KKJ Foundation, Ernakulam V. Asstt. Director of Income tax(Exemption), Cochin

CO 4/COCH/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2014] 122 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 9691 (ITAT-COCHIN)
• Duration Of Justice: 5 month(s) 6 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Cross Objection
• Pronouncement Date: 27-06-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Next Hearing Date: 16-06-2014
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 20-01-2014
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: LATHA V KUMAR
• Assessee Lawyers: K M JOSE
• Keywords: Charitable institution; Benefit of exemption; Revenue expenditure; Capital expenditure
• Section: 143(3); 80G; 12A; 54; 154; 11

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL COCHIN BENCH, COCHIN BEFORE S/SHRI N.R.S.GANESAN, JM AND CHANDRA POOJ ARI, AM I.T.A. NO. 756 /COCH/2013 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2006-07 THE ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF INCOME-TAX(EXEMPTION), RANGE-4, KOCHI. VS. K.K.J. FOUNDATIONS, NAYANA GARDENS, POONKUTTY, ELANJI P.O., ERNAKULAM-686 665. [PAN: AAATK 6120D] (REVENUE -APPELLANT) (ASSESSEE-RESPONDEN T) C.O. NO. 04/COCH/2014 (ARSG. OUT OF I.T.A. NO. 756/COCH/2013) ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2006-07 K.K.J. FOUNDATIONS, NAYANA GARDENS, POONKUTTY, ELANJI P.O., ERNAKULAM-686 665. [PAN: AAATK 6120D] VS. THE ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF INCOME- TAX(EXEMPTION), RANGE-4, KOCHI. (ASSESSEE -APPELLANT) (REVENUE-RESPONDEN T) REVENUE BY SMT. LATHA V. KUMAR, JR. DR ASSESSEE BY SHRI K.M. JOSE, CA DATE OF HEARING 16/06/2014 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 27/06/2014 O R D E R PER CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE AND THE CROSS OBJE CTION FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE CIT( A)-II, KOCHI DATED 23-09- 2013 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07. I.T.A. NO.. 756/COCH/2013 & C.O. NO.04/COCH/2014 2 2. IN THIS APPEAL, THE REVENUE HAS RAISED THE FOLLO WING GROUNDS: 1. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(A) OUGHT TO HAVE CONSIDERED THE FACTS MENTIONED IN PAR 2 OF THE ASS ESSMENT ORDER THAT M/S. KKJ FOUNDATION IS A TRUST IN WHICH MR. JOSEPH AND FAMILY ARE THE TRUSTEES. 2. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(A) OUGHT TO HAVE UPHELD THE FINDINGS OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT THE ASS ESSEE TRUST HAS NO CORROBORATIVE EVIDENCE TO PROVE THAT THE DONATION OF RS. 1,00,00,000/- WAS CAPITAL DONATION. MERELY TRANSFERRING FUNDS TO THE CAPITAL/CORPUS WITHOUT IDENTIFICATION OF UTILIZATION OF THE FUNDS CANNOT BE TREATED AS DONATION TOWARDS CORPUS. MOREOVER, THE CONVERSION OF RS. 1,00,00,000/- FROM THE LOAN ACCOUNT TO CORPUS FUND IS NOTHING BU T AN AFTERTHOUGHT MADE POSSIBLE BY MERELY PASSING A BOOK ENTRY. 3. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(A) OUGHT TO HAVE UPHELD THE ASSESSMENT OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT RS. 1 ,65,50,000/- OF RECEIPT, RECEIVED AS LOAN FROM SHRI K.K. JOSEPH (TRUSTEE) I S INCOME TO THE TRUST AS THE ASSESSEE TRUST HAS FAILED TO PRODUCE THE SOURC E OF THE INCOME OF DONOR FOR MAKING SUCH LOAN AT THE TIME OF ASSESSME NT. 4. THE LEARNED CIT(A) OUGHT TO HAVE SEEN THAT IN THE CASE OF A TRUST, THERE IS NO CONCEPT OF LOANS. RECEIPTS ARE BY WAY OF CONTRIBUTIONS/DONATIONS. 5. THE LEARNED CIT(A) OUGHT TO HAVE APPRECIATED T HE FACT THAT CORPUS DONATION ARE TO BE MADE WITH A STRICT DIRECTION AS TO THE MODE OF UTILIZATION. IN THE PRESENT CASE, NO SUCH DIRECTI ON WAS MADE AS THE PURPORTED LOAN WAS LATER ON CONVERTED TO CORPUS DO NATION. 2.1 THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO FILED CROSS OBJECTION WHE REIN IT HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS: 1. THE TRUST IS A GENUINE PUBLIC CHARITABLE TRUST AND NO BENEFIT HAS ACCRUED TO ANY OF THE TRUSTEES. 2. THE TRANSFER FROM THE LOAN ACCOUNT TO CORPUS/CA PITAL FUND IS EVIDENCED BY A LETTER AND ITS UTILIZATION HAS BEEN PROVED BY THE AUDITED ACCOUNTS AND IS ALSO CLEARLY QUANTIFIED IN THE ASS ESSMENT ORDER. 3. THE LOAN RECEIVED BY THE TRUST IS NOT ITS INCO ME AND THE SOURCE OF THE FUNDS IN THE HAND OF THE LENDER HAS BEEN PROVED BEY OND REASONABLE DOUBT I.T.A. NO.. 756/COCH/2013 & C.O. NO.04/COCH/2014 3 3. THE FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSMENT IN THIS CASE WAS COMPLETED UNDER 143(3) OF THE I.T. ACT WHEREIN THE ASSESSING OFFICER DETERMINED THE INCOME AS FOLLOWS:- THE ASSESSMENT IS COMPUTED AS UNDER:- GROSS RECEIPT FOR THE YEAR ENDED 31.03.2006 DONATIONS RS. 1,01,00,000 AMOUNT SHOWN AS LOAN FROM K.K. JOSEPH RS. 1,65,5 0,000 RS. 2,66,50,000 LESS: INCOME SET APART NOT EXCEEDING RS. 39,97,500 15% EXEMPTED FROM BEING UTILIZED RS. 2,26,52,500 U/S. 11(1)(A) LESS: REVENUE EXPENDITURE RS. 5,74,069 ADD: CAPITAL EXPENDITURE R S. 12,91,816 ADD: WORK-IN-PROGRESS R S. 1,35,87,338 TAXABLE INC OME RS. 1,54,53,223 RS. 71,99,277 R/O RS. 71,99,280 AGAINST THIS, THE ASSESSEE FILED THE APPLICATION U/ S. 154 OF THE I.T. ACT VIDE ITS LETTER 07-01-2009 STATING THAT LOANS GIVEN BY THE T RUSTEE TO THE TRUST IS GENUINE BY ACCOUNT PAYEE CHEQUES ONLY AND THAT THEY CANNOT BE TREATED AS DONATIONS. FURTHER, THE ASSESSEE CHALLENGES THE TREATMENT OF L OANS OF RS. 1,62,50,000/- FROM SHRI K.K. JOSEPH AS THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE . THE ASSESSING OFFICER DID NOT CHANGE ITS STAND AS WAS TAKEN IN THE ASSESSMENT U/S. 143(3) OF THE I.T. ACT. AGAINST THIS, THE ASSESSEE FILED APPEAL BEFOR E THE CIT(A) CHALLENGING THE TREATMENT OF THE CONVERSION OF LOANS INTO CORPUS DO NATION AS THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO SUBMITTED THAT ONC E THESE LOANS ARE I.T.A. NO.. 756/COCH/2013 & C.O. NO.04/COCH/2014 4 CONVERTED INTO CORPUS DONATION, THIS, IN EFFECT, WO ULD MEAN FIRST THE REPAYMENT OF LOAN AND THEREAFTER THE GIVING OF CORPUS DONATIO N, HENCE, IT IS CLAIMED THAT SUCH REPAYMENT OF LOAN SHOULD BE TREATED AS APPLICA TION OF INCOME. THE CIT(A) IN HIS ORDER OBSERVED THAT THE TREATMENT OF RS. 1,00,00,000/- AS CORPUS DONATION IN THE HAND OF THE ASSESSEE AS THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE IS NOT CORRECT. FURTHER, HE OBSERVED THAT ONCE IT IS AN U NCONDITIONAL CONSENT BY THE TRUSTEE TO CHANGE THE NATURE OF FUNDS GIVEN FROM LO AN TO CORPUS DONATIONS, SUCH ADVANCEMENT OF FUNDS LOOSE THE BASIC CHARACTER OF LOAN AND THE QUESTION OF REPAYMENT OF SUCH LOANS DOES NOT ARISE. SINCE T HERE IS NO OUTFLOW OF FUNDS AND IT IS ONLY A TECHNICAL BOOK ENTRY TO CONVERT LO AN INTO CORPUS DONATION, THE SAME CANNOT BE TREATED AS APPLICATION OF INCOME AND REJECTED THIS GROUND. HENCE THE REVENUE HAS RAISED THIS APPEAL BEFORE US WITH REGARD TO RELIEF GRANTED BY THE CIT(A) IN NOT TREATING THE RECEIPT O F CORPUS DONATION AS INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. 4. THE CROSS OBJECTION FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS IN SUPPORT OF THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A). THE ASSESSEE HAS FURTHER RAISED AN ADD ITIONAL GROUND IN ITS CROSS OBJECTION STATING THAT THE EXCESS APPLICATION OF IN COME OF PRIOR YEARS HAS TO BE DEDUCTED FROM THE INCOME, IF ANY, OF THE CURRENT YE AR AND THE UNADJUSTED AMOUNT IS TO BE CARRIED FORWARD TO THE SUBSEQUENT Y EARS. 5. THE LD. DR SUBMITTED THAT THE ISSUE DEALT BY THE LD. CIT(A) IN HIS ORDER CANNOT BE DEALT WITH PROCEEDING U/S. 154 OF THE ACT AS IT IS A DEBATABLE ISSUE. FURTHER, HE SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT FUR NISHED DETAILS REQUIRED TO PROVE THE GENUINENESS OF THE LOAN. SIMILARLY HE SUB MITTED THAT THE END UTILIZATION OF RS. 1,00,00,000/- IS NOT IDENTIFIED. REGARDING RS. 1,65,50,000/- RECEIVED AS LOAN FROM SHRI K.K. JOSEPH, THE ASSESSE E HAS FAILED TO PRODUCE THE SOURCE OF THE INCOME OF DONOR FOR MAKING SUCH LOAN AT THE TIME OF ASSESSMENT TO BE CONSIDERED AS THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. I.T.A. NO.. 756/COCH/2013 & C.O. NO.04/COCH/2014 5 6. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LD. AR SUBMITTED THAT THE TRUST IS A GENUINE PUBLIC CHARITABLE TRUST. NO BENEFIT IS ACCRUED TO ANY OF THE TRUSTEES. THE TRUST HAS BEEN DULY GRANTED REGISTRATION U/S. 12A OF THE ACT AND ALSO THE CERTIFICATE U/S. 80G OF THE ACT. THE ASSESSING OFFICER CANNOT COME TO THE CONCLUSION THAT IT IS A FAMILY TRUST THOUGH IT IS A PUBLIC CHARITAB LE TRUST AS MENTIONED IN THE TRUST DEED. HE SUBMITTED THAT THE TRANSFER OF LOAN AMOUN T TO THE CORPUS DONATION IS EVIDENCED BY A LETTER AND ITS UTILIZATION HAS BEEN PROVED BY THE AUDITED ACCOUNTS AND IS ALSO CLEARLY QUANTIFIED IN THE ASSE SSMENT ORDER. THE LOAN RECEIVED BY THE TRUST IS NOT ITS INCOME AND THE SOU RCE OF THE FUNDS IN THE HAND OF THE LENDER HAS BEEN PROVED BEYOND REASONABLE DOU BT. TRUSTS ARE PERMITTED TO TAKE LOANS AND ALL CASH INFLOWS OF A TRUST CANNO T BE CLASSIFIED AS INCOME UNDER THE HEAD CONTRIBUTIONS/DONATIONS. THE CORPUS DONATION RECEIVED BY THE TRUST HAS BEEN UTILIZED AS ITS NAME SUGGESTS FOR TH E PURPOSE OF BUILDING UP THE INFRASTRUCTURE OF THE TRUST AND THE LOAN WAS CONVER TED TO A CORPUS DONATION CONSIDERING THE INABILITY OF THE TRUST AND THE MAGN ANIMITY OF THE LENDER WHO IS A TRUSTEE TO FURTHER THE CAUSE OF CHARITY. WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE MATTERS STATED ABOVE IF THE REPAYMENT OF A LOAN IS NOT CONS IDERED AS APPLICATION THEN, THE RECEIPT OF A LOAN CANNOT BE CONSIDERED AS INCOM E OF THE TRUST. ONLY THE RECEIPT BY WAY OF CONTRIBUTIONS/DONATIONS RECEIVED DURING THE YEAR ENDED 31 ST MARCH 2006 CAN BE CONSIDERED AS INCOME SUBJECT TO T HE PROVISIONS REGARDING ITS ASSESSMENT AND NO INCOME/RECEIPTS OF ANY PREVIOUS Y EARS CAN BE CONSIDERED AS RECEIPTS OF THE YEAR FOR ASSESSMENT. FOR THIS PROP OSITION, THE LD. AR RELIED ON THE FOLLOWING: I) CIRCULAR NO. 100 DATED 24.1.1973. II) THE DECISION OF THE BOMBAY HIGH COUR T IN THE CASE OF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX VS. TRUSTEES OF KASTURBA SCINDIA COM MISSION TRUST REPORTED IN 189 ITR 5. III) DECISION OF THE HONBLE RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX VS. MAHARANA MEEWAR CH ARITABLE FOUNDATION REPORTED IN 164 ITR 439. I.T.A. NO.. 756/COCH/2013 & C.O. NO.04/COCH/2014 6 IV) THE DECISION OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH CO URT IN THE CASE OF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX VS. JANMA BHOOMI PRESS TRUST REPORTED IN 242 ITR 457. V) THE DECISION OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH C OURT IN THE CASE OF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX VS. JANMA BHOOMI PRESS TRUST REPORTED IN 242 ITR 703. 7. REGARDING THE ADDITIONAL GROUND IN THE CROSS OBJ ECTION, IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THE EXCESS APPLICATION OF INCOME OF PRIOR YEAR S IS TO BE DEDUCTED FROM THE INCOME, IF ANY, OF THE CURRENT YEAR AND THE UNADJUS TED AMOUNT IS TO BE CARRIED FORWARD TO THE SUBSEQUENT YEARS. HE RELIED ON THE F OLLOWING CASE LAW: 1. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX VS. MATISEVA TRU ST REPORTED IN 242 ITR 20 (MAD.) 2. CIT VS. MAHARANA MEEWAR CHARITABLE FOUNDATI ON REPORTED IN 164 ITR 499 (RAJ.) 8. IT IS ALSO SUBMITTED THAT INCURRING CAPITAL EXPE NDITURE AMOUNTS TO APPLICATION OF INCOME FOR CHARITABLE PURPOSES. REL IANCE IS PLACED ON THE JUDGMENT OF THE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT OF KERALA IN COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX VS. ST. GEORGE FORANE CHURCH REPORTED IN 170 IT R 62. 9. WE HAVE HEARD THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE MATERI AL ON RECORD. WE HAVE ALSO GONE THROUGH THE WRITTEN SUBMISSION SUBMITTED BY THE LD. AR. IN THIS CASE, ORIGINALLY, THE ASSESSMENT WAS COMPLETED U/S. 143(3) OF THE I.T. ACT WHEREIN THE ASSESSING OFFICER TREATED THE DONATION OF RS. 1,01,00,000/- TRANSFERRED FROM LOAN AMOUNT TO CORPUS CAPITAL FUND AS INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. HE ALSO TREATED THE LOAN AMOUNT OF RS. 1,65,50,000 /- RECEIVED FROM SHRI K.K. JOSEPH AS THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE AND DENIED THE BENEFIT OF EXEMPTION U/S. 11 OF THE I.T. ACT. AFTER FILING AN APPLICATION U/ S. 154 OF THE ACT ON 07-01-2009 SEEKING RECTIFICATION OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 31-12-2008, THE ASSESSING OFFICER REJECTED THE SAME. HOWEVER, THE LD. CIT(A) GAVE RELIEF AS SOUGHT BY THE ASSESSEE EXCEPT HE OBSERVED THAT THE CONVERSION OF LOAN INTO CORPUS DONATION I.T.A. NO.. 756/COCH/2013 & C.O. NO.04/COCH/2014 7 CANNOT BE CONSIDERED AS REPAYMENT OF LOAN SO AS TO TREAT THE SAME AS APPLICATION OF INCOME. THE LD. CIT(A) DEALT ALL THE SE ISSUES IN DETAIL ON APPEAL AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER U/S. 154 OF THE ACT. 10. AFTER GOING THROUGH THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTAN CES OF THE CASE, UNDER SECTION 154 OF THE ACT, THE POWER CONFERRED BY THE STATUTE ON THE AUTHORITIES BELOW ARE VERY LIMITED AND ARE CIRCUMSCRIBED BY THE RESTRICTIONS MENTIONED THEREIN. IN THE CASE ON HAND, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS PASSED HIS ORDER PURELY BASED ON FACTS AND MATERIAL PRODUCED BEFORE HIM WHI CH ALONE FORMS THE BASIS FOR THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO DECIDE THE ISSUE. WHET HER THE DECISION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS RIGHT OR WRONG IS A DIFFERENT ISSUE WHICH CANNOT BE AGITATED HEREIN U/S. 154 OF THE I.T. ACT. ORIGINALLY, THE A SSESSING OFFICER, AFTER DULY CONSIDERING ALL ASPECTS AND APPLYING HIS MIND HAS T AKEN ONE VIEW AND THIS VIEW, THOUGH IN THE OPINION OF THE ASSESSEE IS WRONG, CAN NOT BE SAID TO BE A MISTAKE APPARENT FROM RECORD SINCE THE SAID VIEW HAS BEEN A RRIVED AT AFTER DUE APPLICATION OF MIND TO THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND THE RELEVANT MATERIAL ON RECORD. IT IS NOT DISPUTED THAT THE AS SESSING OFFICER HAS DEALT WITH THIS ISSUE AND REJECTED THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE I N THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. MERELY BECAUSE THE ASSESSING OFFICER H AS NOT ALLOWED THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE AND EVEN TAKING FOR GRANTED THAT THE C ONCLUSION DRAWN BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE, WAS WRONG, THAT WILL NOT ENTITLE THE ASSESSEE TO FORM A GROUND AND AGITATE BEFORE TH E ASSESSING OFFICER BY MEANS OF A RECTIFICATION PETITION U/S. 154 OF THE ACT, UNLESS IT CAN BE SAID THAT THERE IS A BLATANT AND APPARENT MISTAKE THAT HAS CR EPT IN, IN THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER, PURELY BASED ON MATERIAL FACTS O N RECORD IN THE GARB OF AN APPLICATION FOR RECTIFICATION, IT IS NOT OPEN TO TH E ASSESSEE TO SEEK RE-OPENING OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER BY RE ARGUING THE WHOLE MATTER. UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 154 OF THE ACT. UN LESS THERE IS A MANIFEST ERROR WHICH IS OBVIOUS, CLEAR AND IS EVIDENT, THE PROVISI ONS OF SECTION 154 OF THE ACT CANNOT BE RESORTED TO. WHAT CAN BE RECTIFIED U/S. 1 54 IS A MISTAKE WHICH IS I.T.A. NO.. 756/COCH/2013 & C.O. NO.04/COCH/2014 8 APPARENT AND PATENT FROM RECORD. THE MISTAKE HAS T O BE SUCH FOR WHICH NO ELABORATE REASONS OR ENQUIRY IS NECESSARY. WHAT IS NOT PERMITTED TO BE DONE BY THE STATUTE HAVING BEEN DELIBERATELY OMITTED TO CONFER JUDICIAL REVIEW ON THE ASSESSING OFFICER, CANNOT BE INDIRECTLY ACHIEVED BY RECOURSE TO RECTIFICATION PROCEEDINGS CONTAINED IN SECTION 154 OF THE ACT.. WHEN AN ERROR WAS FAR FROM SELF EVIDENT, IT CEASES TO BE AN APPARENT ERROR. TH E SO CALLED INACCURACIES OR WRONG REARGUING GIVEN BY ASSESSING OFFICER AS ALLEG ED WERE NOT PATENT MISTAKES WHICH CONSTITUTE SINE QUA NON FOR EXERCISE OF POWER U/S. 154 OF THE ACT. FURTHER, IT IS WELL SETTLED THAT A MISTAKE APPARENT ON RECORD MUST BE OBVIOUS, AND PATENT MISTAKE AND NOT SOMETHING WHICH CAN BE E STABLISHED BY A LONG DRAWN PROCESS OF REASONING ON POINTS ON WHICH THERE MAY BE CONCEIVABLY TWO OPINIONS. IN THE PRESENT CASE, THE ASSESSING OFFIC ER HAS GIVEN A CATEGORICAL FINDING THAT THERE IS NO EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER TO INF ER THE PHYSICAL INTRODUCTION OF THE FUNDS IN THE TRUST. THE ENTIRE AMOUNT OF R S. 1,01,00,000/- WAS DISALLOWED AS CORPUS DONATION AND WAS TREATED AS TH E INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. SIMILARLY, WITH REGARD TO LOAN OF RS. 1,65,50,000/- RECEIVED FROM SHRI K.K. JOSEPH, THERE IS NO EVIDENCE REGARDING THE CAPACITY OF THE DONOR TO LEND SUCH AMOUNT. THE ISSUE HAS BEEN RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE I N THE CROSS OBJECTION AS ADDITIONAL GROUND WHICH IS ALSO DEALT BY ASSESSING OFFICER IN HER ASSESSMENT ORDER. 11. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS GIVEN HIS FINDINGS BA SED ON THE ENTIRE MATERIALS AVAILABLE ON RECORD AND APPLYING HIS MIND AND THE FINDINGS OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER CANNOT BE CHALLENGED BY THE ASSES SEE IN PROCEEDING U/S. 154 OF THE ACT. ENTERTAINING OF THE PETITION U/S. 154 O F THE ACT WOULD ONLY MEAN REVIEW OF THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR WH ICH THE ASSESSING OFFICER/CIT(A)/TRIBUNAL HAVE NO POWER AS DISCUSSED EARLIER. IN CASE, THE ASSESSEE IS NOT CONTENDED OR AGGRIEVED AGAINST THE DECISION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER, THE REMEDY DE FACTO DOES NOT LIE WITH THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO REDRESS THE GRIEVANCE OF THE ASSESSEE BUT ELSEWHERE. IN VI EW OF THIS FINDING, THERE IS I.T.A. NO.. 756/COCH/2013 & C.O. NO.04/COCH/2014 9 NO MISTAKE APPARENT FROM RECORD IN THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER SO AS TO SEEK RECTIFICATION U/S. 154 OF THE ACT. WE ARE UN ABLE TO AGREE WITH THE VIEW TAKEN BY THE CIT(A) IN HIS ORDER BY GRANTING RELIEF TO THE ASSESSEE. ACCORDINGLY, WE CANCEL THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) AND UPHOLD THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER PASSED U/S. 154 OF THE ACT. SIN CE WE HAVE CANCELLED THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A), WE, AT THIS STAGE, REFRAIN FRO M GOING INTO OTHER ISSUES RAISED BY BOTH THE PARTIES. EVEN THE CASE LAW RELIE D UPON BY THE LD. AR IS ALSO NOT RELEVANT TO THE FACTS OF PRESENT CASE AS THE PR ESENT APPEAL HAS EMANATED FROM THE PROCEEDING U/S. 154 OF THE ACT. 12. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE IN I.T.A. NO. 756/COCH/2013 IS ALLOWED AND THE CROSS OBJECTION FI LED BY THE ASSESSEE IN C.O. NO. 04/COCH/2014 IS DISMISSED. PRONOUNCED ACCORDINGLY ON 27-06-201 4. SD/- SD/- (N.R.S.GANESAN) (CHANDRA POOJARI) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER PLACE: KOCHI DATED: 27TH JUNE, 2014 GJ COPY TO: 1. K.K.J. FOUNDATIONS, NAYANA GARDENS, POONKUTTY, EL ANJI P.O., ERNAKULAM-686 665. 2. THE ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF INCOME-TAX(EXEMPTION), RANGE-4, KOCHI. 3. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX(APPEALS)-II, KOCH I. I.T.A. NO.. 756/COCH/2013 & C.O. NO.04/COCH/2014 10 4. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, KOCHI. 5. D.R., I.T.A.T., COCHIN BENCH, COCHIN. 6. GUARD FILE. BY ORDER (ASSISTANT REGISTRAR) I.T.A.T, COCHIN