Appeal details
Counselvise Citation
[2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 28622 (ITAT-HYDERABAD)
Assessee PAN
Bench
Appeal Number
Appellant
Respondent
Appeal Type
Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date
24-02-2025
Appeal Filed By
Department
Order Result
Allowed
Bench Allotted
DB-A
Assessment Year
2012-2013
Judgement Text
" आआआआ आआआआआआ आआआआआआ, आआआआआआआआ आआआ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL Hyderabad ‘A’ Bench, Hyderabad BEFORE SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI MADHUSUDAN SAWDIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आ.अपी.सं /ITA Nos.300 to 306/Hyd/2022 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Years:2012-13 to 2018-19) Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 2(4), Hyderabad. ..Appellant. Vs. M/s. Ravi Rishi Educational Society, Hyderabad. PAN:AAAAR1952M ….Respondent. C.O. Nos.19 to 24/Hyd/2022 (in ITA Nos.300 to 304 & 306/Hyd/2022) (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Years:2012-13 to 2016-17 & 2018-19) M/s. Ravi Rishi Educational Society, Hyderabad. … Appellant. Vs. ACIT, Central Circle 2(4), Hyderabad. …. Respondent. निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee by: Shri P. Murali Mohan Rao, C.A. रधजस् व द्वधरध/Revenue by:: Shri B. Balakrishna, CIT-DR सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date of hearing: 18/12/2024 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Pronouncement: 24/02/2025 आदेश/ORDER PER BENCH : These appeals filed by the revenue and cross objections(“ C.Os.”) filed by M/s. Ravi Rishi Educational Society (“the assessee”), feeling aggrieved by the separate orders passed by the 2 ITA Nos.300 to 306/Hyd/2022 & C.O. Nos.19 to 24/Hyd/2022 Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-12, Hyderabad (“Ld. CIT(A)”), dated 19.04.2024 & 21.04.2024 for the A.Y. 2012- 13 to 2018-19 respectively. Since these appeals and C.Os. are inter-related, they are heard together and one consolidated order is being passed for the sake of convenience and brevity. ITA No. 300/Hyd/2022 for A.Y. 2012-13 (Revenue’s appeal) 2. The revenue has raised the following grounds : “ 1. The Ld. CIT(Appeals) erred both in law and on facts of the case in granting relief to the assessee. 2. The Ld. CIT(Appeals) erred in admitting additional evidences filed by the assessee as the assessee did not provide any sufficient cause for non- submission of the said evidences before AO as per Rule 46(A) (b). 3. The Id. CIT (Appeals) has erred in concluding that the assessee is entitled to the benefit of exemption u/s. 11(a) of the Act, even though the assessee failed to produce the Books of A/c. both in assessment proceedings as well as appellate proceedings. 4. The Id. CIT (Appeals) has erred in holding the entire salary payable/paid of Rs. 4,10,43,006/- made towards objects of the society, even though the assessee could substantiate such salary expenditure only to the extent of Rs. 73,24,994/-. 5. The Id. CIT (Appeals) has erred in holding interest expenditure claimed towards Interest Payable to APSFC at Rs.60,09,115/-, Interest payable to UCO Bank at Rs. 4,07.616/-, Interest Payable to SBI(124) at Rs. 5,32,851/-, Interest Payable to SBI(1204) at Rs. 9,16,763/- & Other Expenditure Payable at Rs.75,45,386/-, was incurred towards the object of the society, even though the assessee failed to substantiate the same with relevant documentary evidences. 6. The Id. CIT (Appeals) has erred in holding that Depreciation claimed at Rs. 2,11,03,552/-, was incurred towards the object of the society, even though the assessee could not produce evidence for the new assets added during the year and failed to prove that the assets were put to use towards the objects of society. 3 ITA Nos.300 to 306/Hyd/2022 & C.O. Nos.19 to 24/Hyd/2022 7. The Id. CIT (Appeals) has erred in stating that the assessee has applied 85% of its Gross Income for charitable purposes even though the assessee had failed to discharge the burden of establishing that the expenditure was wholly and exclusively utilized for the objectives of the society. 8. he Id. CIT (Appeals) has erred in not considering the fact that the assessee has not maintained separate books of accounts as per Section 11(4A) as the assessee is involved in regular purchase and selling of immovable properties. 9. The ld. CIT (Appeals) has erred in not considering the fact that the assessee has not proved the modes of investment of excess amounts as specified in Section 11(5). 10. The ld. CIT (Appeals) failed to appreciate the fact that the funds of the Trust were utilized for the personal benefits of the trustees as brought out in the Assessment Order. 11. The Id. CIT (Appeals) has erred in not appreciating the fact that the assessee had manipulated the books of account by not reflecting full sale proceeds of immovable properties which itself is in violation of Sections 11,12, and 13 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 12. The appellant craves leave to amend or alter any ground or add any other grounds which may be necessary.” C.O. No.19/Hyd/2022 for A.Y. 2012-13 (Assessee’s C.O.) 3. The grounds raised by the assessee in this C.O. corresponding to ITA No.300/Hyd/2022 are reproduced as under : 4 ITA Nos.300 to 306/Hyd/2022 & C.O. Nos.19 to 24/Hyd/2022 4. The brief facts of the case are that, the assessee is a society registered u/s.12A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ('the Act'), filed its Return of Income (“ROI”) for A.Y. 2012-13 on 25.06.2012 admitting total income of Rs.Nil. Search and seizure operation u/s.132 of the Act was conducted in the case of M/s. Aurora Educational Society and other group cases in which the assessee was also covered. Accordingly notice u/s 153A of the Act was issued to the assessee. In response to the notice issued u/s.153A of the Act, the assessee filed ROI on 04.04.2019 admitting the same income of Rs.Nil. The case of the assessee was taken up for 5 ITA Nos.300 to 306/Hyd/2022 & C.O. Nos.19 to 24/Hyd/2022 scrutiny and notice u/s.143(2) and 142(1) of the Act were issued by the Learned Assessing Officer (“Ld. AO”). Finally, the Ld. AO concluded the assessment u/s.143(3) r.w.s. 153A of the Act on 30.12.2019 disallowing the exemption claimed by the assessee u/s.11 of the Act and treated the gross receipts of Rs.9,03,81,292/- as the total income of the assessee. 5. Aggrieved with the order of Ld. AO, the assessee filed appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A) partly allowed the appeal of the assessee. 6. Aggrieved with the order of Ld. CIT(A), the revenue is in appeal before us. 7. In the C.O., the assessee has raised a legal issue, therefore, first we are taking up the C.O. of the assesse. The Ld. AR submitted that, the Ld. AO has made the addition without any incriminating material. In support of their claim, the Ld. AR invited our attention to para no.9.7 of the order of Ld. AO and submitted that, the Ld. AO denied the claim of expenditure doubting its genuineness and considered the gross receipts of the assessee as the total income. What the Ld. AO has disallowed is the expenditure which were already recorded in the books of account and what has been treated as income is the gross receipts which is also recorded in the books of account. Accordingly, the addition has been made by the Ld. AO without any incriminating material. 7.1 The Ld. AR further submitted that, the assessee had filed its Return of Income (“ROI”) on 25.06.2012 and date of search 6 ITA Nos.300 to 306/Hyd/2022 & C.O. Nos.19 to 24/Hyd/2022 was 23.03.2018. Accordingly, the assessment for A.Y. 2012-13 was not pending on the date of search and therefore not got abated due to search and seizure action. He has contended that, as per the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of PCIT, Central- 3 Vs. Abhisar Buildwell (P) Ltd.149 Taxmann 399 (SC), if there is no incriminating material, no additions can be made in the case of unabated year. Therefore, Ld. AR prayed before the bench to delete the additions made by the Ld. AO. 8. Per contra, the Ld. DR submitted that, during the search and seizure operations, many incriminating materials were seized from the premises of the assessee. In support of their claim, Ld. DR invited our attention to the copy of Panchanama and Annexure-A containing the details of seized materials filed by revenue before the bench and submitted that, the claim of the assessee that there was no incriminating material before the Ld. AO is not correct. Therefore, the Ld. DR prayed before the bench to dismiss the claim of the assessee. 9. We have heard the rival contentions and also gone through the record in the light of the submissions made by either side. There is no dispute about the facts that the A.Y. 2012-13 was an unabated year and as per the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of PCIT, Central-3 Vs. Abhisar Buildwell (P) Ltd. (supra), no addition can be made in the hands of the assessee in the unabated year in absence of any incriminating material. The relevant para of the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in PCIT, 7 ITA Nos.300 to 306/Hyd/2022 & C.O. Nos.19 to 24/Hyd/2022 Central-3 Vs. Abhisar Buildwell (P) Ltd.(supra) is reproduced as under : “13. For the reasons stated hereinabove, we are in complete agreement with the view taken by the Delhi High Court in the case of Kabul Chawla (supra) and the Gujarat High Court in the case of Saumya Construction (supra) and the decisions of the other High Courts taking the view that no addition can be made in respect of the completed assessments in absence of any incriminating material. 14. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, it is concluded as under: i) that in case of search under Section 132 or requisition under Section 132A, the AO assumes the jurisdiction for block assessment under section 153A; ii) all pending assessments/reassessments shall stand abated; iii) in case any incriminating material is found/unearthed, even, in case of unabated/completed assessments, the AO would assume the jurisdiction to assess or reassess the ‘total income’ taking into consideration the incriminating material unearthed during the search and the other material available with the AO including the income declared in the returns; and iv) in case no incriminating material is unearthed during the search, the AO cannot assess or reassess taking into consideration the other material in respect of completed assessments/unabated assessments. Meaning thereby, in respect of completed/unabated assessments, no addition can be made by the AO in absence of any incriminating material found during the course of search under Section 132 or requisition under Section 132A of the Act, 1961. However, the completed/unabated assessments can be 8 ITA Nos.300 to 306/Hyd/2022 & C.O. Nos.19 to 24/Hyd/2022 re-opened by the AO in exercise of powers under Sections 147/148 of the Act, subject to fulfilment of the conditions as envisaged/mentioned under sections 147/148 of the Act and those powers are saved. The question involved in the present set of appeals and review petition is answered accordingly in terms of the above and the appeals and review petition preferred by the Revenue are hereby dismissed. No costs.” 9.1 We have also gone through para no.9.7 of the order of Ld. AO, which is to the following effect : “9.7 Thus, the expenses claimed by the assessee are being disallowed and hence the expenditure as shown by the assessee is denied, as the genuineness of the same is in doubt. In view of this, assessee has failed to apply 85% of its income towards charitable purposes as mandated by Section 11 of the Income Tax Act and hence the exemption granted to it u/s 11 is being denied. Thus, the income of the assessee as per its income and expenditure statement amounting to Rs.9,03,81,292/- is being added to its returned income. [Addition: Rs. 9,03,81,292/-] Penalty provisions u/s 271(1)(c) are initiated separately for furnishing of inaccurate particulars. Penalty provisions u/s 271(1)(b) are initiated separately for failure to comply with notices issued u/s 142(1) of the IT Act. Penalty provisions u/s 271A are initiated separately for non- maintenance of books of accounts.” 9.2 On perusal of para no.9.7 of the order of Ld. AO, we found that, there is no reliance on any incriminating material by the Ld. AO while making the addition in the hands of the assessee. Further, the expenses which have been denied by the Ld. AO and the gross receipts which have been treated as income of the assessee by the Ld. AO, were already recorded in the books of 9 ITA Nos.300 to 306/Hyd/2022 & C.O. Nos.19 to 24/Hyd/2022 account of the assessee. Therefore, in our considered opinion, the addition made by the Ld. AO is not based on any incriminating material. Therefore, respectfully following the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of PCIT, Central-3 Vs. Abhisar Buildwell (P) Ltd.(supra), we hold that, the addition made by the Ld. AO without any incriminating material is not sustainable. Accordingly, the C.O. of the assessee is allowed and the appeal of the revenue is dismissed. 9.3 As we have decided the appeal on legal issue, therefore, adjudication of the other grounds will be academic only. Hence, we do not propose to adjudicate the other grounds raised by the revenue as well as the assessee. 9.4 In the result, the appeal of the revenue in ITA No.300/Hyd/2022 is dismissed and C.O. of the assessee in C.O. No. 19/Hyd/2022 is allowed. ITA Nos.301 to 303/Hyd/2022 for A.Ys. 2013-14 to 2015-16 (Revenue’s appeals) 10. The facts and issues involved in these appeals are similar to facts and issues involved in ITA No.300/Hyd/2022. Hence, our findings in ITA No.300/Hyd/2022 applies mutatis muntandis to these appeals also. Accordingly, these appeals of the revenue are also dismissed. 10 ITA Nos.300 to 306/Hyd/2022 & C.O. Nos.19 to 24/Hyd/2022 C.O. Nos.20 to 22/Hyd/2022 for A.Ys. 2013-14 to 2015-16 (Assessee’s C.Os.) 11. The facts and issues involved in these C.Os. are similar to facts and issues involved in C.O No.19/Hyd/2022. Hence, our findings in C.O. No.19/Hyd/2022 applies mutatis muntandis to these C.Os. also. Accordingly, these C.Os. of the assessee are also allowed. ITA No.304/Hyd/2022 for A.Y. 2016-17 (Revenue’s appeal) 12. At the outset, the Ld. DR submitted that the following issues are only involved out of their grounds of appeal : a) Availability of exemption u/s.11 of the Act to the assessee. b) Allowability of various expenditure as application of fund. c) Unaccounted credit of Rs.7.20 Crores. 13. With regards to the availability of exemption u/s.11 of the Act to the assessee, the objections of the Ld. DR are manifold. The Ld. DR submitted that, simply having Registration u/s.12AA/12AB of the Act is not sufficient to be eligible for exemption u/s.11 of the Act. He further submitted that, in order to avail the exemption u/s.11 of the Act, i)the assessee has to get its books of account audited in accordance with section 12A(1)(b) of the Act, ii) the assessee will have to maintain separate set of books in accordance with section 11(4A) of the Act, iii) the assessee has to keep its funds under the mode specified u/s.11(5) of the Act and iv) there should not be any violation of section 13 of the Act 11 ITA Nos.300 to 306/Hyd/2022 & C.O. Nos.19 to 24/Hyd/2022 on the part of the assessee. However, in the year under consideration, the assessee has violated all these conditions. 13.1 Further, inviting our attention to para nos.5 to 9.5 of order of Ld. AO, the Ld. DR submitted that, i) the assessee did not produce any books of account before the Ld. AO & failed to substantiate that 85% of the gross receipts have been utilized for objects of society, ii) the assessee has not accounted the sale proceeds received from WIIZ Realtors LLP, iii) the assessee is engaged in real estate business & has not kept separate books of account as per the mandate of section 11(4A) of the Act and iv) the assessee has diverted the fund of the society for personal use of the Trustee violating the condition of section 13 of the Act. Accordingly, the assessee has violated the various conditions, which deprive the assessee from the exemption of section 11 of the Act. As the assessee is not eligible for any exemption u/s.11 of the Act, as per the combined reading of section 2(24)(2A) and 12A(1) of the Act, all the receipts of the assessee are liable to be considered as income of the assessee. Accordingly, there is no infirmity in the order passed by the Ld. AO in treating the gross receipts of the assessee as total income. However, brushing aside all the findings of Ld. AO, Ld. CIT(A) has allowed exemption u/s.11 to the assessee. Hence the order of the Ld. CIT(A) is liable to be set aside. In their alternate argument, the Ld. DR prayed before the bench to remand back the issue to the file of Ld. AO for fresh verification. 12 ITA Nos.300 to 306/Hyd/2022 & C.O. Nos.19 to 24/Hyd/2022 14. Per contra, the Ld. AR submitted that, the assessee is having 6 colleges with 1181 students and to run those colleges, the assessee is having 199 staff members. As the assessee was running these colleges on rented premises, therefore, for shifting all their activities to their own premises, the assessee had purchased the land. Further, due to non-receipt of scholarship grants from government for some period, the society had to take loan from bank and in order to mitigate their financial crisis, subsequently, the assessee had to sold these lands. Therefore, the purchase and sale of the lands were made, looking into the needs and object of the society. The contention of the Ld. DR that, it has been done as a business activity with a profit motive has no legs to stand. As, the society had purchased as well as sold the land looking into the needs and object of the society and not as a business activity, the provision of section 11(4A) of the Act regarding maintenance of separate books are not applicable to the assessee. Hence no violation has been done by the assessee as far as the section 11(4A) of the Act is concerned. 14.1 The Ld. AR further submitted that, the allegation by the Ld. DR that the assessee has not regularly maintained the books of account and not produced the same before the Ld. AO, hence failed to substantiate that 85% of the gross receipts of the society had been utilized for the object of the society, is also not correct. The assessee had maintained and kept proper books of account as well as the corresponding bills / vouchers and also get the books of account audited for the year under consideration. In support of 13 ITA Nos.300 to 306/Hyd/2022 & C.O. Nos.19 to 24/Hyd/2022 their claim, the Ld. AR invited our attention to para nos.6.5.7 and 6.5.8 of the order of Ld. CIT(A), wherein the Ld. CIT(A) has given his findings that, the assessee has got the books of account audited and also has filed Form no.10B. Therefore, the Ld. AR prayed before the bench that the allegation of the Ld. DR that no books of account have been maintained and no audit has been get done, are liable to be rejected. 14.2 With regard to the allegation of the Ld. DR, that the assessee has not fully accounted the sale proceeds of the land received from WIIZ Realtors LLP, the Ld. AR submitted that, the issue has been dealt with by the Ld. CIT(A) at para no.8.3.1 of his order and the Ld. CIT(A) has deleted the addition made by the Ld. AO. However, the revenue has not filed any appeal before the ITAT against such findings of Ld. CIT(A). Therefore, the allegation of the Ld. DR in this regard is liable to be rejected. 14.3 As far as the allegation of the Ld. DR with regard to violation of section 13 is concerned, the Ld. AR submitted that, the Ld. DR / Ld. AO has only made a general allegation without making any specific instances of any violation. Further, with regards to transaction of payment/receipt with other associate societies, the Ld. AR submitted that, all such payments / receipts are in the nature of loan, which are for the achievement of the object of the society and has been recorded in the books of account. Accordingly, there is no contravention as far as section 13 of the Act is concerned. 14 ITA Nos.300 to 306/Hyd/2022 & C.O. Nos.19 to 24/Hyd/2022 14.4 Further, to strengthen their submission, the Ld. AR invited our attention to para no.6.5.3 of the order of Ld. CIT(A), wherein the Ld. CIT(A) has given the findings that, the Ld. AO had made a request to Ld. PCIT for cancellation of registration of assessee u/s.12AA of the Act and the Ld. PCIT did not cancel the registration of the assessee. Accordingly, the Ld. AR submitted that even the Ld. PCIT did not find any irregularity, so as to cancel the registration u/s.12AA of the Act of the assessee. Hence there is no doubt about the eligibility for claim of exemption u/s.11 of the Act by the assessee. Finally, the Ld. AR submitted that, the assessee is eligible for exemption u/s.11 of the Act and he prayed before the bench to allow the exemption u/s.11 of the Act to the assessee. 14.5 In their alternate argument, the Ld. AR submitted that, even if the assessee is not eligible for exemption u/s.11 of the Act, the Ld. AO cannot treat the entire gross receipts as income of the assessee. The Ld. AO had to allow the corresponding expenditure which has been incurred to earn the income. It is the settled principle of law that, only the net income of the assessee is to be taxed and not the gross receipts. Therefore, in their alternate argument, the Ld. AR prayed before the bench to allow the expenditure which has been incurred to earn the income and to tax only the net income of the assessee. 15. We have heard the rival contentions and also gone through the record in the light of the submissions made by either side. As far as the 15 ITA Nos.300 to 306/Hyd/2022 & C.O. Nos.19 to 24/Hyd/2022 first issue of the revenue regarding availability of exemption u/s.11 of the Act is concerned, the Ld. CIT(A) in para nos.6.5.3 to 6.5.4 of his order has categorically given his finding that the assessee is eligible for exemption u/s.11 of the Act, which are to the following effect : 16 ITA Nos.300 to 306/Hyd/2022 & C.O. Nos.19 to 24/Hyd/2022 15.1 We have also gone through the provisions of section 11(5)(x) of the Act, where the statute has allowed the investment in immovable property as one of the specified mode of investment. Further, as submitted by the Ld. AR, the assessee is having 6 colleges with 199 staff and running their educational activity in rented premises. Therefore, with the intention of shifting their education activities to their own premises, they have purchased the land. There was no business motive or any intention to involve in any business of purchase / sale of land on the part of the assessee. Only due to scarcity of funds and to repay the bank loan, the assessee has sold the land. Considering the available facts before us, we found that section 11(5) of the Act allows the assessee to invest in immoveable property and nowhere under the law it has been mentioned that if the same is sold, it will 17 ITA Nos.300 to 306/Hyd/2022 & C.O. Nos.19 to 24/Hyd/2022 amounts to business activity. Further, there was genuine reason with the assessee behind the purchase of land i.e. to shift their educational activity to own premises. Therefore, in our considered opinion, if some profits has arisen to the assessee on sale of land, only for this sole reason, it cannot be held that the trust is involved in the business of purchase / sale of land. Hence, we hold that the trust is not involved in the business of purchase / sale of land and accordingly, the trust is not required to maintain any separate books of account as per the mandate of section 11(4A) of the Act. 15.2 Further, we do not find any merit in the argument of the Ld. DR that the assessee did not produce any books of account and hence, failed to substantiate that 85% of the gross receipts have been utilized for the object of the society. The Ld. CIT(A) has given his finding at para no. 6.5.7. and 6.5.8. of his order, that the assessee not only maintained the books of account but also has got the books audited. The Ld. CIT(A), after calling for the remand report from the Ld. AO has given such findings. Hence, the objection of the Ld. DR regarding non-production of books of account is rejected. 15.3 Further, it is the objection of the Ld. DR that, the assessee has not fully accounted the sale proceeds of the land received from WIIZ Realtors LLP. In this regards we found that, the Ld. AO had made an addition of Rs. 57 Lakhs on account of on money, which the Ld. CIT(A) at para no. 8.3 and 8.3.1 of his order has dealt with the issue 18 ITA Nos.300 to 306/Hyd/2022 & C.O. Nos.19 to 24/Hyd/2022 and has deleted the addition made by the Ld. AO. Further, the revenue has not filed any appeal before us against the said deletion by the Ld. CIT(A). Hence there is no question of raising any such objection that the asssessee has not accounted the alleged amount of Rs.57 lakhs. Accordingly, the objection of the Ld. DR on this count is also rejected. 15.4 As far as the objection of the Ld. DR with regard to violation of section 13 is concerned, except making a general allegation, no specific instances of such violation has been brought to our notice by the Ld. DR. However, with regard to the objection of Ld. DR, regarding the payment made by the assessee to other associate society, the Ld. AR submitted that, the same are payments / receipts in the nature of loan given / taken and the same has been done for the achievement of the object of the society, which has been recorded in the books of account and no disallowance with regard to these transaction has been made by the Ld. AO. Hence we do not find any merits on this objection of the Ld. DR. Accordingly, the objection of the Ld. DR with regard to violation of section 13 is also rejected. 15.5 In addition to our findings as above, we also found from para no.6.5.3 of the order of Ld. CIT(A) , wherein the Ld. CIT(A) has given the findings that, the Ld. AO had requested to Ld. PCIT for cancellation of registration of the assessee u/s. 12AA of the Act and the Ld. PCIT did not cancel the registration of the assessee. This facts further provide strength to the claim of the assessee towards eligibility 19 ITA Nos.300 to 306/Hyd/2022 & C.O. Nos.19 to 24/Hyd/2022 of exemption u/s. 11 of the Act that, even Ld. PCIT also did not find any irregularity so as to withdraw the registration of the assessee u/s. 12AA of the Act. Hence, in our considered opinion, the objection of the Ld. DR that the exemption u/s.11 of the Act should not be available to the assessee, has no legs to stand. 15.6 Accordingly, we dismiss the objections raised by the revenue qua this issue. 15.7 The alternate argument of the assesse is that, the net income can only be taxed after allowing the expenditure incurred to earn the income. As we have already dismissed the appeal of the revenue on this issue, the adjudication on alternate argument will be academic only. Therefore, we are not adjudicating on the alternate argument of the assessee. 16. Coming to the next issue relating to allowability of various expenditure as application of fund, the Ld. DR submitted that, the assessee has claimed expenditure of Rs.5,91,95,210/- on account of salary. The Ld. DR further submitted that, the assessee failed to produce any details / evidences before the Ld. AO during the assessment proceedings in support of claim of salary. Further, when the matter was again remanded by the Ld. CIT(A) to Ld. AO, during the remand proceedings also, the assessee produced the details and the documents with regard to salary of Rs.2,25,77,199/- only as against the total salary of Rs.5,91,95,210/- Accordingly, the assessee failed to produce any 20 ITA Nos.300 to 306/Hyd/2022 & C.O. Nos.19 to 24/Hyd/2022 details/documents with regard to balance expenditure of salary. Therefore, the balance expenditure of salary of Rs.3,66,18,011/- is liable to be disallowed as application of income. 16.1 Further, the Ld. DR submitted that, the assessee has claimed expenditure of Rs.17,08,128/-, on account of interest paid to UCO Bank, for which no details / evidences were furnished by the assessee to substantiate that the loan has been used towards the object of the society and the payment of interest is eligible as an application of income. Therefore, the interest payment of Rs.17,08,128/- paid to UCO Bank is liable to be disallowed as application of income. 16.2 Further, on going through the computation of income of the assessee which is placed at page no.2 of the paper book, the Ld. DR submitted that, the assessee has claimed the amount of loan given to other societies as application of income, however, the same is not available as application of income, as the same is not towards the object of the society. Accordingly, the loan given to other societies are not to be allowed as application of income. 17. Per contra, with regard to the claim of salary expenditure, the Ld. AR submitted that, the assessee is running total six colleges with a strength of 1181 students and is having total 199 number of staff, both teaching as well as non-teaching staff. Hence, it is an undisputed fact that six colleges cannot be run without any staff, therefore, the contention of the Ld. AO that the salary expenditure is not allowable has no legs to stand. Further, 21 ITA Nos.300 to 306/Hyd/2022 & C.O. Nos.19 to 24/Hyd/2022 during the assessment proceedings due to Covid-19 pandemic and due to voluminous vouchers, it was not possible for the assessee to upload each and every voucher related to payment of salary, although the assessee was in possession of each and every vouchers in support of payments of salary. However, the assessee had uploaded the evidences randomly with regard to salary expenditure of Rs.2,25,77,199/- and also made a request to the Ld. AO (copy of request letter placed at page nos.16 and 17 of the paper book), that the assessee is ready to furnish additional vouchers, which the Ld. AO would request on test basis. It was also submitted that, all the payments to the staff had been made through banking channel only and after verifying all these documents, the Ld. CIT(A) at para no.6.5.7 of his order has given a finding that, all the expenditure has been incurred towards the object of the society and eligible to be claimed as application of income. Therefore, it is prayed by the Ld. AR that, the total salary expenditure of Rs.5,91,95,210/- have been incurred for the object of the society and requested to allow the salary expenditure in toto. 17.1 With regard to the objection of the Ld. DR regarding claim of interest to banks, the Ld. AR submitted that, the assessee had taken the loan for the object of the society in the year prior to the year under consideration and has been regularly paying the interest on such loan which has been allowed in earlier year as application of income. He also submitted that, no fresh loan has been taken during the year under consideration. In this regard, the 22 ITA Nos.300 to 306/Hyd/2022 & C.O. Nos.19 to 24/Hyd/2022 Ld. AR drawn our attention to para no.6.5.9 of the order of Ld. CIT(A), which is to the following effect : 17.1.1 The Ld. AR further submitted that, on perusal of ledger of bank loan, the Ld. CIT(A) found that these were regular payments of interest to the bank and accordingly allowed the same as an eligible expenditure. Therefore, the Ld. AR prayed before the bench to dismiss the argument of the revenue and upheld the findings of the Ld. CIT(A) qua this issue. 17.2 With regard to the objection of the Ld. DR that the assessee has claimed the loan given to other society as application of income, the Ld. AR submitted that, this is not the case of the Ld. 23 ITA Nos.300 to 306/Hyd/2022 & C.O. Nos.19 to 24/Hyd/2022 AO. Therefore, the argument of the Ld. DR, on an issue which is not emanating from the order of revenue authority is not sustainable under law and is liable to be dismissed. The Ld. AR further submitted that, the cases of other societies for the year under consideration has also been assessed by the same Ld. AO and in all those cases, the Ld. AO has accepted the receipt of loan by them as income and repayment of loan by them as application of income. Hence the same AO cannot take different view on same set of facts. Finally, the Ld. AR prayed before the bench to dismiss the claim of the revenue in this regard. 17.3 Finally, the Ld. AR submitted that, the objections raised by the revenue, regarding allowability of various expenditure as application of income, are liable to be dismissed. 18. We have heard the rival contentions and also gone through the record in the light of the submissions made on either side. As far as the objection of the Ld. DR that, the assessee produced the details/evidences with regard to salary of Rs.2,25,77,199/- only as against total salary of Rs.5,91,95,210/- and therefore, the balance expenditure on account of salary of Rs.3,66,18,011/- is liable to be disallowed as application of income. In this regard, we found that the Ld. CIT(A) has given his findings at para no.6.5.6 and 6.5.7 of his order, which are to the following effect : “6.5.6 In the remand report, the A.O. mentioned that out of the expenses with respect to salaries & salaries payable of Rs.5,91,95,210/- assessee could furnish 24 ITA Nos.300 to 306/Hyd/2022 & C.O. Nos.19 to 24/Hyd/2022 25 ITA Nos.300 to 306/Hyd/2022 & C.O. Nos.19 to 24/Hyd/2022 18.1 On going through the aforesaid findings of Ld. CIT(A) and the submission of the assessee, we found that, the assessee is running total 6 colleges and is having total 199 staffs i.e. both teaching as well as 26 ITA Nos.300 to 306/Hyd/2022 & C.O. Nos.19 to 24/Hyd/2022 non-teaching staff. Further, during the assessment proceedings, due to Covid-19 Pandemic and due to voluminous vouchers, it was not possible for the assessee to upload each and every voucher related to payment of salary and therefore the assessee had uploaded the evidences randomly with regard to salary expenditure of Rs.2,25,77,199/-. We have also gone through page nos.16 & 17 of the paper book, wherein the assessee has requested the Ld. AO that the assessee is ready to furnish additional vouchers, if the Ld. AO would request for the same on test basis. Accordingly, we found that, there was no denial on the part of the assessee to produce any evidences corresponding to the salary expenditure. Further, the Ld. CIT(A) has also given the findings that, all the payments to staff has been made through banking channel and all the expenditure has been incurred towards the object of the society and eligible to claim as application of income. Under these factual matrix, we do not find any infirmity in the findings of the Ld. CIT(A) and accordingly, we uphold the findings of the Ld. CIT(A) qua this issue. Therefore, we dismiss the objection raised by the revenue qua this issue. 18.2 The other objection of the Ld. DR is that, the assessee has claimed expenditure of Rs.17,08,128/- on account of interest paid to UCO Bank for which no details / evidences were furnished by the assessee to substantiate that the loan has been used towards the object of the society and the payment of interest is eligible as application of 27 ITA Nos.300 to 306/Hyd/2022 & C.O. Nos.19 to 24/Hyd/2022 income. Accordingly, the Ld. DR prayed before the bench to disallow the claim on account of interest paid to bank as application of income. In this regard, we found that the Ld. CIT(A) at para no.6.5.9 of his order has given his findings, which are to the following effect : 18.3 On perusal of above, we found that, the Ld. CIT(A), after verifying the documents produced by the assessee has allowed the payment of interest to the bank. Further, as submitted by the Ld. AR, the assessee had taken the loan during the preceding years and has been regularly paying the interest on such loan. The payment of such interest has been allowed in earlier year also as application of income. No fresh 28 ITA Nos.300 to 306/Hyd/2022 & C.O. Nos.19 to 24/Hyd/2022 loan has been taken during the year under consideration. No contrary submission in this respect have been made from the revenue. Therefore, in our considered opinion, when no fresh loan has been taken during the year and the payment of interest has been allowed to the assessee in earlier years also, we do not find any reason to disallow the same in the year under consideration. Accordingly, we dismiss the objection of the revenue on this matter. 18.4 With regard to the objection of the DR regarding claim of depreciation on fixed assets, it was found that, the assessee has disallowed the depreciation in the computation of income (placed at page no.2 of the paper book), therefore, the Ld. DR did not press this issue. Accordingly, we dismiss the objection of the revenue qua this issue. 18.5 In the result, the issue of the Revenue related to “ allowability of various expenditure as application of fund” is dismissed. 19. The next issue of the revenue is related to the addition of Rs.7.20 Crores made by the Ld. AO u/s.68 of the Act and which was deleted by the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. DR invited our attention to para no.10 of the order of Ld. AO, which are to the following effect : 29 ITA Nos.300 to 306/Hyd/2022 & C.O. Nos.19 to 24/Hyd/2022 19.1 The Ld. DR further inviting our attention to para no.7.3 of the order of Ld. CIT(A) submitted that, the assessee did not file any documents before the Ld. AO qua the addition made by the Ld. AO u/s.68 of the Act for Rs.7.20 Crores. However, the assessee filed the relevant documents before the Ld. CIT(A) for the first time and the Commissioner without calling for any remand report from the Ld. AO deleted the said addition. Therefore, the Ld. DR prayed before the bench to set aside the order of Ld. CIT(A). 19.2 Per contra, the Ld. AR relying on the order of Ld. CIT(A), submitted that, the Ld. CIT(A) deleted the addition subject to verification and satisfaction by Ld. AO. The Ld. AR further submitted that, the Ld. AO in his consequential order has already given the relief to the assessee. This means that, the Ld. AO after the direction of Ld. CIT(A) has verified the documents and found 30 ITA Nos.300 to 306/Hyd/2022 & C.O. Nos.19 to 24/Hyd/2022 the same in order. Hence, the contention of the Ld. DR that no opportunity given to the Ld. AO is not correct. Accordingly, the ground raised by the revenue is liable to be dismissed. 19.3 We have heard the rival contentions and also gone through the record in the light of the submissions made by either side. We have gone through the para no.7.3 of the order of Ld. CIT(A) reproduced as under : 31 ITA Nos.300 to 306/Hyd/2022 & C.O. Nos.19 to 24/Hyd/2022 19.4 On perusal of above, we found that, the Ld. CIT(A) after verifying the documents submitted by the assessee was convinced with the documents and deleted the addition. However, the Ld. CIT(A) was aware of the fact that the documents have not been verified by the Ld. AO, therefore, the Ld. CIT(A) has deleted the addition subject to the condition that the Ld. AO has to verify the documents before allowing the relief. As submitted by the Ld. AR, in consequential order, the Ld. AO after verifying all the documents has deleted the said addition. Therefore, finally the relief has been given to the assessee on the basis of satisfaction of the Ld. AO. Hence, in our considered opinion, the contention of the revenue that the relief has been given by the Ld. CIT(A) without providing any opportunity to the Ld. AO is not correct. Accordingly, we dismiss the ground of the revenue on this issue. 20. In the result, the appeal of the revenue in ITA No.304/Hyd/2022 is dismissed. ITA No.305/Hyd/2022 for A.Y. 2017-18 (Revenue’s appeal) 21. The Ld. DR submitted that, the following issues are only involved out of their grounds of appeal : a) Availability of exemption u/s.11 of the Act to the assessee. b) Allowability of various expenditure as application of fund. 22. As far as the first issue of the revenue regarding “availability of exemption u/s.11 of the Act to the assessee” in ITA No.305/Hyd/2022 is concerned, the facts of this case are identical 32 ITA Nos.300 to 306/Hyd/2022 & C.O. Nos.19 to 24/Hyd/2022 to the facts involved in ITA No.304/Hyd/2022, which we have decided against the revenue from para nos. 13 to 15.7 of this order. Hence our findings in ITA No.304/Hyd/2022 mutatis mutnadis apply to the first issue involved in ITA No.305/Hyd/2022. Accordingly, the objections raised by the revenue qua first issue in ITA No.305/Hyd/2022 are dismissed. 23. As far as the objections of the revenue towards expenditure on account of salary, interest to bank and depreciation under the second issue in ITA No.305/Hyd/2022 are concerned, the facts of this case are identical to the objections raised by the revenue in ITA No.304/Hyd/2022, which we have decided against the revenue from para nos. 16 to 18.5 of this order. Hence our findings in ITA No.304/Hyd/2022 mutatis mutnadis apply here also. Accordingly, the objections of the revenue with regard to salary, interest to bank and depreciation under second issue in ITA No.305/Hyd/2022 are dismissed. 23.1 The other objection of the revenue under second issue is related to claim of advertisement expenses of Rs.19,97,440/- and guest faculty & honorarium expenses of Rs.33,44,400/-, which the assessee has claimed as application of income. The Ld. DR submitted that, the Ld. CIT(A) has mentioned in his order that, even without considering these expenses i.e. advertisement expenses and guest faculty & honorarium expenses, the assessee has already applied 85% of the gross receipts towards the object of the trust. Accordingly, the assessee is not obliged 33 ITA Nos.300 to 306/Hyd/2022 & C.O. Nos.19 to 24/Hyd/2022 to substantiate these expenditure with corresponding evidences. The Ld. DR further submitted that, the assessee is not at liberty to spend their surplus amount i.e. the amount available with the assessee over and above 85% of the gross receipts otherwise than on object of the society. The assessee is duty bound to keep the surplus fund under the mode specified u/s.11(5) of the Act or if the assessee has to spend the surplus amount, it has to spend the same towards the object of the trust only. As the assessee has failed to substantiate the claim of advertisement expenses of Rs.19,97,440/- and guest faculty & honorarium expenses of Rs.33,44,400/- with supporting vouchers/evidences, the trust has not followed the mandate of section 11 on this count also. 24. Per contra, the Ld. AR relied on the order of Ld. CIT(A). 25. We have heard the rival contentions and also gone through the record in the light of the submissions made on either side. The allegation of the revenue are that, the expenses claimed by the assessee on account of advertisement expenses and guest faculty & honorarium expenses are not towards the object of the trust, as the assessee could not substantiate the same with corresponding bills/voucher. There is no dispute about the fact that the case of the assessee was covered under search and seizure operation. Inspite of this fact, the revenue could not bring to our notice any specific instances of incurring of these expenses in violation of the object of the trust. Further more, the Ld. CIT(A) has 34 ITA Nos.300 to 306/Hyd/2022 & C.O. Nos.19 to 24/Hyd/2022 already given his factual findings that, the assessee has already incurred more than 85% of the gross receipt towards its objectives and the assessee has complied the requirements of section 11 of the Act. Therefore, in our opinion, once the assessee has incurred more than 85% of the gross receipts towards the object of the society and no corroborative evidence has been brought to our notice by the revenue in support of their allegation that the assessee has spent their surplus amount i.e. the amount available with the assessee over and above 85% of the gross receipts, otherwise than on object of the society , the claim of the revenue cannot be hold good. Accordingly, we reject this objection of the revenue.24. Accordingly, the objections of the revenue qua second issue in ITA No.305/Hyd/2022 are dismissed. 26. In the result, the appeal of the revenue in ITA No.305/Hyd/2022 is dismissed. ITA No.306/Hyd/2022 for A.Y. 2018-19 (Revenue’s appeal) 27. The Ld. DR submitted that, the following issues are only involved out of their grounds of appeal : a) Availability of exemption u/s.11 of the Act to the assessee. b) Allowability of various expenditure as application of fund. c) Addition of Rs.10,97,28,139/- made by the Ld. AO u/s.68 of the Act. d) Addition of Rs.2.50 Crores made by the Ld. AO. 35 ITA Nos.300 to 306/Hyd/2022 & C.O. Nos.19 to 24/Hyd/2022 28. As far as the first issue of the revenue regarding “availability of exemption u/s.11 of the Act to the assessee” in ITA No.306/Hyd/2022 is concerned, the facts of this case are identical to the facts involved in ITA No.304/Hyd/2022, which we have decided against the revenue from para nos. 13 to 15.7 of this order. Hence, our findings in ITA No.304/Hyd/2022 mutatis mutandis apply to the first issue involved in ITA No.306/Hyd/2022. Accordingly, the objections of the revenue qua first issue in ITA No.306/Hyd/2022 are dismissed. 29. As far as the objection of the revenue related to expenditure on account of salary, interest to bank and depreciation under the second issue in ITA No.306/Hyd/2022 is concerned, the facts of this case are identical to the objection of the revenue in ITA No.304/Hyd/2022, which we have decided against the revenue from para nos. 14 to 16.5 of this order. Hence, our findings in ITA No.304/Hyd/2022 mutatis mutnadis apply to the second issue involved in ITA No.306/Hyd/2022 related to expenditure on account of salary, interest to bank and depreciation. Accordingly, the objections of the revenue related to expenditure on account of salary, interest to bank and depreciation are dismissed. 29.1 The other objection of the revenue under second issue is related to claim of college maintenance expenditure of Rs.25,78,765/-, examination and remuneration expenditure of Rs.50,53,594/- and hostel maintenance expenditure of Rs.36,25,553/-, which the assessee has claimed as application of income. The Ld. DR submitted that, the 36 ITA Nos.300 to 306/Hyd/2022 & C.O. Nos.19 to 24/Hyd/2022 Ld. CIT(A) has mentioned in his order that, even without considering these expenses i.e. college maintenance, examination and remuneration expenditure and hostel maintenance expenditure, the assessee has already applied 85% of the gross receipts towards the object of the trust. Accordingly, the assessee is not obliged to substantiate these expenditure with corresponding evidences. The Ld. DR further submitted that, the assessee is not at liberty to spend their surplus amount i.e. the amount available with the assessee over and above 85% of the gross receipts, otherwise than on object of the society. The assessee is duty bound to keep the surplus fund under the mode specified u/s.11(5) of the Act or if the assessee has to spend the surplus amount, it has to spend the same towards the object of the trust only. As the assessee has failed to substantiate the claim of college maintenance expenditure of Rs.25,78,765/-, examination and remuneration expenditure of Rs.50,53,594/- and hostel maintenance expenditure of Rs.36,25,553/- with supporting vouchers/evidences, the trust has not followed the mandate of section 11 on this count also. 30. Per contra, the Ld. AR relied on the order of Ld. CIT(A). 31. We have heard the rival contentions and also gone through the record in the light of the submissions made by either side. The allegation of the revenue are that, the expenses claimed by the assessee on account of college maintenance, examination & remuneration expenditure and hostel maintenance are not for the object of the trust, 37 ITA Nos.300 to 306/Hyd/2022 & C.O. Nos.19 to 24/Hyd/2022 as the assessee could not substantiate the same with corresponding bills/voucher. There is no dispute about the fact that the case of the assessee was covered under search and seizure operation. Inspite of this fact, the revenue could not bring to our notice any specific instances of incurring of these expenses in violation of the object of the trust. Further more, the Ld. CIT(A) has already given his factual findings that, the assessee has already incurred more than 85% of the gross receipt towards its objectives and the assessee has complied the requirements of section 11 of the Act. Therefore, in our opinion, once the assessee has incurred more than 85% of the gross receipts towards the object of the society and no corroborative evidence has been brought to our notice by the revenue in support of their allegation that the assessee has spent their surplus amount i.e. the amount available with the assessee over and above 85% of the gross receipts, otherwise than on object of the society , the claim of the revenue cannot be hold good. Accordingly, we reject this objection of the revenue. 32. Accordingly, the objections of the revenue involved in second issue in ITA No.306/Hyd/2022 is dismissed. 33. The other issue of the revenue is related to the addition of Rs.10,97,28,139/- made by the Ld. AO u/s.68 of the Act and which was deleted by the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. DR invited our attention to para no.10 of the order of Ld. AO, which are to the following effect : 38 ITA Nos.300 to 306/Hyd/2022 & C.O. Nos.19 to 24/Hyd/2022 Penalty provisions u/s.271AAC is initiated separately for unexplained credits. 33.1 The Ld. DR further submitted that, the assessee did not file any documents before the Ld. AO qua the addition made by the Ld. AO u/s.68 of the Act for Rs.10,97,28,138/-. However, the assessee filed the relevant documents before the Ld. CIT(A) for the first time and the Commissioner without calling for any remand report from the Ld. AO deleted the said addition. Therefore, the Ld. DR prayed before the bench to set aside the order of Ld. CIT(A). 34. Per contra, the Ld. AR relying on the order of Ld. CIT(A), submitted that, the Ld. CIT(A) deleted the addition subject to verification and satisfaction of Ld. AO. The Ld. AR further submitted that, the Ld. AO in his consequential order has already given the relief to the assessee. This means that, the Ld. AO after the direction of Ld. CIT(A) has verified the documents and found the same in order. Hence, the contention of the Ld. DR that no 39 ITA Nos.300 to 306/Hyd/2022 & C.O. Nos.19 to 24/Hyd/2022 opportunity given to the Ld. AO is not correct. Accordingly, the ground raised by the revenue is liable to be dismissed. 35. We have heard the rival contentions and also gone through the record in the light of the submissions made by either side. We have also gone through para no.6.3.1 of the order of Ld. CIT(A) reproduced as under : 35.1 On perusal of above, we found that, the Ld. CIT(A) after verifying the documents submitted by the assessee was convinced with the documents and deleted the addition. However, the Ld. CIT(A) was aware of the fact that the documents have not been verified by the Ld. AO, therefore, the Ld. CIT(A) has deleted the addition subject to the condition that the Ld. AO has to verify the documents before allowing the relief. As submitted by the Ld. AR, in consequential order, the Ld. AO after verifying all the documents 40 ITA Nos.300 to 306/Hyd/2022 & C.O. Nos.19 to 24/Hyd/2022 has deleted the said addition. Therefore, finally the relief has been given to the assessee on the basis of satisfaction of the Ld. AO. Hence, in our considered opinion, the contention of the revenue that the relief has been given by the Ld. CIT(A) without providing any opportunity to the Ld. AO is not correct. Accordingly, we dismiss the objection of the revenue qua this issue. 36. Another issue raised by the revenue is against the deletion made by the Ld. CIT(A) on account of addition of Rs.2.50 Crores made by the Ld. AO. The Ld. DR inviting our attention to para nos.7.3 and 7.3.1 of the order of the Ld. CIT(A) submitted that, the Ld. AO had made the addition of Rs.2.50 Crores u/s.69 of the Act contending that, the assessee has not disclosed the payment of Rs.2.50 Crores towards purchase of land at Kothur, Rangareddy District in their “receipt and payment account”. However, the submission of the assessee before the Ld. AO was that, the amount is related to A.Y. 2017-18 and they have already reflected the same in the “receipt and payment of account” for A.Y. 2017-18. But the Ld. AO found that the amount reflected in A.Y. 2017-18 was relating to land at Nandigram and not related to Kothur and accordingly added Rs.2.50 Crores in the hands of the assessee. However, the Ld. CIT(A) accepting the submission of the assessee deleted the addition without providing any opportunity to the Ld. AO. Hence, Ld. DR prayed before the bench, the relief given by the Ld. CIT(A) without providing any opportunity to Ld. AO is not sustainable under law and is liable to be set aside. 41 ITA Nos.300 to 306/Hyd/2022 & C.O. Nos.19 to 24/Hyd/2022 37. Per contra, the Ld. AR relying on the order of Ld. CIT(A), submitted that, the Ld. CIT(A) deleted the addition subject to verification and satisfaction of Ld. AO. The Ld. AR further submitted that, the Ld. AO in his consequential order has already given the relief to the assessee. This means that, the Ld. AO after the direction of Ld. CIT(A) has verified the documents and found the same in order. Hence, the contention of the Ld. DR that no opportunity was given to the Ld. AO is not correct. Accordingly, the ground raised by the revenue is liable to be dismissed. 38. We have heard the rival contentions and also gone through the record in the light of the submissions made by either side. We have also gone through para nos.7.3 and 7.3.1 of the order of Ld. CIT(A) reproduced as under : 42 ITA Nos.300 to 306/Hyd/2022 & C.O. Nos.19 to 24/Hyd/2022 38.1 On perusal of above, we found that, the Ld. CIT(A) after verifying the documents submitted by the assessee was convinced with the documents and deleted the addition. However, the Ld. CIT(A) was aware of the fact that the documents have not been 43 ITA Nos.300 to 306/Hyd/2022 & C.O. Nos.19 to 24/Hyd/2022 verified by the Ld. AO, therefore, the Ld. CIT(A) has deleted the addition subject to the condition that the Ld. AO has to verify the documents before allowing the relief. As submitted by the Ld. AR, in consequential order, the Ld. AO after verifying all the documents has deleted the said addition. Therefore, finally the relief has been given to the assessee on the basis of satisfaction of the Ld. AO. Hence, in our considered opinion, the contention of the revenue that the relief has been given by the Ld. CIT(A) without providing any opportunity to the Ld. AO is not correct. Accordingly, we dismiss the objection of the revenue qua this issue. 39. In the result, the appeal of the revenue in ITA No.306/Hyd/2022 is dismissed. C.O. Nos. 23 & 24/Hyd/2022 for A.Ys. 2016-17 and A.Y. 2018- 19 (Assessee’s C.Os.) 40. The grounds raised by the assessee in both the C.Os. are similar. Therefore, for the sake of brevity, the grounds raised by the assessee in C.O. No.23/Hyd/2022 corresponding to ITA No.304/HYd/2022 are only reproduced as under : 44 ITA Nos.300 to 306/Hyd/2022 & C.O. Nos.19 to 24/Hyd/2022 41. As, we have dismissed both the appeals of the revenue in ITA Nos.304 & 306/Hyd/2022, the C.Os. Nos. 23 & 24/Hyd/2022 of the assessee corresponding to these appeals of the revenue become infructuous. Accordingly, both the C.Os. of the assessee are dismissed. 42. To sum up, all the appeals of revenue, the C.Os. of the assessee in C.Os. Nos. 19 to 22/Hyd/2022 are allowed and the C.Os. of assessee in C.Os. Nos. 23 & 24/Hyd/2022 are dismissed. Order pronounced in the open Court on 24th Feb., 2025. Sd/- Sd/- (VIJAY PAL RAO) (MADHUSUDAN SAWDIA) VICE PRESIDENT ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Hyderabad. Dated: 24.02.2025. * Reddy gp 45 ITA Nos.300 to 306/Hyd/2022 & C.O. Nos.19 to 24/Hyd/2022 Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. M/s. Ravi Rishi Educational Society, C/o P.Murali & Co., C.As., 6-3- 655/2/3, Somajiguda, Hyderabad-500082. 2. ACIT, Central Circle 2(4), Hyderabad. 3. Pr.CIT, Hyderabad. 4. DR, ITAT, Hyderabad. 5. Guard file. BY ORDER, "
AI Insights
The case involves a series of appeals and cross objections between the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax and M/s. Ravi Rishi Educational Society concerning the assessment years 2012-13 to 2018-19. The primary issues revolved around the eligibility of the assessee for exemption under section 11 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, the allowability of certain expenditures, and the additions made by the Assessing Officer under sections 68 and 69 of the Act. The Tribunal consolidated the appeals and cross objections for convenience and brevity, ultimately siding with the assessee on all counts.
