS., BURDWAN, FOR COMMISSIONER. FROM THE ABOVE, IT IS C LEAR THAT THE SAID NOTICE U/S. 263 OF THE ACT HA S NOT BEEN SIGNED BY THE CO MMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX RATHER IT HAS BEEN SIGNED BY ACIT, HQRS., BURD WAN. THE HONBLE ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF RAJESH KUMAR PA NDEY (SUPRA) HAS EXPOUNDED THAT WHEN THE LD. CIT HAS NOT RECORDED HI S SATISFACTION, BUT IT WAS THE SATISFACTION OF THE INCOME TAX OFFICER (TECHNIC AL) WHO IS NOT COMPETENT TO REVISE HIS ORDER U/S. 263 OF THE ACT, THE ORDER PASSED WAS LIABLE TO BE SET ASIDE. THE RELEVANT PORTION OF THE ORDER OF HONBLE ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT READS AS UNDER:- 6. ON PERUSAL OF THE AFORESAID PROVISIO NS, IT WILL BE ABUNDANTLY CLEAR THAT THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 299-BB DEALS W ITH THE PROCEDURE FOR SERVICE OF NOTICE AND IN CASE, THERE IS A DEFECTIVE SERVICE OF NOTICE, IT PROVIDES THAT IF THE ASSESSEE HAS COOPERATED, IT WILL NOT BE OPEN FOR HIM TO RAISE THE PLEA, WHEREAS IN THE INSTANT CASE, IT IS NOT THE CA SE OF THE SERVICE OF NOTICE, BUT THE INITIAL ISSUANCE OF NOTICE, WHICH HAS NOT B EEN SIGNED BY THE COMPETENT 12 MA NO. 53/JP/2018 MODERN SCHOOL SOCIETY, KOTA. AUTHORITY AS A FINDING HAS BEEN RECORDED BY THE TRI BUNAL THAT THE NOTICE HAS BEEN ISSUED UNDER THE SIGNATURE OF INCOME-TAX (TECH NICAL), WHEREAS IN VIEW OF THE PROVISIONS OF POWERS UNDER SECTION 263(1), IT I S ONLY THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX TO ISSUE NOTICE. IT IS ALSO RELEVANT TO ADD THAT PLEAS CAN BE RAISED ONLY OUT OF THE JUDGMENT PASSED BY THE TRIBUNAL OR OTHER AUTHORITIES, BUT THE PLEA, WHICH WAS NOT RAISED AT ANY STAGE, CANNOT BE RAISED FOR THE FIRST TIME BEFORE THIS COURT. NO OTHER ARGUMENTS HAVE BEEN ADV ANCED IN RESPECT OF OTHER QUESTIONS FRAMED IN THE MEMO OF APPEAL. 8. S IMILARLY, WE NOTE THAT IN THE CASE OF SATISH KR. KESHARI (SUPRA), THE TRIBUNA L HAD HELD THAT WHEN THE NOTICE U/S. 263 OF THE ACT WAS NOT UNDER THE SEAL A ND SIGNATURE OF LD. CIT AND SUFFERED FOR WANT OF DETAILS ON THE BASIS OF WH ICH LD. CIT CAME INTO CONCLUSION THAT THE ORDER OF ASSESSING OFFICER IS E RRONEOUS AND PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF REVENUE, ASSUMPTION OF JURISDICTION U/S. 263 OF THE ACT BY THE LD. CIT WAS INVALID. ITA NO.706/KOL/2013 M/S. ASSAM BENGAL CARRIERS. A.YR.2008-09 5 9. FROM THE ABOVE DISCUSSION REGARDI NG THE PROVISION OF LAW AND THE CASE LAW IN THIS REGARD, IT IS CLEAR THAT F OR A VALID ASSUMPTION OF THE JURISDICTION U/S. 263 OF THE ACT, THE NOTICE ISSUED U/S. 263 OF THE ACT SHOULD BE ISSUED BY THE LD. CIT. IN THIS CASE, IT IS UNDISPUT ED THAT NOTICE WAS ISSUED BY ACIT, HQRS, BURDWAN WHO IS NOT COMPETENT TO ASSUME JURISDICTION U/S. 263 OF THE ACT. HENCE, THE NOTICE WAS NOT UNDER THE SEAL A ND SIGNATURE OF LD. CIT. HENCE, AS PER THE PRECEDENTS REFERRED TO ABOVE, THE ASSUMPTION OF JURISDICTION U/S. 263 OF THE ACT IN THIS CASE IS NO T VALID. ACCORDINGLY, THE ORDER U/S. 263 OF THE ACT PASSED IN THESE CASES ARE QUASH ED. 8. FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE BEING IDENTICAL TO THE CASE REFERRED T O ABOVE, RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE AFORESAID DECISION WE HOLD THAT THE A SSUMPTION OF JURISDICTION U/S 263 OF THE ACT IN THE PRESENT CASE IS NOT VALID . ORDER U/S 263 OF THE ACT IS ACCORDINGLY QUASHED AND THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE CONCLUSION, THE OTHER GROUNDS OF APPEAL ARE N OT TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION. THE HONBLE ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT IN CASE OF CIT VS. RAJESH KUMAR PANDEY (SUPRA) WHILE DEALING WITH THE VALIDITY OF NOTICE A ND APPLICABLE OF THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 299BB HAS OBSERVED AS UNDER:- 299BB NOTICE DEEMED TO BE VALID IN CERTAIN CIRCUMS TANCES WHERE AS ASSESSEE HAS APPEARED IN ANY PROCEEDING OR CO-OPERATED IN ANY INQUIRY RELATING TO AN ASSESSMENT OR REASSESSMENT, IT SHALL BE DEEMED THAT ANY NOTICE UNDER ANY PROVISION OF THIS ACT, WHICH I S REQUIRED TO BE SERVED 13 MA NO. 53/JP/2018 MODERN SCHOOL SOCIETY, KOTA. UPON HIM, HAS BEEN DULY SERVED UPON HIM IN TIME IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF THIS ACT AND SUCH ASSESSEE SHALL BE P RECLUDED FROM TAKING ANY OBJECTION IN ANY PROCEEDING OR INQUIRY UNDER THE AC T THAT THE NOTICE WAS (A) NOT SERVED UPON HIM; OR (B) NOT SERVED UPON TIME IN TIME; OR (C) SERVED UPON HIM IN AN IMPROPER MANNER; PROVIDED THAT NOTHING CONTAINED IN THIS SECTION SHA LL APPLY WHERE THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED SUCH OBJECTION BEFORE THE COMPLETION OF SUCH ASSESSMENT OR REASSESSMENT. THUS, IT IS SETTLED PROPOSITION OF LAW THAT THE NOT ICE ISSUED BY THE AUTHORITY OTHER THAN THE PRESCRIBED AUTHORITY IS NOT VALID AN D CONSEQUENTIAL ORDER PASSED BY THE LD. CIT(E) IS WITHOUT JURISDICTION. T HE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE CONFERS THE JURISDICTION TO PROCEED AND TO PASS THE ORDER. IN CASE THE NOTICE ITSELF IS NOT VALID THEN THE JURISDICTION ASSUMED B Y THE PRESCRIBED AUTHORITY BASED ON THE INVALID NOTICE BECOME INVALID AND CONS EQUENTIAL ORDER PASSED BY THE AUTHORITY IS INVALID AND VOID ABINITIO FOR WANT OF JURISDICTION. FURTHER, INVALID SHOW CAUSE NOTICE VITIATES THE PROCEEDING A ND CONSEQUENTIAL ORDER. HENCE, WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT THE IM PUGNED ORDER PASSED BY THE LD. CIT(E) IS INVALID AND LIABLE TO QUASH ON TH IS GROUND. THEREFORE, THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 10(23C)(VI) WE RE DULY CONSIDERED BY THE TRIBUNAL AND IT WAS FOUND THAT THE SHOW CAUSE NOTIC E FOR WITHDRAWING THE APPROVAL GRANTED UNDER SECTION 10(23C)(VI) IS A MANDATORY CO NDITION AND CAN BE ISSUED BY THE COMPETENT AUTHORITY WHO HAS POWER TO WITHDRAW THE A PPROVAL. THIS DEFECT IN THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE CANNOT BE CURED AND, THEREFORE, T HE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 292BB CANNOT BE PRESSED INTO SERVICE FOR SUCH AN ILLEGALI TY AND DEFECT IN THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE. THE TRIBUNAL HAS ALSO CONSIDERED ALL THE ASPECTS OF SHOW CAUSE NOTICE ISSUED AS PER THE DIRECTIONS OF THE LD. CIT (E) AND , THEREFORE, IT WAS FOUND BY THE 14 MA NO. 53/JP/2018 MODERN SCHOOL SOCIETY, KOTA. TRIBUNAL THAT THERE IS NOTHING IN THE LANGUAGE OF T HE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE TO REVEAL THAT THE DECISION WAS TAKEN BY THE LD. CIT (E) TO SET OU T THE GROUNDS IN THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE FOR WITHDRAWAL OF APPROVAL. THE TRIBUNAL HAS SPECIFICALLY CONSIDERED THIS ASPECT AND FOUND THAT THE LANGUAGE OF SHOW CAUSE NO TICE DOES NOT EXHIBIT ANY THOUGHT PROCESS OF LD. CIT(E) BUT IT REVEALS THAT I T WAS ISSUED AND SIGNED BY THE DCIT HQRS AS PER THE INSTRUCTIONS AND DIRECTIONS OF THE LD. CIT (E). THE TRIBUNAL EVEN WENT FURTHER ON THIS POINT AND OBSERVED THAT T HE MATTER WOULD HAVE BEEN DIFFERENT IF THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE BRINGS OUT THE T HOUGHT PROCESS AND APPLICATION OF MIND BY THE LD. CIT (E), BUT WAS ONLY SIGNED BY THE DCIT HQRS. HENCE THE TRIBUNAL FOUND THAT THE LD. CIT (E) DELEGATED THE POWER TO T HE DCIT HQRS TO ISSUE THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE WHICH IS NOT PERMISSIBLE AS PER THE PR OVISIONS OF THE ACT. IN VIEW OF THE DETAILED FINDING BASED ON THE ANALYSIS OF THE FACTS AND PROVISIONS OF LAW, THE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION FILED BY THE REVENUE HAS NO SUBSTANCE AS THE REVENUE IS RAISING THE CONTENTIONS ON THE MERITS OF THE ISSUE AND NOT POINTED OUT ANY APPARENT MISTAKE WHICH CAN BE RECTIFIED AS PER THE PROVISION S OF SECTION 254(2) OF THE ACT. THE SCOPE AND JURISDICTION TO RECTIFY THE MISTAKE U NDER SECTION 254(2) IS VERY LIMITED AND CIRCUMSCRIBED. THE TRIBUNAL CAN RECTIFY THE MI STAKE WHICH IS MANIFEST AND APPARENT ON THE FACE OF THE RECORD AND NOT SOMETHIN G WHICH REQUIRES A LONG DRAWN REASONING. HENCE THE DECISION TAKEN ON MERITS CANN OT BE REVIEWED OR REVISED IN THE PROCEEDINGS UNDER SECTION 254(2) OF THE ACT. EVEN OTHERWISE, THE TRIBUNAL HAS NOT RESTRICTED ITS FINDING ONLY ON THE TECHNICAL ISSUE BUT THE MERITS OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LD. CIT (E) WITHDRAWING THE APPROVAL UNDER SECT ION 10(23C)(VI) WAS ALSO DECIDED 15 MA NO. 53/JP/2018 MODERN SCHOOL SOCIETY, KOTA. AND HENCE IN VIEW OF THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION FILED BY THE REVENUE IS DEVOID OF ANY M ERIT. THE SAME IS DISMISSED. 5. IN THE RESULT, MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION FILED B Y THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 24/07/201 8. SD/- SD/- HKKXPUN ( FOT; IKY JKWO ) ( BHAGCHAND) (VIJAY PAL RAO ) YS[KK LNL;@ ACCOUNTANT MEMBER U;KF;D LNL;@ JUDICIAL MEMBER JAIPUR DATED:- 24/07/2018. DAS/ VKNS'K DH IZFRFYFI VXZSF'KR@ COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. THE APPELLANT- THE CIT (EXEMPTIONS), JAIPUR. 2. THE RESPONDENT- MODERN SCHOOL SOCIETY, KOTA. 3. THE CIT(A). 4. THE CIT, 5. THE DR, ITAT, JAIPUR 6. GUARD FILE ( M.A. 53/JP/2018) VKNS'KKUQLKJ@ BY ORDER, LGK;D IATHDKJ@ ASSISTANT. REGISTRAR