2010-VIL-863--DT

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ALLAHABAD

ITA NOS. 179 and 180 (ALL.) OF 2009

Date: 06.10.2010

THE SUNBEAM ENGLISH SCHOOL SOCIETY

Vs

CIT

BENCH

H.L. KARWA, VICE-PRESIDENT J.

JUDGMENT

Per N.K. Saini. –

These two appeals by the assessees relate to the cancellation of registration u/s 12A of the Act and were heard together, so these are being disposed of by this consolidated order for the sake of convenience.

2. First we will deal with ITANo.180/Alld/09 relating to the Sunbeam Academy Educational Society,Varanasi. This appeal is directed against the order dated 11/06/2009 of CIT,Varanasi. In this appeal the assessee has raised the following grounds:

1. BECAUSE the “CIT” has erred in law and on facts in cancelling the registration under section 12A, as had been granted to the “Appellant Society” vide order dated 12.05.2005 as rectified on 25.08.2005, effective from 01.04.2004, by holding that:

“……..I am of the opinion that the activities of the society are not entirely charitable in nature and also, the same are not being carried out in accordance with the aims and objects of the society. Therefore, I hereby cancel the registration of the society u/s 12AA(3) of the IT. Act, 1961, as issued by the CIT, Varanasi vide F.No.CIT/Vns/Hq-020/2004-05 dated 25.8.2005. All necessary consequences of such cancellation to follow accordingly.”

2. BECAUSE there has been no change in the objects of the “Appellant Society”, since its very inception and the activities carried on by it were wholly genuine and covered by the provisions of section 2(15) of the “Act” and the observations made/findings given to the contrary, are erroneous on facts as well as in law.

3. BECAUSE reliance on the order dated 17.03.2009 as passed by the Ld. CIT, Allahabad refusing to grant continuance of earlier notification dated 20.12.2007 is wholly misplaced, as the CCIT’s order dated 17.3.2009 itself is based on non-consideration/non-appreciation of the facts and circumstances of the case and the material and information on record, as is evident from a bare perusal of the analysis thereof as per Annexure - “A” and Annexure - “A-I” hereto.

4. BECAUSE the said order dated 17.03.2009, as passed by the Ld. CIT, Allahabad, can not be said to be relevant for the purposes of invoking sub-section (3) of section 12AA on the facts and circumstances of the case, and the order dated 8/11-06.2009 (impugned in this appeal) as is solely based on the said order, is wholly illegal and is liable to be quashed, as such.

5. BECAUSE the “CIT” has erred in law and on facts in holding, on the basis of Income Tax Inspector’s report (as has been called for by the Ld. CCIT during the course of proceedings for continuance of notification dated 20.12.2007), that payments made to Sri Rajan Yadav (Prop. M/s Rajan & Co.) were not for “educational purposes”, and on that ground, inter-alia in cancelling the registration by invoking provision of sub-section (3) of section 12AA of the Act.

6. BECAUSE the “CIT” has further erred in law and on facts in taking an adverse view in the proceedings for cancellation of registration under section 12A by referring to the withdrawals from his bank account as made by Sri Rajan Yadav, from time to time.

7. BECAUSE the “CIT” on a due consideration of the facts of the case, particularly that:

(a)  Sri Rajan Yadav, having filed his “return” for the assessment year 2008-09 in due course and even prior to the initiation of proceedings related to continuance of earlier notification dated 20.12.2007 under section 10(23C)(vi) himself is assessed to tax;

(b) the payments made to him were supported by the bills raised by him from time to time, which contained all the details of the works executed by him;

(c) the payee Sri Rajan Yadav was examined by the Assessing Officer having jurisdiction in his case, by issue of summons under section 131(1) of the Act and during the course of such proceedings he had duly placed on record the details of works as executed by him for the “Appellant Society” and the payment received by him in lieu thereof;

(d) as far as the execution of works related to the “Appellant Society” is concerned, the same stood fully verified by on the spot inspection as carried out by the Income Tax Inspector, at the behest of the ld. CCIT, Allahabad during the course of proceedings for continuance of notification dated 20.12.2007;

(e) Sri Rajan Yadav had been exclusively working, during the year under reference for the “Appellant Society” itself, and the ‘site’ of such work itself was the place from where he had been operating and procuring and storing the materials required for execution of work; and

(f) other attendant facts and circumstances of the case.

should have accepted the “Appellant Society’s” contention that payments made to Sri Rajan Yadav were meant for educational purposes only and provision of sub-section (3) to section 12AA were not attracted.

8. BECAUSE the “Appellant Society” had duly submitted all the requisite details under various heads of expenditure for the Financial Years 2004-05, 2005-06 and 2006-07 relevant to the assessment years 2005-06, 2006-07 and 2007-08 along with “compilation” submitted before the “CIT” on 10.06.2006, as is evident from index of the said compilation, which is enclosed as Annexure A-II hereto, and the observations made by “CIT” in para 5.3 are wholly erroneous.

9. BECAUSE in any case the regular assessment of the “Appellant Society” for the assessment year 2006-07 had been made by the Assessing Officer after due scrutiny and examination of the books of account and other records, vide order dated 29.07.2008, and in view of the finding of facts as stood recorded therein, the “CIT” could not have held that necessary verification could not be carried out

10. BECAUSE reliance placed on various case laws is wholly erroneous and in any case, before referring to such case laws (which are unreported), it was obligatory on the “CIT” to confront the “Appellant Society” with the same so as to ensure full justice.

11. BECAUSE the “Appellant Society” continued to carry on the activities related to the objects and for attainment of which it had come into existence and cancellation of registration granted to it earlier was neither legal nor proper on the facts of the case.

12. BECAUSE wholly without prejudice to the contention raised in the foregoing grounds, the criteria that had been adopted by the “CIT” for cancellation of registration was not germane to the issue before him/ with the result that the order dated 08/11.06.2009 stands wholly vitiated.

13. BECAUSE the pre-requisites for invoking the provisions of sub-section (3) of section 12AA neither existed nor the “CIT” can be held to have expressed his “satisfaction” about the existence of such pre-requisites, after due application of mind, and the order dated 08/11.06,2009 is wholly vitiated.

14. BECAUSE the case of the “Appellant Society” suffers from pre-judgment and ‘bias’ as is evident from this fact alone that the order cancelling the registration had already been made on 05.06.2009, whereas the “Appellant Society” was allowed to make submissions on 10.06.2009 and on that date submissions running into 155 pages had duly been made.

15. BECAUSE the order appealed against is based on % irrelevant and extraneous material/consideration and the same is not sustainable either on facts or in law.

16. BECAUSE the order appealed against is contrary to the facts, law and principles of natural justice.”

3. From the above grounds, it would be clear that the only grievance of the assessee, relates to the cancellation of registration u/s 12A of the IT. Act, 1961.

4. The facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee is a society duly registered under Societies Registration Act, 1860 and it had all along been engaged in the activities related to imparting of education through a number of educational institutions. After considering its objects the society was duly granted registration u/s 12A of the I. T. Act vide order dated 20.12.2005 by the CIT, Varanasi with effect from 01.04.2004. Later on the learned CIT came to know that the application of the assessee for grant of exemption u/s 10(23C)(vi) of the Act was rejected by the CCIT, Allahabad for assessment years 2008-2009 to 2010-2011 vide order dated 17/03/2009. He, therefore, issued notice dated 28.04.2009 u/s 12AA(3) of the Act to the assessee as to why its registration u/s 12A of IT. Act, 1961 be not cancelled since the activities of the society have ceased to remain charitable in nature as defined u/s 2(15) of the Act. The assessee, vide reply dated 10/06/2009 submitted that it is a society duly registered under Societies Registration Act, 1860 and it had all along been engaged in the activities related to imparting of education through a number of educational institutions, therefore, it falls within the definition of ‘charitable purpose’ as defined in section 2(15) of the IT. Act, 1961 as amended by the Finance Act, 2008 and only after considering these objects the assessee was duly granted registration u/s 12A of the Act and later on it had been so notified also u/s 10(23C)(vi) of the IT. Act as per the order dated 20/12/2007 covered for the assessment years 2005-2006 to 2007-2008 as issued by the CCIT, Allahabad. It was also submitted that certificate of registration u/s 12A of the IT. Act as was granted on 12/05/2005 and as rectified on 25/08/2005 effective from 01/04/2004 could not be cancelled.

4.1 The learned CIT, after considering the submissions of the assessee, observed that the application for grant of registration u/s 10(23C)(vi) for assessment years 2008-2009 to 2010-2011 had been rejected by the CCIT, Allahabad vide order No.F.No.CC-ALD/J-7/10(23C)(vi)/2007-08/4503 by observing inter alia as follows:

“Thus , in view of the discussion above, the failure on the part of the assessee to submit the required explanation and to produce books of account, vouchers of expenses, income and expenditure A/c, receipt and payment A/c, balance sheet etc. and the expenditure of the society are not solely for educational purposes, as envisaged in sec. 10(23C)(vi). The basic dictum of Equity, enshrined in Common Law tradition is “he who seeks equity must come with clean hands”. The conduct of the application right from the start of the proceedings has been one of evasion as he is not interested in the Department going beneath the apparent to the real, Therefore; the application received on 25.3.2008 for grant of exemption u/s 10(23C)(vi) for A.Yrs. 2008-09, 2009-10 & 2010-11 is hereby rejected.”

4.2 The learned CIT further pointed out that a detailed enquiry was got conducted through the Assessing Officer as regards the transactions of the assessee with Sri Rajan Yadav, prop. M/s Rajan & Company, a civil contractor, who was stated to be carrying out the work for the assessee and in his return for A.Y. 2008-09, Sri Yadav had shown a gross receipt of Rs.32,80,000/- as claimed to have been received from the assessee.

However, the assessee had reflected such payments to the extent of Rs.33,93,070/- to M/s Rajan & Company, for building construction at the school premises at Samneghat and Durgakund. The learned CIT observed that the AO in this regard had categorically stated that the purchases made by Sri Rajan Yadav for the stated construction work were not verifiable as the purchases were made on estimate sheets and that actual cash/ credit memos were not available and that the assessee in “this” regard has merely stated that as the contractor has filed his Income Tax Return u/s 44AD of I.T. Act, 1961, he was not required to maintain books of account and other documents etc. The learned CIT further observed that the enquires made from Service Tax Department and Trade Tax Department revealed that Sri Rajan Yadav was not registered with them and worked only for the assessee in the F.Y. 2007-08 but there was no written contract between them. He also pointed out that Mr. Yadav had withdrawn Rs.7,00,000/- within 7 days ( on 15.11.2007 & on 22.11.2007) for cash payments but no substantial bill was produced by the assessee. Therefore, the withdrawals of Rs.7,00,000/- also stood unexplained. The learned CIT was of the view that the assessee engaged the so called civil contractor with no status, profile or experience as he had no office of his own and was running a one man show. Therefore, the withdrawals clearly reflected that the payments shown by the assessee to the contractor were bogus and not for the educational purposes. The learned CIT observed that the assessee failed to produce documents and corroborate evidence and as a result many of the expenses as detailed in its Income & Expenditure Account for the relevant Assessment years remained unverified and therefore, could not constitute to be expenditure solely incurred for education. The learned CIT thereafter referred to the judgment of Hon’ble Uttranchal High Court in the case of CIT, Haldwani, v. M/s. Queens Educational Society, Haldwani, District- Nainital, (IT Appeal No. 103 of 2007) and CIT Haldwani, v. Ms. St. Paul’s Senior Secondary School, Kathgodam District- Nainital (I.T., Appeal .No. 104 of 2007) respectively reported at 319 ITR 160, wherein it was held that the law is well settled that if the profits is proved by educational society, then that will be income to the society as the surplus amount remains in the account books of the society after meeting all the expenses incurred towards the education, the key issue that remains is that of profits, the plea of the assessee is not acceptable. It has also been held that investment in the fixed assets like furniture & buildings are the properties of the society and may be connected with the imparting of education, but the same were constructed and purchased out of income from imparting the education, with a view to expand the institution and to earn more income. The learned CIT keeping in view the aforesaid referred to judgment was of the opinion that the activities of the society were not entirely charitable in nature and also, the same were not being carried out in accordance with the aims and objects of the society. He, therefore, cancelled the registration of the society u/s 12AA(3) of f the IT. Act, 1961. Now the assessee is in appeal.

5. The learned counsel for the assessee submitted that the object of the assessee since its very inception is imparting the education which is a charitable activity as per the provisions of section 2(15) of the Act. It was further submitted that for the assessment year 2006-2007, the Assessing Officer has allowed the benefit to the assessee u/s 11(1) of the Act while passing the assessment order u/s 143(3) of the Act on 29/07/2008. A reference was made to page No. 15 of the assessee’s compilation which is copy of the aforesaid assessment order. It was further submitted that the order dated 17/03/2009 as passed by the learned CCIT,Allahabad u/s 10(23C)(vi) of the Act cannot be relevant for the purposes of invoking the provisions of section 12AA(3) of the Act. It was further submitted that the learned CIT while cancelling the registration u/s 12AA(3) of the Act relied the report of the Income Tax Inspector that payment made to Sri Rajan Yadav, Prop. M/s Rajan & Co. were not for educational purposes. However, he ignored this vital fact that Shri Rajan Yadav had filed the return for the assessment year 2008-2009 in due course and the payments made to him were supported by bills which contained all the details of the works executed by him and even the Assessing Officer examined Shif Rajan Yadav by issuing the summons u/s 131(1) of the Act and during the course of assessment proceedings, he had duly placed on record the works as executed by him for the assessee society and the payments received by him in lieu thereof. Therefore, the works executed by Shri Rajan Yadav stood fully verified by inspection as carried out by the Income Tax Inspector. It was contended that Shri Rajan Yadav had been exclusively working during the year under consideration for the assessee and the site of said work was on the place from where he had been operating and procuring and storing the materials for execution of the work. Therefore, the payments made to Shri Rajah Yadav for constructing the building to be used for educational purposes could not be considered a basis for cancelling the registration u/s 12AA(3) of the Act. It was contended that the learned CCIT, while rejecting the application of the assessee for grant of exemption u/s 10(23C)(vi) of the Act for the assessment years 2008-2009 to 2010-2011 had relied the report of the Income Tax Inspector, relating to payments made to Shri Rajan & Co. for building construction but that cannot be a ground to reject the registration of the assessee already granted u/s 12A of the Act. The reliance was placed on the following case law:

 (i)  CIT v.. Mahasabha Gurukul Vidyapeeth Haryana [2010] 326 ITR 25 (P&H)

(ii)  Vanita Vishram Trust v. CCIT & Anr. [2010] 40 DTR (Bom.) 225

(iii)  Pinegrove International Charitable Trust v. Union of India [2010] 37 DTR(P&H) 105

5.1 It was further submitted that the learned CIT although placed his reliance on the judgment of Hon’ble Uttaranchal High Court in the case of CIT v. CIT, Haldwani, v. M/s. Queens Educational Society 319 ITR 160, however, the said judgment had been dissanted by the Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court as well as Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the aforesaid referred to cases. He further submitted that the profit/surplus could not be a bar for registration u/s 12A of the Act particularly when the assessee fulfilled all the conditions as provided u/s 11 of the Act i.e. more than 85% of the receipts was utilised. He, therefore, submitted that the learned CIT was not justified in cancelling the registration u/s 12A of the Act.

6. In his rival sbmissions the learned D. R. strongly supported the order of the learned CIT and further submitted that the exemption u/s 10(23C)(vi) of the Act has been denied to the assessee by the learned CCIT, Allahabad for the reason that the payments made to Shri Rajan Yadav for construction of building were bogus and not for the educational purposes. Therefore, the learned CIT was justified in cancelling the registration by invoking the provisions of section 12AA(3) of the Act since the funds were not utilised by the assessee for the educational purposes.

7. We have considered the rival submissions and carefully gone through the material available on record. In the instant case, it is not in dispute that the assessee is engaged in the educational activity since its inception and as per the provisions of section 2(15) of the Act, charitable purpose includes relief to the poor, education, medical relief and the advancement of any other object of general purpose utility. From the definition provided in sub-section 15 of section 2 of the Act, it is clear that the educational activity comes under the purview of activity for charitable purpose and even if there is surplus from such activity, the registration u/s 12A cannot be denied particularly when the object of the assessee society was to establish, run, manage schools or other educational institutions solely for educational purposes. Even the registration u/s 12A was granted to the assessee vide order dated 12/02/2005 with effect from 01/04/2004 after considering the objects as charitable in nature and it is not the case of the deptt that there is any change in the objects of the assessee society. It has not been brought on record that the assessee society was not engaged in the activities relating to imparting of education. In the present case, the learned CIT cancelled the registration alrady granted u/s 12A of the Act solely on the basis of this fact that the CCIT, Allahabad vide order No. F.No.CC-ALD/J-7/10(23C)(vi)/2007-08/4503 dated 17/03/2009 has rejected the registration u/s 10(23C)(vi) of the IT. Act. However, the Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of CIT v. Mahasabha Gurukul Vidyapeeth Haryana [2010] 326 ITR 25 (P&H) has held as under:

(i)  that all the requisite conditions for exemption under section 11 have been met, even if the conditions under section 10(23C)(vi) had not been complied with, there would be no bar seeking exemption under section 11.

7.1 Further more the CBDT in its Circular No. 11 of 2008 dated 12/12/2008 has clarified that an entity with a charitable object is eligible for exemption from tax u/s 11 or alternatively u/s 10(23C) of the Act, which clearly shows that both the proceedings are independent to each other, therefore, the rejection of application for grant of the exemption u/s 10(23C)(vi) of the Act cannot be a basis for cancelling the registration u/s 12A of the Act. It is noticed that in the present case, the Assessing Officer had allowed the exemption u/s 11 of the Act to the assessee while passing the assessment order u/s 143(3) of the Act for the assessment year 2006-2007, copy of which is placed at page No. 15 of the assessee’s compilation. Therefore, it cannot be said that the assessee was not entitled for exemption u/s 11 of the Act. Even the learned CIT, while granting the registration u/s 12A of the Act is only required to see as to whether objects are charitable and the activities are genuine which are carried out in accordance with the objects of the trust or institution. As regards to the exemption u/s 11 of the Act, the Assessing Officer is required to verify the records as to whether the assessee fulfilled the conditions and the income derived from the property held under trust only for charitable or religious purposes is utilised to the extent of 85% and that the income/surplus accumulated, does not exceed 15%. In the present case, the learned CIT mainly relied on the order of CCIT, Allahabad wherein it has been observed that the payments made to Shri Rajan Yadav for construction purposes were bogus and not for charitable purposes. On the contrary, the contention of the assessee is that Shri Rajan Yadav was filing the return of income regularly and the payments were made to him for constructing a building through cheques on the basis of bills submitted by him which contained all the details of the work executed by him and even TDS has been deducted u/s 194C of the Act. The said contention has not been rebutted. Furthermore, it is not the case of the learned CIT that the building constructed by Shri Rajan Yadav on behalf of the assessee was utilised for the purposes other than the educational purposes, therefore, the payments made to Shri Rajan Yadav for construction of the building which is to be utilised for imparting the education i.e. the main object of the assessee, cannot be a ground to cancel the registration already granted u/s 12A of the IT. Act. The learned CIT also relied on the decision of Hon’ble Uttranchal High Court in the case of CIT, Haldwani, v. M/s. Queens Educational Society (supra). The law laid down in the said case is not a good law in view of the judgment of Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of Pinegrove International Charitable Trust v. Union of India [2010] 37 DTR (All.) 105 and the judgment of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Vanita Vishram Trust v. CCIT & Anr. [2010] 40 DTR (Bom.) 225 (supra). The relevant findings as have been given by their Lordships in paras 14 and 15 of the aforesaid referred to judgment in the case of Vanita Vishram Trust v. CCIT & Anr. read as under:

“14. The first respondent while rejecting We applications of the petitioner has adverted to the judgment of the Uttarakhand High Court in CIT v. Queens’ Educational Society (2009) 223 CTR (Uttarakhand) 395 : (2009) 319 ITR 160 (Uttarakhand). The statement of facts as recited in the judgment of the High Court is to the effect that the assessee had a profit of thirty per cent in asst. yr. 2000-01 and twenty seven per cent in asst. yr. 2001-02. The assessee was conducting an educational institution. The Tribunal held that the assessee was entitled to the benefit of the exemption under s. 10(23C). The High Court observed that “the law is well settled that if the profit is proved by an educational society then that will be the income to the society as the surplus amount remains in the account books of the society after meeting all the expenses incurred towards imparting the education”. A reference was made to the judgment of the Supreme Court in Aditanar Educational Institution Etc. (supra). The judgment of the Supreme Court was, however, distinguished on the ground that the objects clause of the assessee indicated that while there were other objects to be achieved, the assessee had done nothing except to pursue the main object of providing education and earning profit Moreover, with the profit earned, the assessee had strengthened its capacity to earn more, rather than to undertake any other activities to fulfill the other objects for which the trust was constituted. Though the trust had made an investment in fixed assets like furniture and buildings which may be connected with the imparting of education, this the High Court held, was with a view to expanding the institution and to earn more income.

15. If the facts as they appear in the judgment of the Uttarakhand High Court are considered, the case would be entirely distinguishable. The judgment of the High Court would indicate that the assessee in that case was construed to be one which existed with the object of enhancing the income and of earning profits as opposed to the provision of education. However, it would be necessary for this Court to observe that some of the observations contained in the judgment of the Uttarakhand High Court may not be in conformity with the law laid down by the Supreme Court in Aditanar Educational Institution Etc. case (supra). The High Court took exception to the conduct of the assessee on the ground that though it was entitled to pursue other “noble and pious” objects, the assessee had done nothing to achieve them and had only pursued the main object of providing education and earning profit Now, it must be appreciated that in order to obtain the benefit of the exemption under s. 10(23C)(vi), the university or, as the case may be, educational institution must exist solely for educational purposes and not for the purposes of profit The requirement that the institution must exist solely for educational purposes would militate against an institution pursuing other objects. Consequently, the High Court was, in our view and with due respect, not correct in holding as a principle of law that the benefit of the exemption should be denied on the ground that the assessee has only pursued its ‘ main object of providing education and had not pursued the other objects for which the trust was constituted. Were the assessee to pursue other objects, it would clearly run afoul of sub-cl. (vi). The assessee must exist solely for educational purposes. In this view of the matter, while we hold that the facts of the present case are distinguishable, we have also recorded our reservations about the correctness of the statement of legal principle in the judgment of the Uttarakhand High Court. The attention of the Court has also been drawn to the fact that a Division Bench of the Punjab & Haryana High Court in Pinegrove International Charitable Trust v. Union of India, Civil Writ Petn. No. 6031 of 2009 decided on 29th Jan., 2010 [reported at (2010) 37 DTR (P&H) 105—Ed.] has also expressed reservation about the view of the Uttarakhand High Court in Queens’ Educational Society (supra).”

7.2 From the above it is crystal clear that the Hon’ble Bombay High Court and Hon’ble Pubjab & Haryana High Court dissanted from the judgment of Hon’ble Uttaranchal High Court which has havily been relied by the learned CIT. In the present case, the learned CIT did not mention that the activities of the assessee were in violation to its objects for which registration has already been granted. He simply refused the registration on the basis that the learned CCIT, Allahabad had rejected the application for grant of exemption u/s 10(23C)(vi) of the Act. In the present case, as we have already pointed out that the assessee was engaged in the activities of providing the education since it its inception and the said activity comes under the purview of charitable activities as per the provisions contained in section 2(15) of the Act. Secondly the rejection of application u/s 10(23C)(vi) of the Act cannot be a reason to cancel the registration u/s 12AA(3) of the Act. Furthermore, nothing is brought on record that there is any change in the objects of the assessee for the year under consideration viz-a-viz for the years in which the registration was already granted with effect from 01/04/2004 by issuing certificate of registration u/s 12A on 12/05/2005 which was rectified on 25/08/2005 and that the building constructed by Shri Rajan Yadav for the assessee was not utilised for the educational purposes. In the present case, this contention of the assessee that Shri Rajan Yadav, the contractor was filing the return of income and TDS u/s 194C was deducted on the payments made to him through cheques on the basis of bills submitted which contained all the details of the work executed by him has not been rebutted. We, therefore, considering the totality of the facts, as discussed herein above, set aside the order passed by learned CIT in cancelling the registration already granted u/s 12A of the IT. Act.

8. In ITA No.179/Alld/09, which is directed against the order dated 22/05/2009 of CIT, Varanasi, the facts are identical to the facts involved in ITA No.180/Alld/09 (Supra). Even the rival contentions were similar, therefor, our findings given in former part of this order in respect of The Sunbeam Academy Educational Society v. CIT in I.T.A. No.180/Alld/09 shall apply mutatis mutandis.

9. In the result, the appeals are allowed.

 

DISCLAIMER: Though all efforts have been made to reproduce the order accurately and correctly however the access, usage and circulation is subject to the condition that VATinfoline Multimedia is not responsible/liable for any loss or damage caused to anyone due to any mistake/error/omissions.