Vairams Kindergarten Society, Pudukkottai V. ITO, Pudukkottai

ITA 289/CHNY/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2015] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 86255 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 11 month(s) 29 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 06-02-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 02-02-2015
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 07-02-2014
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: P RADHAKRISHNAN
• Assessee Lawyers: R SRINIVASAN
• Keywords: Charitable institution
• Section: 12A; 12AA; 11

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL A BENCH, CHENNAI .. , ! , ' #$ BEFORE SHRI B.R. BASKARAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY, JUDICIAL MEMBER ./ ITA NO.289/MDS/2014 ' % &% / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2010-11 M/S VAIRAMS KINDERGARTEN SOCIETY, RAJAGOPALAPURAM, PUDUKOTTAI 622 003. PAN : AAGFV 4771 P V. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), TIRUCHIRAPALLI. (!(/ APPELLANT) (*+!(/ RESPONDENT) !( , - / APPELLANT BY : SHRI R. SRINIVASAN, ADVOCATE *+!(,- / RESPONDENT BY : SHRI P. RADHAKRISHNAN, JCIT . ,/ / DATE OF HEARING : 02.02.2015 01& ,/ / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 06.02.2015 / O R D E R PER B.R. BASKARAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAI NST THE ORDER DATED 18.11.2013, PASSED BY LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), TIRUCHIRAPALLI AND IT RELATES TO ASS ESSMENT YEAR 2010-11. THE ASSESSEE IS AGGRIEVED BY THE DECISION OF THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF ` 47.71 LAKHS MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 2 I.T.A. NO. 289/MDS/2014 2. THE FACTS RELATING TO THE ISSUE ARE STATED IN BR IEF. THE ASSESSEE IS A SOCIETY AND IT IS RUNNING AN EDUCATIO NAL INSTITUTION UNDER THE NAME AND STYLE OF VAIRAMS KINDERGARTEN S OCIETY IN PUDUKOTTAI. THE SCHOOL IS CONDUCTING CLASSES FOR L KG AND UKG STANDARDS. THE SOCIETY FILED ITS RETURN OF INCOME FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION BY DECLARING NIL INCOME. THE ASSES SEE HAD CLAIMED EXEMPTION OF ITS ENTIRE INCOME UNDER SECTION 10(23C )(IIIAD) OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961 (IN SHORT 'THE ACT'). THE RET URN OF INCOME WAS TAKEN UP FOR SCRUTINY BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. TH E A.O. NOTICED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS OBTAINED PAN AAGFV 4771 P W HICH NORMALLY RELATES TO PARTNERSHIP FIRMS. FURTHER, TH E A.O. ALSO NOTICED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT OBTAINED REGISTRATION UND ER SECTION 12A OF THE ACT AND HENCE IT IS NOT ELIGIBLE TO CLAIM EX EMPTION U/S 11 OF THE ACT. ON SCRUTINIZING THE BALANCE SHEET, THE A. O. NOTICED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS ADVANCED A SUM OF ` 47.71 LAKHS TO A SISTER-TRUST NAMED VAIRAMS MATRICULATION HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOO L. THE ASSESSEE EXPLAINED THAT THE ABOVE SAID AMOUNT WAS G IVEN FOR THE PURPOSE OF CONSTRUCTION OF BUILDING. LATER, THE AS SESSEE ALSO SUBMITTED THAT THE AMOUNT WAS ADVANCED FOR USING TH E BUILDING BELONGING TO VAIRAMS MATRICULATION HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL. THE ASSESSEE ADMITTED THAT THE AMOUNT WAS PAID BY WAY O F ACCOUNT TRANSFER, THERE WAS NO PLAN APPROVAL FOR THE BUILDI NG AND FURTHER, THE 3 I.T.A. NO. 289/MDS/2014 ASSESSEE DID NOT ENTER INTO ANY AGREEMENT WITH OTHE R SOCIETY. THE ASSESSING OFFICER FURTHER NOTICED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD GIVEN SUCH ADVANCES IN SUBSEQUENT YEAR ALSO. ACCORDING TO THE A.O., THE FUNDS SO GIVEN TO OTHER SOCIETY WAS LYING UNUSED AND IDLE . ACCORDINGLY, THE ASSESSING OFFICER EXPRESSED THE VIEW THAT THE A MOUNT SO DIVERTED BY THE ASSESSEE IS LIABLE TO BE TAXED AS I NCOME OF THE ASSESSEE FOR THE FOLLOWING REASONS:- (A) ADVANCING OF MONEY TO ANOTHER TRUST DOES NOT AMOUNT TO APPLICATION OF INCOME FOR THE OBJECTIVES OF THE SOCIETY. (B) THE SAME CANNOT BE CONSIDERED TO BE AN APPROVED INVESTMENT AS SET OUT IN THE INCOME-TAX ACT. (C) THE EXEMPTION UNDER SECTION 10(23C)(IIIAD) OF THE ACT CANNOT BE GIVEN AS THE SOCIETY HAS DIVERTED ` 47.71 LAKHS FOR NON-CHARITABLE PURPOSES. 3. THE A.O. ALSO NOTICED THAT BOTH THE SOCIETIES AR E HAVING COMMON MEMBERS / RELATIVES OF MEMBERS IN THEIR RESP ECTIVE MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE. THUS, BY PLACING RELIANCE ON THE DECISION OF HON'BLE MADRAS HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT V. VGP FOUNDATION (262 ITR 187), THE A.O. HELD THAT THE AMOUNT OF ` 47.71 LAKHS (REFERRED ABOVE) IS TO BE TREATED AS INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE AND ACCORDINGLY HE ASSESSED THE SAME IN THE HANDS OF TH E ASSESSEE. 4. THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) ALSO CONFIRMED THE SAME WIT H THE FOLLOWING OBSERVATION:- 4 I.T.A. NO. 289/MDS/2014 9. THE ASSESSEE IS A CHARITABLE INSTITUTION REGISTER ED UNDER SOCIETYS REGISTRATION ACT OF TAMIL NADU RUNN ING AN EDUCATION INSTITUTION BY NAME VAIRAMS KINDERGARTEN SOCIETY. THE APPELLANT FILED RETURN OF INCOME ON 18/10/2010 ADMITTING NIL INCOME BY CLAIMING EXEMPTION U/S 10(23C)(IIIAD) OF THE I.T. ACT. BEING AN EDUCATION INS TITUTION WITH RECEIPTS LESS THAN THE PRESCRIBED LIMIT OF 1 C RORE. DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS THE APP ELLANT SOCIETY GAVE AN ADVANCE TO ANOTHER EDUCATIONAL INST ITUTION, I.E. VAIRAMS MATRICULATION HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL. THE APPELLANT IS CONDUCTING KINDERGARTEN CLASSES IN THE BUILDING OWNED BY VAIRAM MATRICULATION HIGHER SECONDARY SCHO OL WITHOUT PAYING ANY RENT. THE APPELLANT SOCIETY ADV ANCED MONEY TO VAIRAMS MATRICULATION HIGHER SECONDARY SCH OOL FOR CONSTRUCTING ADDITIONAL BUILDING FOR ITS PURPOS E OF CARRYING OUT EDUCATIONAL ACTIVITIES. THE TOTAL ADV ANCE GIVEN BY THE APPELLANT SOCIETY IS AT ` 47,71,056/- AS OF 31/03/2010, THESE ADVANCES ARE NOT INTEREST BEARING. HOWEVER, THE A.O. ASSESSED THE ENTIRE OUTSTANDING A MOUNT ADVANCED TO THE ABOVE SCHOOL AS INCOME OF THE APPEL LANT INSTITUTION. THE A.O. HAS TREATED THE ADVANCE AS I NVESTMENT BY INVOKING THE PROVISION OF SECTION 13(1)(D), TREAT ING THE SAME AS DIVERSION OF FUNDS AND PLACED HIS RELIANCE ON THE DECISION OF THE MADRAS HIGH COURT REPORTED IN 262 ITR 187 (MAD). THE TOTAL ADVANCES OUTSTANDING AS ON 31/03/2010 I S AT ` 47,71,056/-. THUS THE A.O. HAS TREATED THAT THE FUNDS HAVE BEEN DIVERTED FOR OTHER PURPOSES THAN FOR CHAR ITABLE PURPOSES. THUS THE FUNDS HAVE BEEN LYING UNUSED AN IDLE 5 I.T.A. NO. 289/MDS/2014 WITH THE OTHER SOCIETY, ADVANCING MONEY OR TRANSFER RING MONEY TO ANOTHER TRUST DOES NOT AMOUNT TO APPLICATI ON OF FUNDS FOR THE OBJECTIVES OF THE SOCIETY. FURTHER, IT CANNOT BE CONSIDERED AS AN APPROVED INVESTMENT IN TERMS OF PROVISIONS OF SECTION 13 OF THE IT ACT. OVER AND AB OVE THE ASSESSEES SOCIETY HAS NEITHER REGISTERED U/S 12A OR UNDER THE SECTION 10(23)(C). THUS THE A.O. HAS DENIED THE EXEMPTION CLAIMED U/S 10(23)(C) AND TREATED THE ENTIRE ADVANCE AS INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. SINCE THE ASSES SEE HIMSELF HAS ACCEPTED THAT THE SOCIETY IS NOT REGIST ERED U/S 12AA OF THE I.T. ACT AS WELL AS 10(23)(C) OF THE I.T. A CT NO EXEMPTION CAN BE ALLOWED IN RESPECT OF THE ADVANCES DIVERTED TO ANOTHER SOCIETY. THEREFORE THE ADDITIO N MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON ACCOUNT OF DIVERSION OF FUNDS TREATING THE SAME AS INCOME OF THE APPELLANT. HENC E, THE CONTENTIONS OF THE APPELLANT ARE REJECTED DISMISSIN G THE APPEAL FILED BY THE APPELLANT THEREBY CONFIRMING TH E ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 5. THE LD. AR APPEARING FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE-SOCIETY IS RUNNING AN EDUCATIONAL INSTITUT ION AND ITS GROSS RECEIPT WAS LESS THAN THE LIMIT PRESCRIBED FOR SEEK ING APPROVAL UNDER SECTION 10(23C) OF THE ACT. ACCORDINGLY, HE SUBMIT TED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD CLAIMED EXEMPTION UNDER SECTION 10(23C )(IIIAD) OF THE ACT. HE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSING O FFICER HAS PROCEEDED TO ASSESS THE ADVANCE SO GIVEN BY THE ASS ESSEE BY APPLYING PROVISIONS OF SECTION 11 TO 13 OF THE ACT. THE LD A.R 6 I.T.A. NO. 289/MDS/2014 INVITED OUR ATTENTION TO THE DECISION OF HON'BLE MA DRAS HIGH COURT RENDERED IN THE CASE OF CIT V. SEETHAKATHI TRUST (2 95 ITR 520), WHEREIN IT WAS HELD THAT THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 11(5) OF THE ACT ARE NOT APPLICABLE TO A TRUST CLAIMING EXEMPTION UN DER SECTION 10(22) OF THE ACT. THE LD. A.R. SUBMITTED THAT THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 10(22) HAS SINCE BEEN DELETED AND IN ITS PL ACE THE PRESENT 10(23C)(IIIAD) HAVE BEEN INSERTED. ACCORDINGLY HE SUBMITTED THAT THE DECISION RENDERED IN THE CASE OF SEETHAKATHI TR UST SHALL BE APPLICABLE TO ASSESSEE ALSO. THE LD A.R INVITED O UR ATTENTION TO THE DECISION OF HON'BLE DELHI HIGH COURT RENDERED IN TH E CASE OF DIT (EXEMPTION) V. ACME EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY (2010) 326 ITR 146, WHEREIN IT WAS HELD THAT THE AMOUNT ADVANCED BY ONE EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY TO ANOTHER EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY CANNOT BE CO NSIDERED AS VIOLATION OF PROVISIONS OF SECTION 13(1)(D) READ WI TH SECTION 11(5) OF THE ACT, SINCE THE INTEREST-FREE LOAN GIVEN BY THE ASSESSEE-SOCIETY WAS NEITHER AN INVESTMENT NOR A DEPOSIT. THE LD A. R SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HEREIN HAS ALSO GIVEN ONLY ADVANCE TO ANOTHER EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY AND HENCE THE SAME CANNOT BE CO NSIDERED AS INVESTMENT OR DEPOSIT. 6. THE LD. A.R. SUBMITTED THAT THE OBJECTIVES O F THE ASSESSEE- SOCIETY, INTER ALIA, INCLUDES TO AID AND ASSIST IN THE ESTABLISHMENT, ETC. OF EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTIONS. THE ASSESSEE HA S GIVEN IMPUGNED 7 I.T.A. NO. 289/MDS/2014 ADVANCE TO ANOTHER EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY FOR THE PURP OSE OF CONSTRUCTION OF THE BUILDING AND THE SAME WOULD AMO UNT TO AIDING AND ASSISTING IN THE ESTABLISHMENT, CARRYING ON, M AINTENANCE, DEVELOPMENT, IMPROVEMENT AND EXTENSION OF INSTITUTI ONS PROVIDING ALL KINDS OF EDUCATION. ACCORDINGLY, HE SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS ADVANCED MONEY IN ACCORDANCE WITH ITS OBJECTS A ND HENCE, THE TAX AUTHORITIES ARE NOT JUSTIFIED IN HOLDING THAT T HE IMPUGNED ADVANCE AMOUNT TO UTILIZATION OF FUNDS FOR NON-CHARITABLE P URPOSES. HE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT CLAIMED THE ADVANCE GIVEN TO THE OTHER SOCIETY AS AN APPLICATION OF INC OME. 7. THE LD. A.R. FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSES SEE HAS BEEN MAKING SUCH KIND OF ADVANCES SINCE PAST SEVERAL YEA RS. HOWEVER, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS ASSESSED THE ENTIRE AMOUN T OF ADVANCE OUTSTANDING AS ON 31.03.2010 AS INCOME OF THE ASSES SEE. THE LD. A.R. SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE IS MAINTAINING RUN NING ACCOUNT WITH THE OTHER SOCIETY AND BALANCE AS ON 01.04.2009 WAS ` 47.14 LAKHS AND THE BALANCE AS ON 31.03.2010 WAS ` 47.65 LAKHS AND HENCE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN A SSESSING THE ENTIRE OUTSTANDING AMOUNT AS INCOME OF THE YEAR UND ER CONSIDERATION. 8 I.T.A. NO. 289/MDS/2014 8. ON THE CONTRARY, THE LD. D.R. SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN GIVING CONTRADICTORY STATEMENTS WITH REGAR D TO NATURE OF ACCOUNTS. INITIALLY THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT TH E AMOUNT WAS GIVEN TO OTHER SOCIETY FOR THE PURPOSE OF UTILIZING THE SAME FOR CONSTRUCTION OF THE BUILDING. HOWEVER, THE ASSESSE E COULD NOT PROVE THE FACT OF CONSTRUCTION BEING CARRIED ON BY THE OTHER SOCIETY BY FURNISHING NECESSARY DETAILS. AT THE LATER STAG E, THE ASSESSEE TOOK A DIFFERENT STAND AND STATED THAT THE ADVANCE WAS GIVEN FOR MAKING USE OF THE BUILDING BELONGING TO THE OTHER S OCIETY. ACCORDINGLY, THE LD. D.R. SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESS EE IS GIVING EXPLANATIONS WHICH ARE CONTRADICTORY TO EACH OTHER. THE LD D.R PLACED RELIANCE ON THE DECISION RENDERED BY HONBLE PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF ST. FRANCIS CONVE NT SCHOOL VS. CBDT (2012)(67 DTR (P&H) 251) AND ALSO THE DECISION RENDERED BY HONBLE MADRAS HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF VGP FOU NDATION (SUPRA). 9. IN THE REJOINDER, THE LD A.R SUBMITTED THAT THE DECISION WAS RENDERED BY HONBLE MADRAS HIGH COURT IN THE CASE O F VGP FOUNDATION (SUPRA) IN THE CONTEXT OF FUNDS GIVEN TO A SISTER CONCERN, WHICH WAS A PRIVATE LIMITED COMPANY OF WHICH THE TR USTEES OF THE ASSESSEE WERE ALSO DIRECTORS. HOWEVER, IN THE INST ANT CASE, THE ASSESSEE, BEING AN EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTION, HAS ADV ANCED MONEY TO 9 I.T.A. NO. 289/MDS/2014 ANOTHER CHARITABLE SOCIETY REGISTERED U/S 10(23C)(V I) OF THE ACT AND FURTHER THE RECIPIENT SOCIETY IS ALSO AN EDUCATIONA L INSTITUTION. HE SUBMITTED THAT THE DECISION RENDERED IN THE CASE OF ST. FRANCIS CONVENT SCHOOL (SUPRA) IS ALSO NOT APPLICABLE, SINC E THE FUNDS WERE DIVERTED BY THE ASSESSEE THEREIN TO THE DIOCESE OF JALANDHAR. 10. WE HAVE HEARD RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUS ED THE RECORD. THE UNDISPUTED FACTS ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE IS A SOC IETY AND IT IS RUNNING A SCHOOL HAVING LKG AND UKG CLASSES AND IT IS NOT REGISTERED U/S 12A OF THE ACT. ACCORDINGLY, THE AS SESSEE CANNOT CLAIM EXEMPTION U/S 11 OF THE ACT. ACCORDING TO LD A.R, THE GROSS RECEIPTS OF THE ASSESSEE WAS LESS THAN ONE CRORE AN D HENCE IT CLAIMED EXEMPTION U/S 10(23C)(IIIAD) OF THE ACT. T HE LD A.R FURNISHED A COPY OF RETURN OF INCOME FILED BY THE A SSESSEE BEFORE US. A PERUSAL OF THE SAME WOULD SHOW THAT THE ASSE SSEE HAS SHOWN AN INCOME OF ` 16,00,500/- UNDER THE HEAD INCOME FROM BUSINESS OR PROFESSION AND CLAIMED THE SAME AS EXE MPT U/S 10(23C)(IIIAD) OF THE ACT. ACCORDINGLY IT HAS DISC LOSED NIL INCOME. WE NOTICE FROM THE ASSESSMENT ORDER THAT THE ASSESS ING OFFICER HAS ACCEPTED THE CLAIM FOR EXEMPTION U/S 10(23C)(IIIAD) OF THE ACT WITH REGARD TO THE ABOVE SAID INCOME. 10 I.T.A. NO. 289/MDS/2014 11. THE DISPUTE BEFORE US SURROUNDS THE AMOUNT OF ` 47.71 LAKHS, WHICH WAS SHOWN AS THE AMOUNT DUE FROM ANOTHER SOCI ETY, WHICH HAPPENED TO BE MANAGED BY SAME GROUP OF PEOPLE. WE HAVE ALREADY NOTICED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS ASSE SSED THE ABOVE SAID AMOUNT AS INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE ON THREE GROU NDS. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS TAKEN THE VIEW THAT THE AMOUN T ADVANCED BY THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT APPROVED MODE OF INVESTMENT. HOWEVER, A PERUSAL OF THE PROVISIONS OF SEC. 10(23C), MORE PAR TICULARLY THE THIRD PROVISO, WOULD SHOW THAT THE RESTRICTION PLACED U/S 11(5) OF THE ACT WITH REGARD TO THE FORM OR MODE OF INVESTMENT IS NO T APPLICABLE TO THE EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTION CLAIMING EXEMPTION U/S 10(23C)(IIIAD) OF THE ACT. HENCE, THE OBSERVATION OF THE TAX AUTHORI TIES THAT THE IMPUGNED ADVANCE IS NOT AN APPROVED INVESTMENT IS N OT IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE REQUIREMENT OF LAW. HENCE, THE SAID VIEW TAKEN BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER CANNOT BE THE BASIS FOR AS SESSING THE ADVANCE AMOUNT, REFERRED ABOVE, AS INCOME OF THE AS SESSEE. 12. NEXT, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS EXPRESSED THE VIEW THAT THE ADVANCE SO GIVEN BY THE ASSESSEE CANNOT BE CONSIDER ED AS AN APPLICATION OF INCOME. A PERUSAL OF THE RETURN OF INCOME FILED BY THE ASSESSEE WOULD SHOW THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT CLAIM ED THE SAME AS APPLICATION OF INCOME. HENCE, THE SAID OBSERVAT ION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ALSO FAILS. 11 I.T.A. NO. 289/MDS/2014 13. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS FINALLY STATED THAT THE CLAIM OF EXEMPTION U/S 10(23C)(IIIAD) IS NOT ACCEPTED BECAUS E THE SOCIETY HAS DIVERTED THE SUM OF ` 47,71,056/- FOR PURPOSES WHICH ARE NOT CHARITABLE IN NATURE. FIRST OF ALL, WE NOTICE THA T THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS FAILED TO REFER TO ANY OF THE PROVISIONS OF THE ACT, UNDER WHICH HE IS FORMING SUCH AN OPINION, I.E., HE HAS NOT SHOWN AS TO HOW THE ASSESSEE HAS VIOLATED ANY OF THE PROVISIONS OF THE ACT, WHICH WOULD WARRANT REJECTION OF CLAIM OF EXEMPTION MADE U/S 10 (23C)(IIIAD) OF THE ACT. ON THE CONTRARY, THE CONTENTION OF THE AS SESSEE IS THAT THE AMOUNT SO ADVANCED TO ANOTHER EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTI ON FALLS WITHIN ITS OBJECT OF THE ASSESSEE SOCIETY. THE SAID CONTENTIO N OF LD A.R COULD NOT BE REBUTTED BY THE REVENUE. HENCE THE SAID REA SONING GIVEN BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ALSO FAILS. 14. IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING DISCUSSIONS, WE AR E OF THE VIEW THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS BROUGHT TO TAX THE AMOUNT OF ` 47,71,058/- IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE WITHOUT THE AUTHORITY OF LAW. ACCORDINGLY, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE LD CIT(APP EALS) WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN CONFIRMING THE ASSESSMENT OF THE ABOVE SAID AMOUNT. HENCE, WE ARE UNABLE TO SUSTAIN THE ORDER OF LD CIT (APPEALS) ON THIS ISSUE. ACCORDINGLY, WE SET ASIDE THE ORDER O F LD CIT(APPEALS) 12 I.T.A. NO. 289/MDS/2014 AND DIRECT THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO DELETE THE ASSE SSMENT OF ` 47,71,058/- REFERRED ABOVE. 15. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASS ESSEE IS ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON THE 6 TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2015 AT CHENNAI. SD/- SD/- ( ! ) ( .. ) (VIKASAWASTHY) (B.R. BASKARAN) ' /JUDICIAL MEMBER /ACCOUNTANT MEMBER /CHENNAI, A /DATED, THE 6 TH FEBRUARY, 2015. KRI. B , *'/C D &/ /COPY TO: 1. !( /APPELLANT 2. *+!( /RESPONDENT 3. . E/ () /CIT(A), TIRUCHIRAPALLI 4. . E/ /CIT-I, TIRUCHIRAPALLI 5. FG *'/' /DR 6. GH% I /GF.