M/S MEHTA INSTITUTE OF EDUCATION , LUDHIANA V. INCOME TAX OFFICER wARD (EXEMPTION), JALANDHAR

ITA 26/ASR/2019

• Counselvise Citation: [2022] 103 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 8544 (ITAT-AMRITSAR)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 10 month(s) 4 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 14-11-2022
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Next Hearing Date: 10-10-2022
• Assessment Year: misc
• Appeal Filed On: 10-01-2019
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Charitable institution; Additional evidence; Corroborative evidences
• Section: 11; 143(3); 12A; 10(23C)

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AMRITSAR BENCH, AMRITSAR BEFORE DR. M. L. MEENA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SH. ANIKESH BANERJEE, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. No. 26/Asr/2019 Assessment Year: 2013-14 M/s Mehta Institute of Education Bank Street, Doraha, Distt. Ludhiana [PAN: AACTM 0664L] Vs. The Income Tax Officer Ward (Exemptions), Jalandhar (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by : Sh. Sudhir Sehgal, AR Respondent by: Sh. S. M. Surendranath, Sr. DR Date of Hearing: 11.10.2022 Date of Pronouncement: 15.11.2022 ORDER Per Dr. M. L. Meena, AM: This appeal has been filed by the assessee against the order dated 01.09.2018 passed by the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-4, Ludhiana [hereinafter referred to as “the CIT(A)”] in respect of Assessment Year 2013-14. ITA No. 26/Asr/2019 Mehta Institute of Education v. ITO 2 2. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: “1. That on the facts and the circumstances of the case, the order is Learned CIT(A) is bad in law. 2. That the Worthy Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals) has erred in upholding the action of the Assessing Officer in confirming the addition of Rs. 21,50,000/- made by him on arbitrary and estimated basis. 3. That the Worthy Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals) has erred in upholding the addition made by the Assessing Office on account of treating an expenditure of Rs. 21,50,000/- on the purchase of Horses as Sham transaction. 4. That the Worthy Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals) has erred in upholding the addition made by the Assessing Officer on account of trading an expenditure of Rs. 21,50,000/- on the purchase of horses as the same is based on suspicion, conjectures and is illegal, illegitimate and impermissible. 5. That the Worthy Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals) has erred in upholding in addition of the Assessing Officer even when the Assessee has furnished the documents relating to the genuineness of the transaction during the course of Appellate proceedings. 6. That the Appellant craves leave to add or amend the grounds of appeal before the appeal is finally heard or disposed off.” 3. At the outset, the learned counsel submitted that the appeal before the Tribunal could not file within the specific time due to office staff lapse. He requested that there was an unintentional short delay of eight days in filing the appeal, may kindly be condoned. The relevant para of the application requesting for condonation of delay duly supported with the affidavit of the President of the Assesse Society is reproduced as under: ITA No. 26/Asr/2019 Mehta Institute of Education v. ITO 3 “It i s ve ry h u mb ly s u b mitte d th a t th e o rd e r o f CIT (A ) re ce ive d b y th e P re s id e n t o f th e S o cie ty, w a s h a n d e d o ve r to th e the n sta ff d e a l in g w ith th e In co me Ta x a sse s s me n t s fo r o n w a rd fil in g of a p p e a l b e fo re th e Ho n ’b le ITA T, A mr itsa r B e n ch , A mr itsa r. Th e sa id sta ff fo rg o t to g e t th e a p p e a l p re p a re d fro m th e co u n se l a n d th e o rd e r w a s ke p t b y th e sta ff in th e f ile o n ly. It w a s o n ly in th e la st w e e k o f De ce mb e r 2 0 1 8 , th a t th e P re s id e n t o f th e S o cie t y e n q u i re d fro m th e sta ff a b o u t th e sta tu s o f fil in g th e a p p e a l b e fo re t h e H o n ’ b l e I T A T a n d o n l y th e n w ith g re a t e ffo rts, th a t o rd e r o f CIT(A ) w a s tra ce d o n 2 n d of Ja n u a ry 2 0 1 9 a n d th e n i mme d ia te ly, a p p e a l fe e w a s d e p o site d o n th e sa me d a y i.e . o n 2 n d o f Ja n u a r y 2 0 1 9 a n d , a cco rd in g ly, th e a p p e a l w a s file d b y th e a p p e lla n t b e fo re th e Ho n 'b le B e n ch o n 0 7 .0 1 .2 0 1 9 . It is su b mitte d th a t th e re is d e la y o f 8 d a ys w h ich is h ig h ly re g re tte d a n d th o u g h , it w a s n o t d e l ib e ra te a n d it w a s o n l y on a cco u n t o f a b o ve sa id fa ct th a t th e re w a s d e la y in fil in g th e a p p e a l. It is, th e re fo re , ve ry h u mb ly re q u e ste d th a t th e d e la y o f 8 d a ys ma y p le a se , b e co n d o n e d . A ffid a vi t o f th e P re sid e n t o f th e S o cie ty i s b e in g e n clo se d h e r e w ith fo r yo u r k in d re fe re n ce . Relia n ce is b e in g p la ce d o n th e ju d g me n t o f Ho n 'b le I T A T in th e ca se o f M/s G u rfa te h Fi l ms a n d S ip p y G re w a l P ro d u cti o n s (P ) L td ., in ITA No . 9 2 /A sr/2 0 2 0 , w h e r e in , it w a s h e ld th a t th e a sse sse e d o e s n o t g a in a n yth in g fo r n o t fil i n g a p p e a l in ti me a n d it is, on ly o n a cco u n t o f th e a b o ve sa id la p se o f th e A cco u n tin g sta ff th a t th e re h a s b e e n d e la y o f 8 d a ys, w h ich ma y, p le a se , b e co n d o n e d a n d o b lige . ” 3.1 The learned DR has no objection for the request of the assesse. Accordingly, the short delay of 8 days in filing appeal is hereby condoned and the appeal is allowed to be heard on merit. 4. The facts of the case in brief are that the assessee filed its return of income on 30.09.2013 declaring total income of Rs. Nil after claiming exemption u/s 10(23C) (iii) (ad) of the I.T. Act, 1961. During the course of ITA No. 26/Asr/2019 Mehta Institute of Education v. ITO 4 assessment proceedings, the assessing officer noticed that out of total gross receipts of Rs. 13082797/- received by the assessee, Rs. 12763926/- were applied on revenue expenditure and Rs. 6441776/- on capital expenditure on account of addition in new assets. It was further noticed that there was addition in assets of live-stock horses amounting to Rs. 2100000/-. Accordingly, the AO asked the assessee to file the details, of name and address in respect of 9 sellers of horses in order to establish the genuineness of expenditure to this extent. The AO being not satisfied with the explanation of the assesse on the expenditure so incurred during the assessment proceedings in respect of purchases of horses, completed the assessment u/s 143(3) of the I.T. Act, 1961 after making a disallowance of Rs. 2150000/-. 5. In appeal the Ld. CIT(A) has confirmed the addition by observing as under: “5. I have carefully considered the submission of the appellant, assessment order and material placed on record. During the assessment proceedings, the AO noticed that there is an addition in Assets of the assessee society during the year under consideration on account of purchase of nine live Stock- Horses amounting to Rs. 21, 50 000/-. The assessing officer asked to furnish the names and addresses of the sellers of the above said Horses. The assessee society filed names and addresses of the persons from whom the above nine Horses were purchased along with the amounts paid to them and dates on which such amounts were paid to them. Further, the AO noticed that the addresses of all the above sellers were vague and incomplete and that the appellant society was not able to explain the genuineness of the expenditure on the purchase of above ITA No. 26/Asr/2019 Mehta Institute of Education v. ITO 5 nine horses and the justification of application of income keeping in view the nature of educational activities. During appeal proceedings, the assessee has filed application dated 26.12.2017 for admitting additional evidence Under Rule 46A of Income Tax Rules considering the submissions of the assessee, additional evidence is admitted. The assessee has filed following documents as additional evidence:- (i) Affidavits of 4 persons who claim that horses were sold by them to the assessee out of 9 persons from whom, assessee has claimed to purchase horses. There is discrepancy in name and affidavit of Sh. Arvinder Singh and Sh. Binder Singh as noted in the remand report of the assessing officer. No letter of confirmation or any other supporting evidence in support of expenditure incurred on purchase of horses has been filed. During appeal proceedings also, the assessee was allowed opportunity to produce the sellers of the horses, but till date the assessee has failed to produce any of the sellers or to file any other corroborating evidence even the date of payment is not mentioned which was paid in cash by the assessee. Thus, the assessee has failed to substantiate the expenditure spent on purchase of horses. (ii) The assessee has filed affidavits of two employees to say that they work as helpers for horse training. No affidavit or details of trainers for horse training have been brought on record. (iii) Copies of certificates issued to the students of the institute of the assessee have been filed to show that the students participated in horse race of Independence Day celebrating in 2017. These certificates pertain to subsequent year 2017 whereas the year under consideration in assessment year 2013-14. (iv) Copy of Audited Financial statement of the assessee society for F.Y. 2013-14 showing the horse feed expenses of Rs. 64,301/-. Since, the year under consideration in assessment year 2013-14 pertaining to F.Y 2012-13, the financial results of a subsequent year are irrelevant. During appeal proceedings, the assessee further filed affidavits of the parents and affidavit of Mrs. Dimple Mehta without any specific request and basis ITA No. 26/Asr/2019 Mehta Institute of Education v. ITO 6 for admitting these additional evidences. Therefore, all these documents cannot be considered for deciding the appeal of the assessee. During appeal proceedings, the Ld. Counsel has argued that the assessee society has applied more than 85% of the funds received during the year. Even if the amount spent on purchase of horses is excluded, even then, the assessee has complied with the mandatory requirements of utilizing the funds. Therefore, no disallowance is called for. The plea of the Ld. Counsel has been considered. There is no issue regarding utilization of the funds received during the year. Only disallowance of Rs. 21,50,000/- has been made in the case by the assessing officer, since the assessee has failed to substantiate the cash purchase of horses. Therefore, the assessing officer held that amount of Rs. 21,50,000/- was not spent for educational purposes. During appeal proceedings, the Ld. Counsel of the assessee has argued that horse riding in one of the activities which is part of education. It is not denied that horse riding is an activity which is part of sports and educational activities but the assessee has failed to substantiate its claim of expenditure in cash totalling Rs. 21,50,000/- on purchases of horses during the relevant Financial Year. Therefore, grounds of appeal No. 1 to 3 are dismissed.” 6. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the appellant society is engaged in imparting horse riding activity as an ‘Educational and sports activities’ which are undisputedly a part of education curriculum of the appellant society. The counsel argued that Worthy Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in upholding the action of the Assessing Officer in confirming the addition of Rs. 21,50,000/- made by him based on suspicion, conjectures and in arbitrary manner by treating the aforesaid expenditure on the purchase of Horses as Sham transaction and that the Worthy Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals) has erred in upholding in addition of the Assessing Officer even when the Assessee has furnished ITA No. 26/Asr/2019 Mehta Institute of Education v. ITO 7 the documents relating to the genuineness of the transaction during the course of Appellate proceedings. He has filed a written synopsis to support its contentions. Relevant part reads as under: 1. It is further submitted that to provide the sports education to the students of class 6 th to 12 th , the horses were purchased during the year under consideration for a consideration of Rs. 21,50,000/-. 2. Further, to prove that the horses were utilized to provide training to the children, it is pertinent to mention here that certificates were also issued to various students of the appellant school by Mr. Paramjit Singh (PCS/ADM) with regard to Horse Race (March Past) at an Independence Day Programme on 15 th August which depicts that horses were purchased for the exclusive use of sports training/activities of the school and the same is mentioned at Para D of Point no. 2 on Page 6 of the order of the Ld. CIT(A). The copies of the said certificates were also submitted before the worthy CIT(A) which were Pg 9 of the PB. forming part of the paperbook submitted during the appellate proceedings at Annexure-III and no adverse comments were made by the Ld. CIT(A) on those certificates which substantiate the fact that the worthy CIT(A) is satisfied with the genuineness of the purchase of horses and the horse riding training imparted by the appellant school. Further, it is pertinent to mention here that the Ld. AO has never doubted the purchase of horses because on page 3 of the order issued by him, he has only made the remarks that the total amount of Rs. 21,50,000/- has been utilized for the personal purpose of trustees or members and not for educational purpose, which clearly depicts that the Ld. AO himself agrees that the purchase of horses has been made but he is not satisfied with the said purchase made for providing horse riding education to the students of the appellant society. 3. Further, the purchase of horses is not a personal expense is also substantiated by the fact that horse feeding expenses of Rs. 45,940/- have also been charged as an application in the books of the account of the appellant society and allowed for the year under consideration & for AY 2014-15, an amount of Rs. 64,301/- has been debited under the same head and also been allowed and have never been doubted by the worthy CIT(A) & the Ld. AO. It was also brought to the notice of Ld. AO that the ITA No. 26/Asr/2019 Mehta Institute of Education v. ITO 8 part of the agriculture property owned by Mrs. Dimple Mehta, one of the trustees of Mehta Gurukul Public School, adjoining to the area of the School is also used to arrange the maximum agriculture produce for feeding the horses owned by the appellant school. 4. It is pertinent to mention before your goodself that during the course of proceedings, all the vouchers for purchase of horses were duly produced and the Books of accounts were never rejected. However, after 2 years, when the Ld. AO verified the sellers of horses during the course of proceedings, they were not traceable as it is a well-known fact that the persons who deal in animal selling do not have any fixed place of carrying on business/profession. It is a fact that different ‘Pashu Melas’ are arranged in different places of Punjab and the sellers come from the different parts of country, including Punjab and outside for sale of animals, therefore such sellers cannot be traced later on after the transaction. Further, it is an established fact that the animal selling is done in an ‘unorganized market’ and there is no fixed establishment of the animal sellers. However, at its best, the assessee had obtained receipts duly signed by the sellers of horses and its copies were submitted to the Ld. AO and also placed in the paper book at page no. 13-36. Merely because the sellers of the horses could not be presented before the Ld. AO, after 2 years of purchase, it cannot be said that the expenditure of Rs. 21,50,000/- has not been incurred to purchase the horses or that this expenditure is personal in nature, that too, by disregarding the fact that horses are required to provide horse riding education to the students. The fact that the horses were used to train the students is borne out from the certificates issued by the government officer to students on 15 th August, is a clear proof of ownership and purpose of purchase of horses by the school. However, ownership proves that the horses were purchased and if purchased, then expenditure is allowable. Further, it is submitted that when the certificates have been awarded by the Government officer, it itself substantiates the purchase of horses and the end use of the same which cannot be questioned. Also, the finding of the worthy CIT(A) is contradictory as the authority had himself agreed to the fact that horse riding education is a part of sports education and it is essential for the schools to provide sports education to their students. 5. The fact that the horses were actually purchased as well as used for the horse riding of students of the society is evident from the photographs, clearly depicting the students of the appellant society learning horse riding ITA No. 26/Asr/2019 Mehta Institute of Education v. ITO 9 from the trainer and few of the said photographs of the students and staff of the appellant school are attached as under: ITA No. 26/Asr/2019 Mehta Institute of Education v. ITO 10 ITA No. 26/Asr/2019 Mehta Institute of Education v. ITO 11 Thus, on account of Independence Day Programme, the certificates issued by a senior government officer to the students are compatible with the finding of the worthy CIT(A) that it is an essential part of Educational curriculum, therefore, the disallowance is uncalled for. 6. It should further be mentioned here that if the purchase of horses would not have been genuine, then the school might not be able to provide horse riding education to its students and the certificates issued by Mr. Paramjit Singh (PCS/ADM), a government officer, would not have been possible during horse march on 15 th August. It shows that the students know the skills of riding horses and it has been possible only due to horse riding education provided by the appellant school to its students. Also, the photographs of the students submitted in the above point confirms the genuineness of purchase of horses by the appellant school. 7. Therefore, the finding of the worthy CIT(A) that the appellant society has failed to substantiate its claim of expenditure and also holding that horse riding is a part of educational activity is contradictory and while passing the order, he has ignored the evidence of Independence day Programme as stated above. 8. Notwithstanding the above provision, we further wish to bring your goodself’s kind attention to the provisions of Section 11(1)(a) of the Act which reads as under: “Subject to the provisions of sections 60 to 63, the following income shall not be included in the total income of the previous year of the person in receipt of the income— (a) income derived from property held under trust wholly for charitable or religious purposes, to the extent to which such income is applied to such purposes in India; and, where any such income is accumulated or set apart for application to such purposes in India, to the extent to which the income so accumulated or set apart is not in excess of fifteen per cent of the income from such property;” From the perusal of the above it is clear that since the purpose behind purchase of horses is directly related to the ‘educational activities’ carried on by the assessee as ITA No. 26/Asr/2019 Mehta Institute of Education v. ITO 12 accepted by the worthy CIT(A) in the last para on page no.15 of his order, it is incorrect to say that the said transaction of purchase of horses is a sham transaction and the fact that such suppliers of horses could not be traced cannot lead to the fact that these are sham transactions. We have already explained the reasons of suppliers being not traceable as above. Further, the said expenditure has been debited in the regular books of accounts of the appellant society which have been accepted. 9. Without prejudice to the above and for the sake of arguments, even if the capital expenditure of Rs. 21,50,000/- as incurred for the purchases of horses is disallowed by considering the same as not supported by evidences, then also the application of income comes to 130% of the sources of income which is much more than the statutory requirement to spend 85% of the gross receipts of the appellant society. The said fact has been duly agreed by the worthy CIT(A) in his order at page no. 15 which reads as under: “During appeal proceedings, the Ld. Counsel has argued that the assessee society has applied more than 85% of the funds received during the year. Even if the amount spent on purchase of horses is excluded, even then, the assessee has complied with the mandatory requirements of utilising the funds. Therefore, no disallowance is called for. The plea of the Ld. Counsel has been considered. There is no issue regarding utilisation of funds received during the year.” Therefore, even if the disallowance of expenditure is made by the AO, then also the same would not be taxable in the hands of the appellant society. 10. Reliance is placed on the judgement of DCIT (Exemptions), Lucknow Vs. M/s Shri Ramswaroop Charitable, ITA No.557/LKW/2017in which it was held: ‘Even otherwise if an addition has been made in the case of charitable trust the same would be treated as application for charitable purpose. Since the registration u/s 12A of the Act of the appellant trust is restored by Hon'ble I.T.A.T. and as already discussed above that the appellant is eligible for exemption u/s 11 of I.T. ITA No. 26/Asr/2019 Mehta Institute of Education v. ITO 13 Act. Accordingly, since the income of the appellant is exempt, the addition made on account of disallowance from expenses will also amount to application of Income and will have no sanctity.’ However, in our case, registration u/s 12A of the Act is intact; it means it is still applicable. Therefore, when registration u/s 12A of the Act is there and the application of income is more than 85 % of the total receipts, then the disallowance of expenses as stated would not amount to non-application of income and hence, the Ld. CIT(A) has wrongly confirmed the addition. This is because of the fact that no tax would be chargeable since, the application of receipts is more than 85% of the gross receipts. Therefore, the addition made by the AO, by treating the same as personal expense, deserves to be deleted.” 7. Per contra, the Ld. DR supported the order of the CIT(A). He contended that it is the purchase of horses disputed and not the activity of the assesse society. purchase of nine live Stock- Horses amounting to Rs. 21, 50 000/-. Although, the assessee society filed names and addresses of the persons from whom the above nine Horses were purchased, however, the addresses of all the above sellers were vague and incomplete to varify the genuineness of the expenditure on the purchase of above nine horses and the justification of application of income keeping in view the nature of educational activities. He contended that even after admitting the additional filed during appeal proceedings, vide application dated 26.12.2017 for Under Rule 46A of Income Tax Rules, the assesse failed to justify the ITA No. 26/Asr/2019 Mehta Institute of Education v. ITO 14 expenditure claimed on the purchase of the above 9 horses. He prayed that the addition be sustained. 8. We have carefully considered the submission of both the sides, assessment order, impugned order and material placed on record. Admittedly, there is an addition in Assets of the assessee society, on account of purchase of nine Horses amounting to Rs. 21, 50 000/- during the year under consideration. The AO asked the assesse to furnish the names and addresses of the sellers of the above said Horses. The AO noticed that the addresses of all the above sellers were vague and incomplete to verify the genuineness of the expenditure on the purchase of above nine horses to justify the application of income keeping in view the nature of educational activities. 9. The Ld. CIT(A) has observed discrepancy in the Affidavits of 4 persons out of 9 persons from who claimed to have sold the horses to the assessee, and assessee has claimed to purchase horses. There was discrepancy in name and affidavit of Sh. Arvinder Singh and Sh. Binder Singh as noted in the remand report of the assessing officer. No letter of confirmation or any other supporting evidence in support of expenditure incurred on purchase of horses has been filed. The Ld. CIT (A) has allowed the assesse an opportunity to produce the sellers of the horses, the ITA No. 26/Asr/2019 Mehta Institute of Education v. ITO 15 assessee has failed to produce any of the sellers or to file any other corroborating evidence even the date of payment was not mentioned which was paid in cash by the assessee. Thus, the assessee has failed to substantiate the expenditure spent on purchase of horses. The CIT(A) further observed that the assessee has filed affidavits of two employees to say that they work as helpers for horse training, however, no affidavit or details of trainers for horse training have been brought on record; that Copies of certificates issued to the students of the institute of the assessee have been filed to show that the students participated in horse race of Independence Day celebrating in 2017 which pertain to subsequent year 2017 whereas the year under consideration in assessment year 2013-14; that even the Copy of Audited Financial statement of the assessee society for F.Y. 2013-14 showing the horse feed expenses of Rs. 64,301/-. In our view the CIT(A) the Ld CIT(A) was right in observing that since, the year under consideration is assessment year 2013-14 pertaining to F.Y 2012-13, the financial results of a subsequent year are irrelevant. 10. It is seen that during appeal proceedings, the assessee further filed affidavits of the parents and affidavit of Mrs. Dimple Mehta without any as an additional evidence which have not been considered by the CIT(A) for deciding the appeal of the assessee. The argument of the counsel that if ITA No. 26/Asr/2019 Mehta Institute of Education v. ITO 16 the purchase of horses would not have been genuine, then the school might not be able to provide horse riding education to its students and the certificates issued by Mr. Paramjit Singh (PCS/ADM), a government officer, would not have been possible during horse march on 15th August without mentioning the relevant year, is irrelevant as held by the LD. CIT(A). The contention of the Ld AR that the activity of the assesse society is not doubted, shows that the students know the skills of riding horses and it has been possible only due to horse riding education provided by the appellant school to its students duly supported with the photographs of the students submitted confirms the genuineness of purchase of horses by the appellant school need to be substantiated with corroborative documentary evidences pertaining to year under consideration. The evidences furnished by the assesse society being pertaining to subsequent year are of no help to it. We are not inclined to agree with the ld. AR contention that the finding of the worthy CIT(A) that the appellant society has failed to substantiate its claim of expenditure and also holding that horse riding is a part of educational activity is contradictory and that while passing the order, he has ignored the evidence of Independence day Programme as stated above. ITA No. 26/Asr/2019 Mehta Institute of Education v. ITO 17 11. We have considered the alternative plea of the counsel that the assessee society has applied more than 85% of the funds received during the year and thereby even if the amount spent on purchase of horses is excluded, even then, the assessee has complied with the mandatory requirements of utilizing the funds and therefore, no disallowance is called for. Since, there was no issue regarding utilization of the funds received during the year. The only issue is regarding disallowance of unexplained/unverifiable expenditure of Rs. 21,50,000/- on account of horse purchases made by the assessing officer, which the assessee has failed to substantiate. Accordingly, the CIT(A) confirmed the finding of the AO that amount of Rs. 21,50,000/- was not spent for educational purposes. Before us, the Ld. Counsel of the assessee has argued that horse riding in one of the activities which is part of education. It is not denied that horse riding is an activity which is part of sports and educational activities but the assessee has failed to substantiate its claim of expenditure in cash totaling Rs. 21,50,000/- on purchases of horses during the relevant Financial Year before the authorities below. Accordingly, the alternative plea of the counsel for the assesse is rejected. 12. Considering the factual matrix of the case, we are of the considered view, that the assesse society should be given an opportunity to ITA No. 26/Asr/2019 Mehta Institute of Education v. ITO 18 substantiate its claim of expenditure of Rs. 21,50,000/- on purchase of horses with the support of material evidence relevant for the year under consideration in view of principles of natural justice as some of the affidavits were being not considered as an additional evidence by the Ld. CIT(A). Accordingly, we consider it deem fit to restore back the matter to the Ld. CIT(A) to decide afresh with the direction to pass a speaking order after considering the written submission and evidences filed on record before him during the appellate proceedings, and to be filed in fresh proceedings after granting sufficient opportunity of being heard to the assessee. No doubt, the assessee shall cooperate in the fresh proceedings. 13. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose. Order pronounced in the open court on 15.11.2022 Sd/- Sd/- (Anikesh Banerjee) (Dr. M. L. Meena) Judicial Member Accountant Member *GP/Sr/PS* Copy of the order forwarded to: (1) The Appellant: (2) The Respondent: (3) The CIT(Appeals) (4) The CIT concerned ITA No. 26/Asr/2019 Mehta Institute of Education v. ITO 19 (5) The Sr. DR, I.T.A.T True Copy By Order