Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Indore
Dcit (Excemption), Bhopal vs Shri Vaishnav Plolytechnic College ... on 6 November, 2020
आयकर अपील य अ धकरण, इंदौर यायपीठ, इंदौर
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL,
INDORE BENCH, INDORE
BEFORE SHRI KUL BHARAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER
AND SHRI MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
ITA No.469/Ind/2018
Assessment Years: 2014-15
Dy. Commissioner of Shri Vaishnav Polytechnic
Income Tax (Exemption), Vs. College Govn by VSK
Bhopal Market Tech Educational
Society, MOG Lines,
Indore
(Revenue ) (Appellant)
PAN No.AAFTS9636P
Revenue by Shri K.G. Goel, Sr.DR
Appellant by Shri Girish Agrawal & Ms. Nisha
Lahoti, ARs
Date of Hearing 08.09.2020
Date of Pronouncement 06.11.2020
ORDER
PER MANISH BORAD, AM.
The above captioned appeal filed at the instance of revenue pertaining to Assessment Year 2014-15 is directed against the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-II (in short 'Ld.CIT'], Indore dated 15.02.2018 which is arising out of the order u/s 154 ITA No.469/Ind/2018 Shri Vaishnav Polytechnic College of the Income Tax Act 1961(In short the 'Act') dated 02.06.2016 framed by DCIT-CPC, Bangalore.
2. Brief facts of the case as culled out from the records are that the assessee is an educational institute run and governed by Shri Vaishnav Sahayak Kapda Market Technical Education Society. Return of income declaring loss of Rs.1,28,86,747 filed on 14.8.2014. Gross Receipts for the year were Rs. 5,98,24,898 and amount of Rs. 7,27,11,645 claimed as deduction towards application of funds for educational charitable purposes. Owing to loss situation, there was no occasion to claim exemption u/s 10(23C)(iiiab) in the return. Return was processed u/s 143(1) on 16.03.2016 wherein income was computed at Rs. 5,98,24,898 which represents the total gross receipts of the assessee [7,27,11,645 - 1,28,86,747 = 5,98,24,898]. Assessee filed two rectification applications u/s 154 claiming that assessee is governed by provisions of section 10(23C)(iiiab). Exemption under section 10(23C)(iiiab) is available to any university or other educational institution existing solely for educational purposes and not for purposes of profit, and which is wholly or substantially 2 ITA No.469/Ind/2018 Shri Vaishnav Polytechnic College financed by the Government. Both the above mentioned rectification applications were rejected vide order dated 02.06.2016 and 11.12.2016 stating that details of registration u/s 12A/12AA are not mentioned in the return so filed. Fresh claim of addition/reduction of income or other details in the return shall not be made in rectification request. It was also stated that to claim exemption u/s 10, details of approving/registering authority and section under which exemption is claimed has to be furnished properly in the return. Against the order dated 02.06.2016 passed u/s 154 of the Act assessee preferred appeal before Ld. CIT(A) and succeeded as Ld. CIT(A) held that the assessee is eligible for exemption u/s 10(23C)(iiiab) of the Act and also allowed the claim of incidental expenditure of Rs.7,27,11,645/- being the amount applied by the assessee during the year to meet the objectives of the educational institution.
3. Aggrieved revenue is now in appeal before the Tribunal against the order of Ld. CIT(A) dated 15.02.2018 raising following grounds of appeal:-
3 ITA No.469/Ind/2018
Shri Vaishnav Polytechnic College
1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) was justified in allowing the society benefit of exemption u/s10 (23C) (iiiab) of the Income Tax Act when no such exemption u/s 10 was claimed in the return of income, more specifically, it was not claimed in row number 16 of Part B-TI of the return of income. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has been specific on this issue in the case of Goetze (India) Ltd Vs CIT reported in 284 ITR 323 SC [2006] and held that the assessee cannot make any fresh claim which was not made in the return of income other than by filing a revised return of income.
2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) was justified in allowing the society benefit of exemption u/s 10(23C)(iiiab) of the Income Tax Act when the society has not been substantially financed by the Government during the year and the grants received are less than 50 of the total receipts of the year. The Hon'ble ITAT, Indore has also decided the issue of wholly or substantially financed as prescribed in the Act in the case of M.P. Rajya Open School, Bhopal v. Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax-l(2), Bhopal reported in [2013] 141 ITD 721 (Indore - Trib.). The Id. ITAT held that for treating substantially financed by the Government, the gross receipt by the assessee from Government cannot be less than 75 of' total receipt.
3. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) was justified in alternatively allowing deduction of expenses u/s 57 of the Act when no such deduction was ) claimed in the return of income (Schedule OS of the Return), in view of the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Goetze (India) Ltd Vs CIT reported in 284 ITR 323 SC [2006].
4. The revenue reserves the right to add, urge or alter all or any other ground/grounds on or before the date of hearing.
4 ITA No.469/Ind/2018 Shri Vaishnav Polytechnic College
4. Ld. Departmental Representative vehemently argued supporting the order of Ld. A.O which in this case is order by Centralized Processing Center (In Short 'CPC') and also submitted that the assessee had not filed the return properly in order to claim the benefit u/s 10(23C)(iiiab) and also pointed out that the grants received during the year were not received wholly from Government but from other sources also. Reliance was placed on the decision of Co-ordinate Bench of Indore in the case of M.P. Rajya Open School Bhopal v/s DCIT (2012) 28 Taxman.com 29 (Indore-Trib).
5. Per contra Ld. Counsel for the assessee referred to the submissions made before the lower authorities and also the findings of Ld. CIT(A). Following written submissions were also placed on record:-
1. Assessee made a lawful claim of exemption available to it under the provisions of section 10(23C)(iiiab) before the Ld. AO and also before the Ld. CIT(A) - 2, Indore. Assessee placed strong reliance on the following decisions for its claim made before the first appellate authority which was not claimed in the return filed originally owing to a loss situation.
a. Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Goetze India Limited - [2006] 284 ITR 323 [CLPB 31] -
Para 4 - "The decision in question is that the power of the Tribunal under section 254 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, is to entertain for the first time a point of law provided the fact on the basis of which the issue of law can be raised before the Tribunal. The decision does not 5 ITA No.469/Ind/2018 Shri Vaishnav Polytechnic College in any way relate to the power of the Assessing Officer to entertain a claim for deduction otherwise than by filing a revised return. In the circumstances of the case, we dismiss the civil appeal. However, we make it clear that the issue in this case is limited to the power of the assessing authority and does not impinge on the power of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal under section 254 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. There shall be no order as to costs." [emphasis supplied] b. Hon'ble Bombay High Court followed the decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Goetze India (supra) in Pruthvi Brokers & Shareholders [2012] 23 taxmann.com 23 (Bom) and gave its finding on the applicability -
Catch Note - An assessee is entitled to raise before appellate authorities additional grounds in terms of additional claims not made in return filed by it.
Para 23 - "It is clear to us that the Supreme Court did not hold anything contrary to what was held in the previous judgments to the effect that even if a claim is not made before the assessing officer, it can be made before the appellate authorities. The jurisdiction of the appellate authorities to entertain such a claim has not been negated by the Supreme Court in this judgment. In fact, the Supreme Court made it clear that the issue in the case was limited to the power of the assessing authority and that the judgment does not impinge on the power of the Tribunal under section 254."
c. The above decision of Hon'ble Bombay High Court was followed by Hon'ble Coordinate Bench of ITAT Ahmedabad in the case of Zydus Wellness Ltd [2016] 76 taxmann.com 328 (Ahd) with Hon'ble Accountant Member Shri Manish Borad as its author - Para 36 elaborately deals with the finding given by Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Pruthvi Brokers & Shareholders (supra) and its findings are given in Para 37 -
"Respectfully following the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Smifs Securities Ltd. (supra), and the judgment of Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Pruthvi Brokers and Shareholders (supra) we are of the view that ld. CIT(A) has rightly allowed the justifiable & correct claim of depreciation on 'goodwill' made by the assessee through revised computation of income without filing revised return of income during the course of assessment proceedings. Therefore, no interference is called for in the order of ld.
CIT(A) on this issue. This ground of Revenue is dismissed." 6 ITA No.469/Ind/2018 Shri Vaishnav Polytechnic College
2. In the first appellate proceedings, it was also submitted that - a. CBDT vide circular no. 14 dated 11.04.1955 specifically states in Para 3 that it is the duty of the Department to assist the taxpayer in every reasonable way, particularly in the matter of claiming and securing reliefs. It is also stated in this circular that the Officers should take the initiative in guiding a taxpayer where proceedings or other particulars before them indicate that some refund or relief is due to him/her. [CLPB 34] Provisions of section 119(1) requires every officer to follow orders, instructions and directions of CBDT which are binding in nature on the tax authorities, even if the directions given by CBDT are at variance with the provisions of law.
b. Article 265 of the Indian Constitution empowers the Government to levy and collect only such tax which can be legitimately collected from the taxpayers and is in accordance to the provisions of law. It is the duty of the income tax authorities to pass on all the benefits as per the provisions of law which are available to the assessee. Department in fact is bound to give all the benefits and not to take advantage of the ignorance of law on the part of the assessee. If the rightful and correct relief or deduction is not allowed to the assessee, the purpose and intention of the law shall be defeated.
3. Appeal filed by the assessee was allowed by Ld. CIT(A) vide order dated 15.02.2018 stating -
Para 2.6 - ".................I have carefully gone through the above documents and find that the above grants were given by the MP government to the appellant's society and the appellant had also submitted a copy of letter of Ministry of Human Resource Development Resource Development in which the said ministry had released grant to the polytechnics during F.Y. 2013-14. The appellant society is an educational institute. In the said letter, the grant had been released to the 20 polytechnics colleges of M.P. government and in this list the appellant's college name is clearly mentioned at point no. 35. Thus, this is clear that the appellant society is an educational institute and it was financed by the Government of M.P. Therefore, in the light of the above judicial decisions and documents so submitted by the appellant, these ground of appeal is hereby allowed. Thus, its income was exempt u/s 10(23C)(iiiab) of the Act. In its alternative, the AO is directed to allow benefit of the expenses so claimed by the appellant against the receipts."
7ITA No.469/Ind/2018 Shri Vaishnav Polytechnic College
4. In addition to the above submissions and judicial precedents, reliance is also placed on the following decisions which may please be considered while disposing the matter -
a. Explanation to section 10(23C)(iiiab) and 10(23C)(iiiac) has been inserted w.e.f. 01.04.2015. The vagueness attributable to the term "substantially financed" was removed vide this amendment which is a prospective one.
Prior to this amendment, where an institute is financed from the government less than 50% of total receipts, would be eligible for exemption subject to fulfilment of other conditions. In the case of the assessee, the grant received from the Government of Madhya Pradesh is 45.30% of the total gross receipts and the relevant year is prior to the date of amendment.
This aspect of government financing of less than 50% prior to amendment has been dealt by Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of Indian Institute of Management [2010] 8 taxmann.com 239 wherein the government financing was to the tune of 37.85% was held to be entitled for exemption u/s 10(23C)(iiiab). Also, in the case of Jat Educatin Society, Rohtak [2015] 64 taxmann.com 312 by Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court.
Hon'ble Coordinate Bench of ITAT Chandigarh in the case of CRM Jat Post Graduate College [2019] 109 taxmann.com 425 dealt with this matter and held in favour of the assessee by following the above referred decisions of Hon'ble Madras High Court and Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court, that [CLPB 15-26] -
"In view of insertion of Explanation below clause (iiiab) and (iiiac) of sub-section (23C) of section 10 by Finance Act, 2014, prospectively i.e. with effect from 1-4-2015, prior to said date even institution getting finance less than 50 per cent of total receipts from Government, would be eligible for exemption subject to fulfilment of other conditions"
b. Hon'ble Jurisdictional Bench of Indore ITAT in the case of Indore Education Society - ITA No. 468/Ind/2018 - dated 19.11.2019 [CLPB 1 -7] -
Para 6 - "......merely because the assessee could not make claim of exemption should not be a ground to reject the eligible claim of exemption u/s 10(23C) of the Act. It is true that it is a settled 8 ITA No.469/Ind/2018 Shri Vaishnav Polytechnic College position of law that the revenue authority should not deny claim of exemption, if it is available under the facts of a particular case. In such a case, the assessee is required to demonstrate that he is eligible for the benefit available under the law. ........." [emphasis supplied] Your Honours have dealt with the subject matter in the above decision holding in favour of the assessee that revenue authority should not deny claim of exemption, if it is available under the facts of a particular case. In the present case, assessee has demonstrated evidently that it exists solely for the purpose of education and not for the purposes of profit and is adequately financed by the State Government of Madhya Pradesh to the extent of 45.30% in the relevant year.
c. Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court of Madhya Pradesh in the case of Gurmeet Singh Vilku - [2019] 104 taxmann.com 207 - order pronounced on 14.02.2019 [CLPB 8 - 12] -
Para 33 - "We are also of the opinion that the very initiation of the impugned Section 154 proceedings was misconceived and uncalled for as there was no mistake in the previous orders requiring rectification in view of the admitted and undisputed fact that the petitioner is entitled to claim benefit under Section 89(1) of the Act, and that his claim thereunder is allowable." [emphasis supplied] d. Hon'ble Mumbai Bench of ITAT in the case of Satish S. Prabhu - [2020] 114 taxmann.com 88 - order pronounced on 06.12.2019 - Para 6 - "That being the case, the assessee is certainly entitled for deduction under section 54 of the Act. Merely because the assessee claimed a deduction under the wrong provision, his claim cannot be disallowed if it is allowable under a different provision. In view of the aforesaid, while admitting the additional ground raised by the assessee being purely a legal ground which can be decided without requiring investigation into fresh facts, we direct the Assessing Officer to allow assessee's claim of deduction under section 54 of the Act in respect of the second flat. Additional grounds are allowed. Consequently, the ground raised by the assessee claiming deduction under section 54F of the Act having become redundant is dismissed." [emphasis supplied] e. Reliance placed by the Department on the decision in the case M.P. Rajya Open School, Bhopal [2012] 28 taxmann.com 29 (Indore) is distinguishable on the its own peculiar set of facts evidently 9 ITA No.469/Ind/2018 Shri Vaishnav Polytechnic College tabulated in Para 3.4 of its order. In this case, the assessee had received only initial capital from the Government of M.P. i.e. in AY 1996-97 and nothing thereafter until year 2009.
In case of the present assessee in the instant appeal, assessee has been receiving grants from the Government of Madhya Pradesh on year to year basis to meet its expenses of salary, allowances and others.
Considering the above facts, circumstances of the case, submissions made, documents on record and judicial precedents, appeal of the department ought to be dismissed.
6. Ld. Counsel for the assessee referred and relied on following case laws:-
1. Indore Education and Service Society ITA No.468/Ind/ 2018 (Indore Trib.)
2. Gurmeet Singh Vikhu (2019) 104 taxmann.com 207 (M.P)
3. Satish S. Prabhu (2020) 114 taxmann.com 88 (Mumbai Trib.)
4. CRM Jat Post Graduate College (2019) 109 taxmann.com 425 (Chandigarh Trib.)
5. Goetze (India) Ltd (2006) 157 Taxman 1 (SC)
6. CBDT Circular No.14 dated 11.04.95
7. We have heard rival contentions and perused the records placed before us and carefully gone through the decisions and judgments referred and relied by both the parties. Revenue has challenged the finding of Ld. CIT(A) raising following two issues :-
(i) Whether the Ld. CIT(A) is justified in allowing the society to claim the benefit of exemption u/s 10(23C)(iiiab) of 10 ITA No.469/Ind/2018 Shri Vaishnav Polytechnic College the Act when no such exemption was claimed in the return of income and also the society has not been substantially financed by the Government during the year and grants received are less than 50% of the total receipts for the year.
(ii) Whether Ld. CIT(A) is justified in alternatively allowing deduction of expenses u/s 57 of the Act when no such deduction was claimed in the return of income.
8. Before dealing with both the issues we will first like to reproduce the finding of Ld. CIT(A) allowing the claim of expenses by the educational institute and also allowing the exemption u/s 10(23C)(iiiab) of the Act observing as follows:- Ground No. 1 & 2
2.0 These grounds of appeal are with regard to making addition of Rs 7,27,11,645/ _ on account of expenses claimed on running of college on the ground that the society was not registered u/s 12A. I have carefully gone through the assessment order as well as submission of the appellant in this regard.
2.1 The appellant has stated that the assessee was an educational institute and was running a college (Shri Vaishnav Polytechnic) at MOG Lines, Indore. The appellant has also submitted that the college was receiving grant from the Government of Madhya Pradesh and has also collected fee from the students. Such fee was fixed by Government of Madhya 11 ITA No.469/Ind/2018 Shri Vaishnav Polytechnic College Pradesh and It was following all the norms of Government of Madhya Pradesh regarding admission of students, staff structure and management. The appellant has also submitted that the Ex officer Chairman of the society was the Commissioner, Indore and the ex officer Chairman of governing body was the Collector, Indore.
2.3 The appellant has argued that the educational institute existed solely for educational purpose and not for the purpose of profit. Further, it was argued that the College was substantially financed by the Government of Madhya Pradesh. Accordingly, income of the institute was exempt u/s 10(23C)(iiiab). The society had filed its return of income showing receipts under various heads (namely fee from students, grant from Government of MP, rent and sale of tender form). The appellant has also submitted a copy of audit report. The details of income and expenditure account is reproduced as under:-
Narration Amount Narration Amount
Salary and
6,86,28,876 Grant from Govt. of MP 2,71,00,000
Allowances
Provident Fund 12,34,740 Interest 47,64,151
Repair and
2,25,947 Rent 2,03,990
maintenance
Electricity Expenses 11,65,877 Sale of tender form 8,800
Other Expenses 14,56,205 Fee 2,77,47,957
Net deficit for the year 1,28,86,747
Total 7,27,11,645 7,27,11,645
2.4 The appellant has also argued that it had claimed deduction in respect of expenses for running college (salary to teachers and staff and other contingent expenses). The return of income was filed declaring loss of Rs. 1,28,86,747/-. Copy of computation of income was also submitted by the appellant.12 ITA No.469/Ind/2018
Shri Vaishnav Polytechnic College However, assessment u/s 143(1) had been completed on income of Rs. 5,98,24,900/- which represents the gross receipts of the institution.
2.5 The relevant portion of the appellant's submission is reproduced hereunder:-
"The appellant has relied on the decision of Dy. DIT (E) vs. Petroleum Sports promotion Board (2014) 88 CCH 0128 Del HC : (2014) 111 DTR 0055 (Del) held that :-
wherein, assessee; a registered society, formed for promotion of sports and had claimed its entire income to be exempt u/ s 11. The AO had denied exemption u/s 11 on ground that assessee was not registered u/s 12A, accordingly amount received by assessee as grants from various oil companies was brought to tax under head "income from other sources". An estimated expenditure of Rs.1.20 lacks was deducted as expenditure incurred in collecting grant and addition was made. The honorable High Court held that even u/ s 57(iii), any expenditure incurred for purpose of making or earning income is allowable as a deduction. If income is assessed under residual head full play must be allowed to Section 57(iii). Assessee in present case was created in 1979 with the object of promoting sports. There was no other object and all its constituents were getting grants/funds only for that purpose. Assessee was merely acting as a custodian or conduit to constituents for the purpose of promoting sports activity inside and outside country. Expenditure incurred assessee was only for purpose of promoting sports events and activities. If such expenditure is not allowed, it may amount to taxing gross receipts of the assessee and not the income, which is not permissible under the income tax law. Contention of revenue that the 13 ITA No.469/Ind/2018 Shri Vaishnav Polytechnic College order of the Tribunal was untenable since it indirectly confers the benefit of Section 11 upon the assessee was rejected. All that the assessee claimed before the CIT(A) was that the entire expenditure should be allowed as a deduction since it was incurred for the very objects for which the assessee was established in 1979 i.e. promotion of sports and, therefore, the AO was not justified in restricting the allowance of expenditure to Rs.1,20,000/_ only for all the three years. It was this claim that was accepted by the CIT (Appeals). The objection of the revenue that since the grants were assessed under the residual head, there was no scope for allowing the expenditure incurred on the promotion of the sports activities was not acceptable since even under Section 57(iii), any expenditure incurred for the purpose of making or earning the income is allowable as a deduction. It is open to the income-tax authorities to deny the exemption under Section 11 of the Act in absence of registration under Section 12A and if they do so, then the assessment has to be completed in accordance with the provisions of the Income Tax Act. If the income is assessed under the residual head full play must be allowed to Section 57(iii). The assessee in the present case was created in 1979 with the object of promoting sports; there was no other object and all its constituents were giving grants/ funds only for that purpose. In truth and reality the assessee was merely acting as a custodian or conduit to the constituents for the purpose of promoting sports activity inside and outside the country. The expenditure incurred by the assessee is only for the purpose of promoting the sports events and activities and in this respect there is no challenge to the finding of fact recorded by the Tribunal. If such expenditure is not allowed, it may amount to taxing the gross receipts of the assessee and not the income, which is not permissible under the income tax law."14 ITA No.469/Ind/2018
Shri Vaishnav Polytechnic College 3 . The list of items illustrated in Circular No. 549 dt. 31st Oct., 1989 TC1OS.691 clearly points out that only adjustments which are, on the basis of the return and documents accompanying it, allowable or disallowable, can be adjusted. Thus, under section 143(1(a)(i), it is not open to the Assessing Officer to disallow any claim for deduction unless he is satisfied, on the information which is available in the return and the documents accompanying it, that such a claim is inadmissible. Otherwise, he cannot disallow such a claim {Om Trading cc. vs. Second ITO (1991) 94 CTR (Kar) 282: (1991) 188 ITR 641 (Kar). Reference may also be made to the decision of Mahalakshmi Glass Works Ltd. &Anr. vs. Sunil Gupta &Anr. (1993) 203 ITR 658 (Bom). The Assessing Officer is not permitted under the guise of making adjustment to adjudicate upon any debatable issue (Kamal Textiles vs. ITO (1991) 189 ITR 339 (MP), KhatauJunkar Ltd. vs. K.S. Pathania, Dy. CIT (1992) 196 TTR 55 (Bom), JKs Employees Welfare Fund vs. ITO (1993) 199 ITR 765 (Raj). In Tanna Exports & Anr.vs. u.o. Kamat&Anr. (1993) 202 ITR 219 (Ba m) a similar view was taken. It was observed that while making an assessment under section 143(1){a), recalculation of deduction under section 80HHC, a debatable point, is not permissible. In Marlborough polychem Ltd. vs. ClT (2009) 221 CTR (Raj) 771, it was held that AO in exercise of his jurisdiction under s. 143(1){a) could have disallowed the claim laid by assessee to deduction under s. 80HH and 80-1 as the issue was no more debatable in view of decision of jurisdictional High Court already rendered before the date of filing return.
4. The ITO can disallow a claim for deduction only if he is satisfied, on the basis of the materials which is before him, that the assessee is not entitled to such a deduction. The use of the phrase "prima facie admissible" in cl. (iii) to the proviso, also lend support to this 15 ITA No.469/Ind/2018 Shri Vaishnav Polytechnic College interpretation. In its literal sense, 'prima facie' means 'on the face of it'. Hence, on the face of the return and the documents and accounts accompanying it, the deduction claimed must be inadmissible. Only then, can it be disallowed under the proviso to section 143(1){a). If any further enquiry is necessary, or if the Assessing Officer feels that further proof is required in connection with the claim for deduction, he will have to issue a notice under sub-section (2) of section 143. Indeed, in every case where the Revenue desires to have evidence in support of any claim, a notice can always be issued under section 143(2), a regular assessment made and the excess amount due recovered (Khatau Junkar Ltd. vs. K.S. Pathania, Dy. CIT (1992) 196 ITR 55 (Bom), Bank of America NT. and S.A. vs. Dy. CIT (1993) 200 ITR 739 (Bom) and Indian Rayon & Industries Ltd. vs. J.R. Kanekar, Asstt. CIT (1993) 200 ITR 747 (Bom). See also JKs Employees' Welfare Fund vs. ITO (1993) 199 ITR 765 (Raj), Adamas General Industries Ltd. &Anr. vs. Smt. Neela Krishnan (1993) 203 ITR 737 (Bom), SRF Charitable Trust vs. Union of India (1992) 193 ITR 95 (Del), Makum Tea Co. (India) Ltd. vs. Dy. CIT &Anr.(1999) 235 ITR 484 (Gau), Parikh Engineering & Body Building Co. Ltd. &Anr. vs. Union of India &Ors. (1999) 238 ITR 554 (Pat)).
5. For the purposes of adjustments under cl. (iii) to the first proviso to s. 143(I)(a), a deduction claimed must be inadmissible on the face of the return; documents and accounts accompanying it without any scope for doubt or debate; question of prima facie adjustment under s. 143(I)(a) has to be considered with reference to the position on the date on which the return is filed and not with reference to the events subsequent thereto.[Samtel Color Ltd. vs. Union of India &Ors. (2002) 177 CTR (Del) 289 : (2002) 258 ITR 1 (Del)}.
16 ITA No.469/Ind/2018 Shri Vaishnav Polytechnic College Section 143(I)(a) contemplates that power could be exercised only :
(a)(i) in respect of toss carried forward, (a)(ii) deduction, or (a)(iii) allowance, and (a)(iv) relief claimed; (b) the power in respect of the above four items should be on the basis of information available in the return, accounts or documents; (c) that these items are prima facie inadmissible. There may be a case where the rate of tax is not disputed but while calculating the tax there is an error which could be corrected under this clause, i.e., while calculating the tax on the normal rate or maximum marginal rate there is a mistake which could be corrected and will fall in the category of arithmetical mistake, but whether maximum marginal rate is to be applied or the normal rate is applicable is not covered by any of the two clauses of the proviso of section 143(I)(a) of the Act. The matter has also to be considered from another angle that the word 'prima facie' which has been used therein means on the face of and refers to the items, on which there cannot be two opinions. If the matter is arguable one or debatable then same cannot be disallowed under the proviso referred to above. Thus, on the proper interpretation of this section, the rights of the ITO are restricted with regard to the disallowances which are prima facie inadmissible. Whether the provisions of a particular section [section 167B in this case} are applicable or not, will not be covered under this section. [JKs Employees Welfare Fund vs. ITO (1992) 107 CTR (Raj) 161 : (1993) 199 ITR 765 (Raj)}. See also CIT vs. Orbit Travel & Tours (P) Ltd.
(1999) 238 ITR 931 (AP).
In Tata Yadogawa Ltd. vs. CIT (2011) 335 ITR 53 (Jharkhand), it was held that as prima facie adjustment is permissible only in respect of claims, the incorrectness of which is apparent from any information in the return and debatable claims are not liable to such 17 ITA No.469/Ind/2018 Shri Vaishnav Polytechnic College prima facie adjustments, AO was not justified in making prima facie adjustments in respect of the deduction claimed under s. 35AB towards income-tax paid by the assessee as part of the lump sum consideration for acquiring the know-how. In Amiruddin vs. ITO & Anr. (2001) 240 ITR 550 (MP) it has been held that while passing an order under s. 143(l)(a) the AO cannot change the nature of income or exemption. In CIT vs. McDowell & Co. Ltd. (2006) 204 CTR (Kar) 353 in which decision in God Granites vs. CBDT &Ors. (1996) 218 ITR 298 (Kar) was followed and decision in Madan Gopal Bagla vs. CIT (1956) 30 ITR 174 (SC) was distinguished, it was held that only a claim which is prima facie admissible or inadmissible can be considered under s. 143(l)(a) and not a matter that requires a detailed consideration; assessee having made out a prima facie case in respect of deduction of 'corporate guarantee obligation' as there was an agreement and also a guarantee obligation, claim for deduction of corporate guarantee obligation could not be disallowed by way of prima facie adjustment under s. 143(l)(a).
Following types of disallowances/ additions/ alterations have been held to be not permissible by resort to section 143(l)(a):
Corpus donations received by a trust-SRF Charitable Trust vs. Union of India (1991) 100 CTR (Del) 160: (1992) 193 ITR 95 (Del) Amount claimed non-taxable in the relevant year-Bank of America NT. & S.A. vs. Dy. CIT (1993) 200 ITR 739 (Bom) Creating tax demand by invoking section 167B-JKs Employees Welfare Fund vs. ITO (1992) 107 CTR (Raj) 161 : (1993) 199 ITR 765 (Raj) (Copy of order enclosed) 18 ITA No.469/Ind/2018 Shri Vaishnav Polytechnic College
9. In CIT vs. Kay Kay Family Trust (2005) 196 CTR (All) 376 assessee filed return for asst. yr. 1986-87 in the status of specified trust but the AO adopted the status of AOP while making assessment under s.
143(1). It was held that this action of AO was not justified and his order should be deemed to have been passed under s. 143(3) and as such appeal against the order was maintainable under s. 246(l)(a). See also CIT vs. Khalsa Dewan (Regd.) (2009) 221 CTR (P&H) 486 :
(2008) 300 ITR 357 (P&H).
10. That the educational institute exists solely for educational purpose and not for the purpose of profit. College is substantially financed by Government of Madhya Pradesh as major part of receipts are through grants from state Government. Accordingly, income of the institute is exempt u/ s 10(23C)(iiiab). The appellant has not been allowed such deduction. There is no column in the income tax return form to furnish details of exemption u/ s 10(23C)(iiiab), though there are specific columns in the return form to furnish details exemptions under other clauses of section 10(23C).
2.6 The appellant has also submitted copies of letter as issued by the Government of MP in respect of grants specifying the purpose of such grants. The grant had been issued for payment of salary, allowances and other expenses and had been utilized for payment of salary to staff. Further, all the above expenses were passed by the auditor appointed by State Government and were incurred subsequent to the sanction by the State Government auditors. The appellant has submitted all the relevant documents in support of his case. I have carefully gone through the above documents and find that the above grants were given by the MP government to the appellant's society and the appellant had also submitted a copy of letter of 19 ITA No.469/Ind/2018 Shri Vaishnav Polytechnic College Ministry of Human Resource Development in which the said ministry had released grant to the polytechnics during F.Y. 2013-14. The appellant society is an educational institute. In the said letter, the grant had been released to the 20 polytechnics colleges of M.P. government and in this list the appellant's college name is clearly mentioned at point no. 35. Thus, this is clear that the appellant society is an educational institute and it was financed by Government of M.P. Therefore, in light of the above judicial decisions and documents so submitted by the appellant, these ground of appeal is hereby allowed. Thus, its income was exempt u/s 10(23C)(iiiab) of the Act. In its alternative, the AO is directed to allow benefit of the expenses so claimed by the appellant against the receipts.
9. We observe that Ld. CIT(A) has thoroughly analysed the facts of the case and has also referred to the relevant decisions and judgments to arrive at the finding favouring the assessee.
10. We will first take up the second issue raised by the revenue regarding the allowability of the expenses claimed in the return of income. We find that the assessee filed its return of income on 14.8.2014 showing gross total income at Rs.5,98,24,898/- and claiming expenditure of Rs.7,27,11,645/- as an amount applied to charitable or religious purposes in India during the previous year. The net income for the year is a loss of Rs.1,28,86,747/-. The 20 ITA No.469/Ind/2018 Shri Vaishnav Polytechnic College return was processed u/s 143(1) of the Act and a communication was sent to the assessee denying the claim of expenses of Rs. 7,27,11,645/- on the ground that the assessee is not registered u/s 12A of the Act and thus the amount applied to charitable or religious purposes are disallowed. Against this intimation assessee filed rectification applications u/s 154 of the Act which were rejected and assessee also tried to file revised return of income within the statutory time limit provided in the Act but the same could not be uploaded due to technical error. It was also brought to our notice that in the return form there is no specific column to claim the exemption u/s 10(23C)(iiiab) of the Act. Assessee's case was not selected for scrutiny u/s 143(3) of the Act. Books of accounts and expenditure details were never called for examination. There is no observation of the revenue authorities at any stage of the proceedings to show that the expenditure claimed by the assessee were not genuine. It is also not disputed that the books of accounts of the assessee were audited and major portion of the grant is received from Madhya Pradesh Government and the Chairman of the governing body of the society is Collector, District, 21 ITA No.469/Ind/2018 Shri Vaishnav Polytechnic College Indore. As provided in the bye laws funds received by the society are to be deposited in any such bank or invested in such manner as approved by the State Government and the fund to be applied only towards meeting the expenses of the society. All these facts are sufficient enough to show that the assessee's claim of expenses of Rs. 7,27,11,645/- has not been found to be bogus or excessive at any stage and looking to the constitution of governing body and the control of the State Government for realizing and spending of funds prime facie no doubt can be raised for the genuineness of the expenses incurred. Even for a while it is presumed that the assessee is not eligible for exemption u/s 10(23C)(iiiab) of the Act then also in view of the judgment of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the case of Petroleum Sports Promotion Board (supra) if the income is assessed under the residual head as the A.O denied exemption u/s 11 of the Act full play must be allowed to Section 57(iii) of the Act towards any expenditure incurred for the purpose of making or earning income.
11. In the instant case also the assessee society is a registered under the Madhya Pradesh Society Registration Act 1959 since 22 ITA No.469/Ind/2018 Shri Vaishnav Polytechnic College 26.06.1962 wth the sole purpose of establishing and running institution to impart technical education in Civil, Mechanical and Electrical and such other branches of Engineering. The assessee institute runs solely for educational purposes and not for the purpose of earning profits. Most of the grants are received from Government of Madhya Pradesh. Irrespective of the fact that the assessee is eligible for exemption u/s 10(23C)(iiiab) of the Act or not even if the revenue authorities wanted to tax receipts during the year as income under the head income from other sources, they were not justified in grossly denying the benefit of genuine claim of incidental expenditure of Rs. 7,27,11,645/- u/s 57(iii) of the Act being the expenditure (not been in the nature of capital expenditure) laid out by the assessee institution wholly or exclusively for the purpose of making or earning such income. We thus confirm the finding of Ld. CIT(A) to this effect and allow the claim of expenses of Rs.7,27,11,645/- u/s 57(iii) of the Act and dismiss revenue's Ground No.3.
12. Now we take up first issue about the eligibility of the assessee to claim exemption u/s 10(23C)(iiiab) of the Act which was accepted 23 ITA No.469/Ind/2018 Shri Vaishnav Polytechnic College by Ld. CIT(A) but challenged by the revenue before us raising Ground No. 1 & 2. We find that the assessee filed its return of income claiming it to be a charitable educational society and filed ITR Form No.7. In the return due to absence of specific column to claim the exemption u/s 10(23C)(iiiab) of the Act assessee has punched the expenditure figure of Rs.7,27,11,645/- as the amount applied to charitable or religious purposes in India during the year. The intention of the assessee was very much clear to claim the exemption u/s 10(23C)(iiiab) of Act since it is established with the sole object to run for the educational purposes and not for the purpose of profits. The main objects of the assessee society having its head office at Indore are as follows :-
1. The name of the society shall be "Shri Vaishnav Sahayak Kapda Market Technical Education Society, Indore".
2. The Head office of the society shall be located at Indore
3. The objects of the society are -
(a) To establish and run an institution or institutions for imparting technical educational in Civil, Mechanical and Electrical and such other branches of Engineering as may be decided upon by the society.
(b) To do such other acts, as may be necessary in order to 24 ITA No.469/Ind/2018 Shri Vaishnav Polytechnic College further the Society's object of promoting technical education.
13. The composition of the society is consisting of following persons:-
(a) Commissioner, Indore Division, Indore - Chairman
(b) The Asstt. Educational Adviser (T), - Member Govt. of India, Ministry of Education, Western Region, Bombay
(c) Director of Technical Education, Madhya Pradesh - Member
(d) A person representing the Madhya - Member Pradesh Board of Technical Education to be nominated by the State Government.
(e) The Mayor of the Corporation of Indore - Member Or The Administrator, Indore Municipal Corporation, Indore
(f) A person representing the rural local - Member authority or Authorities in the area of the society, chosen by the Member of such local body or authorities in such a manner as may be decided by the Chairman.25 ITA No.469/Ind/2018
Shri Vaishnav Polytechnic College
(g) Four persons nominated by the Vaishnav Sahayak Kapada Market Committee, Cloth Market, Indore
14. The funds of the society are to be managed as per the conditions provided in the Memorandum of Association and Bye Laws. The relevant extract is mentioned below:-
(1) The Society shall maintain a fund to which shall be credited :-
(a) All moneys received from the Central Government or
(b) All fees and other charges collected by the institutions and made over to the society
(c) All moneys received by the society by way of grant, gifts, donations beneficiations, bequests or transfers; and
(d) All moneys received by the society by in any other manner or from any other source.
(2) All moneys credited to the Fund shall be deposited in such banks or invested in such manner as the society may, with the approval of the State Government decide.
(3) The fund shall be applied towards meeting the expenses of the society, Government Body and the institutions including expenses incurred in the exercise of its powers and performance of its duties by or under these regulations.26 ITA No.469/Ind/2018
Shri Vaishnav Polytechnic College (4) The institutions shall not spend any amount collected by them by way of fees and other charges and shall make one all such realisation to the government body.
(5) The society shall earmark an adequate amount in its annual budget to cover all expenses of every institution and no institution shall incur an expenditure in excess of the amount so earmarked;
Provided that in special circumstances, the society may make a special grant to meet any unforeseen expenditure of an institutions.
15. From perusal of the above stated objectives, composition of the society and the rules of utilisation of funds it remains undisputed that the assessee society is solely working for educational purpose and not for the purpose of earning profits and there is complete control of State Government over the funds received and spend during the year.
16. Now for claiming the exemption u/s 10(23C)(iiiab) of the Act the society should be "any university or other educational institution existing solely for educational purposes and not for the purpose of profits, and which is wholly or substantially financed by 27 ITA No.469/Ind/2018 Shri Vaishnav Polytechnic College the government". In the assessee's case as we have observed above that it is existing solely for educational purpose and not for the purpose of profits. Now the only issue remains is "whether the assessee society is wholly or substantially financed by the government". The instant appeal related to Assessment Year 2014-
15. However there was an amendment inserted by the Finance Act 2014 w.e.f. 1.4.2015 read with rule 2BB of the I.T. rules stating that "any educational institution or university or hospital or other institution referred therein i.e. sub clause (iiiab) & (iiiac) of Clause 23C of Section 10 shall be considered as fund substantially financed by the Government for any previous year if the government grant to set university or other educational institution, hospital or other institution exceeds "50%" of the total receipts including any voluntarily contribution of such university or other educational institution, hospital or other institution as the case may be during the relevant previous year".
17. So as far as the above amendment is concerned the same is effective from 01.04.2015 which is not applicable on the assessee since we are dealing with the assessment year 2014-15. So before 28 ITA No.469/Ind/2018 Shri Vaishnav Polytechnic College this amendment the issue was decided on the basis of relevant facts.
18. Before us Ld. Departmental Representative referred and relied on the decision of Co-ordinate Bench, Indore in the case of M.P. Rajya Open School, Bhopal (supra). However this decision will not be relevant in the instant case because in this case the assessee was financed by Government only in the initial year and there was no grant subsequently including the year under appeal before the Tribunal whereas in the case of assessee substantial portion of the grant received during the year under appeal is from the Madhya Pradesh Government.
19. We find that similar issue as raised before us also came up before the Co-ordinate Bench of Chandigarh in the case of JCIT (Exemption) v/s CRM Jat Post Graduate College(supra) and the issue of the institution being wholly or substantially funds by the Government was under consideration. The relevant finding of the Tribunal is reproduced below:-
9. Addressing the second issue framed by us where we are called upon to decide whether the assessee educational institution can be considered to 29 ITA No.469/Ind/2018 Shri Vaishnav Polytechnic College be on facts substantially financed by the Government of Haryana and hence the case of the assessee can be said to be covered u/ s.
10(23C)(iiiab) of the Act, the relevant facts on record are that the percentage of government grant is 60 of the total receipts. This finding of fact available on record remains unrebutted. In the absence of any rebuttal on facts, we find no good reason to upset the conclusion drawn. 9.1 No doubt as far as the year under consideration is concerned, percentage of receipts to be considered as crossing the statutory threshold limit by way of insertion of ,Explanation below clause 10(23C) was not available as it was, inserted prospectively and the vagueness attributable to the words " substantially financed" could be said to t.ave existed. The fact that the insertion in the Explanation as introduced prospective w.e.f. 01.04.2015, is not in dispute. However, even when there was a perceived ambiguity in the statutory position, it can be seen from the following discussion in the order that the legal position stood well addressed as the Courts had stepped in to fill this gap.) it is pertinent to note that even before the insertion of the Explanation below clause 10(23C)(iiiab) in the absence of any statutory guidance thereon, there were decisions of different Courts anti Tribunals where the limits of about 37% have also been held to be sufficient for the society to claim the benefit of the provisions . Reference may be made to the decision of the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the case of CIT v. Indian Institute of Management (2010) 8 taxmann.com 239/(2011) 196 Taxman 276. In the facts of the said case, Government financing of 37.85% was held to be entitled for exemption u/s. 10(23C)(iiiab). The Court therein followed its earlier decision in CIT v. National Education Society [IT Appeal No. 808 of 2009]. Similarly in the decision rendered by the jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT v Jat Education Society, Rohtak [20I5] 64 taxmann.com 312/[2016] 383 ITR 355 (Punjab. &. Har.) considering sub-clause (iiiab) of 30 ITA No.469/Ind/2018 Shri Vaishnav Polytechnic College clause (23C) of Section 10, the Court held at page 358 para 8 that "A plain reading of the said clause shows that any university or other educational institution existing for educational purposes and not for profits and is wholly or substantially financed by the Government is entitled to claim exemption from income-tax under the Act." In the facts of the said case, it is seen that even though the benefit of the legislative intent was not available to the Hon'ble High Court, the Court considering the fact that the total receipts were ranging between 41% to 82% on individual institution basis and when the percentage for the Society was considered as a whole, it was found to be ranging between 44.52% and 45.15% for the two years being considered by the jurisdictional High Court. the departmental appeal, accordingly was dismissed holding as under:
"In view of the above, the Tribunal was right in holding that the aid given by the Government to the assessee constitutes substantial finance by the Government which had entitled the assessee to claim exemption under section 10(23C)(iiiab) of the Act, No infirmity or perversity could be pointed out by the learned counsel for the Revenue in the findings recorded by the Tribunal. The substantial questions of law as claimed by the Revenue are answered accordingly and consequently, finding no merit in the appeals, the same are hereby dismissed."
9.2 However, since today we have the benefit of the insertion of the Explanation to sub-clause (iiiab) and (iiiac) inserted by Finance (N0.2) Act, 2014 w.e.f. 0I.04.20I5, it 'will be appropriate to extract the relevant provisions:
"Section 1O(23C) any income received by any person on behalf of -
(i) (ii)..(iii)* 31 ITA No.469/Ind/2018 Shri Vaishnav Polytechnic College (iiiab) any university or other educational institution existing solely for educational purposes and not for purposes of profit, and which is who/Iv or substantially financed by the Government; or (iiiac) * Explanation.-For the purposes of sub-clauses (iiiab) and (iiiac) (iu(lb) and (iliac). any university or other educational institution, hospital or or other institution referred therein, shall be considered as being substantially financed by the Government for any previous year, if the Government grant to such university or other educational institution, hospital or other institution exceeds such percentage of the total receipts including any voluntary contributions, as maybe prescribed of such university or other educational institution, hospital or other institution, as the case maybe, during the relevant previous year]; (Emphasis Supplied) 9.3 It also needs to be addressed for the sake of completeness that the Statute as quoted hereinabove has used the expression "exceeds such percentage of the total receipts ....... " that vide Rule 2BBB (inserted w.e.f.
12.12.2014) of 'he Income. lax Rules, the bar at the minimum threshold of 50 has been fixed for an institution which has to be financed by the Government for claiming benefit of Section 10(23C)(iiiab). Before this dale, as noted by way of judicial standards set by tile Courts in tile absence of any statutory guidance, institutions receiving less than this percentage could also be eligible.
9.4 Accordingly, on a consideration of law as addressed by the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the aforesaid two decisions namely Indian institute of Management and National Education Society's case (supra) as well as the decision of the jurisdictional High Court in the case of Jat 32 ITA No.469/Ind/2018 Shri Vaishnav Polytechnic College Education Society (supra), the interpretation of the change made through the Finance Act, 2014 w.e.f. 01.04.20 15 by way of insertion of Explanation below clause (iiiab) and (iiiac) of sub-section (23C) of Section 10 would be that before 01.04.2015, even institution getting finance less than 50% of the total receipts from the government would be eligible for exemption subject to fulfilment of other conditions. However, after 01.04.2.015, it is only an instin.uon government grants were beyond the threshold limit of 50% of the total receipts which would be eligible for benefit u/s 10(23C)(iiiab). In the facts of the present case, the position on facts as considered and available on record is that about 60 of the institution's total receipts have been received from the Government. This finding of fact as noted has not been upset by the Revenue. Thus, where on facts the finding of fact arrived at by the CIT (A) that the assessee has received government aid to the tune of 60 of its receipts remains unrebutted by the Revenue, we find no merit in the departmental appeal."
20. On perusal of the above referred decision of Chandigarh Tribunal in the case of CRM Jat Post Graduate College (supra) we find that the Tribunal has referred to the judgment of Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the case of Indian Institute of Management (supra) wherein the facts were that the government financing was 37.87% of the total contribution received during the year and the Hon'ble High Court held the assessee to be eligible for exemption u/s 10(23C)(iiiab) of the Act.
33 ITA No.469/Ind/2018 Shri Vaishnav Polytechnic College
21. We also find that Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of CRM Jat Post Graduate College (supra) has also held the assessee to be eligible for exemption u/s 10(23C)(iiiab) of the Act where the governments grants were ranging from 44.52% to 45.15%. We thus are of the considered view that before the insertion of the explanation to Clause 10(23C)(iiiab) of the Act w.e.f. 01.04.2015 setting out minimum threshold of 50% has been fixed for institution which has to be financed by Government for claiming benefit of section 10(23C)(iiiab) of the Act but before this stage as noted by way of judicial standards set by the Hon'ble courts and the Co-ordinate Benches and in the absence of non statutory guidelines even the institutions receiving substantial grant less than 50% of the total contribution by the Government can also to be held to be eligible for exemption u/s 10(23C)(iiiab) of the Act. The word here important is wholly or substantially financed by the Government.
22. By examining the facts of the instant case in the light of above discussions we observe that for the year under appeal the gross receipts were Rs. 5,98,24,898/- which comprises of the following:- 34 ITA No.469/Ind/2018
Shri Vaishnav Polytechnic College
1. Grant from Government of Madhya Pradesh Rs.2,71,00,000
2. Fess and miscellaneolus income Rs.2,77,47,957
3. Interest Rs. 47,64,151
4. Rent Rs. 2,03,990
5. Sale of tender form Rs. 8,800 Total Rs.5,98,24,898 From the above gross receipts if we deduct the receipt on account of interest, rent and sale of tender from which are not exactly in the shape of grant/fees the remaining amount will be Rs.
5,48,47,957/-. The Government grant for the year was Rs. 2,71,00,000/- which in percentage will be 49.40%. Thus the Government grant is almost (though not exact) 50% of the total receipt of fee and grant during the year. Undoubtedly the Government grant is substantial looking to the quantum of contribution as well as the control of the State Government in the functioning of the society as well as the movement of funds.
23. We, therefore in the given facts and circumstances of the case and respectfully following the judgments referred herein above are of the considered view that the assessee society has been rightly 35 ITA No.469/Ind/2018 Shri Vaishnav Polytechnic College held by Ld. CIT(A) to be eligible for exemption u/s 10(23C)(iiiab) of the Act since almost 50% of the grants were given by Ministry of Human Resources Department of Madhya Pradesh and for the year under appeal this grant has been received for 20 poly technical colleges and thus the assessee educational institute running society solely for educational purposes and not for the purpose of earning profits and is substantially financed by the Government is therefore eligible for exemption u/s 10(23C)(iiiab) of the Ac. The finding of Ld. CIT9A) stands confirmed. Ground No.1 & 2 of revenue's appeal are dismissed.
24. Ground No.4 are general in nature which needs no adjudication.
25. In the result appeal of the Revenue in the case of the assessee for Assessment Year 2014-15 stands dismissed.
The order pronounced in the open Court on 06.11.2020.
Sd/- Sd/-
( KUL BHARAT) (MANISH BORAD)
JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
नांक /Dated : 06 November, 2020
/Dev
36
ITA No.469/Ind/2018
Shri Vaishnav Polytechnic College
Copy to: The Appellant/Respondent/CIT concerned/CIT(A)
concerned/ DR, ITAT, Indore/Guard file.
By Order,
Asstt.Registrar, I.T.A.T., Indore
37