SUSHRUT HOSPITAL AND RESEARCH CENTRE, Nagpur V. ACIT,CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), Nagpur

ITA 150/NAG/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2015] 134 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 1608 (ITAT-NAGPUR)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 7 month(s) 7 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 24-11-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 16-04-2013
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: NARENDRA KANE
• Keywords: Depreciation; Loose papers; Document seized; Charitable institution; Benefit of exemption; Documents seized; Revenue expenditure; Capital expenditure
• Section: 43B; 143(3); 142(1); 153A; 234B; 80G; 12A; 132; 28; 11

Judgement Text

1 ITA NO. 150/NAG/2013 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR BEFORE SHRI MUKUL K. SHRAWAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER. I.T.A. NO. 150/NAG/2013 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2009 - 10. SUSHRUT HOSPITAL AND RESEARCH CENTRE, ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF , NAGPUR. VS. INCOME - TAX, CENTRAL CIR.1(2) PAN AAATS 5281K NAGPUR APPELLANT. RESPONDENT. APPELLANT BY : SHRI K.P. DEWANI. RESPONDENT BY : SHRI NARENDRA KANE. DATE OF HEARING : 04 - 09 - 2015. DATE OF PRO NOUNCEMENT : 24 TH NOV., 2015. O R D E R PER SHRI SHAMIN YAHYA, A.M . THIS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF LEARNED CIT(APPEALS) - 16, MUMBAI (CAMP OFFICE NAGPUR) DATED 24 - 01 - 2013 AND PERTAINS TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009 - 10. 2. GROUNDS OF APPEAL READ AS UNDER : 1. THE ORDER PASSED BY AO U/S 153A R.W.S. 143(3) OF I.T. ACT, 1961 IS ILLEGAL, INVALID AND BAD IN A LAW. 2. THE LEARNED A.O. ERRED IN HOLDING THAT ASSESSEE IS NOT ELIGIBLE FOR BENEFIT OF INCOME BEING EXEMPT U/S 11 OF I.T. ACT, 1961. 3. THE LEARNED A.O. ERRED IN HOLDING THAT IN THE CASE OF ASSESSEE TRUST THERE IS VIOLATION OF SECTION 13(1)(C) OF I.T. ACT, 1961 AND THEREFORE ASSESSEE IS NOT ELIGIBLE FOR BENEFIT OF INCOME BEING EXEMPT U/S 11 OF I.T. ACT, 1961. 2 ITA NO. 150/NAG/2013 4. THE LEARNED CIT(A) ERRED IN UPHOLDING THE ACTION OF A.O. IN NOT GRANTING EXEMPTION U/S 11 OF I.T. ACT, 1961 AND UPHOLDING THE ACTION OF A.O. THAT THERE IS VIOLATION OF PROVISIONS OF SECTION 13(1)(C) OF I.T. ACT, 1961. 5. THE ADDITION SUSTAINED OUT OF TRAVELL ING AND CONVEYANCE EXPENSES BY HONBLE CIT(A) IS UNJUSTIFIED, UNWARRANTED AND EXCESSIVE. 6. THE ADDITION SUSTAINED OUT OF PROMOTIONAL AND INAUGURAL EXPENSES BY HONBLE CIT(A) IS UNJUSTIFIED, UNWARRANTED AND EXCESSIVE. 7. THE ADDITION SUSTAINED OUT OF DEP RECIATION ON CARS BY HONBLE CIT(A) AT RS.1,37,336/ - IS UNJUSTIFIED, UNWARRANTED AND EXCESSIVE. 8. THE ADDITION SUSTAINED BY CIT(A) AT RS.10,000/ - ON ACCOUNT OF SALARY IS UNJUSTIFIED, UNWARRANTED AND EXCESSIVE. 9. THE LEARNED AO AS WELL AS HONBLE CIT(A) ERRED IN HOLDING THAT EXPENSES INCURRED ON REPAIRS AND UP KEEPING OF BUILDING IS IN THE NATURE OF CAPITAL EXPENDITURE AND ADDITION MADE BY AUTHORITIES IS UNJUSTIFIED, UNWARRANTED AND EXCESSIVE. 10. THE LEARNED AO AND HONBLE CIT(A) ERRED IN UPHOLDING THE ADDITION MADE AT RS.4,37,520/ - OUT OF EDUCATIONAL EXPENSES. 11. THE LEARNED AND HONBLE CIT(A) ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION MADE AT RS.1,79,000/ - U/S 40(A)(IA) OF I.T. ACT, 1961. 12. THE ASSESSEE DENIES LIABILITY TO BE ASSESSED TO INTEREST U/S 234B OF I.T. ACT, 1961. WITHOUT PREJUDICE, THE LEVY OF INTEREST U/S 234B OF I.T. ACT, 1961 IS UNJUSTIFIED, UNWARRANTED AND EXCESSIVE. 3. IN THIS CASE A SEARCH U/S 132 OF THE I.T. ACT WAS CARRIED OUT AT THE HOSPITAL OF THE ASSESSEE AS WELL AS THE RESIDENCE OF DR. SUDHIR BABHULKAR AND DR. SUSHRUT BABHULKAR WHO ALSO HAPPENS TO BE THE TRUSTEES OF THE ASSESSEE TRUST. THE SEARCH WAS CONDUCTED ON 10 - 04 - 2008. DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH, A CASH OF RS.2,00,000/ - AND JEWELLERY OF RS.5,90,000/ WAS SEIZED FROM THE RESIDE NCE OF DR. SUDHIR BABHULKAR. PURSUANT TO THE SEARCH, NOTICE U/S 153A WAS ISSUED TO THE ASSESSEE. DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT THE AO REFERRED TO THE PROVISIONS OF 3 ITA NO. 150/NAG/2013 SECTION 13(1)(C) OF THE I.T. ACT AND OBSERVED THAT IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE FOLLOWING PERSONS FALL WITHIN THE DEFINITION OF SECTION 13(3) READ WITH SECTION 13(1)(C) : A DR. SUDHIR BABHULKAR FOUNDER TRUSTGEE B DR. ARUNA BABHULKAR TRUSTEE C DR. SUSHRUT BABHULKAR TRUSTEE D DR. NANDANI BABHULKAR RELATIVE OF TRUSTEE E DAUGHTER OF DR. SUSHRUT BABHULKAR F DR. SONALI PANDE TRUSTEE G DR. KETAN PANDE TRUSTEE. 4. AO FORMED AN OPINION THAT IN VIEW OF PROVISION OF SECTION 13(1)(C) ASSESSEE WAS NOT ENTITLED TO EXEMPTION U/S 11. FOR THIS HE MADE FOLLOWING SUBMISSIONS, EXAMINATION AND OBSERVATIONS. STATUS OF THE VEHICLES OWNED BY THE TRUST. HE NOTED THAT THREE VEHICLES OF THE ASSESSEE TRUST WERE BEING USED BY DR. SUDHIR BABHULKAR AND DR. SURHSUT BABHULKAR. THE AO REFERRED TO THE EXTRACT FROM THE STATEMENT OF DR. SUDHIR BABHULKAR THAT NO LOG BOOK W AS MAINTAINED. THAT THE VEHICLES WERE PARTLY USED FOR PERSONAL PURPOSES. THAT DR. SUDHIR BABHULKAR ALSO OWNS A MERCEDEZE BENZ CAR. THAT THERE WAS NO WRITTEN AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE TRUST AND SHRI SUDHIR BABHULKAR. THE AO FURTHER REFERRED TO THE REGISTRATI ON BOOK OF THESE VEHICLES AND NOTED THAT THESE WERE OWNED BY THE TRUSTEES IN THEIR INDIVIDUAL NAMES. FROM THE ABOVE THE AO CONCLUDED THAT THE VEHICLES OF THE TRUST WERE USED BY THE TRUSTEES FOR THEIR PERSONAL USE. HENCE THE AO HELD THAT IN VIEW OF PROVISI ON OF SECTION 13(1)(C) THE TRUST WOULD NOT BE ELIGIBLE FOR EXEMPTION U/S 11. 5. RENOVATION OF HOSPITAL BUILDING OWNED BY DR. SUDHIR BABHULKAR. 4 ITA NO. 150/NAG/2013 IN THIS REGARD THE AO NOTED THAT THE ASSESSEE TRUST CARRIED OUT MAJOR REPAIR AND RENOVATION OF RS.35,86,995/ - D URING THE FINANCIAL YEAR 2006 - 07. TOTAL EXPENDITURE OF SUCH MAJOR REPAIR WAS RS.61,43,599/ - DURING THE PERIOD RELEVANT TO ASSESSMENT YEARS 2005 - 06 TO 2008 - 09. IN THIS REGARD THE AO REFERRED TO A STATEMENT OBTAINED FROM DR. SUDHIR BABHULKAR. THE AO OBSERVE D THAT FROM THE STATEMENT IT IS CLEAR THAT THE ASSESSEE TRUST CARRIED OUT MAJOR CAPITAL EXPENDITURE IN THE FORM OF CHANGE OF THE FLOURING OF THE ENTIRE BUILDING AND PATIENT ROOM, ELECTRIFICATION AND PAINTING OF THE BUILDING. THERE WAS ALSO FRONT ELEVATION OF THE HOSPITAL. THE AO HELD THAT THESE WERE CAPITAL EXPENSES AND NOT REPAIR AND WERE MEANT TO GIVE BENEFIT TO ITS FOUNDER TRUSTEE DR. SUDHIR BABHULKAR. ON THIS ACCOUNT ALSO THE AO HELD THAT FOUNDER TRUSTEE GOT DIRECT BENEFIT AND, THEREFORE, THE ASSESSEE WOULD NOT BE ENTITLED TO EXEMPTION U/S 11 OF THE I.T. ACT. 6. PRIVATE PRACTICE OF DR. MRS. NANDANI SUSHRUT BABHULKAR. IN THIS REGARD THE AO OBSERVED THAT DR. NANDANI S. BABHULKAR WHO IS WIFE OF DR. SUSHRUT BABHULKAR, ONE OF THE TRUSTEES, IS ENGAGED IN HE R PRACTICE FROM HOSPITAL PREMISES. SHE HAS BEEN PROVIDED WITH HER ONE INDEPENDENT CABIN AND USES THE FACILITIES OF THE HOSPITAL LIKE STAFF OF THE HOSPITAL, ELECTRICITY, WATER, STATIONERY, NURSING STAFF ETC. HOWEVER, SHE DID NOT SHARE HER PROFESSIONAL RECE IPT WITH THE ASSESSEE TRUST. HENCE THE AO HELD THAT THE ACTION OF THE ASSESSEE TRUST RESULTED IN DIRECT BENEFIT TO DR. MRS. NANDANI S. BABHULKAR WHO HAPPENS TO BE THE WIFE OF TRUSTEE AND THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 13(1)(C) ARE APPLICABLE. HENCE EXEMPTION U/ S 11 TO THE ASSESSEE WAS DENIED. 7. PERSONAL USE OF STAFF OF HOSPITAL BY THE TRUSTEES. IN THIS REGARD THE AO REFERRED TO THE EXTRACT OF A STATEMENT FROM AN ACCOUNTANT MR. ANIL MOHALE. FROM HIS STATEMENT WHEREIN THE SAID ACCOUNTANT HAS MENTIONED THAT HE MAINTAINED IN TALLY PACKAGE DATA OF THE FAMILY MEMBERS, THE AO DEDUCED THAT THE TRUSTEES HAVE BEEN USING THE SERVICE OF TRUST EMPLOYEES TO MAINTAIN ACCOUNTS OF THE TRUSTEES AND THE RELATIVES. HENCE THE AO HELD THAT 5 ITA NO. 150/NAG/2013 THIS AMOUNTS TO DIRECT BENEFIT TO THE TR USTEES WITHIN THE MEANING OF SECTION 13(1)(C) OF THE I.T. ACT. HENCE THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT ENTITLED TO EXEMPTION U/S 11 OF I.T. ACT. 8. COMMISSION PAID TO MRS. ARUNA BABHULKAR/MRS. NANDANI BABHULKAR. IN THIS REGARD THE AO OBSERVED THAT ON GOING THROUGH R ETURN OF INCOME OF MRS. ARUNA BABHULKAR/MRS. NANDANI BABHULKAR IT WAS SEEN THAT THEY HAVE RECEIVED COMMISSION ON SALE OF DRUG FROM ASSESSMENT YEARS 2006 - 07 ONWARDS. THE AO OBSERVED THAT THE COMMISSION WAS PAID BY THE MEDICAL STORE THAT RUNS FROM THE HOSPI TAL. THAT THE MEDICAL STORE DOES NOT PAY ANY RENT TO THE ASSESSEE TRUST. THE AO HELD THAT THIS WAS AN INDIRECT BENEFIT TO THE TRUSTEE AND WIFE OF ONE OF THE TRUSTEE WHICH FELL WITHIN THE MEANING OF SECTION 13(1)(C) OF THE I.T. ACT. HENCE THE ASSESSEE WOU LD NOT BE ELIGIBLE FOR EXEMPTION U/S 11 OF I.T. ACT. 9. EXPENSES DEBITED ON ACCOUNT OF TRAVELLING EXPENSES. IN THIS REGARD THE AO OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS INCURRED TRAVELLING EXPENSES FROM ASSESSMENT YEAR 2003 - 04 TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009 - 10. THE ASSESSEE WAS ASKED TO SUBMIT THE NATURE OF EXPENSES AND HOW IT WAS FOR THE PURPOSE OF BUSINESS. HOWEVER, THE AO O BSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE DID NOT SUBMIT ANY EXPLANATION. HENCE THE AO HELD THAT THE ASSESSEE TRUST DEBITED PERSONAL EXPENSES OF THE TRUSTEE. IN THIS REGARD THE AO REFERRED TO CERTAIN LOOSE PAPERS WHICH WERE MEANT FOR TICKET OF MRS. ARUNA BABHULKAR, SUDH IR BABHULKAR, NANDANI BABHULKAR, MS SANSKRITI BABHULKAR AND MS SIDDHI BABHULKAR. REFERRING TO THIS THE AO HELD THAT IT WAS AMPLY CLEAR THAT EXPENSES ARE IN THE NATURE OF EXPENSES INCURRED ON PERSONAL PURPOSE OF BOTH THE TRUSTEE AND THE RELATIVE. THE AO AL SO NOTED THAT IN THE STATEMENT OF DR. SUDHIR BABHULKAR REGARDING THE PROFESSIONAL ACTIVITY OF MRS. ARUNA BABHULKAR, HE HAD EXPLAINED THAT |MRS. ARUNA BABHULKAR IS ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF GARDEN LAYOUT AND MAINTENANCE OF GARDEN. HENCE THE AO HELD THAT TH E VISIT OF MRS. ARUNA BABHULKAR TO FOREIGN COUNTRY IS A DIRECT BENEFIT TO THE ASSESSEE WITHIN THE 6 ITA NO. 150/NAG/2013 MEANING OF SECTION 13(1)(C). IN ABSENCE OF EXPLANATION REGARDING THE NATURE OF TRAVELLING EXPENSES AND ITS PURPOSE, THE AO HELD THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT EL IGIBLE FOR EXEMPTION U/S 11 OF THE I.T. ACT. 10. PERSONAL EXPENSES OF TRUSTEES. IN THIS REGARD THE AO REFERRED TO A BILL OF GONDWANA CLUP FOR RS.1100/ - IN THE NAME OF DR. SUDHIR BABHULKAR. THE AO HELD THAT IN ABSENCE OF ANY EXPLANATION THIS WAS A DIRECT BENEFIT TO THE TRUSTEE. THE AO FURTHER REFERRED TO A BILL OF EUREKA FORBES OF DR. MRS. NANDANI BABHULKAR PAID BY THE ASSESSEE TRUST. THE AO FOUND THIS ANOTHER EXAMPLE OF PERSONAL EXPENSES OF TRUSTEE/THEIR RELATIVE INCURRED BY THE ASSESSEE. THE AO FURTHER NOTED THAT DR. SUDHIR BABHULKAR OFFERED THE PROFESSIONAL FEE RECEIVED FROM THE ASSESSEE TRUST UNDER THE HEAD BUSINESS/PROFESSIONAL INCOME AND CLAIMED EXPENSES MAINLY AS SALARY. THE SALARY WAS PAID TO MBBS DOCTORS WHO WERE PURSUING THEIR POST GRADUATION AT M/S SUSHRUT HOSPITAL AND RESEARCH CENTRE AND WERE ASSISTING HIM WHILE PERFORMING OPERATION ETC. THESE MBBS DOCTORS WERE RESIDING AT M/S SUSHRUT HOSPITAL AND RESEARCH CENTRE AND THEIR EXPENSES WERE BORNE BY M/S SUSHRUT HOSPITAL AND RESEARCH CENTRE. IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES THE AO WAS OF THE OPINION THAT IT WAS THE DUTY OF THE ASSESSEE TRUST TO PAY SALARY/STIPEND TO THEM. HOWEVER, THE AO HELD THAT BY MAKING THE PAYMENT OF SALARY BY SHRI SUDHIR BABHULKAR AND DR. SUSHRT SUDHIR BABHULKAR IN THEIR INDIV IDUAL CAPACITY. THE ASSESSEE TRFUST BENEFITED THEIR TRUSTEE IN EVADING TAX ALSO. THE AO HELD THAT SUCH AN ACT OF THE ASSESSEE TRUST AMOUNTS DIRECT BENEFIT TO THE TRUSTEES. 11. THE AO FURTHER OBSERVED THAT DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS FOR ASS ESSMENT YEAR 2003 - 04 IN THE CASE OF DR. SUDHIR BABHULKAR IT WAS SEEN THAT HE ALONG WITH HIS SPOUSE AND CHILDREN WERE STAYING ON TOP OF THE HOSPITAL PREMISES. THE AO HELD THAT THIS WAS A BENEFIT TO THE TRUSTEE WITHIN THE MEANING OF SECTION 13(1)(C) OF THE ACT. 7 ITA NO. 150/NAG/2013 12. THE AO FURTHER HELD THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT A CHARITABLE TRUST. HE HELD THAT MERE FACT THAT SOME OF THE PATIENTS WERE TREATED EITHER FREE OF COST OR ON DISCOUNTED RATE DOES NOT CHANGE THE COMMERCIAL NATURE OF THE ASSESSEE TRUST. THE AO ALSO F OUND THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS PAYING RENT TO DR. SUDHIR BABHULKAR WHICH WAS A DIVERSION OF FUNDS. 13. THE AO FURTHER OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE MAY ARGUE THAT THERE WAS NO SPECIFIC EVIDENCE TO ATTRACT THE PROVISION OF SECTION 13(1)(C) IN EVERY ASSESSMENT YE AR. IN THIS CONNECTION AO OPINED THAT IT CANNOT BE EXPECTED THAT THE ASSESSEE WOULD RETAIN DOCUMENTS REGARDING THE PERSONAL BENEFIT ALLOWED TO THE TRUSTEES AND THEIR RELATIVE. IF DOCUMENTS FOR EACH AND EVERY ASSESSMENT YEAR ARE INSISTED TO BE SEARCHED, PR ACTICALLY THE PROVISION FOR SEARCH ASSESSMENT WOULD BE DEFEATED. THIS CAN NOT BE INTENTION OF THE LEGISLATURE. THE AO STATED THAT HE CANNOT SHUT HIS EYES TO THE LEGISLATIVE INTENT. HENCE THE AO HELD THAT IT WAS JUST AND APPROPRIATE TO PRESUME THAT THERE WAS UNIFORM PRACTICE IN ALL THE ASSESSMENT YEARS DURING THE SEARCH PERIOD. AO PROCEEDED TO MAKE THE ASSESSMENT AT RS.14,28,700/ - . 14. AGAINST THE ABOVE ORDER, ASSESSEE APPEALED BEFORE THE LEARNED CIT(APPEALS). THE LEARNED CIT(APPEALS) CONSIDERED THE VARIO US SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE. HE ALSO OBTAINED THE REMAND REPORT FROM THE AO. THE LEARNED CIT(APPEALS) PROCEEDED TO PRINCIPALLY AFFIRM THE FINDING OF THE AO AND HELD THAT THE AO HAS RIGHTLY DENIED THE EXEMPTION U/S 11 OF THE I.T. ACT. LEARNED CIT(APPEALS ) GRANTED SOME RELIEF ON ADDITION. 15. AGAINST THE ABOVE ORDER, THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 16. GROUND NO. 1 HAS NOT BEEN PRESSED. 8 ITA NO. 150/NAG/2013 17. GROUND NO. 2 4: THE ISSUE PERTAINING TO DENIAL OF REGISTRATION U/S 11 OF THE I.T. ACT HAS ALREADY BEEN DEAL T BY US IN ITA NO. 146/NAG/2013 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2003 - 04. THE FACTS AND ARGUMENTS ARE SAME. OUR ADJUDICATION ON THE SAME READS AS UNDER: 21. NOW WE CONSIDER THE MERITS OF AOS ASSESSMENT WHEREBY HE HAS HELD THAT IN VIEW OF PROVISIONS OF SECTION 13(1) (C) THE TRUST WILL NOT BE ELIGIBLE FOR EXEMPTION U/S 11. THE FIRST OBSERVATION OF THE AO IS THAT THREE VEHICLES OF THE ASSESSEE TRUST WERE BEING USED BY THE TRUSTEES DR. SUDHIR BABHULKAR AND DR. SUSHSRUT BABHULKAR. THIS OBSERVATION OF THE AO HAS NOT BEEN MADE ON THE BASIS OF ANY MATERIAL FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH. THE AO HAS NO EVIDENCE IN HIS POSSESSION THAT THE TRUSTEES HAVE USED THE VEHICLES FOR THEIR PRIVATE PURPOSES. THE SOLE BASIS IS A STATEMENT OBTAINED FROM DR. SUDHIR BABHULKAR WHERE HE HAS ACCEPTED THAT THE VEHICLES ALSO USED FOR PRIVATE PURPOSES. THE AO HAS ALSO DRAWN ADVERSE INFERENCE FOR LACK OF MAINTENANCE OF LOG BOOK OF THE FACTS. IN THIS REGARD THE AO HAS DISREGARDED THE SUBMISSIONS OF DR. SUDHIR BABHULKAR THAT HE ALSO OWNS A PE RSONAL MERCEDEZE BENZ CAR. WE FIND THAT THE AO HAD COME TO THE CONCLUSION THAT THE VEHICLES OF THE TRUST ARE BEING USED BY THE TRUSTEES PERSONALLY IS NOT BASED UPON ANY COGENT EVIDENCE. LACK OF MAINTENANCE OF LOG BOOK CANNOT LEAD TO AN INFERENCE THAT T HERE WAS PERSONAL USE OF VEHICLES BY THE TRUSTEES. SIMILARLY THE FACT THAT THE TRUSTEES WERE ALSO HAVING THEIR PERSONAL CARS HAS TO BE TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT AND IT CANNOT BE PRESUMED THAT THE TRUSTEES WERE KEEPING THEIR PERSONAL CARS IDLE AND USING THE TRUST VEHICLES FOR PERSONAL PURPOSES. SIMILARLY A STATEMENT OF ONE OF THE TRUSTEES THAT SOMETIMES THE CARS ARE USED FOR PRIVATE PURPOSES ALSO CANNOT BE TAKEN AS MISUSE OF THE TRUST VEHICLES FOR PERSONAL PURPOSES. BOTH THE TRUSTEES WERE USING THE VEHICLES ARE A LSO SENIOR AND QUALIFIED DOCTORS AND PROVIDING SERVICES TO THE TRUST. HENCE THEIR USE OF VEHICLES CANNOT BE SAID TO BE FOR PRIVATE PURPOSES ONLY ON THE BASIS OF SURMISES AND CONJECTURES. FROM THE ABOVE IT IS EVIDENT THAT THE OBSERVATIONS OF THE AO THAT T HERE IS MISUSE OF VEHICLES OF THE TRUST FOR PERSONAL PURPOSES OF THE TRUSTEES AND HENCE THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 13(1)(C) ARE ATTRACTED IS TOTALLY BASED ON SURMISES AND CONJECTURE AND THE SAME IS NOT AT ALL SUSTAINABLE. 22. THE SECOND OBSERVATION OF THE AO IS THAT THERE HAS BEEN RENOVATION IN THE HOSPITAL BUILDING WHICH HAS BEEN DONE TO BENEFIT FOR THE TRUSTEES WHO IS OWNER OF THE BUILDING. IN THIS REGARD THE AO HAS OBSERVED THAT THERE HAS BEEN MAJOR CAPITAL EXPENDITURE WHICH IS IN THE FORM OF CHANGE OF T HE FLOORING, ELECTRIFICATION, PAINTING AND FRONT ELEVATION. THE AO HAS 9 ITA NO. 150/NAG/2013 HELD THAT THESE ARE NOT REPAIR AND RENOVATION AND WERE MEANT TO BE GIVEN BENEFIT TO ITS FOUNDER TRUSTEE. ABOVE OBSERVATION OF THE AO CLEARLY IS IN THE NATURE OF A SWEEPING GENERALISATIO N AND COMMENT. THE TOTAL AREA OF THE BUILDING IS 18306 SQ.FT. AND THE TOTAL EXPENDITURE UNDER THE BLOCK PERIOD IS 6143699. IN THIS REGARD ASSESSEES CONTENTION IS THAT RENT PAID FOR SUCH PROPERTY IS RS.2.75 PER SQ.FT. AND THE ASKING RENT FOR SIMILARLY LOCATED PROPERTY IS AROUND 901 TO 100/ - PER SQ.FT.S THE TRUST IS OCCUPYING THE PROPERTY SINCE 1992 AND HAD TO REPLACE FLOORING DUE TO EXTENSIVE FOOT FALL BEING A PUBLIC HOSPITAL. THAT THE PROPERTY SHALL BE USED FOR A FURTHER PERIOD OF 15 YEARS BY THE TRU ST. CONSIDERING FROM THIS ANGLE, THE QUANTUM OF EXPENDITURE ON REPAIR AND RENOVATION AND THE NATURE THEREOF IT CANNOT BE HELD THAT EXPENDITURE WAS NOT MEANT FOR THE PURPOSES OF THE TRUST BUT IT WAS MEANT TO GIVE UNDUE BENEFIT TO THE OWNER TRUSTEE. HENCE IN OUR CONSIDERED OPINION THIS PLANK OF AOS DRAWING ADVERSE INFERENCE IS ALSO DEVOID OF COGENCY. 23. ANOTHER PLANK OF AOS ARGUMENT THAT DR. NANDANI BABHULKAR WHO IS WIFE OF DR. SUSHRUT BABHULKAR, ONE OF THE TRUSTEES, IS ENGAGED IN HER PERSONAL PRACTICE FR OM HOSPITAL PREMISES. IN THIS REGARD ASSESSEES SUBMISSION IS THAT NANDANI BABHULKAR IS RENDERING SERVICES TO THE HOSPITAL TRUST WITHOUT ANY REMUNERATION AND IN LIEU OF THIS SHE IS OCCUPYING THE LUNCH ROOM OF HOSPITAL BUILDING FOR FEW HOURS. IN THIS REGARD SHE IS OFFERING INCOME IN THE RANGE OF RS.25,000/ - TO RS.30,000/ - PER YEAR FROM HER PRIVATE PRACTICE WHICH IS BEING ACCEPTED BY THE REVENUE. HENCE IT IS A PLEA OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE FACILITY PROVIDING 180 SQ.FT. OF AREA OF A SPACE CANNOT BE HELD ADVE RSELY FOR THE PURPOSE OF SECTION 13(1)(C) OF THE I.T. ACT. 24. WE FIND CONSIDERABLE COGENCY IN THIS SUBMISSION THAT NANDANI BABHULKAR IS ALSO PROVIDING SERVICES TO THE TRUST AND IN LIEU THEREOF SHE IS USING THEIR SMALL SPACE FOR PRIVATE PRACTICE CANNOT BE HELD TO BE PROVIDING UNDUE BENEFIT AS IS ENVISAGED U/S 13(1)(C) OF THE I.T. ACT FOR THE TRUSTEES. HENCE THIS PLANK OF AOS ACTION IS FOUND TO BE DEVOID OF COGENCY. 25. ANOTHER PLANK OF AOS OBSERVATION IS THAT IN A STATEMENT OBTAINED FROM ONE ACCOUNT ANT WHO HAD STATED THAT HE WAS ALSO MAINTAINING ON TALLY PACKAGE DATA OF FAMILY MEMBERS. IN OUR CONSIDERED OPINION, MAKING A GENERALISED OBSERVATION FROM THE ABOVE STATEMENT THAT THERE IS PERSONAL USE OF STAFF BY THE HOSPITAL TRUSTEES IS A FAR FETCHED A NALYSIS BY THE AO. ASSESSEES COUNSEL HAS SUBMITTED THAT THE SAID ACCOUNTANT MR. ANIL MOHALE IS A PART TIME EMPLOYEE OF THE TRUST AS ALSO AND SALARY HAS BEEN PAID TO THE SAID EMPLOYEE BY THE TRUSTEES WHICH HAS ALSO BEEN SHOWN IN THE ACCOUNTS AS DOCTORS. THE PERSONAL ACCOUNTS OF DOCTORS/TRUSTEES HAVE BEEN ACCEPTED IN THE ASSESSMENT FRAMED U/S 143(3)/153A OF THE I.T. ACT. 10 ITA NO. 150/NAG/2013 CONSIDERED IN THIS VIEW, IN OUR CONSIDERED OPINION, THE SAID STATEMENT OF THE ACCOUNTANT CAN BE NO STRETCH OF IMAGINATION BE TAKEN TO D RAW INFERENCE THAT THERE IS PERSONAL USE OF STAFF OF THE HOSPITAL BY THE TRUSTEES WITHIN THE MEANING OF SECTION 13(1)(C) OF THE I.T. ACT. 26. ANOTHER OBSERVATION OF THE AO IS THAT DR. ARUNA BABHULKAR AND DR. NANDANI BABHULKAR HAVE RECEIVED COMMISSION ON SALE OF DRUGS. THIS COMMISSION HAS BEEN PAID BY A MEDICAL STORE THAT RUNS FROM HOSPITAL. SINCE THE MEDICAL STORE DOES NOT PAY ANY RENT TO THE ASSESSEE TRUST, THIS WAS AN INDIRECT BENEFIT TO THE TRUSTEE AND WIFE OF ONE OF THE TRUSTEES. IN THIS REGARD WE F IND THAT IT IS THE SUBMISSION OF THE ASSESSEE THAT SHRI GUPTA, OWNER OF THE MEDICAL STORE IN THE PREMISES OF THE TRUST, HAS MADE PAYMENT FOR SERVICES PROVIDED BY THE CONCERNED PERSONS ON INDIVIDUAL PERSONAL CAPACITY AND IT HAS NO NEXUS WITH THE ACTIVITY OF THE TRUST OR ANY PROFIT OF THE TRUST. HENCE THE PAYMENT OF COMMISSION BY THE MEDICAL STORE CANNOT BE SAID TO BE AN INDIRECT BENEFIT TO THE TRUSTEES. 27. ANOTHER OBSERVATION OF THE AO IS THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT BEEN ABLE TO EXPLAIN THE NATURE OF THE T RAVELLING EXPENSES AND HOW IT WAS DONE FOR THE PURPOSE OF THE BUSINESS. IN THIS REGARD IT IS THE ASSESSEES SUBMISSION THAT TRAVELLING EXPENDITURE HAS BEEN INCURRED IN THE COURSE OF DAY TO DAY ACTIVITY OF RUNNING OF HOSPITAL. GENUINENESS OF THIS EXPENDI TURE HAS NOT BEEN DOUBTED. NECESSITY AND NEXUS OF EXPENDITURE HAS BEEN SAID TO BE DEMONSTRATED BY THE FACT THAT THEY WERE MADE FOR MEDICAL CONSULTATION, RESEARCH ACTIVITY AND ATTENDING CONFERENCES. IN THIS REGARD CERTIFICATE OF ATTENDANCE OF VARIOUS FIR MS OUT OF INDIA HAS ALSO BEEN PLACED IN PAPER BOOK. THUS WE FIND THAT THE AO HAS ALSO MADE THIS OBSERVATION OF MIS - USE OF TRAVELLING EXPENDITURE ALSO ON THE BASIS OF HIS SURMISES AND CONJECTURE. HENCE THERE IS NO BASIS ON WHICH IT CAN BE HELD THAT THERE I S ANY UNDUE BENEFIT TO THE TRUSTEES WITHIN THE MEANING OF SECTION 13(1)(C) OF I.T. ACT BY WAY OF PERSONAL TRAVELLING EXPENDITURE. 28. ANOTHER OBSERVATION OF THE AO IS THAT THE ASSESSEE TRUST HAS ALLOWED DR. SUDHIR BABHULKAR TO PAY SALARY TO MBBS DOCTORS WH O ARE PURSUING THEIR POST GRADUATION AT SUSHRUT HOSPITAL. AOS OBSERVATION IS THAT THE HOSPITAL SHOULD HAVE PAID THE SALARY. BY LETTING DOCTOR SUSHRUT BABHULKAR TO PAY THEIR SALARY IN HIS INDIVIDUAL ACCOUNT, THE ASSESSEE TRUST HAS BENEFITED THE TRUSTEE I N EVADING TAX. WE FIND THAT THIS IS ALSO A VERY FAR FETCHED OBSERVATION AND IT IS THE AOS SURMISES AND CONJECTURE. HOW PAYMENT OF SALARY BY SUSHRUT BABHULKAR CAN RESULT IN BENEFIT TO HIMSELF IS BEYOND OUR COMPREHENSION. IN OUR CONSIDERED OPINION, THIS PLA NK OF AOS OBSERVATION IS ALSO DEVOID OF COGENCY. 11 ITA NO. 150/NAG/2013 29. ANOTHER PLANK OF AOS ARGUMENT IS THAT FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2003 - 04 DR. SUDHIR BABHULKAR WAS OCCUPYING THE TOP OF THE HOSPITAL PREMISES IN HIS PERSONAL CAPACITY. IN THIS REGARD IT IS THE SUBMISSION OF T HE ASSESSEE THAT DR. SUDHIR BABHULKAR WAS ALSO ENGAGED AS CONSULTING DOCTOR TO THE HOSPITAL. HIS STAY AT HOSPITAL PREMISES WAS NECESSARY FOR THE INTEREST OF PATIENTS OF THE HOSPITAL. HENCE PROVIDING HIM ACCOMMODATION CANNOT BE TREATED AS ANY UNDUE BENEFIT WITHIN THE MEANING OF SECTION 13(1)(C) OF THE I.T. ACT. WE FIND THAT IT IS CERTAINLY TRUE THAT HOSPITALS PROVIDE THEIR DOCTORS RESIDENTIAL ACCOMMODATION IN THE HOSPITAL PREMISES SO THAT THEY CAN BE AVAILABLE TO ATTEND THEIR PATIENTS. THIS CANNOT BE SAID TO BE AN UNDUE ADVANTAGE IN THE NATURE OF PERSONAL BENEFIT TO THE TRUSTEES. MOREOVER, THIS ASPECT IS ONLY RELEVANT FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2003 - 04. WE HAD ALREADY HELD IN THE INITIAL PART OF OUR ADJUDICATION THAT ASSESSMENT FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2003 - 04 U/ S 153A WAS WITHOUT JURISDICTION. 30. WE FIND THAT THE AO WAS HIMSELF AWARE OF HIS OBSERVATION IN ASSESSMENT BEING IN THE NATURE OF SURMISES AND CONJECTURE. THE AO HAS OBSERVED THAT IT CANNOT BE EXPECTED THAT THE ASSESSEE WOULD RETAIN DOCUMENTS REGARDING T HE PERSONAL BENEFIT ALLOWED TO THE TRUSTEES AND THE RELATIVES. THAT IF THE DOCUMENTS FOR EACH AND EVERY ASSESSMENT YEAR ARE INSISTED TO BE SEARCHED PRACTICALLY THE PROVISION FOR SUCH ASSESSMENT WOULD BE DEFEATED. THAT THIS CANNOT BE AN INTENTION OF THE LE GISLATURE THAT THE AO CANNOT SHUT HIS EYES TO THE LEGISLATIVE INTENT. THAT IT WAS JUST AND APPROPRIATE TO ASSUME THAT THERE WAS UNIFORM PRACTICE IN ALL ASSESSMENT DURING SEARCH PERIOD. THE ABOVE OBSERVATION OF THE AO CLEARLY AMPLIFY THAT THE AO HAS PICK ED UP AND MAGNIFIED SOME STATEMENTS OBTAINED AND HAS MADE SWEEPING GENERALISATION WHICH IS NOT SUSTAINABLE IN LAW. BY NO STRETCH OF IMAGINATION IT CAN BE SAID THAT IT IS A LEGISLATIVE INTENT THAT THE AOS INTENTION AND FEELINGS SHOULD BE THE BASIS OF ASSESSMENT. THE AOS OBSERVATION THAT THE ASSESSEE TRUST IS NOT DOING ANY CHARITABLE ACTIVITY IS ALSO DEVOID OF ANY COGENCY. THE ASSESSEE TRUST WAS CONSTITUTED ON 30 - 03 - 1991 AND THE MAIN OBJECT OF THE TRUST WAS TO PROVIDE MEDICAL RELIEF AND PROMOTE EDUC ATION IN THE FIELD OF MEDICINE. THE TRUST IS REGISTERED U/S 12A OF THE I.T. ACT AND A CERTIFICATE HAS BEEN ISSUED U/S 12A ON 13 - 03 - 1992. IT IS HOLDING VALID REGISTRATION EVEN ON DATE. THE ASSESSEE TRUST IS HOLDING THE APPROVAL U/S 80G OF THE I.T. ACT FROM ITS INCEPTION. THE APPROVAL OF SECTION 80G IS VALID EVEN TODAY. ALL ALONG IN THE PAST UPTO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2003 - 04 THE TRUST HAS BEEN GRANTED BENEFIT OF EXEMPTION U/S 11. THERE WAS AN ACTION U/S 132A ON 21 - 03 - 1995 UPON THE ASSESSEE AND BENEFIT U/S 11 WAS GRANTED WITHOUT INVITING ANY ADVERSE OBSERVATION. WE ALSO NOTE THE FOLLOWING SUBMISSION OF THE LEARNED COUNSEL OF THE ASSESSEE WHICH HAS NOT BEEN DISPUTED BY THE REVENUE : 12 ITA NO. 150/NAG/2013 P) THE ASSESSEE TRUST IS HAVING FACILITY OF PROVIDING 10 BEDS AVAILABLE TO PATIENTS FREE OF CHARGE WHICH IS ABOUT 18% O F THE TOTAL 56 BEDS AVAILABLE IN HOSPITAL . THE AFORESAID FREE FACILITY PROVIDED TO VARIOUS PATIENTS HAS BEEN REPORTED TO JOINT CHARITY COMMISSIONER IN TERMS OF PROVISIONS OF BOMBAY PUBLIC TRUST ACT 1951 . THE EVIDENCE OF REPORT PLACED BEFORE THE AUTHORITY IS AT PAGE 32 TO 45 IN THE PAPER BOOK [VOL . - 11] . THE EVIDENCE SUBMITTED FOR CHARITABLE ACTIVITY WAS VERIFIED BY THE AUTHORITY AND NO FAULT/MISTAKE HAS BEEN FOUND WITH THE SAME . Q) THE VARIOUS CAMPS CONDUCTED AT TRIBAL AREAS TO PROVIDE MEDICAL RELIEF TO POOR IS DEMONSTRATED BY PLACING LEGAL EVIDENCE ON RECORD I . E . PHOTOGRAPHS, PUBLICATIONS & ADVERTISEMENT . R). THE ASSESSEE TRUST HAS BEEN HOLDING ACCREDITATION OF NATIONAL BOARD OF EXAMINATIONS AND COLLEGE OF PHYSICIANS AND SURGEONS OPERATING UNDER THE MINISTRY OF HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE, GOVT . OF INDIA. THE AFORESAID ACCREDITION IS PROVIDED TO CHARITABLE TRUST AS PER RULES FRAMED BY GOVERNMENT OF INDIA. THIS AMPLY DEMONSTRA TES THAT ONE ARM OF THE GOVERNMENT OF INDIA HAS DULY RECOGNIZED THE ASSESSEE TRUST AS CHARITABLE INSTITUTION AND SAME IS DISPUTED BY REVENUE AUTHORITIES BEING ANOTHER ARM OF GOVERNMENT OF INDIA. 31. FROM THE ABOVE DISCUSSION IT IS AMPLY CLEAR THAT T HERE IS NO DIVERSION IN THE ACTIVITY OF THE TRUST WHICH CAN SHOW THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS DEVIATED FROM ITS MAIN OBJECT WHICH IS TO PROVIDE MEDICAL RELIEF AND PROMOTE MEDICAL EDUCATION IN THE FIELD OF MEDICINE. AOS OBSERVATION THAT THE ASSESSEE TRUST IS NO T DOING ANY CHARITABLE ACTIVITY IS NOT AT ALL BASED UPON ANY COGENT MATERIAL. AOS OBSERVATION THAT THERE HAS BEEN USE OF ASSESSEES TRUST PROPERTY FOR THE BENEFIT OF TRUSTEES HAS ALSO BEEN FOUND BY US TO BE NOT BASED UPON ANY COGENT EVIDENCES BUT BASED U PON SURMISES AND CONJECTURE OF THE AO. HENCE IN OUR CONSIDERED OPINION, THERE IS NO BASIS FOR THE AO TO HOLD THAT THE ASSESSEE SHOULD BE DENIED BENEFIT U/S 11 OF THE I.T. ACT. 18 . SINCE THE FACTS ARE IDENTICAL, FOLLOWING THE ABOVE, WE HOLD THAT THERE IS NO BASIS FOR THE AO TO HOLD THAT THE ASSESSEE SHOULD BE DENIED BENEFIT OF SECTION 11. HENCE WE SET ASIDE THE ORDERS OF AUTHORITIES BELOW AND DECIDE THIS ISSUE IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE. 13 ITA NO. 150/NAG/2013 19. APROPOS GROUND NO.5 : ADDITION OUT OF TRAVELLING & CONVEYANCE EXPENSES. ON THIS ISSUE THE AO NOTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS DEBITED RS.6,21,134/ - ON TRAVELLING EXPENSES. THAT THE ASSESSEE DID NOT FURNISH ANY DETAIL AND EXPLAIN HOW THE EXPENSES WERE WHOLLY AND EXCLUSIVELY FOR THE PURPOSE OF BUSINESS OF THE ASSESSEE. THE AO ALSO MENTIONED THAT THE SEIZED DOCUMENTS REFLECT THAT THE PERSONAL TRAVELLING EXPENSES OF TRUSTEES ARE DEBITED IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OF THE TRUST. HOWEVER, FOR THIS PROPOSITION THE AO DID NOT REFER TO ANY SEIZED DOCUMENT WHATSOEVER. THE AO PROCEE DED TO DISALLOW 50% OF THE TRAVELLING EXPENSES CLAIMED. 20. BEFORE THE LEARNED CIT(APPEALS) THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED FURTHER DETAILS. LEARNED CIT(APPEALS) OBTAINED A REMAND REPORT FROM THE AO. IN THE REMAND REPORT THE AO OPINED THAT IN THE LOCAL CONVEYANCE CLAIMED BY DOCTORS AND STAFF AMOUNTING TO RS.2,13,755/ - THERE WERE CERTAIN DEBITS OF MORE THAN RS.5000/ - WHICH IN THE AOS OPINION WERE HIGHLY EXCESSIVE. FOR THIS PURPOSE THE AO DID NOT MENTION ANY REASON WHATSOEVER AND AS TO HOW THEY WERE FOUND EXCESSIVE . THE AO ALSO NOTED THAT THE ASSESSEES CLAIM OF TRAVELLING EXPENSES OF RS.40,379/ - IN LEDGER ACCOUNTS REFLECTED EXPENSES OF RS.45,104/ - ON 07 - 04 - 2008, RS.50,340/ - ON 02 - 09 - 2008 AND RS.52,122/ - ON 24 - 12 - 2008. THE AO NOTED THAT FOR THIS THE DETAILS OF PLAC ES OF TRAVELLING, NAMES OF PERSONS WHO TRAVELLED AND THE PURPOSE OF TRAVELLING WAS NOT NOTED ON COPY OF LEDGER ACCOUNTS AND NO SUPPORTIVE DOCUMENTS WERE PROVIDED. THE AO FURTHER REFERRED TO HIS EXAMINATION OF SHRI SUDHIR BABHULKAR WHEREBY HE HAS ACCEPTED THAT SOME TIMES THE VEHICLES WERE USED FOR SOCIAL CAUSE. 21. CONSIDERING THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE, LEARNED CIT(APPEALS) HELD THAT THE DISALLOWANCE OF LOCAL 14 ITA NO. 150/NAG/2013 CONVEYANCE WAS JUSTIFIED. AS REGARDS THE TRAVEL LING EXPENSES, LEARNED CIT(APPEALS) OBSERVED THAT THERE IS NO JUSTIFICATION SHOWN FOR TRAVELLING EXPENSES BOOKED FOR TRAVEL BY SPOUSE AND FAMILY MEMBERS OF TRUSTEE DOCTORS. HE DIRECTED THE AO TO VERIFY THE DETAILS AND ALLOW THE COST OF AIR TICKETS FOR THE TWO SAID DIRECTORS. THAT COST OF AIR TICKETS FOR FAMILY MEMBERS WERE TO BE ENTIRELY DISALLOWED. THAT OTHER EXPENSES BOOKED, SAY OF BOARD, LOADING ETC. IF FOUND TO BE COMPOSITE FOR THE TWO DOCTORS AND FAMILY, 20% OUT OF THE SAME TO BE DISALLOWED. THAT IF T HE EXPENSES CAN BE SUPPORTED FOR TWO MENTIONED DOCTORS, THE SAME BE ALLOWED AND THE REMAINING BE DISALLOWED. 22. AGAINST THE ABOVE ORDER, THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 23. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE COUNSEL AND PERUSED THE RECORDS. WE FIND THAT AS REGARDS LOCAL TRAVELLING EXPENSES HAVING BEEN FOUND EXCESSIVE, NO REASON HAS BEEN GIVEN BY THE AO OR THE LEARNED CIT(APPEALS) EXCEPT THE FACT THAT THEY FEEL THAT IT IS EXCESSIVE. IN O UR CONSIDERED OPINION, NO DISALLOWANCE CAN BE MADE ON THE BASIS OF CONJECTURE AND SURMISES WITHOUT BRINGING ANY COGENT MATERIAL ON RECORD. AS REGARDS THE DEBITS OF TRAVELLING EXPENSES REFERRED BY THE AO WHICH WERE SAID TO BE HAVING NO SUPPORTING RELATED TO FINANCIAL YEAR 2008 AND HAVE NO RELATIONSHIP WHATSOEVER FOR THE PRESENT ASSESSMENT YEAR. IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, NO ANALOGY CAN BE DRAWN FROM THE ABSENCE OF THOSE VOUCHERS IN THE ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDER APPEAL. THE AOS OBSERVATION REGARDING PERSONAL USE OF VEHICLES HAS ALSO BEEN FOUND BY US WHILE ADJUDICATING THE ISSUE OF DENIAL OF EXEMPTION U/S 11 THAT THE SAME IS BASED UPON AOS SURMISES AND IS ONLY BASED UPON INTERPRETATION OF A STATEMENT OBTAINED BY THE AO FROM THE TRUSTEE WITHOUT ANY COGENT MATERIA L WHATSOEVER. WE HAVE ALREADY FOUND THIS PLANK OF AOS ARGUMENTS AS UNSUSTAINABLE. AS REGARDS LEARNED CIT(APPEALS) DIRECTION THAT THE AO MAY VERIFY THE TRAVELLING EXPENSES ONCE AGAIN AND DISALLOW EXPENSES FOR TICKETS AND TRAVELLING CLAIM FOR PERSONS OTH ER THAN THE TWO TRUSTEE DIRECTORS, IT IS ALSO A SWEEPING DIRECTION WITHOUT ANY COGENT MATERIAL. THE AO HAS NOT EVEN 15 ITA NO. 150/NAG/2013 BOTHERED TO REFER TO ANY VOUCHER OF TRAVELLING EXPENSES OF THE CURRENT ASSESSMENT YEAR WHICH HE IS CONSIDERING FOR DISALLOWANCE. IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, GIVING THE AO ANOTHER CHANCE TO MAKE A REASSESSMENT IS NOT SUSTAINABLE IN LAW. HENCE WE HOLD THAT THE SUSTENANCE OF DISALLOWANCE BY THE LEARNED CIT(APPEALS) ON THIS ISSUE CAN NOT BE UPHELD BY US. ACCORDINGLY WE DELETE THE SAID ADDITION. 24 . APROPOS GROUND NO. 6: ADDITION OUT OF PROMOTIONAL & INAUGURAL EXPENSES. ON THIS ISSUE THE ASSESSEE DEBITED PROMOTIONAL / INAUGURAL EXPENSES OF RS. 6,209 / - . AO NOTED THAT THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO SUBSTANTIATE AS TO HOW THESE EXPENSES WERE WHOLLY AND EXCL USIVELY FOR THE PURPOSE OF BUSINESS. THAT CONSIDERING THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD BEEN DEBITED PERSONAL EXPENSES OF TRUSTEES AS DISCUSSED IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, IN THEIR PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT, IT WAS ESSENTIAL TO SCRUTINIZE THE SAME IN DETAILS. THA T HOWEVER THE ASSESSEE DID NOT SUBMIT ANY SPECIFIC EXPLANATION FOR THE SAME. THAT THE ONUS WAS ON THE ASSESSEE TO EXPLAIN THE CORRECTNESS OF THE EXPENSES DEBITED IN THE PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT. HENCE IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY SPECIFIC DETAILS, THE AO DISALLOWE D 50% THEREOF.. 25. BEFORE THE LEARNED CIT(APPEALS) IT WAS FOR THE APPELLANT THAT THESE EXPENSES WERE FOR PUBLISHING ADVERTISEMENTS IN NEWSPAPERS, HOTELS AND OTHERS. THERE IS NO PERSONAL ELEMENT INVOLVED. COPY OF THE LEDGER ACCOUNT WITH DETAILS WAS FURNIS HED TO THE AO, AND RELEVANT VOUCHERS FROM PART OF SEIZED RECORDS. 26. CONSIDERING THE ABOVE, LEARNED CIT(APPEALS) OBSERVED THAT IN VIEW OF THE EXPLANATION FILED, THE AO IS DIRECTED TO VERIFY THE PAYMENTS MADE FOR ADVERTISEMENTS TO NEWSPAPERS, AS CLAIMED, A ND IF PAYMENTS ARE FOUND MADE AS CLAIMED, THE EXPENSES ON THIS COUNT BE ALLOWED. THE REMAINING EXPENSES ARE NOT JUSTIFIED ADEQUATELY AS TO HOW THEY WERE INCURRED WHOLLY AND EXCLUSIVELY FOR THE PURPOSE OF RUNNING THE HOSPITAL. ACCORDINGLY OTHER THAN THE HOS PITAL EXPENSES, THE AOS DISALLOWANCE @ 50% OF THE EXPENSES CLAIMED IS CONFIRMED. 16 ITA NO. 150/NAG/2013 27. AGAINST THE ABOVE ORDER, ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 28. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE COUNSEL AND PERUSED THE RECORDS. WE FIND THAT ON THE ABOVE ISSUE ALSO THE AO HAS M ADE THE DISALLOWANCE WITHOUT BRINGING ANY COGENT MATERIAL ON RECORD. LEARNED CIT(APPEALS) HAS GIVEN THE AO A SECOND INNING FOR REASSESSMENT BY DIRECTING THAT HE SHOULD VERIFY THE EXPENSES ONCE AGAIN. AS HELD BY US IN THE ABOVE WHILE DEALING WITH THE DISAL LOWANCE ON TRAVELLING EXPENSES, WE FIND THAT DEHORSE ANYCOGENT MATERIAL BROUGHT ON RECORD, DISALLOWANCE CANNOT BE MADE WHEN RELEVANT VOUCHERS WERE PART OF THE SEIZED RECORDS. FAILURE OF THE AO TO EXAMINE THOSE VOUCHERS CANNOT BE IGNORED. THE AO CANNOT BE GIVEN A SECOND INNING FOR REASSESSMENT WITHOUT ANY COGENT MATERIAL. ACCORDINGLY WE DELETE THIS DISALLOWANCE. 29. APROPOS GROUND NO. 7: DEPRECIATION ON CARS. THE ISSUE OF AOS DECISION THAT THE VEHICLES OF THE TRUST WERE USED FOR PRIVATE PURPOSES OF THE TRUSTEES HAS ALREADY BEEN FOUND BY US TO BE DEVOID OF ANY COGENT MATERIAL AND THE SAME HAS BEEN FOUND BY US TO BE BASED ON SURMISES AND CONJECTURE. IT WAS SO HELD BY US WHEN WE WERE DISCUSSING THE DENIAL OF EXEMPTION U/S 11 BY THE AUTHORITIES BELOW HEREIN ABOVE IN PARA 21. ON THE SAME REASONING WE FIND THAT THERE IS NO DECISION FOR DISALLOWANCE OF 50% OF THE DEPRECIATION AS HELD BY THE AUTHORITIES BELOW.. 30.. APROPOS GROUND NO. 8 - DISALLOWANCE OF RS.10,000/ - ON ACCOUNT OF SALARY. ON HIS ISSUE THE AO REF ERRED TO A STATEMENT OBTAINED FROM A PART - TIME ACCOUNTANT THAT HE WAS MAINTAINING ON TALLY SOFTWARE PERSONAL ACCOUNTS OF THE TRUSTEES APART FROM THAT OF THE TRUST. THE ASSESSEE IN THIS REGARD SUBMITTED THAT THE SAID PERSON WAS A PART TIME ACCOUNTANT AND THE TRUSTEES WERE ALSO PAYING HIM FOR THE SERVICES RENDERED TOTALING RS.6000/ - FROM THE PERSONAL ACCOUNTS. 17 ITA NO. 150/NAG/2013 HOWEVER, THIS WAS DISREGARDED BY THE AUTHORITIES BELOW AND THE DISALLOWANCE OF RS. 10,000/ - WAS SUSTAINED FOR PERSONAL USE OF EMPLOYEES OF THE TRUST. 31. AGAINST THE ABOVE ORDER, ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 32. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE COUNSEL AND PERUSED THE RECORDS. WE HAVE ALREADY DEALT WITH THIS ISSUE WHILE DEALING WITH THE DISALLOWANCE OF EXEMPTION U/S 11 IN THE EARLIER PART OF THIS ORDER IN PARA 25 ABOVE. WE HAVE FOUND THAT DISALLOWANCE IS NOT BASED UPON ANY COGENT MATERIAL EXCEPT A STATEMENT FROM A PART TIME ACCOUNTANT THAT HE WAS ALSO MAINTAINING THE ACCOUNTS OF TRUSTEES. THE FACT THAT THE SAID PART TIME ACCOUNTANT WAS ALSO PAID BY THE TRUSTEES SEPARATELY HAS TOTALLY BEEN IGNORED BY THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. IN OUR CONSIDERED OPINION, THIS ADDITION IS ALSO BASED ON SURMISES AND CONJECTURES. ACCORDINGLY WE DELETE THE SAME. 33. APROPOS GROUND NO.9 PERTAINING TO DISALLOWANCE OF EXPENDITURE O N REPAIR AND UPKEEP OF BUILDING. ON THIS ISSUE THE AO MADE A DISALLOWANCE OF RS. 4,32,038 / - INCURRED ON REPAIR AND UPKEEP OF BUILDING. THE AO OBSERVED THAT FROM LEDGER ACCOUNT IT WAS SEEN THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD DEBITED RS.2,50,000/ - AND RS.79,275/ - BEING PAYMENT MADE TO MALIK FLOORING AND ANIL MOHALE. CORRESPONDING BILLS WERE NOT PRODUCED. THE AO FURTHER OBSERVED THAT ANIL MOHALE IS ACCOUNTANT AND HOW THE PURCHASE MADE THROUGH ANIL MOHALE IS ON ACCOUNT OF REPAIR AND UPKEEP EXPENSE WAS NOT CLEAR. HENCE TH E AO HELD THAT IN ABSENCE OF SPECIFIC DETAILS THE SAID PURCHASES WERE DISALLOWED. ACCORDINGLY THE AO MADE A DISALLOWANCE OF RS.3,29,275/ - . 34. BEFORE THE LEARNED CIT(APPEALS) IT WAS STATED THAT A COPY OF ACCOUNT OF GIVING DETAILS OF EXPENDITURE WAS FILED W ITH THE ASSESSING OFFICER. PAYMENTS MADE BY CHEQUE OF RS.2,50,000/ - TO MALIK FLOORING FOR PURCHASE OF VARIOUS MATERIALS ARE DEBITED. ONE PAYMENT OF RS,79,275/ - WAS DEBIGTED BY ADJUSTING 18 ITA NO. 150/NAG/2013 ADVANCE ACCOUNT OF MAHULE, THE ACCOUNTANT WHO MADE VARIOUS PURCHASES O F THESE MATERIALS FOR USE OF THE HOSPITAL. THE RELEVANT PURCHASE BILLS ARE FORMING PART OF SEIZED RECORDS. FROM THE NATURE OF PAYMENTS, IT IS CLEAR THAT THEY ARE INCURRED FOR VARIOUS ITEMS FOR UPKEEP AND MAINTENANCE IN THE NATURE OF PAINTING, PEST CONTROL AND CARPENTRY WORK, ELECTRICAL ITEMS AND PURCHASE OF RELATED MATERIALS AND ARE WHOLLY AND EXCLUSIVELY ALLOWABLE AS REVENUE EXPENDITURE AND THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN DISALLOWING A SUM OF RS.3,29,750/ - TREATING THE SAME AS NON - BUSINESS AND OF CAPITAL NATURE. 35. IN THIS REGARD LEARNED CIT(APPEALS) HAS REFERRED THE REMAND REPORT OF THE AO THAT THE EXPENSES CLAIMED BY ASSESSEE ON ACCOUNT OF REPAIR & UPKEEP TO BUILDING AMOUNTING TO RS.4,82,035/ - ARE CALLED FOR DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSME NT PROCEEDING WHICH INDICATE THAT SUCH EXPENSES INCLUDE THE EXPENSES WHICH ENHANCE THE VALUE OF STRUCTURE AND ARE IN CAPITAL NATURE HENCE BEING THE EXPENDITURE INCURRED IS NOT REVENUE EXPENSES BY NATURE THE SAME IS DISALLOWED BY AO AND THE DEPRECIATION THE REON IS DULY DISALLOWED, THE ASSESSEES CONTENTION IN THIS RESPECT IS NOT ACCEPTABLE AND DESERVES TO BE REJECTED. 36. IN REBUTTAL TO THE REMAND REPORT THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT COMPLETE DETAILS HAVE BEEN GIVEN AND NO EXPENDITURE IS OF CAPITAL NATURE. LEARNED CIT(APPEALS) DIRECTED THE AO TO AGAIN VERIFY THE PURCHASE BILLS. 37. AGAINST THE ABOVE ORDER THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 38. UPON HEARING BOTH THE COUNSEL AND PERUSING THE RECORDS, WE FIND THAT A DISALLOWANCE MADE FOR LACK OF BILLS HAS BEEN DULY COUNTERED BY THE ASSESSEE BY SUBMITTING THAT THE SAID BILLS WERE PART OF THE SEIZED RECORDS. THE AO IN THE REMAND REPORT INSTEAD OF EXAMINING THE CONCERNED VOUCHERS HAS REPEATED HIS GENERAL COMMENTS THAT THE EXPENDITURE INDICATE THAT THEY ENHAN CED THE VALUE OF THE STRUCTURE. HENCE THE AO FAILED TO EXAMINE THE NECESSARY VOUCHERS. NOW THE LEARNED CIT(APPEALS) HAS PROPOSING A THIRD CHANCE TO THE AO TO VERIFY THE VOUCHERS. IN OUR CONSIDERED OPINION, THIS WILL BE AN UNNECESSARY HARASSMENT TO THE AS SESSEE FOR NO FAULT OF THE ASSESSEE. IN OUR CONSIDERED OPINION, THE ASSESSEE HAS SUFFICIENTLY EXPLAINED THE EXPENDITURE. HENCE THE DISALLOWANCE ON THIS ACCOUNT IS NOT SUSTAINABLE. ACCORDINGLY WE DELETE THE ADDITION. 19 ITA NO. 150/NAG/2013 3 9 . APROPOS GROUND NO. 10 - ADDITIO N OUT OF EDUCATIONAL EXPENSES. ON THIS ISSUE THE AO HAS MADE THE DISALLOWANCE HOLDING S UNDER : THE ASSESSEE DEBITED EDUCATIONAL EXPENSES OF RS. 8,75,040 / - . HOWEVER THE ASSESSEE DID NOT SUBMIT ANY DEGTAILS INCLUDING INSTITUTE FEE PAID INCLUDED THEREIN . THE ONUS WAS ON THE ASSESSEE TO EXPLAIN THE CORRECTNESS OF THE EXPENSES AND TO EXPLAIN THAT THE EXPENSES HAD BEEN INCURRED WHOLLY AND EXCLUSIVELY FOR THE PURPOSE OF ITS BUSINESS. HOWEVER THE ASSESSEE DID NOT SUBMIT ANY EXPLANATION. CONSIDERING THE FACT T HAT THE ASSESSEE IS RUNNING A POST GRADUATE INSTITUTE ALSO WHOSE EXPENSES ARE DEBI8TED IN THE PROFIT AND LOSS A/C OF THE HOSPITAL ONLY, I DISALLOW ONLY 50% OF THESE EXPENSES. THE DISALLOWANCE COME TO RS. 4,37,520 / - WHICH IS ADDED TO ITS TOTAL INCOME. 40 . BEFORE THE LEARNED CIT(APPEALS), ASSESSEE MADE SUBMISSIONS AND THE LEARNED CIT(APPEALS) OBTAINED A REMAND REPORT OF THE AO AS UNDER : THE ASSESSEE MAINLY CONTENDS THAT ASSESSEE HAS CLAIMED A SUM OF RS.8,75,040/ - AS RESEARCH & EDUCATION EXPENSES AND IT CONSIST OF PAYMENT TOWARDS PAYMENT OF STIPEND TO STUDENTS UNDERGOING POSTGRADUATE COURSES, PURCHASE OF MEDICINE AND RESEARCH WORK AND ARE WHOLLY TOWARD OBJECT OF TRUST. DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDING, IT IS OBSERVED FROM PROFIT & LOSS ACCOUNT THAT AN AMOUNT OF RS.8,75,040/ - IS DEBITED ON ACCOUNT OF EDUCATIONAL EXPENSES AND NOT AS RESEARCH & EDUCATION EXPENSES AS CLAIMED BY ASSESSEE NOW. THE ASSESSING OFFICER VIDE NOTICE U/S 142(1) DT. 12 - 10 - 2010 HAS CALLED FOR THE DETAILS THEREOF, HOWEVE R, EXCEPT THE COPY OF LEDGER ACCOUNT. ASSESSEE NEITHER JUSTIFY ITS CLAIM NOR SUBMIT ANY DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE TO DEMONSTRATE THAT SUCH EXPENSES ARE GENUINELY INCURRED FOR THE OBJECT OF TRUSTEES. IN THIS RESPECT CERTAIN OBSERVATGION MADE DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH AND THE FACTS ARE DISCUSSED IN DETAIL BY ASSESSING OFFICER IN ITS SORDER AT PARA 13A HAS PROVED THAT AS TO HOW THE ASSESSEES CLAIM OF EXPENSES UNDER THE HEAD IS NOT WHOLLY FOR THE PURPOSE OF OBJECTS OF TRUST, CONSIDERING THIS FACT AND IN ABSENCE OF DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE AND 20 ITA NO. 150/NAG/2013 JUSTIFICATION IN RESPECT OF ASSESSEES CLAIM OF EXPENSES, BEING ONUS LIES ON ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSING OFFICE HAS CORRECTLY DISALLOWED 50% ASSESSEES CLAIM. THE ASSESSEES CONTENTION THEREFORE DESERVE TO BE REJECTED. IN REBUTTA L OF THE REMAND REPORT THE APPELLANT TRUST SUBMITTED THAT PAYMENT OF EDUCATIONAL AND RESEARCH EXPENSES IS BEUOND DOUBT. IN EARLIER YEARS SUCH EXPENSES WERE ACCEPTED AS CLAIMED. PAYMENTS ARE THROUGH BANKING CHANNEL; AND ARE REASONABLE CONSIDERING THE EXTENT OF OPERATION OF THE ASSESSEE TRUST. 41 . CONSIDERING THE ABOVE, LEARNED CIT(APPEALS HELD AS UNDER: IN THE ABSENCE OF SUPPORTING DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE TO DEMONSTRATE THAT SUCH EXPENSES ARE GENUINELY INCURRED FOR THE OBJECT OF TRUST, THE DISALLOWANCE M ADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS IN ORDER AND IS CONFIRMED. THE APPELLANT IS REQUIRED TO SUPPORT ITS CLAIM FOR ANY EXPENSES BY WAY OF DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE, AND THIS ONUS REMAINS UNDISCHARGED. THE DISALLOWANCE IS ACCORDINGLY UPHELD. 42 . AGAINST THE ABOV E ORDER, ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 43 . WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE COUNSEL AND PERUSED THE RECORDS. WE FIND THAT FIRST OBJECTION OF THE AO IS THAT THE EXPENSES WERE DEBITED IN ACCOUNT OF EDUCATIONAL EXPENSES AND NOT AS RESEARCH AND EDUCATION EXPENSES. IN OUR CONSIDERED OPINION, THIS IS NO BASIS FOR DRAWING ANY ADVERSE INFERENCE. AO HAS REFERRED TO PARA 13A OF THE AOS ORDER WHICH PURPORTEDLY SHOWED THAT THE ASSESSEES CLAIM OF EXPENSES UNDER THIS HEAD IS NOT WHOLLY FOR THE PURPOSE OF OBJECT OF THE T RUST. THIS HAS BEEN FOUND BY US IN OUR ADJUDICATION ON DENIAL OF EXEMPTION U/S 11 IN PARA 28 ABOVE TO BE TOTALLY INAPPLICABLE. IN THE SAID PARAGRAPH 13A THE AO HAS DRAWN ADVERSE INFERENCE THAT BY ALLOWING PAYMENT OF STIPEND TO MBBS DOCTORS PURSUING THE IR POST GRADUATION, BY THE TRUSTEES, THE TRUST HAS ENABLED THEM TO EVADE THE TAX. WE HAVE ALREADY FOUND THIS FINDING INCOMPREHENDIBLE. THIS, IN OUR OPINION, CANNOT BE ANY BASIS FOR MAKING 21 ITA NO. 150/NAG/2013 DISALLOWANCE OF THE EXPENSES CLAIMED UNDER THIS HEAD. HENCE WE DE LETE THE DISALLOWANCE ON THIS ACCOUNT. 4 4 . APROPOS GROUND NO. 11: ADDITION U/S 40(A)(IA). ON THIS ISSUE THE AO FOUND THAT AS PER THE TAX AUDIT REPORT, THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT DEDUCTED TDS ON PAYMENT OF RS. 1,79,400 / - , WHICH IS DISALLOWABLE AS PER THE PROVISI ON OF SECTION 40(A)(IA). HENCE THE SAME WAS DISALLOWED ACCORDINGLY. BEFORE THE LEARNED CIT(APPEALS) THE APPELLANT SUBMITTED THAT THE PROVISION OF SECTION 40(A)(IA) CAN BE INVOKED ONLY FOR COMPUTING INCOME UNDER THE HEAD INCOME FROM BUSINESS. HENCE NO DISA LLOWANCE IS POSSIBLE. RELIANCE WAS PLACED ON ITAT DECISION IN VIDARBHA CRICKET ASSOCIATION WHEREIN ITAT HAS HELD THAT NO DISALLOWANCE U/S 40(A)(IA) IS POSSIBLE WHEN INCOME IS COMPUTED U/S 11/12 OF THE ACT. CONSIDERING THE ABOVE, LEARNED CIT(APPEALS) FURTHER OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN HIS REMAND REPORT DATED 14/03/2012 STATED THAT: DISALLOWANCE UNDER SECTION 40(A)(IA): AS REGARDS THE ASSESSEES CONTENTION IN RESPECT OF DISALLOWANCE MADE UNDER SECTION 40(A)(IA) THAT INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE IS NOT TO BE COMPUTED UNDER SECTION 28 TO 43B FOR THE A.Y. 2007 - 08, 2008 - 09 AND 2009 - 10 IT IS SUBMITTED THAT BEING THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT COMPLIED THE ELIGIBILITY CONDITIONS FOR DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 11, THE A.O.S ACTION OF APPLYING PROVISIONS OF SECTION 40(A)(IA) IN CASE OF ASSESSEE IS CORRECT IN LAW, ASSESSEES CONTENTION IN THIS RESPECT DESERVES TO BE REJECTED. IN REBUTTAL OF THE REMAND REPORT THE APPELLANT TRUST SUBMITTED THAT SINCE THE APPELLANT HAS NO BUSINESS ACTIVITY, PROVISIONS OF SECTION 40(A) (IA) ARE INAPPLICABLE. SINCE EXEMPTION TO THE TRUST HAS BEEN DENIED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND ALSO CONFIRMED IN THIS APPEAL VIDE DISCUSSION IN RESPECT OF GROUNDS NO. 2 & 3, THE ASSESSING OFFICERS ACTION IN DISALLOWANCE U/S 40(A)(IA) IS IN ORDER AND IS CONFIRMED. GROUND NO. 16 ACCORDINGLY STANDS DISMISSED. 22 ITA NO. 150/NAG/2013 4 5 . AGAINST THE ABOVE ORDER, ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 4 6 . THE REASONING ADOPTED BY THE LEARNED CIT(APPEALS) TO CONFIRM THE ADDITION IS THAT EXEMPTION U/S 11 HAS BEEN DENIED WHICH HAS BEEN CONFIRMED BY HIM. SINCE WE ALREADY HELD IN THE PRECEDING PARAGRAPHS THAT DENIAL OF EXEMPTION U/S 11 WAS UNSUSTAINABLE, THIS DISALLOWANCE ALSO DOES NOT SURVIVE. HENCE WE SET ASIDE THE ORDERS OF AUTHORITIES BELOW AND DECIDE THE ISSUE IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSE SSEE. 4 7 . IN THE RESULT, THIS APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE STANDS ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THIS DAY OF NOV., 2015. (MUKUL K. SHRAWAT) ( SHAMIM YAHYA) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER. NAGPUR, DATED: NOV., 2015. 23 ITA NO. 150/NAG/2013 COPY FORWARDED TO : 1. SUSHRUT HOSPITAL AND RESEARCH CENTRE, 30 - A, CENTRAL BAZAR ROAD, RAMDASPETH, NAGPUR - 440 010. 2. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 1(2), NAGPUR. 3. C.I.T., CONCERNED 4. CIT(APPEALS) - 5. D.R., ITAT, NAGPUR. 6. GUARD FILE TRUE COPY BY ORDER ASSISTANT REGISTRAR, ITAT, NAGPUR WAKODE.