THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. VIRENDRA BHATNAGAR SANSTHAN

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI . . . ITA 320/2009 . . . THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ..... Appellant . Through Ms. Rashmi Chopra, Adv. . . . versus . . . . . VIRENDRA BHATNAGAR SANSTHAN ..... Respondent . Through Mr. Mohit Jolly, Advocate . . . . . . . ITA 792/2009 . . . THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ..... Appellant . Through Ms. Rashmi Chopra, Adv. . . . versus . . . . . VIRENDRA BHATNAGAR SANSTHAN ..... Respondent . Through Mr. Mohit Jolly, Advocate . . . CORAM: . HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA . HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.V.EASWAR . . . O R D E R . 03.02.2012 . . . 1. Revenue, by these appeals under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, impugns the order dated 22nd February, 2008 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (tribunal, for short) in ITA Nos. 2090 and 2091/Del/06 in the case of M/s Virendra Bhatnagar Sansthan. The appeals pertain to the assessment years 2001-02 and 2002-03. The tribunal in the present case has followed its earlier order in the case of Rajinder Nagar Education Society. . 2. One V.K. Bhatnagar was searched and a block assessment order for the period 1989-90 to 1999-2000 was passed. In the said block assessment order, several allegations were made against V.K. Bhatnagar. . 3. Said V.K. Bhatnagar is involved in the management and is associated with the respondent/assessee. . 4. The Assessing Officer in the case of the respondent assessee has passed a cryptic and short assessment order relying upon the observations made in the block assessment order. The Assessing Officer held that there was infringement of Section 13 and therefore, the respondent society was not entitled to the benefit under Section 11 of the Act. . 5. In the first appeal, CIT(Appeals), held to the contrary and accepted the stand of the respondent/assessee. . 6. The tribunal, as noticed above, has followed its order in the case of Rajinder Nagar Education Society which also appears to be another society which was under the management and associated with V.K. Bhatnagar. The Revenue in the case of Rajinder Nagar Education Society did not file further appeal (It is stated that due to low tax effect). . 7. It appears that similar orders were passed by the Assessing Officer rejecting the exemption under Section 11 on account of violation under Section 13 in the case of Nav Manav Sansthan and Manav Siksha Samiti. Revenue had preferred ITA Nos. 899/2008 and 879/2008 in this Court. The two appeals were dismissed, inter alia, holding that the tribunal was right in observing that the Assessing Officer had failed to conduct necessary enquiries to justify and deny exemption under Section 11. It . was held that the Assessing Officer has made vague observations on the basis of block assessment proceedings overlooking that the factual matrix in each assessment year has to be considered independently. . 8. Revenue, against the decision of this Court dismissing the ITA No. 899/2008 in the case of Manav Siksha Samiti, had preferred an SLP, which had been dismissed by the Supreme Court vide order dated 6th May, 2011. . 9. We have examined the assessment orders passed in these two appeals and compared the same to the assessment order passed in the case of Manav Siksha Samiti. They are identical and suffer from the same flaws and defects, which were noticed in the case of Manav Shiksha Samiti. The Assessing Officer in the assessment orders has merely referred and relied upon vague observations and the block assessment order. He did not deal with the factual matrix, irregularities and defects in the accounts for the assessment years in question. The two assessment years were not subject matter of the block assessment order. In case there was any violation and infringement of Section 13 of the Act in the years in question, the same should have been brought out and specifically stated. We do not find any distinguishing factor or reason not to follow the earlier orders in ITA Nos. 899/2008 and 879/2008. . 10. In these circumstances, we do not think that any substantial question of law arises in the present appeals, and the same are accordingly dismissed. . . . . . . . SANJIV KHANNA, J. . . . . . R.V. EASWAR, J. . FEBRUARY 03, 2012 . ?raj?/VKR . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .