Sri Vigneswara Vari Devasthanam Sangam, Vijayawada V. THE CIT , Vijayawada

ITA 216/VIZ/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 130 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 9909 (ITAT-VISAKHAPATNAM)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 3 month(s) 17 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 26-08-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 09-05-2014
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: G GURUSAMY
• Assessee Lawyers: A C GANGAIAH
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard; Maximum Marginal Rate; Benefit of exemption
• Section: 143(3); 142(1); 80IB; 12A; 12AA; 147; 148; 263; 11

Judgement Text

ITA NOS.212 TO 215/VIZAG/2014 SRI LAKSHMIGANAPATHI SEVA SAMITI, VIJAYAWADA ITA NOS.216 TO 219/VIZAG/2014 SRI VIGNESWARA VARI DEVASTHANA SANGAM 1 , , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, VISAKHAPATNAM BENCH, VISAKHAPATNAM . , . , $ BEFORE SHRI V. DURGA RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI G. MANJUNATHA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ./I.T.A.NOS.212 TO 215/VIZAG/2014 ( / ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2007-08 TO 2010-11) SREE LAKSHMIGANAPATHI SEVA SAMITI VIJAYAWADA VS. CIT, VIJAYAWADA [PAN: AABAS0554P ] ( % / APPELLANT) ( &'% / RESPONDENT) ./I.T.A.NOS.216 TO 219/VIZAG/2014 ( / ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2007-08 TO 2010-11) SRI VIGNESWARA VARI DEVASTHAN SANGAM, VIJAYAWADA VS. CIT, VIJAYAWADA [PAN: AABAS0555N ] ( % / APPELLANT) ( &'% / RESPONDENT) ITA NOS.212 TO 215/VIZAG/2014 SRI LAKSHMIGANAPATHI SEVA SAMITI, VIJAYAWADA ITA NOS.216 TO 219/VIZAG/2014 SRI VIGNESWARA VARI DEVASTHANA SANGAM 2 / APPELLANT BY : SHRI A.C. GANGAIAH, AR / RESPONDENT BY : SHRI G. GURUSAMY, DR / DATE OF HEARING : 18.08.2016 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 26.08.2016 / O R D E R PER G. MANJUNATHA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: THESE 8 APPEALS FILED BY TWO DIFFERENT ASSESSEES A RE DIRECTED AGAINST SEPARATE, BUT IDENTICAL ORDERS OF THE CIT, VIJAYAWADA U/S 263 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (HEREINAFTER CALLED AS 'TH E ACT') FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2007-08 TO 2010-11. SINCE, THE FA CTS ARE IDENTICAL AND ISSUES ARE COMMON, THEY ARE HEARD TOGETHER AND DISP OSED OFF, BY THIS COMMON ORDER FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE. 2. THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSE E IS A SOCIETY REGISTERED UNDER THE SOCIETIES REGISTRATION ACT ON 27.5.1997 FILED ITS RETURN OF INCOME FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2007-08 T O 2010-11 ADMITTING NIL TOTAL INCOME AFTER CLAIMING EXEMPTION S AS PER PROVISIONS OF SECTION 11 TO 13 OF THE ACT. THE RETURNS WERE PROC ESSED U/S 143(1) OF THE ACT. SUBSEQUENTLY, THE ASSESSMENTS WERE RE-OPE NED U/S 147 OF THE ACT, WITH A REASON THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS CLAIMED EX EMPTION U/S 11 OF THE ACT, WITHOUT ANY REGISTRATION U/S 12AA OF THE A CT, ACCORDINGLY, THE ITA NOS.212 TO 215/VIZAG/2014 SRI LAKSHMIGANAPATHI SEVA SAMITI, VIJAYAWADA ITA NOS.216 TO 219/VIZAG/2014 SRI VIGNESWARA VARI DEVASTHANA SANGAM 3 INCOME CHARGEABLE TO TAX HAS BEEN ESCAPED ASSESSMEN T FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08 TO 2010-11. IN RESPONSE TO NOTICE U/S 148 OF THE ACT, THE ASSESSEE SOCIETY HAS FILED REVISED RET URN OF INCOME FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08 TO 2010-11 DECLARING NIL TO TAL INCOME AFTER CLAIMING EXEMPTION U/S 11 OF THE ACT. THE CASE HAS BEEN SELECTED FOR SCRUTINY AND ACCORDINGLY, NOTICE U/S 143(2) OF THE ACT AND 142(1) OF THE ACT ALONG WITH QUESTIONNAIRE WERE ISSUED TO THE ASS ESSEE. IN RESPONSE TO NOTICES, THE AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE OF THE AS SESSEE APPEARED FROM TIME TO TIME AND FURNISHED RELEVANT INFORMATION. T HE A.O. AFTER CONSIDERING THE INFORMATION SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESS EE COMPLETED THE ASSESSMENT U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 147 OF THE ACT AND REJ ECTED EXEMPTION CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE U/S 11 OF THE ACT AND ASSES SED INCOME AS AOP. 3. THE CIT, VIJAYAWADA ISSUED A SHOW CAUSE NOTICE D ATED 23.1.2014 AND ASKED TO EXPLAIN WHY THE ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSE D BY THE A.O. U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 147 OF THE ACT, SHALL NOT BE REVISED UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 263 OF THE ACT. THE CIT, PROPOSED TO REVIS E THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, FOR THE REASON THAT ON EXAMINATION OF ASSESS MENT RECORDS, CERTAIN OMISSIONS AND COMMISSIONS WERE NOTICED WHICH RENDER ED THE ASSESSMENT ORDER ERRONEOUS, IN SO FAR AS IT IS PREJ UDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF THE REVENUE WITHIN THE SCOPE OF SECTION 263 OF T HE ACT. THE CIT, IN THE SAID SHOW CAUSE NOTICE, OBSERVED THAT THE A.O. ACCEPTED THE ITA NOS.212 TO 215/VIZAG/2014 SRI LAKSHMIGANAPATHI SEVA SAMITI, VIJAYAWADA ITA NOS.216 TO 219/VIZAG/2014 SRI VIGNESWARA VARI DEVASTHANA SANGAM 4 EXEMPTION CLAIM MADE BY THE ASSESSEE ON CERTAIN DON ATIONS AS DONATIONS FOR SPECIFIC PURPOSE FOR THE IMPUGNED ASS ESSMENT YEARS 2007- 08 TO 2010-11 WITHOUT THERE BEING ANY MATERIAL TO S HOW THAT THE DONATIONS RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE CORPUS DONAT IONS. THE CIT, FURTHER, OBSERVED THAT ALTHOUGH THE A.O. HAS REJECT ED ASSESSEES EXEMPTION CLAIM AND HAD ASSESSED ITS INCOME UNDER T HE HEAD INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY AND OTHER SOURCES, THE A.O. HA S NOT TAXED THE INCOME AT THE MAXIMUM MARGINAL RATE FOR ANY OF THES E ASSESSMENT YEARS WHEN ASSESSEES STATUS IS AN AOP IN THE ABSEN CE OF REGISTRATION U/S 12A OF THE ACT AD ALSO THE SHARES OF ITS MEMBER S ARE INDETERMINATE. SIMILARLY, THE CIT FURTHER OBSERVED THAT ON VERIFIC ATION OF STATEMENT OF COMPUTATION OF TOTAL INCOME FILED ALONG WITH RETURN OF INCOME, IT IS NOTICED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS ADMITTED INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY OF ` 2,30,551/- WHEREAS THE A.O. HAS ASSESSED INCOME FRO M HOUSE PROPERTY AT ` 1,77,834/-. THE CIT FURTHER OBSERVED THAT THE ASS ESSEE HAS ADVANCED AN AMOUNT OF ` 10 LAKHS TO GOPI SETTY MALLAYA & COMPANY, THE PRESIDENT OF THE ASSESSEE AOP. THE A.O. HAS FA ILED TO EXAMINE THE NATURE OF PAYMENT MADE TO GOPI SETTY MALLAYA & COMP ANY. THE A.O. WITHOUT EXAMINING ABOVE ISSUES, SIMPLY COMPLETED AS SESSMENT BY MAKING CERTAIN ADHOC DISALLOWANCES WHICH RENDERED T HE ASSESSMENT ORDER ERRONEOUS IN SO FAR AS IT IS PREJUDICIAL TO T HE INTEREST OF THE ITA NOS.212 TO 215/VIZAG/2014 SRI LAKSHMIGANAPATHI SEVA SAMITI, VIJAYAWADA ITA NOS.216 TO 219/VIZAG/2014 SRI VIGNESWARA VARI DEVASTHANA SANGAM 5 REVENUE IN TERMS OF SECTION 263 OF THE ACT. WITH T HESE OBSERVATIONS, ISSUED A SHOW CAUSE NOTICE DATED 23.1.2014 AND ASKE D TO EXPLAIN WHY THE ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 147 O F THE ACT FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08, 2008-09, 2009-10 & 2010-11 SHALL NOT BE REVISED UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 263 OF THE ACT. 4. IN RESPONSE TO SHOW CAUSE NOTICE, THE ASSESSEE S UBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED BY THE A.O. U/S 143(3) R.W. S. 147 OF THE ACT IS NOT ERRONEOUS, IN SO FAR AS IT IS PREJUDICIAL TO TH E INTEREST OF THE REVENUE, AS THE A.O. HAS EXAMINED ALL THE ISSUES POINTED OUT IN THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE AT THE TIME OF COMPLETION OF ASSESSMENT. TH E ASSESSEE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT IT HAS FURNISHED BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS A ND OTHER RELEVANT INFORMATION AT THE TIME OF ASSESSMENT, IN RESPONSE TO A SHOW CAUSE NOTICE ISSUED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON VARIOUS O CCASIONS. THE A.O. HAS ISSUED SHOW CAUSE NOTICE AND ASKED DETAILS ABOU T THE CORPUS DONATIONS, INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY AND ADVANCE G IVEN TO GOPISETTY MALLAIAH & CO. FOR WHICH THE ASSESSEE HAS FURNISHED NECESSARY DETAILS TO THE SATISFACTION OF THE A.O. THE A.O. AFTER EXAMIN ING THE DETAILS FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE HAS ACCEPTED THE EXPLANAT ION AND ASSESSED THE INCOME WHICH CANNOT BE TERMED AS ERRONEOUS IN S O FAR AS IT IS PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF THE REVENUE. ITA NOS.212 TO 215/VIZAG/2014 SRI LAKSHMIGANAPATHI SEVA SAMITI, VIJAYAWADA ITA NOS.216 TO 219/VIZAG/2014 SRI VIGNESWARA VARI DEVASTHANA SANGAM 6 5. THE ASSESSEE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT IN RESPECT O F MAXIMUM MARGINAL RATE OF TAX, THE ASSESSEE IS A REGISTERED SOCIETY UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF SOCIETIES REGISTRATION ACT WITH THE M AIN OBJECTIVE OF CHARITABLE AND RELIGIOUS ACTIVITIES CANNOT SHARE IT S SURPLUS AMONG ITS MEMBERS, ACCORDINGLY, APPLICABILITY OF MAXIMUM MARG INAL RATE FOR THE SURPLUS INCOME DOES NOT ARISE. THIS FACT THAT WAS BROUGHT TO THE NOTICE OF THE A.O. AND THE A.O. AFTER SATISFIED WITH THE E XPLANATION FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE, ASSESSED THE INCOME IN THE CAPACITY O F AOP AND APPLIED THE RATE OF TAX APPLICABLE TO AOP/INDIVIDUAL, THERE FORE, THE ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED BY THE A.O. IS NOT ERRONEOUS IN SO FAR AS IT IS PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF THE REVENUE. AS REGARDS THE CORPUS DONATIONS, THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE SOCIETY HAS COLLECTED C ORPUS DONATIONS FROM MEMBERS OF PUBLIC FOR THE PURPOSE OF ESTABLISHMENT OF OLD AGE HOMES AND CONSTRUCTION OF TEMPLE BUILDING AND THE DONORS HAVE DONATED THE AMOUNT WITH A SPECIFIC DIRECTION TO USE THE FUNDS F OR THE OBJECTS OF THE TRUST AND ACCORDINGLY IT HAS RIGHTLY TREATED SPECIF IC DONATIONS RECEIVED FROM THE PUBLIC AS CORPUS DONATIONS. THE A.O. AFTE R EXAMINING THE RELEVANT DETAILS HAS ACCEPTED THE EXPLANATION OF TH E ASSESSEE AND EXCLUDED THE CORPUS DONATIONS FROM THE GROSS INCOME FOR THE PURPOSE OF TAXATION. THE ASSESSEE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT ALL THESE FACTS WERE BROUGHT TO THE NOTICE OF THE A.O. AT THE TIME OF AS SESSMENT, THE A.O. ITA NOS.212 TO 215/VIZAG/2014 SRI LAKSHMIGANAPATHI SEVA SAMITI, VIJAYAWADA ITA NOS.216 TO 219/VIZAG/2014 SRI VIGNESWARA VARI DEVASTHANA SANGAM 7 BEING SATISFIED WITH THE DETAILS FURNISHED BY THE A SSESSEE COMPLETED THE ASSESSMENT, THEREFORE, THE ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED BY THE A.O. CANNOT BE TERMED AS ERRONEOUS IN SO FAR AS IT IS PREJUDICI AL TO THE INTEREST OF THE REVENUE. 6. THE CIT AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE HELD THAT THE ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED BY THE A.O. U/S 14 3(3) R.W.S. 147 OF THE ACT IS ERRONEOUS IN SO FAR AS IT IS PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF THE REVENUE, AS THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS FAILED TO EXA MINE THE ISSUES POINTED OUT IN THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE WITH REFERENCE TO NECESSARY DETAILS BEFORE ALLOWING EXEMPTION TOWARDS CORPUS DONATIONS AND ALSO TAXING THE INCOME UNDER NORMAL RATE OF TAX APPLICABLE TO INDIV IDUAL/AOP. THE CIT, FURTHER, OBSERVED THAT THE A.O. HAS FAILED TO EXAMI NE THE ALLOWABILITY OF EXEMPTION OF CORPUS DONATIONS, AS SECTION 11(1)(D) R.W.S. 12 OF THE ACT PROVIDES WITH ANY VOLUNTARY CONTRIBUTION RECEIVED B Y THE TRUST OR INSTITUTION, WHERE SUCH CONTRIBUTION IS MADE WITH A SPECIFIC DIRECTION THAT THE SAME SHALL FORM PART OF THE CORPUS OF THE TRUST OR DISTRIBUTION, SHALL BE EXEMPT FROM TAX, HOWEVER, THE A.O. WITHOUT EXAMI NING THE ABOVE ASPECTS SIMPLY ACCEPTED EXPLANATIONS OFFERED BY THE ASSESSEE WITHOUT GOING INTO THE DETAILS SUCH AS TESTAMENTARY INSTRUC TIONS WHICH IS NECESSARY TO PROVE THE DONATIONS IS WITH A SPECIFIC DIRECTION OR NOT. ITA NOS.212 TO 215/VIZAG/2014 SRI LAKSHMIGANAPATHI SEVA SAMITI, VIJAYAWADA ITA NOS.216 TO 219/VIZAG/2014 SRI VIGNESWARA VARI DEVASTHANA SANGAM 8 7. THE CIT, FURTHER, OBSERVED THAT THE A.O. WRONGLY TAXED INCOME OF AOP SOCIETY UNDER NORMAL RATE OF TAX APPLICABLE TO INDIVIDUAL/AOP, EVEN THOUGH THE ASSESSEE AOP IS NOT REGISTERED UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 12A OF THE ACT AND ALSO THE SHARES OF ITS M EMBERS ARE INDETERMINATE. AS REGARDS ADVANCE GIVEN TO GOPISET TY MALLAIAH & CO., THE A.O. FAILED TO EXAMINE AS TO WHETHER ANY PART O F INCOME OR PROPERTY OF THE ASSESSEE WAS DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY USED FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE PRESIDENT OR ON WHAT GROUND THE ASSESSEES FUND WAS ADVANCED TO THE PRESIDENT. WITHOUT EXAMINING THE RELEVANT DETAILS, SIMPLY ACCEPTED THE EXPLANATIONS OFFERED BY THE ASSESSEE WHICH RENDERS ASSESSMENT ORDER ERRONEOUS IN SO FAR AS IT IS PREJUDICIAL TO THE INT EREST OF THE REVENUE. SIMILARLY, THE CIT FURTHER HELD THAT IN SO FAR AS I NCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY IS CONCERNED, THERE IS A DIFFERENCE OF ` 52,717/- IN RESPECT OF INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY. THE A.O. WITHOUT EXAMI NING THE ABOVE DETAILS SIMPLY ACCEPTED INCOME OF ` 1,77,834/- AS AGAINST THE CORRECT INCOME OF ` 2,30,551/- WHICH RENDER THE ASSESSMENT ORDER ERRON EOUS IN SO FAR AS IT IS PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF THE REVENUE. WITH THESE OBSERVATIONS, SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED BY THE A.O . U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 147 OF THE ACT, FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2007-08 TO 2010-11, WITH A DIRECTION TO RE-DO THE ASSESSMENT DE-NOVO IN ACCORD ANCE WITH LAW AND THE ESTABLISHED PROCEDURES AFTER GIVING THE ASSESSE E A REASONABLE ITA NOS.212 TO 215/VIZAG/2014 SRI LAKSHMIGANAPATHI SEVA SAMITI, VIJAYAWADA ITA NOS.216 TO 219/VIZAG/2014 SRI VIGNESWARA VARI DEVASTHANA SANGAM 9 OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD. AGGRIEVED WITH THE CIT ORDER, THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 8. THE LD. A.R. FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED BY THE A.O. U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 147 OF THE ACT IS NOT ERRONEOUS IN SO FAR AS IT IS PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF THE REVENUE, AS THE A.O. HAS EXAMINED ALL THE ISSUES POINTED OUT BY THE CIT, IN THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE. THE A.R. FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE CIT WA S NOT CORRECT IN DIRECTING THE A.O. TO CONDUCT FURTHER ENQUIRIES WIT H REGARD TO THE ISSUES WHICH WERE ALREADY EXAMINED BY THE A.O. BY ISSUING DETAILED QUESTIONNAIRE AT THE TIME OF ASSESSMENT. IT IS FUR THER SUBMITTED THAT THE A.O. HAS EXAMINED THE ISSUE OF CORPUS DONATIONS, AP PLICABILITY OF MAXIMUM MARGINAL RATE OF TAX IN RESPECT OF SURPLUS INCOME, AND ADVANCE GIVEN TO GOPISETTY MALLAIAH & CO.. THE A.O . AFTER SATISFIED WITH THE DETAILS FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE COMPLETED THE ASSESSMENT; THEREFORE, THE ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED BY THE A.O. CANNOT BE TERMED AS ERRONEOUS IN SO FAR AS IT IS PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF THE REVENUE. THE LD. A.R. FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE CIT CANNOT TAKE UP REVISION ON THE ISSUES, WHICH WERE ALREADY EXAMINED BY THE A.O. BY HOLDING THAT THE ISSUES WERE NOT EXAMINED BY THE A.O. ACCORDING TO T HE SATISFACTION OF THE CIT. ONCE THE A.O. HAS CALLED FOR SPECIFIED DE TAILS ABOUT THE ISSUES ON WHICH THE CIT WANTS FURTHER VERIFICATION, A GENE RAL PRESUMPTION IS ITA NOS.212 TO 215/VIZAG/2014 SRI LAKSHMIGANAPATHI SEVA SAMITI, VIJAYAWADA ITA NOS.216 TO 219/VIZAG/2014 SRI VIGNESWARA VARI DEVASTHANA SANGAM 10 DRAWN THAT THE A.O. HAS VERIFIED THE DETAILS AND AF TER SATISFIED WITH THE EXPLANATION FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE ACCEPTED THE EXPLANATION AND ACCORDINGLY, THE CIT IS NOT CORRECT IN STATING THAT THE A.O. HAS NOT CONDUCTED PROPER ENQUIRY OF THE ISSUE AT THE TIME O F COMPLETION OF ASSESSMENT. 9. THE A.R. FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT AS REGARDS CORPU S DONATIONS IS CONCERNED; THE ASSESSEE HAS COLLECTED CORPUS DONATI ONS FROM MEMBERS OF PUBLIC FOR THE PURPOSE OF ESTABLISHMENT OF OLD A GE HOME AND CONSTRUCTION OF BUILDING FOR WHICH NECESSARY DETAIL S ARE FURNISHED TO THE A.O. IN SO FAR AS APPLICABILITY OF MAXIMUM MARGINA L RATE OF TAX IS CONCERNED, THE ASSESSEE BEING A SOCIETY REGISTERED UNDER THE SOCIETIES REGISTRATION ACT IS PROHIBITED FROM DISTRIBUTION OF ANY DIVIDEND/SURPLUS AMONG ITS MEMBERS AND HENCE, THE QUESTION OF DISTRI BUTION OF SURPLUS TO ITS MEMBERS AND DETERMINATION OF SHARE OF EACH MEMB ER DOES NOT ARISE. ONCE THE SOCIETY IS REGISTERED UNDER THE SOCIETIES REGISTRATION ACT, THE INCOME OF SUCH SOCIETY SHALL BE ASSESSED AS AOP AND THE RATE OF TAX APPLICABLE TO SUCH SOCIETY IS NORMAL RATE OF TAX AP PLICABLE TO AOP/INDIVIDUAL. IN SO FAR AS ADVANCE TO SHRI GOPIS ETTY MALLAIAH & CO., THE A.R. SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS ADVANCED A SUM OF ` 10 LAKHS FOR THE PURPOSE OF CONSTRUCTION OF OLD AGE HOME ON THE SITE PURCHASED ITA NOS.212 TO 215/VIZAG/2014 SRI LAKSHMIGANAPATHI SEVA SAMITI, VIJAYAWADA ITA NOS.216 TO 219/VIZAG/2014 SRI VIGNESWARA VARI DEVASTHANA SANGAM 11 BY THE SAMITI DURING THE FINANCIAL YEAR ENDING 31.3 .2010. THIS FACT WAS BROUGHT TO THE NOTICE OF THE A.O. AND THE A.O. HAS VERIFIED THIS INFORMATION AND CHOSEN TO ACCEPT THE EXPLANATION OF FERED BY THE ASSESSEE. SIMILARLY, AS REGARD THE INCOME FROM HOU SE PROPERTY, THE A.R. SUBMITTED THAT THERE IS A DIFFERENCE OF ` 52,717/- IN RESPECT OF INCOME ASSESSED BY THE A.O. TO THE INCOME DECLARED BY THE ASSESSEE UNDER THE HEAD INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY FOR WHICH THE ASS ESSEE HAS NO EXPLANATIONS TO OFFER. 10. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LD. D.R. STRONGLY SUPPOR TED THE ORDER PASSED BY THE CIT. THE D.R. FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE CIT RIGHTLY ASSUMED JURISDICTION TO REVISE THE ASSESSMENT ORDER , AS THE A.O. HAS FAILED TO EXAMINE THE ISSUES OF CORPUS DONATIONS, M AXIMUM MARGINAL RATE OF TAX AND INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY. THE D. R. FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT IN RESPECT OF INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY, THE A.R. CONCEDED THAT HE HAS NO EXPLANATION TO OFFER WHICH EVIDENCED THAT THE A.O. HAS NOT EXAMINED THE ISSUE AT THE TIME OF ASSESSMENT; THERE FORE, THE CIT RIGHTLY ASSUMED JURISDICTION AND HIS ORDER SHOULD BE UPHELD . 11. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES, PERUSED THE MATE RIALS AVAILABLE ON RECORD AND GONE THROUGH THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHOR ITIES BELOW. THE CIT ASSUMED JURISDICTION TO REVISE THE ASSESSMENT ORDER FOR THE REASON THAT ITA NOS.212 TO 215/VIZAG/2014 SRI LAKSHMIGANAPATHI SEVA SAMITI, VIJAYAWADA ITA NOS.216 TO 219/VIZAG/2014 SRI VIGNESWARA VARI DEVASTHANA SANGAM 12 THE A.O. HAS NOT CONDUCTED PROPER ENQUIRY BEFORE CO MPLETION OF ASSESSMENT, THEREBY THE ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED BY THE A.O. U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 147 OF THE ACT, IS ERRONEOUS IN SO FA R AS IT IS PREJUDICIAL TO THE REVENUE. THE CIT REVISED THE ASSESSMENT ORDER FOR THE REASON THAT THE A.O. HAS COMPLETED THE ASSESSMENT WITHOUT EXAMI NING THE VARIOUS ISSUES WHICH CAUSED PREJUDICE TO THE INTEREST OF TH E REVENUE. THE CIT, FURTHER, WAS OF THE OPINION THAT THE A.O. HAS COMPL ETED THE ASSESSMENT WITHOUT EXAMINING THE ISSUE WITH REGARD TO ALLOWABI LITY OF EXEMPTION TO CORPUS DONATIONS, APPLICABILITY OF MAXIMUM MARGINAL RATE OF TAX TO AOP, DETERMINATION OF INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY AND ADV ANCE GIVEN TO GOPISETTY MALLAIAH & CO., PRESIDENT OF THE SOCIETY. THE CIT, FURTHER, OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE CLAIMS TO HAVE RECEIVED CORPUS DONATIONS, BUT ON VERIFICATION OF THE DETAILS FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE, IT REVEALS THAT THE A.O. HAS NOT CALLED FOR RELEVANT DETAILS O F DECLARATIONS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR HAVING PAID THE DONATIONS WITH A S PECIFIC DIRECTIONS. THE CIT, FURTHER, WAS OF THE OPINION THAT THE A.O. HAS APPLIED RATE OF TAX APPLICABLE TO INDIVIDUAL/AOP, EVEN THOUGH THE ASSES SEE IS NOT REGISTERED U/S 12A OF THE ACT AND ALSO THE SHARES OF THE MEMBE RS ARE INDETERMINATE. SIMILARLY, THE A.O. HAS FAILED TO E XAMINE THE ISSUE OF ADVANCE GIVEN TO ONE OF THE MEMBERS OF THE SOCIETY WITHOUT EXAMINING THE APPLICABILITY OF WHETHER ANY PART OF INCOME OR PROPERTY OF THE ITA NOS.212 TO 215/VIZAG/2014 SRI LAKSHMIGANAPATHI SEVA SAMITI, VIJAYAWADA ITA NOS.216 TO 219/VIZAG/2014 SRI VIGNESWARA VARI DEVASTHANA SANGAM 13 ASSESSEE WAS DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY USED FOR THE BE NEFIT OF INTERESTED PERSONS, THEREBY ANY VIOLATION OF THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 13 OF THE ACT. THE A.O. NOT ONLY FAILED TO EXAMINE THE ISSUE, BUT ALSO FAILED TO APPLY HIS MIND ON VARIOUS ISSUES, WHICH RENDER THE ASSESSMENT ORDER ERRONEOUS IN SO FAR AS IT IS PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF THE REVENUE. 12. IT IS THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE A .O. HAS EXAMINED THE ISSUES POINTED OUT BY THE CIT IN THE SHOW CAUSE NOT ICE. THE ASSESSEE FURTHER CONTENDED THAT ALL THE ISSUES POINTED OUT B Y THE CIT HAVE BEEN EXAMINED BY THE A.O., AT THE TIME OF ASSESSMENT BY WAY OF SPECIFIC QUESTIONNAIRE ON VARIOUS DATES. THE ASSESSEE FURTH ER CONTENDED THAT THE A.O. HAD ISSUED NOTICES ON 28.10.2011 AND 8.10. 2012 FOR WHICH THE ASSESSEE HAS FURNISHED DETAILS VIDE ITS LETTER DATE D 8.11.2012 AND 22.11.2012. THE ASSESSEE HAS FURNISHED ALL THE DET AILS WITH REGARD TO CORPUS DONATIONS AND ALSO EXPLAINED WHY MAXIMUM MAR GINAL RATE OF TAX CANNOT BE APPLIED TO ITS INCOME. SIMILARLY, THE AS SESSEE HAS EXPLAINED THE PURPOSE FOR WHICH ADVANCE OF ` 10 LAKHS GIVEN TO THE GOPISETTY MALLAIAH & CO., THEREFORE, THE CIT WAS NOT CORRECT IN COMING TO THE CONCLUSION THAT THE A.O. HAS NOT CONDUCTED ENQUIRY OF THE ISSUES. WE FIND FORCE IN THE ARGUMENTS OF THE ASSESSEE FOR THE REASON THAT THE A.O. HAS EXAMINED ALL THE ISSUES POINTED OUT BY THE CIT, IN THE SHOW CAUSE ITA NOS.212 TO 215/VIZAG/2014 SRI LAKSHMIGANAPATHI SEVA SAMITI, VIJAYAWADA ITA NOS.216 TO 219/VIZAG/2014 SRI VIGNESWARA VARI DEVASTHANA SANGAM 14 NOTICE AT THE TIME OF COMPLETION OF ASSESSMENT BY W AY OF SPECIFIC QUESTIONNAIRE. WE FURTHER OBSERVED THAT THE A.O. H AS ISSUED QUESTIONNAIRES ON TWO OCCASIONS I.E. 28.10.2011 & 0 8.10.2012 WHEREIN HE HAD ASKED DETAILS ABOUT CORPUS DONATIONS AND ADV ANCE GIVEN TO GOPISETTY MALLAIAH & CO. THE ASSESSEE VIDE ITS REP LY DATED 8.11.2012 AND 22.11.2012 FURNISHED ALL THE DETAILS WITH REGAR D TO CORPUS DONATIONS AND ADVANCE GIVEN TO GOPISETTY MALLAIAH & CO. THER EFORE, THE CIT WAS NOT CORRECT IN COMING TO THE CONCLUSION THAT THE A. O. HAS NOT CONDUCTED PROPER ENQUIRY OF THE ISSUES BEFORE COMPLETION OF T HE ASSESSMENT. 13. THE CIT, ASSUMED JURISDICTION TO REVISE THE ASS ESSMENT ORDER ON THE GROUND THAT THERE IS A LACK OF ENQUIRY ON THE P ART OF THE A.O. IN EXAMINING THE ISSUES REFERRED TO IN THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE. THE CIT QUESTIONED THE ISSUES RIGHT FROM VERIFICATION OF CO RPUS DONATIONS TO EXAMINATION OF ADVANCE GIVEN TO MEMBER OF SOCIETY. AS REGARDS CORPUS DONATIONS IS CONCERNED, THE CIT WAS OF THE OPINION THAT THE A.O. ALLOWED EXEMPTION TO CORPUS DONATIONS WITHOUT EXAMINING DEC LARATIONS ISSUED BY THE DONORS WHETHER THOSE DONATIONS ARE GIVEN WITH A SPECIFIC DIRECTIONS OR NOT. WE DO NOT FIND ANY MERITS IN THE FINDINGS O F THE CIT, FOR THE REASON THAT AS ADMITTED BY THE CIT IN HIS ORDER VID E PARA 5.5, THE A.O. VIDE LETTER DATED 28.10.2011 AT POINT NO.10 HAS CAL LED FOR THE DETAILS OF DONORS, ETC. ONCE THE A.O. HAS CALLED FOR THE DETA ILS ABOUT CORPUS ITA NOS.212 TO 215/VIZAG/2014 SRI LAKSHMIGANAPATHI SEVA SAMITI, VIJAYAWADA ITA NOS.216 TO 219/VIZAG/2014 SRI VIGNESWARA VARI DEVASTHANA SANGAM 15 DONATIONS, A GENERAL PRESUMPTION IS DRAWN THAT THE A.O. HAS VERIFIED ALL THE DETAILS AND ALSO SATISFIED WITH THE EXPLANATION S FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE. THE CIT CANNOT PRESUME THAT THE A.O. HAS NOT EXAMINED THE ISSUES UNLESS HE POINTS OUT THAT THE A.O. HAS NOT E XAMINED THE ISSUE. AS REGARDS THE APPLICABILITY OF MAXIMUM MARGINAL RA TE OF TAX IS CONCERNED, THE CIT WAS OF THE OPINION THAT THE A.O. OUGHT TO HAVE APPLIED MAXIMUM MARGINAL RATE OF TAX TO THE INCOME OF THE SOCIETY. BUT, THE FACT IS THAT ONCE THE SOCIETY IS REGISTERED UND ER THE SOCIETIES REGISTRATION ACT, THE APPLICABILITY OF MAXIMUM MARG INAL RATE DOES NOT ARISE, IT IS BECAUSE THE SOCIETIES ARE REGISTERED U NDER THE SOCIETIES REGISTRATION ACT ARE PROHIBITED FROM DISTRIBUTION O F ANY SURPLUS TO ITS MEMBERS. ONCE THE DISTRIBUTION OF PROFIT TO ITS ME MBERS IS PROHIBITED, THE QUESTION OF DETERMINATION OF SHARE OF EACH INDI VIDUAL MEMBER DOES NOT ARISE. HENCE, THE CIT WAS NOT CORRECT IN COMIN G TO THE CONCLUSION THAT THE RATE OF TAX APPLICABLE TO THE ASSESSEE IS MAXIMUM MARGINAL RATE OF TAX WITHOUT UNDERSTANDING THE PROVISIONS. 14. SIMILARLY, AS REGARDS THE ADVANCE GIVEN TO GOPI SETTY MALLAIAH & CO., THE ASSESSEE VIDE ITS LETTER DATED 24.3.2014 G IVEN DETAILS OF ADVANCE GIVEN TO GOPISETTY MALLAIAH & CO. AND EXPLA INED THE PURPOSE FOR WHICH THE ADVANCE IS GIVEN. THE ASSESSEE EXPLAINED THAT IT HAS GIVEN ADVANCE FOR THE PURPOSE OF CONSTRUCTION OF OLD AGE HOME ON THE SITE ITA NOS.212 TO 215/VIZAG/2014 SRI LAKSHMIGANAPATHI SEVA SAMITI, VIJAYAWADA ITA NOS.216 TO 219/VIZAG/2014 SRI VIGNESWARA VARI DEVASTHANA SANGAM 16 BELONGING TO THE ASSESSEE. THE A.O. AFTER SATISFIE D WITH THE EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE HAS ACCEPTED THE EXPLANATION FURNIS HED BY THE ASSESSEE, WHICH CANNOT BE TERMED AS ERRONEOUS. EVEN OTHERWIS E, ASSUMING FOR A MOMENT THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS GIVEN ADVANCE TO ONE O F ITS MEMBERS, THE FINDINGS OF THE CIT IS INCORRECT, AS ONCE THE INCOM E OF THE SOCIETY IS ASSESSED UNDER THE NORMAL PROVISIONS OF THE ACT DEN YING BENEFIT OF EXEMPTION U/S 11 OF THE ACT, THE QUESTION OF EXAMIN ATION OF DIVERSION OF FUNDS DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY TO THE BENEFIT OF INTE RESTED PERSONS DOES NOT ARISE. IN THE PRESENT CASE ON HAND, ON PERUSAL OF THE FACTS AVAILABLE ON RECORD, WE FIND THAT THE A.O. HAS EXAMINED ALL THE ISSUES I.E. CORPUS DONATIONS, APPLICABILITY OF MAXIMUM MARGINAL RATE O F TAX AND ADVANCE GIVEN TO GOPISETTY MALLAIAH & CO., EXCEPT THE ISSUE WITH REGARD TO DIFFERENCE IN INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY OF ` 52,717/-. IN RESPECT OF DIFFERENCE IN INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY OF ` 52,717/-, THE ASSESSEE HIMSELF HAS ADMITTED THAT HE HAS NO EXPLANATIONS TO OFFER. ACCORDINGLY, THE CIT HAS DIRECTED THE A.O. TO ASSESS CORRECT INC OME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY. THEREFORE, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT ONCE THE ISSUES WHICH WERE SUBJECT MATTER OF REVISION U/S 263 OF THE ACT, HAVE BEEN EXAMINED BY THE A.O., AT THE TIME OF ASSESSMENT, THEN THE CI T HAS NO JURISDICTION TO ENTERTAIN FRESH ENQUIRY ON THE SAME ISSUES, BECA USE HE HAD A DIFFERENT OPINION ON THE ISSUES. IN OUR CONSIDERED VIEW, THE ISSUES ITA NOS.212 TO 215/VIZAG/2014 SRI LAKSHMIGANAPATHI SEVA SAMITI, VIJAYAWADA ITA NOS.216 TO 219/VIZAG/2014 SRI VIGNESWARA VARI DEVASTHANA SANGAM 17 POINTED OUT BY THE CIT EXCEPT INCOME FROM HOUSE PRO PERTY, HAVE BEEN THOROUGHLY EXAMINED BY THE A.O. AT THE TIME OF ASSE SSMENT, THEREFORE, THE CIT WAS NOT CORRECT IN COMING TO THE CONCLUSION THAT THE A.O. HAS NOT EXAMINED THE ISSUES BEFORE COMPLETION OF ASSESS MENT. 15. THE CIT, HAS POWER TO REVISE THE ASSESSMENT ORD ER U/S 263 OF THE ACT, BUT TO INVOKE THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 263 OF THE ACT, THE TWIN CONDITIONS MUST BE SATISFIED I.E. (1) THE ORDER OF THE CIT IS ERRONEOUS (2) FURTHER IT MUST BE PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF T HE REVENUE. UNLESS BOTH THE CONDITIONS ARE SATISFIED, CIT CANNOT ASSUME JUR ISDICTION U/S 263 OF THE ACT. IT IS NOT NECESSARY THAT EVERY ORDER WHIC H IS ERRONEOUS MAY BE PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF THE REVENUE OR VICE- VERSA. IN SOME CASES, THE ORDER PASSED BY THE A.O. MAY BE ERRONEOUS BUT I T MAY NOT BE PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF THE REVENUE. UNLESS THE ORDER PASSED BY THE A.O. IS ERRONEOUS AND PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTERE ST OF THE REVENUE, THE CIT CANNOT ASSUME JURISDICTION TO REVISE THE ASSESS MENT ORDER, THIS IS BECAUSE THE TWIN CONDITIONS I.E. THE ORDER IS ERRON EOUS AND THE SAME IS PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF THE REVENUE ARE CO-E XIST. IN THE PRESENT CASE ON HAND, ON PERUSAL OF THE FACTS AVAILABLE ON RECORD, WE FIND THAT THE A.O. HAS CONDUCTED DETAILED ENQUIRY AND ALSO EX AMINED THE ISSUES POINTED OUT BY THE CIT IN HIS SHOW CAUSE NOTICE. T HE ASSESSEE EXPLAINED EACH AND EVERY ISSUE POINTED OUT BY THE C IT WITH NECESSARY ITA NOS.212 TO 215/VIZAG/2014 SRI LAKSHMIGANAPATHI SEVA SAMITI, VIJAYAWADA ITA NOS.216 TO 219/VIZAG/2014 SRI VIGNESWARA VARI DEVASTHANA SANGAM 18 EVIDENCES. THE CIT CANNOT ASSUME JURISDICTION TO R EVISE THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, ONCE ASSESSEE EXPLAINED THAT IT HAD FILED AL L THE DETAILS BEFORE THE A.O. ON THE ISSUES ON WHICH CIT WANTS FURTHER VERIF ICATION. IT IS THE GENERAL PRESUMPTION OF LAW THAT ONCE THE A.O. HAS C ONSIDERED ALL THE DETAILS BEFORE COMPLETION OF ASSESSMENT AND THE CIT CANNOT PRESUME THAT THE ENQUIRIES CONDUCTED BY THE A.O. IS INSUFFI CIENT AND ALSO THE A.O. HAS NOT APPLIED HIS MIND, UNLESS THE CIT PROVES THA T THE ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED BY THE A.O. IS ERRONEOUS. 16. NOW IT IS PERTINENT TO DISCUSS THE CASE LAW REL IED UPON BY THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE RELIED UPON THE DECISION OF COORDINATE BENCH OF VISAKHAPATNAM TRIBUNAL, IN THE CASE OF SHRI SAI CON TRACTORS VS. CIT, IN ITA NO.109/VIZAG/2012 DATED 30.9.2015. THE COORDIN ATE BENCH OF THIS TRIBUNAL, UNDER SIMILAR CIRCUMSTANCES HELD THAT ONC E THE A.O. EXAMINED THE ISSUES ON WHICH THE CIT WANTS FURTHER VERIFICAT ION, THE CIT CANNOT ASSUME JURISDICTION ON THE SAME ISSUES WHICH WAS AL READY EXAMINED BY THE A.O. AT THE TIME OF ASSESSMENT, BY STATING THAT THE A.O. HAS CONDUCTED INADEQUATE ENQUIRY OR THERE IS A LACK OF ENQUIRY. RELEVANT PORTION OF THE ORDER IS REPRODUCED HEREUNDER: 10. TO INVOKE THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 263 OF THE ACT, THE TWIN CONDITIONS MUST BE SATISFIED I.E. THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS ERRONEOUS AND FURTHER IT MUST BE PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF THE REVENUE. UNLESS BOTH CONDITIONS ARE SATISFIED, THE CIT CANNO T ASSUME JURISDICTION TO PASS ORDER U/S 263 OF THE ACT. IT IS NOT NECESSARY THAT EVERY ORDER WHICH ITA NOS.212 TO 215/VIZAG/2014 SRI LAKSHMIGANAPATHI SEVA SAMITI, VIJAYAWADA ITA NOS.216 TO 219/VIZAG/2014 SRI VIGNESWARA VARI DEVASTHANA SANGAM 19 IS PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF REVENUE IS ALSO E RRONEOUS. UNLESS THE A.OS ORDER IS NOT ERRONEOUS, NO ACTION CAN BE TAKEN BY T HE CIT U/S 263 OF THE ACT, THIS IS BECAUSE THE TWIN CONDITIONS I.E. (1) T HE ORDER IS ERRONEOUS AND (2) THE SAME IS ALSO PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF THE REVENUE ARE NOT CO- EXISTS. IN THE PRESENT CASE, THE A.O. HAS CONDUCTE D ENQUIRY BEFORE ALLOWING DEDUCTION TOWARDS WAGES AND CENTERING EXPE NSES AND ALSO EXAMINED THE POINTS ON WHICH THE CIT WANTS FURTHER VERIFICATION. THE ASSESSING OFFICER AFTER CAREFULLY EXAMINED THE BOOK S OF ACCOUNTS AND RELEVANT VOUCHERS FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE PASSED THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AS INDICATED IN HIS ORDER, WHICH IS CLEARLY EVIDENT FROM THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. THE CONTENTION OF THE CIT WAS THAT THE A.O. HAS NOT CONDUCTED PROPER ENQUIRY AND ALSO NOT APPLIED HIS MIND BEFORE ALLOWING THE DEDUCTION. BUT, WE DO NOT AGREE WITH THE CIT FOR T HE REASON THAT THERE IS A DISTINCTION BETWEEN LACK OF ENQUIRY AND INADEQUAT E ENQUIRY. IF THERE IS AN INADEQUATE ENQUIRY THAT WOULD NOT BY ITSELF GIVE OCCASION TO THE CIT TO ASSUME JURISDICTION U/S 263 OF THE ACT, MERELY BECA USE HE HAS A DIFFERENT OPINION IN THE MATTER. THE CIT CAN DO THIS ONLY, W HEN THERE IS A LACK OF ENQUIRY BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. IN THE PRESENT CA SE, THE ASSESSMENT ORDER IS DETAILED ONE AND ALSO, THE A.O. HAS PASSED A REMARKS IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER ON TWO ISSUES, ON WHICH THE CIT AS SUMED JURISDICTION, I.E. DISALLOWANCE OF ROUND SOME EXPENDITURE OF RS. 1,00,000/- UNDER THE HEAD WAGES AND CENTERING CHARGES AND ALSO PARTNERS CAPITAL ACCOUNTS, WHERE THE ADDITION WAS RS. 66,825/-.THE A.O. HAD CA LLED FOR EXPLANATION AND THE ASSESSEE HAS FURNISHED ITS EXPLANATION. BU T, THE CIT WAS OF THE OPINION THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER COULD HAVE DO WE LL TO EXPLORE THE POSSIBILITY OF REJECTING THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS AND ESTIMATE THE PROFIT. ACCORDING TO CIT, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS CONDUCT ED ENQUIRY BUT, IN ADEQUATE, THEREFORE HE WANTED FURTHER ENQUIRY ON TH E ISSUE ON WHICH HE ASSUMED JURISDICTION. THIS FACT HAD NOT BEEN DISPUT ED BY THE REVENUE. THE COMMISSIONER CANNOT INITIATE REVISION PROCEEDINGS, WITH A VIEW TO CONDUCT FISHING AND REVOLVING ENQUIRY IN THE MATTERS WHICH ARE ALREADY EXAMINED BY THE A.O. THE DEPARTMENT CANNOT DO FRESH ASSESSME NT IN THE GUISE OF REVISION ON THE MATTERS WHICH ARE EXAMINED AND CONC LUDED BY THE A.O. THE A.O. BEING A QUASI JUDICIAL AUTHORITY, SHALL HA VE THE AUTHORITY TO EXERCISE RIGHT JUDGEMENT AND DISCRETION ON THE BASI S OF INFORMATION AVAILABLE BEFORE HIM. IN THE PRESENT CASE ON HAND, THE ASSESSING OFFICER AFTER CONSIDERING VOUCHERS, MADE AN ROUND SOME ADDI TION OF RS.1,00,000/- WHICH IS ONE OF THE POSSIBLE VIEW AVAILABLE FOR HIM , WHICH THE CIT SHALL NOT TERM IT AS LACK OF ENQUIRY OR NON APPLICATION OF MI ND. THUS, IT CANNOT BE SAID THAT IT IS A CASE OF LACK OF ENQUIRY OR NON AP PLICATION OF MIND. 17. THE ASSESSEE RELIED UPON THE DECISION OF VISAKH APATNAM ITAT, IN THE CASE OF SRI VASAVI COMPOUNDING VS. ITO IN IT A ITA NOS.212 TO 215/VIZAG/2014 SRI LAKSHMIGANAPATHI SEVA SAMITI, VIJAYAWADA ITA NOS.216 TO 219/VIZAG/2014 SRI VIGNESWARA VARI DEVASTHANA SANGAM 20 NO.197/VIZAG/2012 DATED 29.7.2016. THE COORDINATE BENCH OF THIS TRIBUNAL, UNDER SIMILAR FACTS HELD AS UNDER: 11. THE CIT HAS POWER OF REVISING THE ASSESSMENT O RDER U/S 263 OF THE ACT, BUT, TO INVOKE THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 263 O F THE ACT, THE TWIN CONDITIONS MUST BE SATISFIED I.E. THE ORDER OF THE A.O. IS ERRONEOUS AND FURTHER IT MUST BE PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF T HE REVENUE. UNLESS BOTH THE CONDITIONS ARE SATISFIED, THE CIT CANNOT ASSUME JURISDICTION U/S 263 OF THE ACT. IT IS NOT NECESSARY THAT EVERY ORDER WHIC H IS ERRONEOUS MUST BE PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF THE REVENUE OR VICE VERSA. UNLESS, THE ASSESSMENT ORDER IS ERRONEOUS, NO ACTION CAN BE TAK EN BY THE CIT U/S 263 OF THE ACT, THIS IS BECAUSE THE TWIN CONDITIONS, I. E THE ORDER IS ERRONEOUS AND THE SAME IS PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF THE REVENUE ARE CO-EXIST. IN THE PRESENT CASE ON HAND, ON PERUSAL OF THE FACTS A VAILABLE ON RECORD, WE FIND THAT THE A.O. HAS CONDUCTED DETAILED ENQUIRY A ND ALSO EXAMINED THE ISSUE OF DEDUCTION CLAIMED U/S 80IB OF THE ACT AND OTHER ISSUES POINTED OUT BY THE A.O. THE ASSESSEE EXPLAINED THAT THOUGH FILING OF AUDIT REPORT IN FORM NO.10CCB IS MANDATORY IN NATURE, IT IS NOT NECESSARY TO FILE THE SAME ALONG WITH RETURN OF INCOME IN VIEW OF THE CHA NGES IN FILING OF INCOME TAX RETURN FROM PAPER RETURN TO E-FILING OF INCOME TAX RETURNS. IN THE NEW SYSTEM OF E-FILING OF INCOME TAX RETURNS, F ILING OF PHYSICAL COPY OF ANY REPORTS OR STATEMENTS IS DONE AWAY WITH. SIMIL ARLY, AS REGARDS THE ELIGIBILITY OF JOB WORK CHARGES FOR CLAIMING DEDUCT ION U/S 80IB OF THE ACT, WHICH WAS EXAMINED BY THE A.O. AND ALLOWED DEDUCTIO N AFTER SATISFIED WITH THE ACTIVITY OF THE ASSESSEE. THEREFORE, WE A RE OF THE VIEW THAT THE ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED BY THE A.O. U/S 143(3) OF T HE ACT DATED 20.11.2009 IT IS NOT ERRONEOUS IN SO FAR AS IT IS P REJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF THE REVENUE. 18. CONSIDERING THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THIS CASE AND ALSO RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE RATIOS OF THE COORDINATE BENCH, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED BY THE A. O. U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 147 OF THE ACT, IS NOT ERRONEOUS IN SO FAR A S IT IS PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF THE REVENUE IN SO FAR AS THREE ISSU ES POINTED OUT BY THE CIT IN HIS ORDER WITH REGARD TO CORPUS DONATION S, APPLICABILITY OF MAXIMUM MARGINAL RATE AND ADVANCE GIVEN TO GOPISETT Y MALLAIAH & CO. IN SO FAR AS DETERMINATION OF INCOME FROM HOU SE PROPERTY, THE ITA NOS.212 TO 215/VIZAG/2014 SRI LAKSHMIGANAPATHI SEVA SAMITI, VIJAYAWADA ITA NOS.216 TO 219/VIZAG/2014 SRI VIGNESWARA VARI DEVASTHANA SANGAM 21 CIT HAS RIGHTLY REVISED THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, AS TH E A.O. HAS FAILED TO EXAMINE THE ISSUE TO BRING THE CORRECT AMOUNT OF INCOME TO THE TAX. THEREFORE, WE MODIFIED THE CITS ORDER U/S 26 3 OF THE ACT AND UPHELD THE FINDINGS OF THE CIT, WITH REGARD TO INCO ME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY AND SET ASIDE ORDER OF THE CIT IN RESPECT OF CORPUS DONATIONS, APPLICABILITY OF MAXIMUM MARGINAL RATE A ND ADVANCE GIVEN TO GOPISETTY MALLAIAH & CO. 19. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEALS FILED BY THE ASSESSE ES IN ITA NOS.212 TO 215/VIZAG/2014 & ITA NOS. 216 TO 219/VIZAG/2014 ARE PARTLY ALLOWED. THE ABOVE ORDER WAS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 26 TH AUG16. SD/- SD/- ( . ) ( . ) (V. DURGA RAO) (G. MANJUNATHA) /JUDICIAL MEMBER /ACCOUNTANT MEMBER # /VISAKHAPATNAM: ' /DATED : 26.08.2016 VG/SPS )# *# /COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO:- 1. / THE APPELLANT SRI LAKSHMI GANAPATHI SEVA SAMIT HI, 11-62-164, CANAL ROAD, VIJAYAWADA-520 001. 2. / THE APPELLANT SRI VIGNESWARA VARI DEVASTHANA S ANGAM, 11-62-164, CANAL ROAD, VIJAYAWADA-520 001. 3. / THE RESPONDENT THE CIT, VIJAYAWADA ITA NOS.212 TO 215/VIZAG/2014 SRI LAKSHMIGANAPATHI SEVA SAMITI, VIJAYAWADA ITA NOS.216 TO 219/VIZAG/2014 SRI VIGNESWARA VARI DEVASTHANA SANGAM 22 4. + ( ) / THE CIT (A), VIJAYAWADA 5. # . , . , # / DR, ITAT, VISAKHAPATNAM 6 . / GUARD FILE / BY ORDER // TRUE COPY // 12 . (SR.PRIVATE SECRETARY) . , # / ITAT, VISAKHAPATNAM