Joginder, A.M.: - (1.) BY this order, we shall dispose of this appeal of the revenue filed against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals), Chandigarh, for the assessment year 1996-97.
(2.) In this appeal, the revenue has taken the following grounds : 1. The order dated 2-3-2001, passed by the learned Commissioner (Appeals) in appeal No. 15/P/1999-2000 is bad in law and on facts, the same has been passed without proper application of mind. 2. The learned Commissioner (Appeals) has misled herself in coming to conclusion that the trust was existing solely for charitable purposes when no income was utilised for achieving the objectives of the trust. Further, the requirement for claiming exemption under section 11(l) of the Income Tax Act is not fulfilled. (i) The learned Commissioner (Appeals) has misdirected herself in admitting the additional evidence without affording any opportunity to the assessing officer as provided under rule 46A(3) of the IT Rules, 1962. (ii) Although the learned Commissioner (Appeals) mentioned in her order that detailed report was submitted by Mrs. Jyoti Rani, the then assessing officer, on the written arguments of the appellant vide her letter No. 8389, dated 14-10-1999, but the impugned appellate order has been passed on 2-3-2001. Since, Mrs. Jyoti Rani was transferred and relieved on 12-4-2000, the learned Commissioner (Appeals) was not justified in not allowing any opportunity to the present assessing officer before passing order. (iii) While allowing relief, the learned Commissioner (Appeals) has relied upon the additional evidences without affording any opportunity, which are not relevant to the year in question and hence are immaterial. (iv) The learned Commissioner (Appeals) is also incorrect in accepting the plea of the as'sessee regarding donation of Rs. 1 lakh for Kargil war and Rs. 2 lakhs for Gujarat Relief Fund given in the year 1999-2000 pertaining to the assessment year 2000-01 when the appeal in question was for the assessment year 1996-97. Further, the learned Commissioner (Appeals) has gravely erred by not affording any opportunity to the assessing officer as provided under rule 46A(3) before admitting additional evidence. (v) The learned Commissioner (Appeals) is wrong in holding that the payment of Rs. 50 lakhs to the PGI by the assessee for setting up a centre for tropical diseases amounts to utilisation of funds by the assessee for achievement of its objectives of providing medical relief and encouraging medical research as the same has been given in the year relevant to the assessment year 2001-02 when the appeal decided in question pertains to the assessment year 1996-97. Further, no opportunity was afforded to the assessing officer under rule 46A(3) before admitting the additional evidence. The income has to be computed as provided in section 11 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Therefore, the order in question, is perverse in law and on facts.
(3.) THE learned Commissioner (Appeals) is wrong in holding that the assessee has established an institute in the name of the CMC for the purpose of achieving the objective by affording medical relief and encouraging medical research which is the sole objective of the trust, whereas on the contrary, as per facts brought on record during the course of assessment proceedings, the assessee could not lead any evidence to the effect that any amount was spent on affording medical relief and encouraging medical research, rather the said institution is being run on the same lines as in the case of other commercial establishments.;