DCIT, Bangalore V. M/s Abhyudaya Educational Trust, Bangalore

ITA 19/BANG/2015

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 117 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7235 (ITAT-BANGALORE)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 year(s) 3 month(s) 8 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 16-04-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 19-03-2019
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 07-01-2015
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: PRASHANTH G S C A SHRI K V ARV
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard; Principle of natural justice; Set aside
• Section: 153A; 132; 2; 11

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL B BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI ARUN KUMAR GARODIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO S . 17 TO 19 / BANG/201 5 ASSESSMENT YEAR S : 2005 06 TO 2 0 07 08 THE DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 2 (3), BANGALORE. VS. M/S ABHYUDAYA EDUCATIONAL TRUST, NO. 208, WEST MINISTER COMPLEX, NO. 13, CUNNINGHAM ROAD, BANGALORE 560 052. PAN: A AATP8429P APPELLANT RESPONDENT & C.O. NOS. 9 TO 11/BANG/2015 (IN ITA NOS. 17 TO 19/BANG/2015) (BY ASSESSEE) ASSESSEE BY : SHRI PRASHANTH G. S. , C. A. R EVENUE BY : SHRI K. V. ARVIND, SR. STANDING COUNSEL DATE OF HEARING : 09 .0 4 .2019 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 16 .0 4 .2019 O R D E R PER SHRI A. K. GARODIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER THE PRESENT THREE APPEALS HAD BEEN FILED BY REVENUE AND THESE THREE C. OS. ARE FILED BY THE ASSESSEE. THESE ARE DIRECTED AGAINST A COMBINED ORDER PASSED BY THE CIT (A) MYSORE DATED 28.10.2014. 2. THE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE REVENUE IN ITS APPEAL FOR A. Y. 2005 06 IN ITA NO. 17/BANG/2015 ARE AS UNDER:- 1) THE ORDER OF LD. CIT (A) IS OPPOSED TO LAW AND FACTS OF THE CASE. 2) THE LD. CIT (A) HAS ERRED IN ALLOWING THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE PAYMENT OF RS. 1,19,45,000 IS NOTHING BUT UTILIZATION OF THE AMOUNTS FOR THE PURPOSE OF OBJECTS OF THE TRUST THROUGH CONSTRUCTION OF THEIR SCHOOL BUILDING AND THE SAME IS ELIGIBLE FOR EXEMPTION U / S 11 OF THE I.T. ACT. ITA NOS. 17 TO 19/BANG/2015 & C.O. NOS. 9 TO 11/BANG/2015 PAGE 2 OF 8 3) THE APPELLANT CRAVES TO ADD, ALTER OR AMEND ANY GROUND DURING THE HEARING OF APPEAL. 3. THE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE REVENUE IN ITS APPEAL FOR A. Y. 2006 07 IN ITA NO. 18/BANG/2015 ARE AS UNDER:- 1) THE ORDER OF LD. CIT (A) IS OPPOSED TO LAW AND FACTS OF THE CASE. 2) THE LD. CIT (A) HAS ERRED IN ALLOWING THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE PAYMENT OF RS. 1,07,00,000 IS NOTHING BUT UTILIZATION OF THE AMOUNTS FOR THE PURPOSE OF OBJECTS OF THE TRUST THROUGH CONSTRUCTION OF THEIR SCHOOL BUILDING AND THE SAME IS ELIGIBLE FOR EXEMPTION U / S 11 OF THE I.T. ACT. 3) THE APPELLANT CRAVES TO ADD, ALTER OR AMEND ANY GROUND DURING THE HEARING OF APPEAL. 4. THE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE REVENUE IN ITS APPEAL FOR A. Y. 2007 08 IN ITA NO. 19/BANG/2015 ARE AS UNDER:- 1) THE ORDER OF LD. CIT (A) IS OPPOSED TO LAW AND FACTS OF THE CASE. 2) THE LD. CIT (A) HAS ERRED IN ALLOWING THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE PAYMENT OF RS. 2,02,50,000 IS NOTHING BUT UTILIZATION OF THE AMOUNTS FOR THE PURPOSE OF OBJECTS OF THE TRUST THROUGH CONSTRUCTION OF THEIR SCHOOL BUILDING AND THE SAME IS ELIGIBLE FOR EXEMPTION U / S 11 OF THE I.T. ACT. 3) THE APPELLANT CRAVES TO ADD, ALTER OR AMEND ANY GROUND DURING THE HEARING OF APPEAL. 5. THE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IN ITS C. O. FOR A. Y. 2005 06 IN C.O. NO. 9/BANG/2015 ARE AS UNDER:- 1) THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW IN SO FAR AS THESE ARE AGAINST THE CROSS OBJECTOR / RESPONDENT, IS OPPOSED TO LAW, WEIGHT OF EVIDENCE, NATURAL JUSTICE, PROBABILITIES, FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CROSS OBJECTOR/ RESPONDENT'S CASE. 2) THE ASSESSMENT IS BAD IN LAW AS THE MANDATORY CONDITIONS TO INVOKE THE JURISDICTION UNDER SECTION 153C OF THE ACT DID NOT EXIST, OR HAVING NOT BEEN COMPLIED WITH AND CONSEQUENTLY THE ASSESSMENT MADE IS BAD IN LAW FOR WANT OF REQUISITE JURISDICTION. 3) THE ASSESSMENT IS FURTHER BAD IN LAW AS THE NOTICE ISSUED UNDER ITA NOS. 17 TO 19/BANG/2015 & C.O. NOS. 9 TO 11/BANG/2015 PAGE 3 OF 8 SECTION 153C OF THE ACT IS MERELY ON SUSPICION AND SURMISES AND THUS THE ORDER IS LIABLE TO BE CANCELLED UNDER THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. 4) THE AUTHORITIES BELOW OUGHT TO HAVE GIVEN A FINDING ON THE VALIDITY OF SEARCH. RELIANCE IS PLACED ON THE DECISION OF THE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF C RAMAIAH REDDY VS ACIT REPORTED IN 339 ITR 210. 5) THE ORDER OF ASSESSMENT IS BAD IN LAW AS THE APPROVAL FROM THE ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER WAS NOT OBTAINED OR HAVING OBTAINED THE COPY OF SAME HAS NOT BEEN PROVIDED TO THE CROSS OBJECTOR / RESPONDENT UNDER THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. 6) WITHOUT PREJUDICE, THE AUTHORITIES BELOW ERRED IN HOLDING THAT THE CROSS OBJECTOR/ RESPONDENT HAS MADE UNEXPLAINED CASH PAYMENTS TO THE TUNE OF RS. 1,19,45,000/- DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. 7) THE CROSS OBJECTOR/ RESPONDENT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD, ALTER, DELETE, MODIFY ANY OF THE GROUNDS WHICH ARE URGED ABOVE. 8) FOR THE ABOVE AND SUCH OTHER GROUNDS AS MAY BE URGED AT THE TIME OF HEARING, THE CROSS OBJECTOR / RESPONDENT PRAYS YOUR HONOUR TO CONSIDER THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND JUSTICE BE RENDERED. 6. THE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IN ITS C. O. FOR A. Y. 2006 07 IN C.O. NO. 10/BANG/2015 ARE AS UNDER:- 1) THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW IN SO FAR AS THESE ARE AGAINST THE CROSS OBJECTOR / RESPONDENT, IS OPPOSED TO LAW, WEIGHT OF EVIDENCE, NATURAL JUSTICE, PROBABILITIES, FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CROSS OBJECTOR/ RESPONDENT'S CASE. 2) THE ASSESSMENT IS BAD IN LAW AS THE MANDATORY CONDITIONS TO INVOKE THE JURISDICTION UNDER SECTION 153C OF THE ACT DID NOT EXIST, OR HAVING NOT BEEN COMPLIED WITH AND CONSEQUENTLY THE ASSESSMENT MADE IS BAD IN LAW FOR WANT OF REQUISITE JURISDICTION. 3) THE ASSESSMENT IS FURTHER BAD IN LAW AS THE NOTICE ISSUED UNDER SECTION 153C OF THE ACT IS MERELY ON SUSPICION AND SURMISES AND THUS THE ORDER IS LIABLE TO BE CANCELLED UNDER THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. 4) THE AUTHORITIES BELOW OUGHT TO HAVE GIVEN A FINDING ON THE VALIDITY OF SEARCH. RELIANCE IS PLACED ON THE DECISION OF THE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF C RAMAIAH REDDY VS ACIT REPORTED IN 339 ITR 210. ITA NOS. 17 TO 19/BANG/2015 & C.O. NOS. 9 TO 11/BANG/2015 PAGE 4 OF 8 5) THE ORDER OF ASSESSMENT IS BAD IN LAW AS THE APPROVAL FROM THE ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER WAS NOT OBTAINED OR HAVING OBTAINED THE COPY OF SAME HAS NOT BEEN PROVIDED TO THE CROSS OBJECTOR / RESPONDENT UNDER THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. 6) WITHOUT PREJUDICE, THE AUTHORITIES BELOW ERRED IN HOLDING THAT THE CROSS OBJECTOR/ RESPONDENT HAS MADE UNEXPLAINED CASH PAYMENTS TO THE TUNE OF RS. 1,07,00,000/- DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. 7) THE CROSS OBJECTOR/ RESPONDENT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD, ALTER, DELETE, MODIFY ANY OF THE GROUNDS WHICH ARE URGED ABOVE. 8) FOR THE ABOVE AND SUCH OTHER GROUNDS AS MAY BE URGED AT THE TIME OF HEARING, THE CROSS OBJECTOR / RESPONDENT PRAYS YOUR HONOUR TO CONSIDER THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND JUSTICE BE RENDERED. 7. THE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IN ITS C. O. FOR A. Y. 2007 08 IN C.O. NO. 11/BANG/2015 ARE AS UNDER:- 1) THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW IN SO FAR AS THESE ARE AGAINST THE CROSS OBJECTOR / RESPONDENT, IS OPPOSED TO LAW, WEIGHT OF EVIDENCE, NATURAL JUSTICE, PROBABILITIES, FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CROSS OBJECTOR/ RESPONDENT'S CASE. 2) THE ASSESSMENT IS BAD IN LAW AS THE MANDATORY CONDITIONS TO INVOKE THE JURISDICTION UNDER SECTION 153C OF THE ACT DID NOT EXIST, OR HAVING NOT BEEN COMPLIED WITH AND CONSEQUENTLY THE ASSESSMENT MADE IS BAD IN LAW FOR WANT OF REQUISITE JURISDICTION. 3) THE ASSESSMENT IS FURTHER BAD IN LAW AS THE NOTICE ISSUED UNDER SECTION 153C OF THE ACT IS MERELY ON SUSPICION AND SURMISES AND THUS THE ORDER IS LIABLE TO BE CANCELLED UNDER THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. 4) THE AUTHORITIES BELOW OUGHT TO HAVE GIVEN A FINDING ON THE VALIDITY OF SEARCH. RELIANCE IS PLACED ON THE DECISION OF THE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF C RAMAIAH REDDY VS ACIT REPORTED IN 339 ITR 210. 5) THE ORDER OF ASSESSMENT IS BAD IN LAW AS THE APPROVAL FROM THE ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER WAS NOT OBTAINED OR HAVING OBTAINED THE COPY OF SAME HAS NOT BEEN PROVIDED TO THE CROSS OBJECTOR / RESPONDENT UNDER THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. 6) WITHOUT PREJUDICE, THE AUTHORITIES BELOW ERRED IN HOLDING THAT THE ITA NOS. 17 TO 19/BANG/2015 & C.O. NOS. 9 TO 11/BANG/2015 PAGE 5 OF 8 CROSS OBJECTOR/ RESPONDENT HAS MADE UNEXPLAINED CASH PAYMENTS TO THE TUNE OF RS. 2,02,50,000/- DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. 7) THE CROSS OBJECTOR/ RESPONDENT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD, ALTER, DELETE, MODIFY ANY OF THE GROUNDS WHICH ARE URGED ABOVE. 8) FOR THE ABOVE AND SUCH OTHER GROUNDS AS MAY BE URGED AT THE TIME OF HEARING, THE CROSS OBJECTOR / RESPONDENT PRAYS YOUR HONOUR TO CONSIDER THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND JUSTICE BE RENDERED. 8. BOTH SIDES WERE HEARD. THE MAIN CONTENTION RAISED BY THE LEARNED AR OF THE ASSESSEE WITH REGARDS TO ITS C. OS. WAS THIS THAT THIS WAS A SPECIFIC ISSUE RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE CIT (A) AS PER GROUND NO. 3 THAT THE MANDATORY CONDITIONS FOR INVOKING THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 153C OF I. T. ACT 1961 WERE NOT SATISFIED BY THE A. O. IT WAS SUBMITTED BEFORE US THAT THIS IS A MANDATORY REQUIREMENT BEFORE INVOKING THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 153C OF I. T. ACT 1961 THAT THE A. O. OF THE SEARCHED PERSON SHOULD RECORD A SATISFACTION THAT THE SEIZED MATERIAL BELONGS TO A PERSON OTHER THAN THE SEARCHED PERSON AND AFTER THAT, HE SHOULD HANDOVER THE SAID SEIZED MATERIAL TO THE AO OF THE SAID OTHER PERSON AND THEREAFTER, THE A. O. OF THE SAID OTHER PERSON SHALL PROCEED U/S 153A AGAINST SUCH OTHER PERSON. HE ALSO SUBMITTED THAT IF THE A. O. OF THE SEARCHED PERSON AND THE OTHER PERSON IS SAME THEN ALSO, AS PER VARIOUS TRIBUNAL ORDERS, THE A. O. SHOULD RECORD THE REQUIRED SATISFACTION IN HIS CAPACITY OF THE A. O. OF THE SEARCHED PERSON. HE SUBMITTED THAT THERE IS NO FINDING OF CIT (A) IN THIS REGARD. THE MAIN CONTENTION OF THE LEARNED SR. STANDING COUNSEL APPEARING ON BEHALF OF THE REVENUE WAS THIS THAT THE LEARNED CIT (A) HAS DECIDED THE ISSUE ON MERIT IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE ON THIS REASONING THAT THE AMOUNTS IN DISPUTE WERE UTILIZED FOR THE PURPOSE OF THE TRUST ACTIVITY IN THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE ASSESSEES SCHOOL BUILDING BUT NO BASIS IS INDICATED BY HIM FOR ARRIVING TO THIS CONCLUSION AND THEREFORE, THE ORDER OF CIT (A) ON THIS ISSUE ON MERIT SHOULD BE REVERSED AND THAT OF THE A.O. SHOULD BE RESTORED. ITA NOS. 17 TO 19/BANG/2015 & C.O. NOS. 9 TO 11/BANG/2015 PAGE 6 OF 8 9. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS. FIRST OF ALL, WE REPRODUCE PARA NO. 3.2 OF THE ORDER OF CIT (A) BECAUSE HE HAS DECIDED GROUND NO. 2 TO 5 AS PER THIS PARA. THIS PARA READS AS UNDER:- 3.2 GROUND NOS 2, 3, 4 AND 5 ARE REGARDING VALIDITY OF SEARCH U/S 132(1), INVOKING JURISDICTION U/S 153C, RECORDING OF REASONS AND QUANTIFICATION OF TAXABLE INCOME. THE APPELLANT HAS RAISED THE GROUND THAT SEARCH CONDUCTED IS ILLEGAL. THESE ARE PERTAINING TO ISSUE OF NOTICE U/S 153C AND THE APPELLANT HAS STATED THAT MANDATORY CONDITIONS TO INVOKE THE JURISDICTION U/S 153C DID NOT EXIST, REASONS FOR ISSUANCE. OF NOTICE ARE NOT RECORDED AND HENCE, THE ASSESSMENT IS BAD IN LAW. THE APPELLANT'S CASE WAS CENTRALIZED WITH AC, CC 2(3) AND CONSEQUENTLY, NOTICE U/S 153C WAS ISSUED. AFTER CONSIDERING THESE FACTS, IT IS HELD AS UNDER. FROM THE A.OS RECORDS, IT IS SEEN THAT THE A.O. HAS RECORDED REASONS STATING THAT AN ACTION U/S 132 WAS CONDUCTED, CERTAIN DOCUMENTS AND DETAILS OF TRANSACTIONS OF THE APPELLANT ARE FOUND AND SEIZED AND HENCE HE IS INVOKING PROVISIONS OF SECTION 153C. FROM THIS, IT IS CLEAR THAT THE A.O. HAD RECORDED REASONS FOR ISSUANCE OF NOTICE U/S 153C. ALSO, THE JURISDICTION IS IN ORDER SINCE THE CASE HAS BEEN CENTRALIZED, PASSING AN ORDER BY THE CIT NOTIFYING THE CASE TO THE A.O. ALSO THE APPELLANT HAS NOT QUESTIONED THE LEGALITY OF THE SEARCH AND IN VIEW OF THE HON'BLE DELHI HIGH COURT JUDGMENT IN THE CASE OF M B LAL VS CIT REPORTED IN 279 ITR 298 WHEREIN IT WAS DECIDED THAT IT WAS NO LONGER OPEN TO THE APPELLANT TO RE-AGITATE THE QUESTION OF VALIDITY OF THE AUTHORIZATION AND THE LEGALITY OF SEARCH PROCEEDINGS EITHER BEFORE COMMISSIONER OF BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL FOR THAT MATTER. THE QUESTION OF VALIDITY OR OTHER WISE OF THE SEARCH PROCEEDINGS, STOOD CONCLUDED BY THE JUDGEMENT OF THE HONBLE HIGH COURT IN THE WRIT PROCEEDINGS. IN VIEW OF THE SAME, GROUND NOS. 2,3,4 & 5 ARE DISPOSED OFF DEVOID OF ANY MERIT AND THE SAME ARE DISMISSED. 10. WE HAVE NOTED ABOVE THAT AS PER GROUND NO. 3 RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE CIT (A), THIS WAS THE OBJECTION THAT THE MANDATORY CONDITIONS FOR INVOKING THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 153C OF I. T. ACT 1961 WERE NOT SATISFIED BY THE A. O. IT WAS SUBMITTED BEFORE US THAT THIS IS A MANDATORY REQUIREMENT BEFORE INVOKING THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 153C OF I. T. ACT 1961 THAT THE A. O. OF THE SEARCHED PERSON SHOULD RECORD A SATISFACTION THAT THE SEIZED MATERIAL BELONGS TO A PERSON OTHER THAN THE SEARCHED PERSON AND AFTER THAT, ITA NOS. 17 TO 19/BANG/2015 & C.O. NOS. 9 TO 11/BANG/2015 PAGE 7 OF 8 HE SHOULD HANDOVER THE SAID SEIZED MATERIAL TO THE AO OF THE SAID OTHER PERSON AND THEREAFTER, THE A. O. OF THE SAID OTHER PERSON SHALL PROCEED U/S 153A AGAINST SUCH OTHER PERSON. HE ALSO SUBMITTED THAT IF THE A. O. OF THE SEARCHED PERSON AND THE OTHER PERSON IS SAME THEN ALSO, AS PER VARIOUS TRIBUNAL ORDERS, THE A. O. SHOULD RECORD THE REQUIRED SATISFACTION IN HIS CAPACITY AS THE A. O. OF THE SEARCHED PERSON. FROM THE ABOVE PARA OF THE ORDER OF CIT (A) REPRODUCED FROM THE ORDER OF CIT (A), IT IS SEEN THAT IT IS NOTED BY THE CIT (A) THAT THE A. O. HAS RECORDED REASONS STATING THAT SEARCH ACTION U/S 132 WAS CONDUCTED AND CERTAIN DOCUMENTS AND DETAILS OF TRANSACTIONS OF THE ASSESSEE WERE FOUND BUT THERE IS NO MENTION ABOUT THIS ASPECT AS TO WHETHER THE REASONS WERE RECORDED BY THE A. O. OF THE SEARCHED PERSON OR OF THE PRESENT ASSESSEE. EVEN IF THE A. O. IS COMMON, THERE IS NO FINDING GIVEN ON THIS ASPECT THAT THE REASONS WERE RECORDED BY THE A. O. IN HIS CAPACITY AS THE A. O. OF THE SEARCHED PERSON. IN VIEW OF THIS, WE FEEL THAT THE DECISION OF CIT (A) ON THIS TECHNICAL ASPECT IS NOT BY WAY OF A SPEAKING AND REASONED ORDER AND HENCE, WE SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF CIT (A) ON THIS ASPECT OF THE MATTER AND RESTORE THE MATTER BACK TO HIS FILE FOR A FRESH DECISION BY WAY OF A SPEAKING AND REASONED ORDER AS PER LAW IN THE LIGHT OF ABOVE DISCUSSION AFTER PROVIDING ADEQUATE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO BOTH SIDES. 11. ONCE, WE RESTORE BACK THE MATTER TO CIT (A) FOR FRESH DECISION ON TECHNICAL ASPECT, THE MATTER ON MERIT ALSO HAS TO GO BACK FOR A FRESH DECISION FOR TWO REASONS. FIRST REASON IS THIS THAT IN OUR CONSIDERED OPINION, THE DECISION ON MERIT SHOULD BE AFTER DECIDING THE ISSUE ON TECHNICAL ASPECT AS PER LAW AND SINCE TECHNICAL ASPECT HAS NOT BEEN DECIDED BY WAY OF A SPEAKING AND REASONED ORDER AND IT IS BEING RESTORED BACK TO CIT (A), WE RESTORE BACK THE ISSUE ON MERIT ALSO TO CIT (A) FOR A FRESH DECISION BY WAY OF A SPEAKING AND REASONED ORDER AS PER LAW IN THE LIGHT OF ABOVE DISCUSSION AFTER PROVIDING ADEQUATE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO BOTH SIDES. ITA NOS. 17 TO 19/BANG/2015 & C.O. NOS. 9 TO 11/BANG/2015 PAGE 8 OF 8 12. THE SECOND REASON TO RESTORE BACK THE ISSUE ON MERIT TO CIT (A) IS THIS THAT THE BASIS OF THE DECISION OF CIT (A) ON MERIT IS THIS THAT THE AMOUNTS IN DISPUTE WERE UTILIZED FOR THE PURPOSE OF THE TRUST ACTIVITY IN THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE ASSESSEES SCHOOL BUILDING BUT NO BASIS IS INDICATED BY HIM FOR ARRIVING TO THIS CONCLUSION. HENCE, WE RESTORE THE MATTER ON MERIT FOR THIS REASON ALSO AND DIRECT THE CIT (A) THAT IF HE COMES TO THIS CONCLUSION ON THE TECHNICAL ASPECT THAT SECTION 153C WAS NOT INVOKED AS PER LAW THAN THE ASSESSMENT ITSELF WILL NOT SURVIVE AND NOTHING WILL REMAIN TO BE DECIDED ON MERIT BUT IF THIS TECHNICAL ASPECT IS DECIDED AGAINST THE ASSESSEE THEN THE ISSUE ON MERIT SHOULD BE DECIDED AFRESH AND WHILE DOING SO, THE CIT (A) SHOULD INDICATE THE BASIS OF REACHING TO THE CONCLUSION IN RESPECT OF THE UTILIZATION OF THE AMOUNT IN QUESTION. 13. IN THE RESULT, ALL THREE APPEALS FILED BY THE REVENUE AND ALL THREE C. OS. FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THE DATE MENTIONED ON THE CAPTION PAGE. SD/- SD/- (PAVAN KUMAR GADALE) (ARUN KUMAR GARODIA) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER BANGALORE, DATED, THE 16 TH APRIL, 2019. /MS/ COPY TO: 1. APPELLANT 4. CIT (A) 2. RESPONDENT 5. DR, ITAT, BANGALORE 3. CIT 6. GUARD FILE BY ORDER ASSISTANT REGISTRAR, INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, BANGALORE.