Arijit Pasayat, J. - (1.) Challenge in these appeals in each case is to the order passed by a Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court answering the reference made by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Allahabad Bench (in short the Rs. ITAT) under Section 256(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short the Rs. Act) in favour of the assessee and against the revenue. For answering the references in favour of the assessee the High Court relied upon its judgment for two previous assessment years i.e. 1972-73 and 1973-74 in the assessees case which is reported in Commissioner of Income Tax v. J.K. Charitable Trust, (1992) 196 ITR 31(All) . The present dispute relates to several assessment years, i.e. 1972-73 (in respect of an assessment re done under Section 147(1) of the Act) and assessment years 1975-76 to 1982-83.
(2.) Learned Counsel for the revenue appellant submitted that each assessment year is a separate assessment unit and the factual scenario has to be seen. Dispute relates to the question whether the respondent, assessees trust was hit by the provisions of Section 13(1)(c) and 13(2)(a)(f) & (h) of the Act and therefore cannot be given the benefit of exemption provided under Section 11 of the Act.
(3.) Learned Counsel for the assessee submitted that for several years no appeal has been filed even though the factual position is the same i.e. for the assessment years 1983-84 upto assessment year 2007-08. Even no appeal was filed against the decision reported in, (1992) 196 ITR 31(All) (supra). It is also pointed out that several other High Courts have taken a similar view and no appeal was preferred by the revenue against any of the judgments of the different High Courts. Reference is made to the decisions reported in CIT, Bombay City VII v. Trustees of the Jadi Trust, (1982) 133 ITR 494(Bom) ; CIT v. Hindusthan Charity Trust, (1983) 139 ITR 913(Cal) ; CIT v. Sarladevi Sarabhai Trust No. 2, (1988) 172 ITR 698(Guj) and CIT v. Nirmala Bakubhai Foundation 1996 (226) ITR 394. The first two judgments have been rendered by the Bombay and Calcutta High Court respectively while the other two decisions are of the Gujarat High Court.;