ACIT, V. M/s Xavier Institute of Social Service,

ITA 100/RAN/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 117 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 9561 (ITAT-RANCHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 5 year(s) 30 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax (Transfer Pricing) Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 05-04-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 06-03-2014
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: D K SUTARIAYA
• Assessee Lawyers: B K BANKA
• Keywords: Depreciation; Charitable institution
• Section: 12A; 12AA; 12; 10

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, RANCHI BENCH, RANCHI BEFORE SHRI N.S SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO.100 /RAN/201 4 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2009 - 2010 ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE - 3, RANCHI. VS. M/S. XAVIER INSTITUTE OF SOCIAL SERVICE, PURULIA ROAD, RANCHI PAN/GIR NO. AAATX 0040 P (APPELLANT ) .. ( RESPONDENT ) ASSESSEE BY: SHRI B.K.BANKA, CA REVENUE BY : SHRI D.K . SUTARIAYA, CIT (DR) DATE OF HEARING : 24 /05 / 201 8 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 30 /05/ 2018 O R D E R PER N.S.SAINI, AM THIS IS AN APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE A GAINST THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) - RANCHI DATED 20.12.2013 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009 - 2010. 2. GROUND NO.1 OF APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) IN DELETING THE ADDITION UNDER THE HEAD LOANS AND ADVANCES OF RS.2,28,41,789/ - . 2 ITA NO.100/RAN/2014 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2009 - 2010 3. THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT FROM THE EXAMINATION OF BALANCE SHEET, THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOUND THAT DURING THE FINANCIAL YEAR 2008 - 09, THE ASSESSEE INSTATE HAS GIVEN ADVANCE TO STAFF MEMBERS OF RS.1,07,03,784/ - . SIMILAR ADVANCE WAS GIVEN TO OTHERS TOTALLING TO RS.2,28,41,789/ - . THUS, THE TOTAL ADVANCE GIVEN WAS RS. 2,28,41,789/ - . THE ASSESSING OFFICER REQUIRED THE ASSESSEE TO EXPLAIN JUSTIFICATION FOR GIVI NG SUCH HIGH AMOUNT AS ADVANCE. THE ASSESSEE WAS REQUIRED TO GIVE PARTICULARS OF RECOVERY OF THE SAME. THE ASSESSEE WAS REQUIRED TO SUBMIT SPECIFIC DETAILS IN RESPECT OF RS.15,10,000/ - ADVANCE GIVEN TO SHRI DURLABH MAHTO AND RS.8,78,905/ - ADVANCE GIVEN T O SHRI BHIM VISHWAKARMA. THE ASSESSEE WAS REQUIRED TO FILE RELEVANT LEDGER COPY OF THE ACCOUNTS. THE ASSESSEE INFORMED THAT THE DOCUMENTS HAVE BEEN LOST AND IT IS UNABLE TO PRODUCE THE SAME. THE ASSESSEE FILED COPY OF A LETTER WRITTEN TO POLICE STATION THAT IT WAS CARRYING TWO BUNDLES IN AUTO RICKSHAW ON 14.11.2011, WHICH WERE LOST. THE ASSESSING OFFICER OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT STATED THE REASONS FOR GIVING ADVANCE TO SHRI DURLABH MAHTO AND HAS ALSO FAILED TO FILE DETAILS OF THE ALLEGED IDENT ITY OF THE RECIPIENTS OF ADVANCE. THEREFORE, HE HELD THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD NO CREDIBLE EXPLANATION FOR UTILISATION OF FUNDS OSTENSIBLY STATED TO BE GIVEN AS ADVANCES. THEREFORE, HE ASSUMED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS APPLIED THE MONEY FOR THE PURPOSE OTHER THA N FOR WHICH IT HAS BEEN GRANTED EXEMPTION UNDER SECTION 10(23C)(VI) OF THE ACT AND ADDED THE SAME TO THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. 3 ITA NO.100/RAN/2014 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2009 - 2010 4. ON APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT(A), THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS ERRED IN NOT ALLOWING ADVANCE OF RS.2,28, 41,789/ - HAS NOT BEEN APPLIED FOR EDUCATIONAL PURPOSE AND ADDING IT TO THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE EVEN THOUGH THE LOANS AND ADVANCES HAVE BEEN MADE IN THE ORDINARY COURSE OF ASSESSEES EDUCATIONAL ACTIVITIES. THE ASSESSEE HAS ALREADY APPLIED 85% OF ITS INC OME TOWARDS OBJECT OF THE TRUST AND HAS SPECIFIED CONDITIONS FOR EXEMPTION U/S.10(23C)(VI) OF THE ACT. THE LOANS AND ADVANCES HAVE NOT BEEN CLAIMED AS APPLICATION OF INCOME. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS FAILED TO CONSIDER THAT THE ASSESSEE IS ENTITLED TO EX EMPTION U/S.11 OF THE ACT AS IT IS REGISTERED U/S.12AA OF THE ACT. THE ASSESSEE HAS APPLIED 85% OF ITS INCOME IN THEIR OBJECT EVEN IN THE EARLIER YEARS AND THE SAME IS ACCEPTED BY THE INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008 - 09 AND EARLIER ASSES SMENT YEARS. SINCE THE ASSESSEE HAS APPLIED MORE THAN 85% OF ITS INCOME, THE BALANCE INCOME IS NOT SUBJECT TO ANY FURTHER RESTRICTION AS SPECIFIED IN THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 10(23C)(VI) AND SECTION 11(2) OF THE ACT. 5. AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSIONS O F THE ASSESSEE, THE CIT(A) DELETED THE ADDITION. 6. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS, PERUSED THE ORDERS OF LOWER AUTHORITIES AND MATERIALS AVAILABLE ON RECORD. IN THE INSTANT CASE, THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED ITS ENTIRE INCOME AS EXEMPT U/S.11 & 12 OF THE I. T.ACT, 4 ITA NO.100/RAN/2014 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2009 - 2010 1961. THE ASSESSING OFFICER ASSESSED THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE AT RS.3,36,05,892/ - AND LEVIED TAX THEREON @ 30%. 7. ON APPEAL, THE CIT(A) DELETED THE ADDITION BY OBSERVING AS UNDER: 4.2 IT IS NOTED THAT THE AO HAD MADE THIS ADDITION ON THE BASIS THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD APPLIED LOAN AND ADVANCE OF INR RS.2,28,41,789/ - FOR THE PURPOSE OF OTHER THAN EDUCATION ACTIVITIES. IN THE INSTANT CASE, IT IS OBSERVED THAT AS PER THE GAZETTEE OF INDIA ISSUED ON 24 TH JANUARY, 2005, IN EXERCISE OF POWERS CON FERRED BY SUB - SECTION (1) READ WITH CLAUSE (B) OF THE SECTION 35AC OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (43 OF 1961) THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT HAD GRANTED RS.6.99 CRORES TO THE ASSESSEE CONCERNED FOR F.Y. 2004 - 05, 2005 - 06 & 2006 - 07 FOR THE PROMOTION OF SOCIAL & ECONOM IC WELFARE. FURTHER, IT IS ALSO TO BE NOTED THAT HONBLE CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, RANCHI VIDE NOTIFICATION DATED 3 RD SEPTEMBER 2009 BEARING MEMO NO.CIT/RAN /TECH/10(23C) - 13/2008 - 09/4357 - 4410 DATED 3/8 TH SEPTEMBER, 2009 HAD IN EXERCISE OF THE POWERS CONFERRED BY SUB - CLAUSE (VI) OF CLAUSE 23C OF SECTION 10 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 READ WITH RULE 2CA OF THE INCOME TAX RULES, 1962 HAS GRANTED APPROVAL TO THE ASSESSEE U/S 10(23C)(VI) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 FOR THE YEARS 2009 - 10, 2010 - 11 AND 2011 - 12 AND THE HONBLE CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, RANCHI VIDE NOTIFICATION DATED 27 TH SEPTEMBER, 2012 VIDE MEMO NO.CCIT/RAN/TECH/10(23C/5/2011 - 12/6748 - 68 DATED 27 TH SEPTEMBER, 2012 HAD ALSO GRANTED APPROVAL TO THE ASSESSEE U/S.10(23C)(VI) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 FOR THE F.Y. 2011 - 12 ONWARDS. IN THE PRESENT CASE VIDE F.NO.64 OF 2006 DATED 23.5.2007 THE NATIONAL COMMISSIONER FOR MINORITY EDUCATION INSTITUTIONS HAD ISSUED A CERTIFICATE TO THE ASSESSEE WHERE IN IT HAS BEEN MENTIONED THAT XAVIER INSTITUTE OF SOCIAL SERVICES, PURULIA ROAD, RANCHI, JHARKHAND MANAGED BY THE XAVIER INSTITUTE OF SOCIAL SERVICE, RANCHI EXCLUSIVELY IS A MINORITY EDUCATION INSTITUTION WITHIN THE MEANING OF SECTION 2(G) OF THE NATIONAL COMMISSIONER FOR MINORITY EDUCATION INSTITUTIONS 2004. THIS CERTIFICATE HAD ALSO DECLARED THAT THIS INSTITUTION IS A MINORITY EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTION COVERED UNDER ARTICLE 30 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA. IT IS ALSO TO BE NOTED THAT IN THE ASSESSEES C ASE THE ASSESSMENT ORDERS FOR A.YS 2008 - 09 & 2010 - 11 WERE ALSO PASSED U/S.143(3) OF THE I.T.ACT, 1961, WHEREIN, TE LD A.OS HAVE ACCEPTED THE RETURN OF INCOME OF THE ASSESSE WITH THE FOLLOWING OBSERVATIONS. THE ASSESSEE IS TRUST. IT HAD BEEN REGISTERED UN DER SECTION 12A OF TH E ACT VIDE LETTER NO.TECH/VII - 30/12A/2003 - 5 ITA NO.100/RAN/2014 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2009 - 2010 04/1071 - 73 DATED 15.12.2003. THE ASSESSEE IS A TRUST AND EXEMPTION UNDER SECTION 10(23C)(VI) OF THE ACT FOR THE F.Y. 2009 - 10 WAS GRANTED TO THE ASSESSEE ON 8.9.2009 VIDE MEMO NO.CCIT/RAN/TECH/ 10(23C)/13/2008 - 09/4351 - 4410. IT HAS ALSO BEEN ACCEPTED BY BOTH THE AO DURING THE A.YS. 2008 - 09 AND 2010 - 11 THAT THE ASSESSEE IS RUNNING A UNIVERSITY AND OFFERS PROGRAMME AT BACHELORS AND MASTERS LEVEL IN MANAGEMENT, SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY AND OTHER ALLIE D AREAS AND IS RECEIVING ITS INCOME MAINLY FROM PROPERTIES HELD BY IT, CAMPUS ACTIVITY FUND AND INTEREST INCOME FROM FIXED DEPOSITS. IT IS ALSO TO BE NOTED THAT THE APPELLANT HAS APPLIED MORE THAN 85% OF ITS INCOME, THE BALANCE INCOME IS NOT SUBJECT TO T HE RESTRICTIONS OUTLINED IN SECTION 11(2) OF THE ACT AND THUS IN THE PRESENT CASE THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 11(3) OF THE ACT CANNOT BE INVOKED. IN THE INSTANT CASE, IT IS SEEN THAT THE ASSESSEE IS RUNNING MINORITY EDUCATION INSTITUTION AND THE ADVANCES GI VEN BY IT TO STAFF AND OTHERS ARE IN THE NORMAL COURSE OF ACTIVITIES OF THE SOCIETY AND THERE IS NO ENQUIRY MADE BY THE AO TO ESTABLISH THAT THESE ADVANCES HAVE BEEN GIVEN FOR PURPOSE OTHER THAN PURPOSE OF THE SOCIETY I.E. EDUCATION. IN VIEW OF THESE DISC USSIONS AND AFTER NOTHING THAT ASSESSEE IS ENTITLED TO EXEMPTION U/S.10(23C)(VI) THE ADDITION MADE UNDER THIS HEAD IS DIFFICULT TO BE SUSTAINED IN APPEAL AND, THEREFORE, THIS ADDITION IS DIRECTED TO BE DELETED. ACCORDINGLY, THIS GROUND OF APPEAL OF THE AS SESSEE IS ALLOWED. 8. BEFORE US, LD D.R. RELIED ON THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 9. ON THE OTHER HAND, LD A.R. SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A). 10. WE FIND THAT NO SPECIFIC ERROR IN THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) COULD BE POINTED OUT BY LD D.R. NO MATE RIAL WAS BROUGHT BEFORE US TO SHOW THAT THE APPROVAL GRANTED TO THE ASSESSEE U/S.10(23C)(VI) OF THE ACT OR SECTION 12AA OF THE ACT WAS WITHDRAWN BY THE DEPARTMENT. IN THE ABOVE CIRCUMSTANCES, WE DO NOT FIND ANY GOOD REASON TO INTERFERE WITH THE ORDER OF T HE CIT(A), WHICH IS HEREBY CONFIRMED AND GROUND OF APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED. 6 ITA NO.100/RAN/2014 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2009 - 2010 11. GROUND NO.2 OF APPEAL READS AS UNDER: THAT THE CIT(A) IS NOT JUSTIFIED IN DELETING THE ADDITION UNDER THE HEAD DEPRECIATION. THE CI(A) HAS NOT APPRECIATED THE FA CT THAT CLAIMING OF DEPRECIATION IN CASE OF TRUST IS AMOUNT TO DOUBLE DEDUCTION, ALSO ASSESSEE HAS PLACED NO BILLS./VOUCHERS FOR MAINTENANCE EXPENDITURE. 12. THE ASSESSING OFFICER OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE INSTITUTE HAS CLAIMED TO HAVE ADDED A SUM OF RS.3,38,42,325/ - DURING THE FINANCIAL YEAR 2008 - 09. FROM THE ACCOUNTS, IT IS ALSO OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS CLAIMED TO HAVE SPENT RS.1,02,98,103.15 ON THE MAINTENANCE OF BUILDING AND OTHER ASSETS. THE ASSESSE WAS ASKED TO FURNISH THE DETAILS AND SUP PORTING EVIDENCES TO JUSTIFY THE AMOUNT INCURRED ON MAINTENANCE. THE ASSESSEE PRODUCED ONLY LEDGER BUT COULD NOT PRODUCE BILLS AND VOUCHERS IN SUPPORT OF ITS CLAIM. THE ASSESSEE WAS ALSO REQUESTED TO FURNISH APPROVED PLAN FOR BUILDING AND OTHER PARTICULAR S REGARDING THE SIZE AND COST. BUT AS CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE, THE DOCUMENTS WERE LOST. IN VIEW OF ABOVE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HELD THAT THE APPLICATION OF AMOUNT HAD NOT BEEN INCURRED FOR EDUCATIONAL PURPOSES AND, THEREFORE, DISALLOWED RS.1,02,98,103.1 5 AND ADDED THE SAME TO THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. 13. BEFORE THE CIT(A), LD A.R. OF THE ASSESSEE ARGUED THAT THE ASSESSEE OWNS VEHICLES, BUILDING, STAFF QUARTERS, FURNITURES AND OTHER ASSETS ON WHICH DEPRECIATION HAS BEEN CLAIMED. IT HAS ALSO BEEN CONTE NDED THAT THE INCOME OF A CHARITABLE TRUST AS CONTEMPLATED BY SECTION 11(1)(A) AND SECTION 7 ITA NO.100/RAN/2014 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2009 - 2010 10(23)(C) OF THE ACT IS REQUIRED TO BE COMPUTED NOT IN ACCORDANCE WITH THOSE PROVISIONS, BUT IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE NORMAL RULES OF ACCOUNTANCY WHERE DEPRECIATION IS ALWAYS TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT FOR FINDING OUT THE REAL INCOME. IT HAS ALSO BEEN CONTENDED THAT THE AMOUNT OF DEPRECIATION DEBITED TO THE ACCOUNTS OF THE CHARITABLE INSTITUTION HAS TO BE DEDUCTED TO ARRIVE AT THE INCOME AVAILABLE FOR APPLICATION TO CHARITABLE AND RELIGIOUS PURPOSES. 14. THE LD CIT(A) CALLED FOR A REMAND REPORT FROM THE ASSESSING OFFICER. LD CIT(A) NOTED THAT HONBLE GUJARAT HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. SHETH MANILAL R.AMCHORDAS VISH.RAM BHAWAN TRUST 198 ITR 598 HAS HELD THAT THE AMOUNT OF DEPRECIATION DEBITED TO THE ACCOUNTS OF A CHARITABLE TRUST HAS TO BE DEDUCTED TO ARRIVE AT THE INCOME AVAILABLE FOR APPLICATION TO CHARITABLE AND RELIGIOUS PURPOSES. THE CIT(A) OBSERVED THAT THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS OF ASSESSEE WERE DULY AUDITED AND ASSES SEE IS RUNNING EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTION AND HAD SPENT MONEY UNDER THE HEAD OF MAINTENANCE OF BUILDINGS AND OTHER ASSETS TO THE TUNE OF RS.1,02,98,103/ - . THIS EXPENDITURE INCLUDES EXPENDITURE FOR MAINTENANCE OF ASSETS SUCH AS VEHICLE AND BUILDINGS ETC AND DE PRECIATION OF R.S.63,47,874/ - . ALL THESE EXPENSES HAVE BEEN INCURRED FOR THE ASSESSEE'S ACTIVITIES AS EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY AND THERE IS NO ENQUIRY TO ESTABLISH THAT THESE EXPENSES WERE INCURRED FOR ANY OTHER PURPOSE. CONSIDERING THE ABOVE, THE CIT(A) DELETE D THE ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 8 ITA NO.100/RAN/2014 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2009 - 2010 15. BE FORE US, LD D.R. RELIED ON THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER 16. LD A.R. SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A). 17. WE FIND THAT NO SPECIFIC ERROR IN THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) COULD BE POINTED OUT BY LD D.R. NO CONTRARY DECISIONS OF HONBLE HIGH COURTS OR HONBLE SUPREME COURT WERE PLACED BY LD D.R. TO TAKE DIFFERENT VIEW THAN THE VIEW TAKEN BY THE CIT(A). HENCE, WE FIND NO GOOD REASON TO INTERFERE WITH THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A), WHICH IS HEREBY CONFIRMED AND GROUND NO.2 OF APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED. 18. GROUND NO.3 OF APPEAL READS AS UNDER: THAT THE CIT(A) IS NOT JUSTIFIED IN DELETING THE ADDITION UNDER THE HEAD ADVANCE PAYMENT TO SHRI DURLABH MAHTO TO THE TUNE OF RS.4,66,000/ - . THE CIT(A) FAILED TO APPRECIATE THE FACT THAT ADVANCE PAYMENT TO SHRI DURLABH MAHTO CANNOT BE TREATED AS APPLICATION OF INCOME FOR EDUCATIONAL PURPOSES. 19. THE ASSESSING OFFICER OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE INSTITUTE HAD GIVEN RS.4,66,000/ -- TO SHRI DURLABH MAHTO DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. IN ABSENCE OF ANY DETAILS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER TREATED THIS AMOUNT TO BE SPENT NOT FOR THE EDUCATIONAL 'PURPOSE AND ADDED BACK TO THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. 20. ON APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT(A), LD COU NSEL OF THE ASSESSEE ARGUED THAT THE SOCIETY HAS ENGAGED MR. DURLABH MAHTO AS ITS LAWYER FOR ASSISTING IT WITH 9 ITA NO.100/RAN/2014 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2009 - 2010 VARIOUS LEGAL MATTERS AND PAYMENT MADE TO HIM BY THE APPELLANT INSTITUTE IN LIEU OF SERVICES PROVIDED BY HIM. THE COUNSEL OF THE ASSESSEE HAS ALS O CONTENDED THAT THE AMOUNT PAID TO MR. MAHTO IS IN CONNECTION WITH APPELLANT'S EDUCATION ACTIVITIES AND HAS TO BE DEDUCTED TO ARRIVE AT THE INCOME AVAILABLE FOR APPLICATION TO CHARITABLE AND RELIGIOUS PURPOSES. 21. THE CIT(A) NOTED THAT THE ASSESSEE IS A SOCIETY RUNNING EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTIONS AND IT HAS MANY LEGAL MATTER AND FOR THIS PURPOSE FOR ASSISTING ITS LAWYER PAYMENT WAS MADE TO MR. DURLABH MAHTO DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD NOT ESTABLISHED BY ANY ENQUIRY THAT TH E EXPENDITURE WAS NOT INCURRED FOR THE NORMAL EDUCATIONAL ACTIVITIES OF THE SOCIETY. HE NOTED THAT IN THE ASSESSEE'S OWN CASE THE PATNA BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN ITA NO.366(PAT) OF 1979 FOR THE A.Y.1977 - 78 HAD OBSERVED THAT THE INCOME AND EXPENDITURE SHOWN IN THE INCOME AND EXPENDITURE ACCOUNT RELATED TO THE EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTION AND THE ASSESSEE NEITHER RECEIVED ANY INCOME FROM ANY OTHER SOURCE NOR ANY AMOUNT WAS SPENT ON ANY OTHER OBJECTS OF THE ASSESSEE AND UNDER THE ABOVE CIRCUMSTANCES, THE ASSESSEE FU LFILLED THE CONDITION OF SECTION 10(22) OF THE ACT AND THE SAME WAS ALSO SUPPORTED BY THE DECISION IN 118 ITR 235. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, THE CIT(A) DELETED THE ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 22. BEFORE US, LD D.R. RELIED ON THE ORDER OF THE ASS ESSING OFFICER. 23. ON THE OTHER HAND, LD A.R. SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A). 10 ITA NO.100/RAN/2014 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2009 - 2010 24. AFTER HEARING THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSING THE ORDERS OF LOWER AUTHORITIES, WE FIND THAT NO SPECIFIC ERROR IN THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) COULD BE POINTED OUT BY LD D.R . WE FIND THAT THE CIT(A) HAS NOTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS GIVEN RS.4,66,000/ - TO SHRI DURLABH MAHTO, WHO WAS RENDERING LEGAL ASSISTANCE TO THE ASSESSEE. THIS FACT IS NOT CONTROVERTED BY LD D.R. BY SHOWING ANY POSITIVE MATERIAL BEFORE US. HENCE, WE FI ND NO GOOD REASON TO INTERFERE WITH THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) AND DISMISS THE GROUND NO.3 OF THE REVENUE. 25. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 3 0 /05 /201 8 S D / - S D / - (PAVAN KUMAR GADALE) (N.S SAINI) JUDICIAL MEMBER A CCOUNTANT MEMBER RANCHI; DATED 3 0 /05 /201 8 B.K.PARIDA, SPS COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : BY ORDER, SR.PS, ITAT, CAMP AT RANCHI 1. THE APPELLANT : ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE - 3, RANCHI. 2. THE RESPONDENT: M/S. XAVIER INSTITUTE OF SOCIAL SERVICE, PURULIA ROAD, RANCHI 3. THE CIT(A), RANCHI 4. PR. CIT , RANCHI 5. DR, ITAT, RANCHI 6. GUARD FILE. //TRUE COPY//