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 
 . 
 . 
 . 
 . 
 . 
 . 
 . 
 . 
 . 
 . 
 . 
 . 
 . 
 . 
 .