DCIT Central Circle 1, Madurai V. S.R.Trust, Madurai

ITA 2157/CHNY/2018

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 116 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 9525 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 11 month(s) 11 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 27-06-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Assessment Year: 2015-2016
• Appeal Filed On: 16-07-2018
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Unexplained expenditure; Gift; Income from undisclosed sources; Search and seizure; Document seized; Charitable institution; Principle of natural justice; Difference of opinion; Corroborative evidences; Validity of assessment; Accommodation entries; Documents seized; Change of opinion; Bogus
• Section: 6; 132; 12; 11; 143(3); 153A; 201; 13; 153; 153C

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL C BENCH : CHENNAI . . . , , [BEFORE SHRI N.R.S. GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ] ./I.T.A. NOS.2144, 2145, 2146, 2147, 2148, 2149 & 2157/CHNY/2018 ! / ASSESSMENT YEARS : 2009-10, 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14, 2014-15 AND 2015-2016. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 1, MADURAI VS. M/S. S.R. TRUST, LAKE AREA, MELUR ROAD, UTHANGUDI, MADURAI 625 107. [PAN AACTS 0376F] ( / APPELLANT) ( /RESPONDENT) '# $ % / APPELLANT BY : SHRI. SAILENDRA MAMIDI, IRS, PCIT. &' '# $ % /RESPONDENT BY : SHRI.B. RAMAKRISHNAN, FCA ( ) $ * /DATE OF HEARING : 01-05-2019 +,! $ * /DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 27-06-2019 / O R D E R PER INTURI RAMA RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER THESE ARE APPEALS FILED BY THE REVENUE DIRECTED AGA INST THE COMMON ORDER OF THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)- 19, CHENNAI (HEREINAFTER CALLED AS CIT(A)) DATED 02.04.2018 FOR THE ITA NOS.2144-49-2157/ 2018 :- 2 -: ASSESSMENT YEARS 2009-10, 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13 , 2013-14, 2014-15 AND 2015-2016. 2. A T THE OUTSET THERE IS A DELAY OF THREE DAYS IN FIL ING THE PRESENT APPEALS. THE REVENUE FILED PETITION REQUESTING F OR CONDONING THE DELAY BY STATING THAT THE DELAY HAD OCCURRED ON AC COUNT OF THE FACT THAT RELEVANT RECORDS AND DOCUMENTS WERE ON TRANSIT FROM THE HIGHER AUTHORITIES WERE RECEIVED BELATEDLY. THEREFORE IT WAS PRAYED THAT THE DELAY OF THREE DAYS MAY BE CONDONED. ON THE OTHE R HAND, THE LD. AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE HAD NOT EXPRESSED ANY OB JECTION FOR CONDONING THE DELAY. IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES, WE CO NDONE THE DELAY OF THREE DAYS AND ADMIT THE APPEALS FOR ADJUDICATION. 3. SINCE, THE IDENTICAL FACTS AND ISSUES ARE INVOLVED IN THESE APPEALS, WE PROCEED TO DISPOSE THE SAME VIDE THIS COMMON ORD ER. 4. FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE AND CLARITY THE FACTS R ELEVANT TO THE APPEAL IN ITA NO.2144/CHNY/2018 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10 ARE STATED HEREIN. 5. THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE AS UNDER:- THE RESPONDENT-ASSESSEE NAMELY M/S. S.R. TRUST IS A PUBLIC CHARITABLE TRUST REGISTERED U/S.12A(A) OF THE INCO ME TAX ACT, 1961 (IN ITA NOS.2144-49-2157/ 2018 :- 3 -: SHORT THE ACT). THE ASSESSEE TRUST IS RUNNING 900 BED HOSPITAL UNDER THE NAME MEENAKSHI MISSION HOSPITAL & RESEARCH CE NTRE (HEREINAFTER CALLED MMHRC) AT MADURAI. THE RETURN OF INCOM E FOR THE AY 2009- 10 WAS FILED ON 23.09.2009 ADMITTING NIL INCOM E AFTER CLAIMING EXEMPTION U/S.11 OF THE ACT. AGAINST THE SAID RETUR N OF INCOME, THE SAME WAS PROCESSED U/S.143(1) OF THE ACT. SUBSEQUE NTLY, THERE WAS SEARCH AND SEIZURE OPERATION U/S. 132 OF THE ACT IN THE CASE ONE SHRI. DR. S. GURUSHANKAR WHO IS THE MANAGING TRUST EE OF THE MMHRC ON 26.11.2014. DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH AND SEIZ URE OPERATION, IT IS STATED THAT CERTAIN INCRIMINATING MATERIALS AN D DOCUMENTS WERE SEIZED. BASED ON THESE MATERIALS AND DOCUMENTS, NOTICE U/S.153C OF THE ACT WAS ISSUED TO THE ASSESSEE TRUST FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10. SUBSEQUENTLY NOTICES U/S.143(2)/142(1) O F THE ACT DATED WERE ISSUED. IN RESPONSE TO NOTICES, ASSESSEE TRUS T FILED ITS RETURN DECLARING NIL INCOME. AGAINST THE SAID RETURN OF IN COME, THE ASSESSMENT WAS COMPLETED BY THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIO NER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE -1, MADURAI (HEREINAFTER CALLE D AO) VIDE ORDER DATED 31.12.2016 PASSED U/S. 143(3) R/W S. 153C OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (IN SHORT THE ACT) DENYING EXEMPTION U/ S.11 OF THE ACT AND TAXING THE EXCESS OF INCOME OVER EXPENDITURE AT MAX IMUM MARGINAL RATE OF TAX, WHILE DENYING EXEMPTION U/S.11 AND 12 OF THE ACT, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD SET OUT THE FOLLOWING REASONS . ITA NOS.2144-49-2157/ 2018 :- 4 -: 1. ON THE BASIS OF INFORMATION AVAILABLE WITH IT DEPARTMENT, IT WAS ALLEGED THAT DR. S. GURUSHANKAR AND HIS FAMILY MEMBERS HAVE BEEN IN SUPPRESSION OF TURNOVER AND INFLATION OF EX PENSES FROM MMHRC HOSPITALS BY SIPHONING OFF THE TRUST FUND FOR PERSONAL INVESTMENTS. 2. DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH IN THE BUSINESS PREM ISES OF MR. JOHN RAJASEKAR, IT WAS FOUND THAT HE HAD RESORTED TO HUG E INFLATION OF EXPENSES THROUGH SALARIES PAID TO STAFF MEMBERS BY ADOPTING THE MODUS OPERANDI OF TRANSFER OF HUGE AMOUNTS TO THEIR ACCOUNTS AND SUBSEQUENTLY THE SAID AMOUNTS ARE WITHDRAWN IN CASH THROUGH THEIR ATM CARDS KEPT IN HIS PERSONAL CUSTODY. THE P URPOSE OF WITHDRAWALS THROUGH THE BANK ACCOUNTS OF THE EMPLOY EES WITHOUT THEIR KNOWLEDGE COULD NOT EXPLAINED BY HIM. 3. FURTHER, IT IS SEEN THAT HUGE AMOUNTS (TOTALING TO RS. 22,32,03,400/-) WERE WITHDRAWN IN CASH IN THE TWO C ONCERNS, NAMELY MONICA ENTERPRISES (RS. 14,82,13,980/-) AND MONICA SURGICALS (RS. 7,49,89,420/-) FOR THE AYS 2009-10 T O 2015-16, THE ACTUAL PURPOSE FOR THE SAME WAS NOT EXPLAINED. 4. IT IS ALSO FOUND THAT HE HAD RESORTED TO HUGE SU PPRESSION OF SALES MADE TO THE ABOVE TRUST HOSPITAL AMOUNTING TO RS. 2 5,10,05,761/- FOR THE FYS 2009-10 TO 2013-14 WHICH WERE DEPOSITED IN VARIOUS UNACCOUNTED BANK ACCOUNTS AND SUBSEQUENTLY WITHDRAW N AND UTILIZED FOR VARIOUS UNACCOUNTED EXPENDITURES WHICH HE DID NOT ELABORATE. 5. DURING PRE-SEARCH AND POST SEARCH, INFORMATION H AS BEEN RECEIVED REGARDING SIPHONING OF FUNDS BY APPELLANT FROM MMHRC, MADURAI THROUGH ITS SUPPLIERS - MONICA GROUP OF CON CERNS OWNED BY MR. T.JOHN RAJASEKAR, IN THE FORM CASH DRAWINGS FROM BANK FOR PURCHASES. 6. IN THE MONICA SEARCH CONDUCTED IN MONICA GROUP O F CONCERNS, THE UNACCOUNTED INCOME OF RS. 51 CRORES WAS DETECTE D, THE APPLICATION OF WHICH WAS NOT EXPLAINED BY MR. T.JOH N RAJASEKAR. 7. SIMILARLY, DR.S.GURUSHANKAR WAS FOUND TO HAVE DE POSITED HUGE AMOUNTS TO THE TUNE OF RS.12.42 CR WHICH WERE STATE D TO HAVE BEEN RECEIVED AS GIFTS AND DONATIONS FROM FRIENDS A ND PATIENTS. ITA NOS.2144-49-2157/ 2018 :- 5 -: DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH PROCEEDINGS IN THE CASE OF SHRI. T. JOHN RAJASEKAR, IT IS FOUND THAT THE SAID PERSON HAD INF LATED EXPENDITURE OF SALARIES PAID TO STAFF MEMBERS BY ADOPTING MODUS OP ERANDI OF TRANSFERRING HUGE AMOUNTS TO THE SALARY ACCOUNTS O F EMPLOYEES SUBSEQUENTLY WITHDRAWN THROUGH ATM CARDS KEPT IN HIS PERSONAL CUSTODY AND THE PURPOSE OF WHICH COULD NOT BE EXPLA INED BY SHRI. T. JOHN RAJASEKAR AND HUGE CASH AMOUNTING TO H22,32,03 ,400/- WERE FOUND WITHDRAWN IN CASH FROM THE SAID TWO CONCERNS DURING THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2009-10 TO 2015-2016. IT WAS ALSO FOUND THAT SHRI. T. JOHN RAJASEKAR HAD ALSO SUPPRESSED SALES MADE TO THE ASSESSEE TRUST TO THE TUNE OF H25,10,05,761/- FOR THE ASSESS MENT YEARS 2010- 2011 TO 2014-2015 AND THE SUPPRESSED TURNOVER WAS DEPOSITED IN BANK ACCOUNTS AND WITHDRAWN IN CASH. THE PURPOSE OF THE WITHDRAWAL WAS NOT EXPLAINED. IT WAS FURTHER FOUND BY THE AS SESSING OFFICER THAT DR. GURUSANKAR HAD DEPOSITED CASH IN HDFC BANK TO THE TUNE OF H12.42 CRORES DURING THIS PERIOD, SOURCE OF WHICH HAD BEEN EXPLAINED AS GIFTS AND DONATIONS RECEIVED FROM FRIENDS, PAT IENTS ETC., BASED ON THIS INFORMATION, THE ASSESSING OFFICER INFERRED TH AT ASSESSEE TRUST WAS INDULGING IN INFLATION OF EXPENDITURE IN THE FORM OF PHARMACY PURCHASES WHICH IN TURN WERE PASSED TO DR. GURUSA NKAR THROUGH SUPPLIER OF THE PHARMACY AND SURGICAL ITEMS AND AC CORDINGLY, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HELD THAT ASSESSEE TRUST HAD VIOL ATED THE PROVISIONS ITA NOS.2144-49-2157/ 2018 :- 6 -: OF SECTION 13(1) (C) OF THE ACT AND THEREFORE DENIE D EXEMPTIONS U/S.11 AND 12 OF THE ACT. ACCORDINGLY, PASSED THE IMPUGNE D ASSESSMENT ORDER. 6. BEING AGGRIEVED, AN APPEAL WAS PREFERRED B EFORE THE LD. CIT(A) CONTENDING THAT NO INCRIMINATING AND VALU ABLE ITEMS PERTAINING TO THE ASSESSEE TRUST WERE FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH OF DR. GURUSANKAR AND THEREFORE ISSUE OF V ERY NOTICE IS BAD IN LAW AND THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD NOT FURNISHED INF ORMATION AVAILABLE WITH THE DEPARTMENT AGAINST ASSESSEE TRUST, WITHOU T GIVING AN OPPORTUNITY OF REBUTTAL, COMPLETED THE ASSESSMENT I N HASTE. THE LD. CIT(A) AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSIONS MADE AND THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD HELD THAT INGREDIENTS NECESSA RY FOR INVOKING THE JURISDICTION U/S.153C OF THE ACT WAS NOT SATISFIED AND ACCORDINGLY SQUASHED THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. THE LD. CIT(A) ALSO DEALT ON THE MERITS OF THE ISSUE AND HELD THAT THERE WAS NO EVIDENCE ON RECORD TO PROVE THAT INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE TRUST HAD B EEN APPLIED DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY FOR THE BENEFIT OF SPECIFIED PERSON A ND ACCORDINGLY ALLOWED THE APPEAL. 7. BEING AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A), THE REVENUE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING OF T HE APPEAL, THE CIT ITA NOS.2144-49-2157/ 2018 :- 7 -: (DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE) HAD TAKEN US THROUGH THE ORDERS OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER AS WELL AS THE LD. CIT(A) AND THE SEIZED MATERIAL FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH AND SEIZURE OPERA TION IN THE CASE OF DR. GURUSANKAR AND SUBMITTED THAT ADDITIONS ARE M ADE BASED ON INCRIMINATING MATERIALS FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH PROCEEDINGS OF DR. GURUSANKAR. HE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT ASSES SEE TRUST HAS BEEN INDULGING IN THE DIVERSION OF FUNDS OF THE TRUST F OR THE BENEFIT OF THE TRUSTEE AND THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD RIGHTLY DENIE D THE EXEMPTIONS CLAIMED U/S.11 AND 12 OF THE ACT AND COMPLETED THE ASSESSMENT AND FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT LD. CIT(A) OUGHT NOT TO HAVE SQUASHED THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. 8. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE AUTHORISED REPRESENTA TIVE REITERATED THE FINDINGS OF THE LD. CIT(A) ARE BASED ON THE PR OPER APPRECIATION OF MATERIAL ON RECORD AND LEGAL PROVISIONS. THE AUTHO RISED REPRESENTATIVE ALSO PLACED RELIANCE ON THE ORDER O F THE LD. CIT(A) AND PRAYED THAT NO INTERFERENCE IS CALLED IN THE IMP UGNED ORDER. 9. WE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD. THE ISSUE INVOLVED IN THE PRESENT APPEAL IS WHETHER THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS JUSTIFIED IN HOLDING THAT AS SESSEE TRUST HAD VIOLATED THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 13(1) (C) OF THE ACT THEREBY DENYING ITA NOS.2144-49-2157/ 2018 :- 8 -: EXEMPTION U/S.11 OF THE ACT. THE PROVISIONS OF SEC TION 13(1) (C) OF THE ACT ENVISAGES THAT EXEMPTIONS U/S. 11 AND 12 O F THE ACT SHALL BE DENIED IN CASE WHERE THE INCOME OF THE TRUST IS U SED OR APPLIED DURING THE PREVIOUS YEAR FOR THE BENEFIT OF ANY PE RSON WHO IS FOUNDER OF THE TRUST OR ANY OTHER SPECIFIED PERSON. IN THE PRESENT CASE, THERE IS NO DISPUTE THAT DR. GURUSANKAR IS A SPECIFIED PERSON OF THE TRUST AND THE ALLEGATION OF THE ASSESSING OFF ICER IS THAT THE FUNDS OF THE ASSESSE TRUST WERE DIVERTED BY INFLATION OF THE COST OF PHARMACY PURCHASES AND SURGICAL EQUIPMENT THROUGH ONE MR. T. JOHN RAJASEKAR AND HIS CONCERNS, AND SUCH DIVERTED FUNDS WERE USE D BY DR. GURUSANKAR FOR THE PURPOSE OF DEPOSITING THE MONEY IN HIS BANK ACCOUNT. IT APPEARS FROM THE PERUSAL OF THE ASSESS MENT RECORD THAT THIS INFORMATION AVAILABLE WITH THE DEPARTMENT WAS NOT MADE AVAILABLE TO THE ASSESSEE TRUST FOR THE PURPOSE OF REBUTTAL. DURING THE COURSE OF PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A), THE ASSESSEE SU BMITTED AS UNDER: THE CONTENTION OF AO THAT THE ASSESSEE ALONG WITH FAMILY MEMBERS HAVE BEEN IN SUPPRESSION OF TURNOVER AND IN FLATION OF EXPENSES FROM MMHRC HOSPITALS BY SIPHONING OFF THE TRUST FUND FOR PERSONAL INVESTMENTS AND SIPHONING OF FUNDS FROM MM HRC, MADURAI THROUGH ITS SUPPLIERS IN THE FORM CASH DRAW INGS FROM BANK FOR PURCHASES IS WITHOUT ANY BASIS. THE MATERIALS SAID TO BE RELIED UPON BY THE AO IN M AKING THE ABOVE DISALLOWANCE WERE NEITHER SPECIFICALLY MENTIONED IN HIS ORDER, NOR THE SAME WAS PROVIDED TO THE APPELLANT, WHICH IS AG AINST THE PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE. FURTHER, NO INCRIMIN ATING MATERIAL COULD BE SEEN IN THE SEIZED DOCUMENTS. ITA NOS.2144-49-2157/ 2018 :- 9 -: FACT IS THAT THE SEIZED DOCUMENT ANN/GV/MMHRC/B&D/S I TO 4 DT. 26.11.2014 DENOTES THE SHIFT WISE DAILY COLLE CTION MAINTAINED BY THE BILLING DEPARTMENT. SOME OF THE COLLECTIONS FROM THE SEIZED MATERIALS ARE TAKEN AT RANDOM AS SAMPLES AND CORREL ATED WITH THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS RIND PRESENTED FOR YOUR ESTEEMED REFERENCE AND RECORDS. IT IS ALSO A FACT THAT THE SEIZED DOCUMENT ANN/P V/MMHRC/ED/S DT. 26.11.2014 & ANN/TR/MMHRC/B&D/S/P2 DT. 09.12.2014 HAVE BEEN EXAMINED BY THE DEPARTMENT DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS AND FOUND NO DIFFE RENCE BETWEEN THE IMAGING TALLY DATA SERVER SI.NO. WCC4M2990716, WORKING COPY OF DATA SERVER AND BACK DONE DATA BASE SERVER SL.NO.SNNA4NBQY1 WITH THAT OF THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS PRODUCED. IT IS ALSO A FACT THE SEIZED DOCUMENT SL.NO 3 & 4 O F ANN/P V/MMHRC/ED/S DT. 26.11.2014 ARE NOT RELATED TO MMHR C AND THEY ARE RELATED TO THE PERSONAL AFFAIRS OF DR. GUR USHANKAR FOR PREPARATION OF HIS INDIVIDUAL RETURN OF INCOME MAIN TAINED BY SRI.R.CHANDRAVEL RAJA. SIMILARLY ANN/P V/MMHRC/LS D T. 26.11.2014 CONTAINS 167 LOOSE SHEETS WHICH BELONGS TO DR.GURUSHANKAR, MEENAKSHI HOSPITAL THANJAVUR, MEENA KSHI SUN SHINE AND LEDGER FOLIO COPY OF GURUSHANKAR IN MMHRC AND THEY DO NOT RELATE TO S R TRUST. THESE FACTS HAVE BEEN W ELL DIVULGED AND GIVEN IN WRITING IN THE FORM OF PAGE WISE EXPLANATI ON DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS AND NOT DENIED / D ISPUTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. IN NUT SHELL THE AO HAS ACCEPTED THE SEIZED DOCUMENTS DO NOT REVEAL ANY ADVERSE DATA AND HENCE NO MENTION ABOUT THIS IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED BY HIM IN DENYING THE BENEFIT OF SECTION 11 BY INVOKING SECTION 13(1)(C) OF THE IT ACT WITHOUT ANY EVIDENCE/ REASONS. DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS ALL THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS, TALLY DATA RELATING TO PURCHASE, SALES & UTILIZATION OF MEDICINES, CLOSING STOCK DETAILS AND OTHER SUBSIDIA RY RECORDS HAVE BEEN PRODUCED AND AFTER VERIFICATION NO DIFFERENCE HAS BEEN FOUND BY THE AO. HENCE NOTHING COULD BE MENTIONED IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. IT IS HUMBLY SUBMITTED THAT THE SUPPRESSION OF SALES BY THIRD PARTY BY NAME SRI. T.JOHN RAJASEKAR OF MONICA SURGI CALS ARID INFLATION OF EXPENDITURE IN HIS BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS C OULD NOT HAVE ANY BEARING ON COMPLETION OF ASSESSMENT OF THE APPELLAN T WHO IS ONLY A BUYER OF MEDICINES FROM SRI. T. JOHN RAJASEKAR. THE DEPOSITS MADE BY DR.GURUSHANKAR IN HIS HDFC BAN K ACCOUNT NUMBER 50200000524500 DURING THE FY2014-15 DOES NOT HAVE ANY NEXUS WITH THE S.R.TRUST SINCE NOTHING COULD BE TAK EN OUT AS EVIDENCE FROM SEIZED DOCUMENTS EITHER IN THE CASE O F YOUR APPELLANT OR THE SAID SRI. GURUSHANKAR. HENCE THE AO HAS APPL IED THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 13(1)(C) ONLY ON ASSUMPTIONS AND SURMISES WHICH COULD NOT BE SUSTAINED IN LAW. ITA NOS.2144-49-2157/ 2018 :- 10 -: AND WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE ABOVE, THE ASSESSEE S UBMITTED AS UNDER:- 1. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS ALLEGED THAT THERE IS INFLATION OF SALARY WAS MADE BY MR. JOHN RAFASEKAR, THE OWNER OF MONICA GROUP OF CONCERNS. THE ALLEGED INFLATION WAS MADE IN THE BOO KS OF MONICA GROUP OF CONCERNS AND THE GROUP IS ONLY A VENDOR OF THE APPELLANT AND IN NO WAY THE APPELLANT SHALL BE BENEFITTED BY THE SAID INFLATION OF SALARY AND IT DOES NOT RELATE TO THE BOOKS OF TH E APPELLANT. THEREFORE, THE ADDITION IF ANY DOES NOT ARISE IN TH E HANDS OF THE APPELLANT. 2. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS ALLEGED THAT THERE IS INFLATION OF EXPENDITURE BY WAY OF WITHDRAWAL FROM UNDISCLOSED B ANK ACCOUNTS TO THE TUNE OF RS. 22,32,03,400/- IN THE BOOKS OF T HE CONCERNS MAINTAINED BY MR. T JOHN RAJASEKAR, WHO IS ONLY VEN DOR OF THE APPELLANT AND IN NO WAY THE APPELLANT SHALL BE BENE FITTED BY THE SAID INFLATION OF EXPENDITURE AND IT DOES NOT RELAT E TO THE BOOKS OF THE APPELLANT. THEREFORE, THE ADDITION IF ANY DOES NOT ARISE IN THE HANDS OF THE APPELLANT. 3. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS ALLEGED THAT THERE IS AN AMOUNT OF RS. 25,10,05,761/- RELATING TO SUPPRESSION OF SALES IN THE BOOKS OF THE VENDOR, MR. T JOHN RAJASEKAR.IT IS A FACT THAT ALL THE PURCHASES MADE BY THE APPELLANT WERE PROPERLY ACCOUNTED IN T HE BOOKS OF THE ACCOUNTS AS PER THE PURCHASES MADE BY HIM AND THE A MOUNT SO ACCOUNTED HAS BEEN PAID THROUGH BANK AND THE ALLEGE D SUPPRESSION DOES NOT RELATE TO THE BOOKS OF THE APPELLANT. THER EFORE, THE ADDITION IF ANY DOES NOT ARISE IN THE HANDS OF THE APPELLANT. CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSIONS, THE LD. CIT(A) HELD AS UNDER:- 8.3. DURING THE COURSE OF APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS, WH ILE QUESTIONING THE VALIDITY OF ASSESSMENT U/S 153C, THE AR VEHEMEN TLY ARGUED THAT, IN THE ABSENCE OF INCRIMINATING MATERIAL, THE INITI ATION OF PROCEEDING UNDER SECTION 153C OF THE INCOME TAX ACT , AGAINST THE ASSESSEE-TRUST IS BAD IN LAW AND IS LIABLE TO BE QU ASHED. FURTHER, IT WAS ALSO POINTED OUT BY THE AR THAT, NO INCRIMINATI NG MATERIAL ITA NOS.2144-49-2157/ 2018 :- 11 -: COULD BE SEEN IN THE SEIZED DOCUMENTS AND IN FACT, THE SEIZED DOCUMENT ANN/GV/MMHRC/B&D/S 1 TO 4 DT. 26.11.2014 DENOTES THE SHIFT WISE DAILY COLLECTION MAINTAINED BY THE BILLING DEPARTMENT AND THE SEIZED DOCUMENT ANN/PV/MMHRC/ED/ S DT. 26.11.2014 &ANN/TR/MMHRC/B&D/S/P2 DT. 09.12.2014 HA VE BEEN EXAMINED BY THE DEPARTMENT DURING THE COURSE O F ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS AND FOUND NO DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE IMA GING TALLY DATA SERVER SL.NO. WCC4M2990716, WORKING COPY OF DA TA SERVER AND BACK DONE DATA BASE SERVER SL.NO.SNNA4NBQY1 WIT H THAT OF THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS PRODUCED. 8.4. IT WAS ALSO SUBMITTED DURING THE COURSE OF APP ELLATE PROCEEDINGS THAT, THE SEIZED DOCUMENT SL.NO.3 & 4 O F ANN/PV/MMHRC/ED/S DT.26.11.2014 ARE NOT RELATED TO MMHRC AND THEY ARE RELATED TO THE PERSONAL AFFAIRS OF DR. GURUSHANKAR FOR PREPARATION OF HIS INDIVIDUAL RETURN OF INCOME MAIN TAINED BY ONE SHRI.R.CHANDRAVEL RAJA AND SIMILARLY, SEIZED DOCUME NT ANN/PV/MMHRC/LS DT,26.11.2014 CONTAINS 167 LOOSE SH EETS WHICH BELONGS TO DR.GURUSHANKAR, MEENAKSHI HOSPITAL THANJAVUR, MEENAKSHI SUN SHINE AND LEDGER FOLIO COPY OF GURUSH ANKAR IN MMHRC AND THEY DO NOT RELATE TO S.R.TRUST. IT WAS S UBMITTED THAT THE SEIZED DOCUMENTS DO NOT REVEAL ANY ADVERSE DATA AND HENCE NO MENTION ABOUT THIS IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED B Y THE A.O. IN DENYING THE BENEFIT OF SECTION 11 BY INVOKING SECTI ON 13(1)(C) OF THE I.T.ACT WITHOUT ANY EVIDENCE/REASONS. IT WAS EXPLAI NED THAT, ALL THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS, TALLY DATA RELATING TO PURCHASE, SALES & UTILIZATION OF MEDICINES, CLOSING STOCK DETAILS AND OTHER SUBSIDIARY RECORDS WERE PRODUCED BEFORE THE A.O. AT THE TIME O F ASST.PROCEEDINGS AND AFTER VERIFICATION, NO DIFFERE NCE WAS FOUND BY THE A.O. AND THEREFORE NOTHING COULD BE MENTIONED I N THE ASST.ORDER. FURTHER IT WAS ALSO SUBMITTED THAT, THE SE FACTS HAVE BEEN EXPLAINED BEFORE THE AO AT THE STAGE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS ITSELF AND HAD REQUESTED THE A.O. TO DROP THE PROCE EDINGS INITIATED U/S 153C OF THE INCOME TAX ACT VIDE ITS LETTER DATE D 17.05.2016 AND 30.12.2016 SINCE THE ISSUE OF NOTICE ITSELF IS BAD IN LAW AND LIABLE TO BE QUASHED AS THERE WAS NO INCRIMINATING MATERIAL F OUND IN THE SEARCH OF BOTH 153A AND 153C PERSONS. IT WAS SUBMIT TED THAT, WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE RIGHT OF THE APPELLANT TO QUASH NOTICE U/S 153C, THE APPELLANT HAD COOPERATED WITH THE DEPARTM ENT FOR THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS FROM AB INITIO AND FILED THE RETURN OF INCOME IN RESPONSE TO THE NOTICE ISSUED U/S 153C. 8.5. IN SUPPORT OF HIS PLEA, THE AR PLACED RELIANCE ON THE JUDGMENT OF HONBLE APEX COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT-ILL VS.SIN HGAD TECHNICAL EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY (84 TAXMAN 290) AND THE SAME WH ICH WAS FURTHER REITERATED IN PARA26 OF THE M/S KUMAR AND C OMPANY VIDE ITA NO.463/PN/08 FOR THE A.Y.2000-01. ITA NOS.2144-49-2157/ 2018 :- 12 -: 8.6. THE SUBMISSIONS AND THE CASE LAWS RELIED UPON BY THE AR WERE CAREFULLY PERUSED. FROM THE ABOVE EXPLANATIONS AND CORRELATIONS, IT IS CLEARLY PROVED BEYOND DOUBT THAT THERE IS NO DEV IATION BETWEEN THE SEIZED MATERIALS AND THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS THER EBY PROVING THAT THERE IS NO INCRIMINATING EVIDENCE TO INVOKE THE PR OVISIONS OF SECTION 153C OF THE INCOME TAX ACT. 8.7. IT IS CLEAR FROM THE LANGUAGE OF SECTION 153C OF THE INCOME TAX ACT THAT BEFORE ISSUING NOTICE UNDER SECTION 153C O F THE INCOME TAX ACT, THE PRIMARY CONDITION THAT HAS TO BE FULFILLED IS THAT ANY MONEY, BULLION, DOCUMENTS ETC,, SEIZED SHOULD BELON G TO; OR ANY BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OR DOCUMENTS, SEIZED OR REQUISITIO NED, PERTAINS OR PERTAIN TO, OR ANY INFORMATION CONTAINED THEREIN, R ELATES TO, A PERSON OTHER THAN THE PERSON REFERRED TO IN SECTION 153A, THEN, THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OR DOCUMENTS OR ASSETS, SEIZED OR REQUISITIONED SHALL BE HANDED OVER TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAVIN G JURISDICTION OVER SUCH OTHER PERSON AND THAT ASSESSING OFFICER S HALL PROCEED AGAINST EACH SUCH OTHER PERSON AND ISSUE NOTICE AND ASSESS OR REASSESS THE INCOME OF THE OTHER PERSON IN ACCORDAN CE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 153A, IF, THAT ASSESSING OFFI CER IS SATISFIED THAT THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OR DOCUMENTS OR ASSETS SE IZED OR REQUISITIONED HAVE A BEARING ON THE DETERMINATION O F THE TOTAL INCOME OF SUCH OTHER PERSON FOR THE RELEVANT ASSESS MENT YEAR OR YEARS REFERRED TO IN SUB-SECTION (1) OF SECTION 153 A 8.8. AT THE FIRST INSTANCE, THE DOCUMENTS SEIZED DU RING THE COURSE OF SEARCH THOUGH NOT INCRIMINATING ACCORDING TO THE AP PELLANT BELONG TO THE SEARCHED PARTY, I AM OF THE VIEW THAT, THE R IGHT COURSE WOULD HAVE BEEN TO INITIATE PROCEEDINGS UNDER SECTION 153 A OF THE ACT AND NOT UNDER SECTION 153C. 8.9. AT THE SECOND INSTANCE, THE PROVISIONS OF SECT ION 153C CLEARLY PROVIDE THAT, THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OR DOCUMENTS SEI ZED OR REQUISITIONED SHOULD HAVE A BEARING ON THE DETERMIN ATION OF THE TOTAL INCOME OF SUCH OTHER PERSON FOR THE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEAR OR YEARS. IN THE INSTANT CASE, THE INFLATION OF EXP ENDITURE IN THE BOOKS OF SHRI.T.JOHN RAJASEKAR DO NOT HAVE ANY BEAR ING ON COMPLETION OF ASSESSMENT OF THE APPELLANT WHO IS ON LY A BUYER OF MEDICINES FROM SRI. T. JOHN RAJASEKAR. THE ADDITION S HAVE BEEN MADE MERELY ON PRESUMPTION. THE ALLEGED AMOUNT OF RS.25,1O,05,761/- RELATING TO SUPPRESSION OF SALES IN THE BOOKS OF THE VENDOR, MR.T.JOHN RAJASEKAR IS ALREADY ACCOUNTE D FOR IN THE BOOKS OF THE ASSESSEE-TRUST AS PER THE PURCHASES MA DE BY THE ASSESSEE-TRUST AND DISCLOSED TO THE DEPARTMENT PRIO R TO SEARCH. THESE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS THEREFORE COULD NOT BE TREA TED AS INCRIMINATING MATERIAL AGAINST THE ASSESSEE-TRUST. FURTHER, NO INCRIMINATING MATERIAL HAS BEEN DISCUSSED IN THE AS ST.ORDER TO SATISFY THE REQUIREMENT OF SECTION 153C OF THE I.T. ACT. ITA NOS.2144-49-2157/ 2018 :- 13 -: 8.1O.IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING DISCUSSION, THE INGRE DIENTS OF SECTION 153C HAVE NOT BEEN SATISFIED IN THIS CASE. CONSEQUE NTLY, THE NOTICES ISSUED UNDER SECTION 153C ARE NOT AS PER THE PROVIS IONS OF THE LAW AND ACCORDINGLY HELD THAT, THE PROCEEDINGS INITIATE D UNDER SECTION 153C IS ILLEGAL, BAD IN LAW AND WITHOUT JURISDICTIO N. 9. FURTHER, DURING THE COURSE OF APPELLATE PROCEEDI NGS, IT WAS BROUGHT TO MY NOTICE THAT, THE ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT HAVE BEEN COMPLETED U/S 143(3) FOR THE A.YRS.2009-10 TO 2011- 12 WHICH WERE SELECTED UNDER COMPULSORY SCRUTINY AND AFTER VERIFI CATION OF ALL BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS AND RECORDS PRODUCED, THE INCOME RETURNED WAS ACCEPTED. 9.1. THEREFORE, IT WAS SUBMITTED BY THE AR DURING T HE COURSE OF APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS THAT, THE AO MERELY MAKES AN ADDITION IN THE ASSESSMENT U/S 153C BASED ON CHANGE OF OPINION WH EN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS ARE ALREADY SUBJECTED TO SCRUTINY OF TH E AD IN THE REGULAR ASSESSMENT U/S 143(3) OF THE ACT. IN SUPPOR T OF HIS PLEA, THE AR RELIED ON THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY IN THE CASE OF CIT VS.CONTINENTAL WAREHOUSING CORPORAT ION LTD. [232 TAXMAN 270]. 9.2. THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE AR WERE CAREFULLY PERUS ED. I DO FIND FORCE IN HIS SUBMISSIONS. IN THE CASE UNDER CONSIDE RATION, THE ASSESSMENT WAS ALREADY COMPLETED U/S 143(3) OF THE I.T.ACT, 1961 BY ALLOWING THE EXEMPTION U/S 11 OF THE I.T.ACT, 19 61. NOW AGAIN, REVISITING THE CONCLUDED MATTER WITHOUT ANY ADDITIO NAL EVIDENCE EMANATING FROM THE INCRIMINATING MATERIAL IS NOT CO RRECT. EVEN ON MERITS THE LD. CIT(A) HELD THAT THERE IS NO MATERIAL TO PROVE THAT ASSESSEE TRUST DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY BENEFI TED ANY SPECIFIED PERSON AND HELD AS UNDER:- 10.16. THUS, BEFORE FORMING AN OPINION, THE A.O. MUST CONSIDER THE MATERIAL BEFORE HIM. THE DETECTION OF UNACCOUNTED I NCOME IN THE HANDS OF MONICA GROUP OF CONCERNS DOES NOT MAKE OUT ANY CASE THAT THE FUNDS OF THE TRUST WERE DIVERTED BY THE TR USTEE. THERE IS NO CONCRETE MATERIAL TO PROVE THAT INCOME OF THE TRUST HAD BEEN APPLIED DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY FOR THE BENEFIT OF ANY PROHI BITED PERSON. THE AC HAS NO CASE THAT THE OBJECTS OR THE ACTIVITIES OF T HE ASSESSEE-TRUST ARE NOT GENUINE OR OPPOSED TO PUBLIC POLICY. THE FR AUD SO STATED DOES NOT IN ANY WAY ESTABLISH THE INTENT OF SIPHONI NG OF FUNDS. ITA NOS.2144-49-2157/ 2018 :- 14 -: THEREFORE, THE ALLEGATION THAT THE AMOUNT WAS SIPHO NED AND USED FOR PERSONAL PURPOSE IS WITHOUT ANY BASIS. 10.17. IT IS NOT SUFFICIENT ON THE PART OF THE AC T O SIMPLY RAISE A DOUBT ABOUT THE SIPHONING OF TRUST FUND. THE AC WIL L HAVE TO PROVE TO THE HILT, ON THE BASIS OF POSITIVE EVIDENCE BROU GHT ON RECORD, THAT THE TRUST HAS COMMITTED A VIOLATION OF THE PROVISIO NS OF SECTION 13 OF THE ACT. THE AO HAS ACTED UPON GROSSLY INADEQUATE M ATERIAL AND HIS CONCLUSIONS ARE IN THE REALM OF SUSPICION, CONJ ECTURE AND SURMISE. 10.18. IN VIEW OF THE AFORESAID DISCUSSION, I FIN D THAT NONE OF THE OBJECTIONS AND THE GROUNDS WHICH HAVE BEEN TAKEN BY THE AD IN IMPUGNED ASST.ORDERS FOR DENYING THE EXEMPTION U/S 11 & 12 CAN BE HELD TO BE SUSTAINABLE EITHER ON FACTS OR IN LAW , SO AS TO HOLD THAT THE ACTIVITIES OF THE TRUST ARE EITHER NOT GENUINE OR THEY ARE NOT BEING CARRIED OUT IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE OBJECTS WITHIN T HE SCOPE OF SECTION 12AA. MOREOVER, NOTHING HAS BEEN BROUGHT ON RECORD TO SHOW THAT THE APPLICATION OF THE INCOME OF THE TRUS T FROM YEAR TO YEAR HAS NOT BEEN MADE TOWARDS ATTAINMENT OF THE OB JECTS I.E. FOR THE CHARITABLE PURPOSES, IF NO DISCREPANCY HAS BEEN FOUND IN THE INCOME AND EXPENDITURE ACCOUNT AND THERE IS A PROPE R APPLICATION OF INCOME TOWARDS THE OBJECTS IN ACCORDANCE WITH TH E PROVISIONS OF SECTION 11, THEN NEITHER THE CHARITABLE NATURE OF T HE TRUST SHOULD BE DOUBTED NOR IT CAN BE HELD THAT ITS ACTIVITIES ARE NOT GENUINE OR ARE NOT IN ACCORDANCE. CONSIDERING THE ABOVE FACT, NO P AYMENT HAS BEEN MADE TO ANY PERSON REFERRED TO IN SECTION 13(3 ), NO DISALLOWANCE IS CALLED FOR. THEREFORE I HOLD THAT T HE ASSESSEE-TRUST IS ENTITLED FOR EXEMPTION U/S 11 OF THE ACT. WE FIND THAT FINDINGS OF THE LD. CIT(A) ARE BASED ON THE APPRECIATION OF MATERIAL ON RECORD. WE ARE UNABLE TO DISCERN FRO M THE ASSESSMENT ORDER THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD MADE AVAILAB LE TO THE ASSESSEE- TRUST THE INFORMATION AVAILABLE WITH HIM ALLEGED T O BE AGAINST THE ASSESSEE TRUST FOR THE PURPOSE OF REBUTTAL. THERE IS NO MATERIAL BROUGHT ON RECORD PROVING THE NEXUS BETWEEN WITHD RAWAL OF THE AMOUNT FROM BANK ACCOUNT OF T. JOHN RAJASEKAR AND THE DEPOSITS ITA NOS.2144-49-2157/ 2018 :- 15 -: MADE IN THE BANK ACCOUNTS OF DR. GURUSANKAR. ADMIT TEDLY, EVEN THE SAID T. JOHN RAJASEKAR HAD NOT ADMITTED THAT MONEY WAS PAID BACK TO MANAGING TRUSTEE OF THE ASSESSEE TRUST. EVEN I F, WE ARE TO BELIEVE THAT SAID SHRI. T. JOHN RAJASEKAR WAS INDULGING IN PROVIDING ACCOMMODATION ENTRIES, IT CANNOT BE CONCLUDED THAT HE HAD PROVIDED ACCOMMODATION ENTRIES TO ASSESSEE TRUST, IN THE AB SENCE OF ANY EVIDENCE TO THIS EFFECT. EVEN THE MATERIALS SEIZED DOES NOT INDICATE ANY INFLATION OF PURCHASE OF ASSESSEE TRUST. THE DEPOSITS IN THE BANK ACCOUNT OF DR. GURUSANKAR STANDS EXPLAINED. MORE I MPORTANTLY, IN THE PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE INCOME TAX SETTLEMENT COMMI SSION IN THE CASE OF T. JOHN RAJASEKAR, THE CIT GAVE FINDING T HAT THERE IS NO SUPPORTING EVIDENCE OF RETURNING CASH WITHDRAWN BY T. JOHN RAJASEKAR TO MMHRC. THE ABOVE MATERIALS COULD CLEARLY ESTABLI SH THAT THERE IS NO MATERIALS TO PROVE THE INFLATION OF EXPENDITURE IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE TRUST. THE HONBLE GUJARAT HIGH COURT IN T HE CASE OF PCIT VS. TEJUA ROHITKUMAR KAPADIA, (2018) 94 TAXMANN.COM 324 HELD THAT WHEN THE PURCHASES MADE BY THE ASSESSEE WERE DULY S UPPORTED BY BILLS AND PAYMENTS WERE MADE BY ACCOUNT PAYEE CHEQU E AND THERE WAS NO EVIDENCE TO SHOW THAT AMOUNT WAS RECYCLED BA CK TO THE ASSESSEE MOREOVER WHEN THE SALES OUT OF THE PURCHAS ES WAS ACCEPTED BY THE REVENUE, THE PURCHASES CANNOT BE TREATED AS BOGUS. THIS DECISION OF THE HONBLE GUJARAT HIGH COURT WAS AFFI RMED BY HONBLE ITA NOS.2144-49-2157/ 2018 :- 16 -: SUPREME COURT BY DISMISSAL OF SLP IN PCIT VS. TEJU A ROHITKUMAR KAPADIA, (2018) 94 TAXMANN.COM 325. THERE IS LONG LINE OF AUTHORITIES FOLLOWING THE SIMILAR RATIO. THE FACTS OF THE PRESE NT CASE ARE IDENTICAL TO THE CASE OF TEJUA ROHITKUMAR KAPADIA (SUPRA). IN T HE LIGHT OF THE SETTLED POSITION OF LAW, IT CANNOT BE CONCLUDED TH AT ASSESSEE TRUST HAD INDULGED IN THE ACT OF INFLATION OF THE COST OF PUR CHASE OF PHARMACY AND SURGICAL ITEMS. THUS, THE ALLEGATIONS OF THE ASSES SING OFFICER THAT THE FUNDS OF THE ASSESSEE TRUST HAVE BEEN DIVERTED FOR THE BENEFIT OF SPECIFIED PERSON OF THE ASSESSEE TRUST REMAINS UNS UBSTANTIATED. THEREFORE, IT CANNOT BE SAID THAT THE BENEFIT HAD ACCRUED DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY TO THE MANAGING TRUSTEE DR. GURUSANKAR. THEREFORE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS NOT JUSTIFIED IN DENYING EXEM PTION U/S.11 OF THE ACT ON MERE SURMISES WITHOUT ANY CONCRETE EVIDENCE . 10. EVEN OTHERWISE, THE QUESTION THAT MAY ARISE I S THAT WHETHER THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS JUSTIFIED IN DENYING THE E XEMPTION UNDER SECTION 11 OF THE ACT IN THE PROCEEDINGS U/S.143(3) R.W.S.153C OF THE ACT. THE ASSESSEE TRUST FIRMLY CONTENDED DURING T HE COURSE OF PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE CIT(APPEALS) THAT THE SEIZED MATERIALS FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH PROCEEDINGS WAS DULY EX PLAINED AND NO MATERIAL WHICH IS IN THE NATURE OF INCRIMINATING WA S FOUND. THIS ITA NOS.2144-49-2157/ 2018 :- 17 -: SUBMISSION WAS ACCEPTED BY THE CIT(APPEALS). NOTHI NG WAS SHOWN TO US CONTROVERTING THIS SUBMISSION. NOW IT IS SETTLE D POSITION OF LAW THAT EVEN IN THE PROCEEDINGS U/S.153C OF THE ACT IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY INCRIMINATING DOCUMENTS OR EVIDENCE DISCOVERED DURI NG THE COURSE OF SEARCH U/S.132 OF THE ACT IN THE CASE OF SEARCHED P ERSON AGAINST THE ASSESSEE, THE JURISDICTION UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 153C OF THE ACT CANNOT BE ASSUMED. THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. SINGHAD TECHNICAL EDUCATION SOCIETY, 84 TAXMAN 290 HELD AS FOLLOWS:- IN THIS BEHALF, IT WAS NOTED BY THE ITAT THA T AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 153C OF THE ACT, INCR IMINATING MATERIAL WHICH WAS SEIZED HAD TO PERTAIN TO THE ASS ESSMENT YEARS IN QUESTION AND IT IS AN UNDISPUTED FACT THAT THE DOCUMENTS WHICH WERE SEIZED DID NOT ESTABLISH ANY C O- RELATION, DOCUMENT-WISE, WITH THESE FOUR ASSESSMENT YEARS. SINCE THIS REQUIREMENT UNDER SECTION 153C OF THE AC T IS ESSENTIAL FOR ASSESSMENT UNDER THAT PROVISION, IT B ECOMES A JURISDICTIONAL FACT. WE FIND THIS REASONING TO BE L OGICAL AND VALID, HAVING REGARD TO THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 1 53C OF THE ACT. PARA 9 OF THE ORDER OF THE ITAT REVEALS THAT T HE ITAT HAD SCANNED THROUGH THE SATISFACTION NOTE AND THE MATER IAL WHICH WAS DISCLOSED THEREIN WAS CULLED OUT AND IT SHOWED THAT THE SAME BELONGS TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2004-05 OR THEREAFT ER. AFTER TAKING NOTE OF THE MATERIAL IN PARA 9 OF THE ORDER, THE POSITION THAT EMERGES THERE FROM IS DISCUSSED IN PA RA 10. IT WAS SPECIFICALLY RECORDED THAT THE COUNSEL FOR THE DEPARTMENT COULD NOT POINT OUT TO THE CONTRARY. IT IS FOR THIS REASON THE HIGH COURT HAS ALSO GIVEN ITS IMPRIMATUR TO THE AFO RESAID APPROACH OF THE TRIBUNAL. THAT APART, LEARNED SENIO R COUNSEL APPEARING FOR THE RESPONDENT, ARGUED THAT NOTICE IN RESPECT OF ASSESSMENT YEARS 2000-01 AND 2001-02 WAS EVEN TIME BARRED. ITA NOS.2144-49-2157/ 2018 :- 18 -: IN THE PRESENT CASE AS HELD BY US SUPRA, THAT NO I NCRIMINATING MATERIAL WAS FOUND AGAINST THE ASSESSEE TRUST DURING THE SEA RCH OF DR.GURUSANKAR. APPLYING THE RATIO OF THE DECISION O F SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF SINGHAD TECHNICAL EDUCATION SOCIETY (S UPRA) WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER OUGHT NOT HAVE ASSUMED THE JURISDICTION U/S.153C OF THE ACT. 11. THUS, VIEWED FROM ANY ANGLE THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT ORDERS CANNOT BE SUSTAINED IN THE EYES OF LAW. THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) IS BASED ON THE DUE APPRECIATION OF MA TERIAL ON RECORD AND IN CONSONANCE WITH THE SETTLED PRINCIPLE OF LAW AND THEREFORE WE DO NOT FIND ANY REASON TO INTERFERE WITH THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A). ACCORDINGLY, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE IS DI SMISSED. ITA NOS. 2145, 2146, 2147, 2148, 2149 & 2157/CHNY/ 2018 FOR ASSESSMENT YEARS , 2010-11, 2011-12, 2 012-13, 2013-14, 2014-15 AND 2015-2016. 12. SINCE, THE FACTS IN THE PRESENT APPEALS ARE IDENTI CAL TO THE FACTS IN ITA NO.2144/CHNY/2018, FOR THE REASONS MENTIONED THEREIN, WE DISMISS THE APPEALS FILED BY THE REVENUE ON THE SA ME LINES INDICATED IN APPEAL ITA NO.2144/CHNY/2018 SUPRA. HENCE, THE A BOVE CAPTIONED APPEALS FILED BY THE REVENUE ARE DISMISSED. ITA NOS.2144-49-2157/ 2018 :- 19 -: 13. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEALS FILED BY THE REVENU E IN I.T.A. NOS.2144, 2145, 2146, 2147, 2148, 2149 & 2157/CHNY/ 2018 FOR ASSESSMENT YEARS 2009-10, 2010-11, 2011-12, 201 2-13, 2013-14, 2014-15 AND 2015-2016 ARE DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON 27 TH DAY OF JUNE, 2019, AT CHENNAI. SD/- SD/- ( . . . ) (N.R.S. GANESAN) /JUDICIAL MEMBER ( ) (INTURI RAMA RAO) /A CCOUNTANT MEMBER - ) / CHENNAI . / DATED:27TH JUNE, 2019. KV $ &*01 21!* / COPY TO: 1 . '# / APPELLANT 3. ( 3* () / CIT(A) 5. 16 &*7 / DR 2. &' '# / RESPONDENT 4. ( 3* / CIT 6. 8 9) / GF