DCIT, Meerut V. M/s. G.B.S. Education Trust, Meerut

ITA 4015/DEL/2015

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 126 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 3884 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 7 month(s) 12 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 30-01-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Next Hearing Date: 24-05-2017
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 17-06-2015
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: RAJA RAM SAPRA
• Keywords: Document seized; Charitable institution; Opportunity of being heard; Principle of natural justice; Additional evidence; Benefit of exemption; Documents seized
• Section: 153A; 12A; 131; 12; 11

Judgement Text

1 ITA NOS. 4014 & ORS /DEL/2015 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLA TE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH: C NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI G. D. AGRAWAL, PRES IDENT AND MS SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JUDI CIAL MEMBER I.T.A .NO. 4014/DEL/2 015 (A.Y 2009-10) I.T.A .NO. 4015/DEL/2 015 (A.Y 2010-11) I.T.A .NO. 4016/DEL/20 15 (A.Y 2011-12) DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE MEERUT (APPELLANT) VS G. B. S EDUCATION TRUST A-151, DEFENCE COLONY, MAWANA ROAD MEERUT AAATG1049D (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY SH. SANDEEP SAPRA, ADV RESPONDENT BY SH. RAJA RAM SAPRA, CIT DR ORDER PER BENCH THESE APPEALS ARE FILED BY THE REVENUE AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 27/03/2015 PASSED BY CIT(A)-MEERUT FOR ASSESSMENT Y EAR 2009-10. 2. THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL ARE IDENTICAL THEREFORE TH E GROUNDS OF ITA NO. 4014/DEL/2015 AS REPRODUCED HEREUNDER:- 1. THAT LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACT IN DIRECTING THE A.O. TO ALLOW THE EXEMPTION U/S 11 & 12 OF THE APPELLANT BY HOLDI NG THAT THERE WAS NO VIOLATION OF SECTION 13,WIYHOUT APPRECIATING THAT T HE TRUSTEE HAS DIVERTED THE DATE OF HEARING 05.12.2017 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 30.01.2018 2 ITA NOS. 4014 & ORS /DEL/2015 FUND OF TRUST FOR PURPOSE OF MERCEDES BENZ CAR FOR PERSONAL USE AND NO DOCUMENT REGARDING PERFORMANCE/PART PERFORMANCE OF THE CONDITIONS AS LAID DOWN IN SECTION 53/53A OF THE TRANSFER OF PROPERTY ACT HAS BEEN PRODUCED EITHER BEFORE THE A.O. OR LD. CIT(A). 2. THAT LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACT IN COMING TO THE CONCLUSION THAT A LUXURY VEHICLE LIKE MERCEDES BENZ COULD USED FOR THE PURPOSE OF SCHOOL EDUCATION WITHOUT GIVING A FINDING ABOUT HOW THIS W AS USED FOR THE PURPOSE OF TRUST SO AS TO ELIGIBLE FOR EXEMPTION U/S 11 OF THE IT ACT. 3. THAT LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACT IN NOT APPRECIATING THE FACT THAT THE MERCEDES BENZ CAR WAS REGISTERED IN THE NA ME OF TRUSTEE AND EVEN TODAY THE CAR IS REGISTERED IN THE NAME OF THE TRUS TEE. 4. THAT LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACT IN NOT APPRECIATING THAT NO DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE OR PROOF FOR PERFORMANCE/ PART PERFORMANCE OF CONTRACT HAS BEEN FILED BEFORE THE A.O. AND EVEN NOT BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A). 5. THAT THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) BEING ERR ONEOUS IN LAW AND ON FACTS WHICH NEEDS TO BE VACATED AND THE ORDER OF THE A.O. BE RESTORED. THAT THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD OR AMEND ANY ONE OR MORE OF THE GROUND OF THE APPEAL AS STATED ABOVE AS AND WHEN NE ED FOR DOING SO MAY ARISE. 3. THE FACTS ARE IDENTICAL IN ALL THE THREE APPEALS THEREFORE, THE FACTS OF ITA NO. 4014/DEL/2015 ARE TAKEN HERE. THE ASSESSEE IS A REGISTERED EDUCATIONAL TRUST RUNNING AND MAINTAINING A SENIOR SECONDARY SC HOOL UNDER THE NAME AND STYLE OF GODWIN PUBLIC SCHOOL. THE REGISTRATION U/S 12A OF THE ACT, WAS GRANTED TO THE ASSESSEE ON 19.02.1988. A SEARCH AND SURVEY WAS CONDUCTED UPON THE PREMISES OF THE ASSESSEE ON 09.09.2010, THEREAFTER NOTICE U/S 153A WAS ISSUED TO THE ASSESSEE ON 23.02.2012. THE PROCEEDINGS U/S 153A/143(3) OF THE ACT, WERE COMPLETED VIDE ORDER DATED 31.03.2013. IN THE SAID ORDER THE A.O. DISALLOWED THE EXEMPTION CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE U /S 11 & 12 OF THE ACT, ON THE ALLEGED GROUND THAT THE ASSESSEE TRUST HAS PROV IDED BENEFIT TO THE PERSONS REFERRED TO IN SECTION 13(3) OF THE ACT, AND HENCE TAXED THE ENTIRE AMOUNT OF EXCESS OF INCOME OVER EXPENDITURE OF THE ASSESSEE. 4. AGGRIEVED BY THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, THE ASSESSEE FILED APPEAL BEFORE THE 3 ITA NOS. 4014 & ORS /DEL/2015 CIT(A). THE CIT(A) HELD IN PARA 4.5 HELD AS UNDER: - 4.5. I HAVE GONE THROUGH THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AS W ELL AS THE REMAND REPORT OF THE AO. I HAVE ALSO GONE THROUGH V ARIOUS SUBMISSION MADE BY THE AR OF THE APPELLANT. IN THIS CASE, THE AO HAS DENIED THE BENEFIT OF EXEMPTION U/S 11 ON THE GROUND THAT FU NDS OF THE APPELLANT TRUST WERE UTILIZED FOR THE PERSONAL BENEFIT OF TRU STEES OF THE APPELLANT TRUST. THE AO HAS POINTED OUT TWO SUCH INSTANCES OF VIOLATION OF THE PROVISION OF SECTION 13 WHICH ARE MENTIONED IN PARA 3.1 & 3.2 ABOVE. IT IS SEEN FROM THE ASSESSMENT ORDER ITSELF THAT THE A PPELLANT TRUST WAS REGISTERED ON 19.02.1988. THUS, THE TRUST HAS BEEN ENJOYING BENEFIT OF REGISTRATION U/S 12A AND EXEMPTION OF INCOME U/S 11 YEAR AFTER YEAR. IT HAS ALSO NOT BEEN DENIED THAT THE APPELLANT TRUS T WAS NOT INVOLVED IN EDUCATIONAL ACTIVITIES WHICH IS THE MAIN OBJECT OF THE TRUST. THE AO HAS NOTED IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER THAT DURING THE YEAR, THE TRUST WAS INVOLVED IN EDUCATION ACTIVITIES AND WAS RUNNING GO DWIN PUBLIC SCHOOL. IN THIS SITUATION, THE AO HAD TO ESTABLISH CLEARLY THAT THE APPELLANT TRUST HAS VIOLATED THE PROVISION OF SECTION 13. AS MENTIONED ABOVE, THE AO HAS DISCUSSED TWO INSTANCES WHICH ACCORDING TO H ER WERE INSTANCES OF THE VIOLATION OF SECTION 13. BOTH THES E INSTANCES ARE DISCUSSED SEPARATELY AS BELOW: 1.1. THE ISSUE OF CAR: THE CONCLUSION OF THE AO WAS LARGELY BASED ON THE STATEMENT OF SH. A.N. PANDIT, THE PRINCIPAL OF GODWIN PUBLIC SCHOOL RECORDED DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH. THE ST ATEMENT OF SH. A.N. PANDIT, WAS EXAMINED CAREFULLY. IT IS SEEN THAT IN QUESTION NO. 12, MR. PANDIT WAS ASKED TO EXPLAIN THE USAGE OF MERCEDES C AR IN THE PHILOSOPHY OF TRUST. IN THIS QUESTION, ALONG WITH M ERCEDES CAR THE QUESTION OF USAGE OF OTHER 3-4 CARS WAS ALSO ASKED. IN ANSWER, MR. PANDIT HAD SAID THAT HE HAS NOT SEEN THESE CARS(IN PLURAL) IN THE SCHOOL CAMPUS. LATER ON MR. PANDIT SUBMITTED AN AFFIDAVIT WHICH WAS FILED AS ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE BY THE APPELLANT. 1.2.THE AO HAS OBJECTED TO ADMITTANCE OF THIS AFFID AVIT AS ADDITIONAL 4 ITA NOS. 4014 & ORS /DEL/2015 EVIDENCE. HOWEVER, FROM THE FACTS IT IS CLEAR THAT DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH, A SPECIFIC QUESTION REGARDING THE SPECIFIC MERCEDES CAR BEARING REGISTRATION NO. PB-08-BC-1212 WAS ASKED FROM SH. P ANDIT. BEFORE THE DATE OF SEARCH, THE REGISTRATION NUMBER OF THE SAID CAR HAD UNDERGONE A CHANGE BY WHICH ITS NUMBER WAS REGISTERED AS UP-15- AP-0001. DURING ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE AO APPARENTLY DID NOT C ONDUCT ANY ENQUIRY WITH RESPECT TO STATEMENT OF SH. PANDIT AND DID NOT ASK FOR ANY CLARIFICATION FROM HIM. IN THIS SITUATION, IT IS CL EAR THAT THE APPELLANT WAS PREVENTED BY SUFFICIENT CAUSE FORM PRODUCING BEFORE THE A.O AN EVIDENCE WHICH IS RELEVANT TO THE GROUND OF APPEAL NO. 2. THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE IS THEREFORE ADMITTED. 1.3 DURING THE COURSE OF REMAND PROCEEDINGS ALSO, S TATEMENT OF SH. PANDIT WAS RECORDED U/S 131 OF THE IT ACT. IN THIS STATEMENT, SH. PANDIT HAD STATED THAT THERE ARE TWO CARS WHICH ARE USED IN SCHOOL. HE WAS FURTHER ASKED A SPECIFIC QUESTION AS TO WHETHER THERE IS ANOTHER CAR WHICH IS USED FOR SCHOOL WORK. IN ANSWER, MR. P ANDIT HAD STATED THAT THERE IS ANOTHER CAR WHICH IS USED BY THE TRUS TEES FOR THE PURPOSE OF SCHOOL. 1.4 FROM PERUSAL OF THE STATEMENT OF SH. PANDIT, ON E CANNOT COME TO A CONCLUSION THAT THE MERCEDES CAR PURCHASED BY THE A PPELLANT TRUST WAS BEING USED FOR THE PERSONAL BENEFITS OF ITS TRUSTEE NAMELY SH. JITENDRA SINGH BAJWA. THE FACT THAT THE CAR WAS REGISTERED I N THE NAME OF SH. JITENDRA SINGH BAJWA CANNOT LEAD TO PRESUMPTION OF DIVERSION OF MOTOR VEHICLE FOR USE OF THE TRUSTEE IN HIS PERSONAL CAPA CITY. ON A SIMILAR QUESTION OF FACT, IT HAS BEEN SO HELD BY THE IT AT HYDERABAD IN THE CASE OF DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION) VS SOC IETY FOR THE POOR AND OPPRESSED (2010) 5 ITR (TRIB) 388. FURTHER, REL IANCE IS PLACED ON THE JUDGMENT GIVEN BY ITAT AHMEDABAD IN THE CASE OF DIT (EXEMPTION) VS N.H. KAPADIA EDUCATION TRUST (2012) 136 ITD 111 (AHD). CONSIDERING THE TOTALITY OF FACTS, I HAVE COME TO A CONCLUSION, THAT THE AO HAS NOT BEEN ABLE TO ESTABLISH THAT THE APPELLAN T TRUST HAS VIOLATED 5 ITA NOS. 4014 & ORS /DEL/2015 THE PROVISION OF SECTION 13 AS FAR AS THE ISSUE OF USE OF MERCEDES CAR IS CONCERNED. 2.1 THE ISSUE OF TRANSACTION BETWEEN THE APPELLANT TRUS T AND M/S GODWIN CONSTRUCTION PVT. LTD.: THE AO HAS DISCUSSED IN HER ASSESSMENT ORDER THAT THE PURPOSE OF PAYMENT BY THE TRUST TO THE COMPANY IS NOT MENTIONED IN THE SEIZED DOCUMENTS. T HE APPELLANT HAD TRIED TO EXPLAIN THAT THE PURPOSE OF THIS TRANSACTI ON WAS FOR PURCHASE OF A PLOT OF LAND. A MEMORANDUM TO THIS EFFECT WAS ALS O SUBMITTED BEFORE THE AO. THE AO HOWEVER DID NOT ACCEPT THE EXPLANATI ON OF THE APPELLANT MAINLY ON THE GROUND THAT THE TRANSACTION BETWEEN T WO INTERRELATED PARTIES BY WAY OF MEMORANDUM CANNOT BE TREATED AS R ELIABLE. 2.2 IT IS SEEN FROM THE FACTS OF THE CASE THAT THE TRANSACTIONS REFERRED TO BY THE AO ARE BETWEEN THE TRUST AND A COMPANY WHICH IS ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF REAL ESTATE DEVELOPMENT. THERE IS N O BAR IN THE STATUTE THAT A TRUST WHICH IS CLAIMING EXEMPTION U/S 11 CAN NOT HAVE COMMERCIAL TRANSACTION WITH A COMPANY IN WHICH THE TRUSTEES ARE DIRECTORS. THE ONLY CONDITION IN SUCH TRANSACTION C AN BE THAT THE TRANSACTION SHOULD BE AT ARMS LENGTH VALUE AND NO UNDUE BENEFIT ACCRUES TO EITHER OF THE TRANSACTING PARTIES. THE COPY OF ACCOUNT OF THE APPELLANT TRUST AS APPEARING IN THE BOOKS OF THE CO MPANY WAS FILED BEFORE THE AO. FURTHER, THERE IS NO FINDING BY THE AO THAT THE ASSET CLAIMED TO BE PURCHASED BY THE APPELLANT TRUST WAS NOT RECORDED IN THE BOOKS OF TRUST AS ON THE DATE OF SEARCH. 2.3 SECTION 13 BARS EXEMPTIONS WHERE THE FOUNDER, TRUSTEES OR THEIR RELATIONS ARE PERSONALLY BENEFITED FROM THE TRUST B ECAUSE THE TRUST IN THAT CASE LOSES ITS PUBLIC CHARACTER. 'HOWEVER, THE RE IS A JUDICIAL CONSENSUS AMONG COURTS AND TRIBUNAL THAT THE BURDEN OF PROVING BENEFIT TO INTERESTED PERSONS IS ON REVENUE. RELIANCE IS PL ACED ON THE JUDGMENT GIVEN BY THE HONBLE ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT IN THE CA SE OF CIT VS KAMLA TOWN TRFET 133 ITR 632. THE ITAT AGRA IN THE CASE O F SH. AMOL CHAND 6 ITA NOS. 4014 & ORS /DEL/2015 VARSHANEY VS ADDL.CIT (2013) 25 ITR (TRIB) 2011 FOL LOWING THE ABOVE JUDGMENT HAS HELD THAT THE ONUS LIES ON THE REVENUE TO BRING ON RECORD, COGENT MATERIAL/EVIDENCE TO ESTABLISH THAT THE TRUST/CHARITABLE INSTITUTION IS HIT BY THE PROVISION OF SECTION 13. 2.4THE AO HAS NOT BROUGHT ANY MATERIAL ON RECORD EXCEPT THE SEIZED DO CUMENT TO ESTABLISH THAT THE CASE OF THE APPELLANT IS HIT BY SECTION 13 . THE TRANSACTIONS REFERRED IN THE SEIZED DOCUMENT HAVE BEEN EXPLAINED AS COMMERCIAL TRANSACTION BETWEEN TWO PARTIES AT ARMS LENGTH PRI CE. IN THIS SITUATION, THE TRANSACTION REFERRED TO BY THE AO CANNOT BE SAI D TO BE PROVIDING ANY UNDUE BENEFIT TO THE TRUSTEES. BASED ON THE ABOVE D ISCUSSION, I HAVE COME TO A CONCLUSION THAT ON THIS ISSUE ALSO VIOLAT ION OF SECTION 13 HAS NOT BEEN ESTABLISHED. 4.6 THE AO HAS ALSO REFERRED TO THE FACT THAT DURING T HE SEARCH VARIOUS PAPERS WERE FOUND WHICH SHOWS THAT THE TRUSTEES HAV E RECEIVED/WITHDRAWN MONEY FROM THE TRUST FUND FOR TH EIR PERSONAL BENEFITS. THE AO HAS OBTAINED EXPLANATION OF THE AP PELLANT ON THIS POINT. THEREAFTER, NO FURTHER DISCUSSION HAS BEEN M ADE BY THE AO IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. IT IS THEREFORE UNDERSTOOD THAT T HE AO HAS FOUND THE EXPLANATION OF THE APPELLANT AS SATISFACTORY ON THI S MATTER. 4.7. THE AO HAS QUOTED THE JUDGMENT GIVEN BY THE HO NBLE ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS AUDH EDU CATIONAL SOCIETY (2011) 15 TAXMAN 235. HOWEVER, THE FACTS OF THIS CA SE ARE DISTINGUISHABLE FROM THE FACTS OF THE CASE OF THE A PPELLANT. IN THE CASE QUOTED BY THE AO, THE APPELLANT TRUST HAS GIVEN INT EREST FREE LOAN IN VIOLATION OF PROVISION OF SECTION 13(1)(C) WHERE AS IN THE APPELLANTS CASE THERE ARE NO SUCH FACTS. 4.8. ON THE BASIS OF DISCUSSIONS MADE IN ABOVE PARA GRAPHS, I HAVE COME TO A CONCLUSION THAT THE AO HAS NOT BEEN ABLE TO ESTABLISH THAT THE CASE OF APPELLANT TRUST IS HIT BY THE VIOL ATION OF SECTION 13. IN THIS SITUATION, THERE IS NO JUSTIFICATION IN DENYIN G THE EXEMPTION U/S 11 7 ITA NOS. 4014 & ORS /DEL/2015 & 12 TO THE APPELLANT. THE AO IS THEREFORE DIRECTED TO ALLOW THE EXEMPTION U/S 11 & 12. THE AO IS FURTHER DIRECTED T O COMPUTE THE TOTAL INCOME AFTER ALLOWING THE EXEMPTION U/S 11 & 12. GR OUNDS OF APPEAL NOS.L,2&3 ARE ACCORDINGLY ALLOWED. 5. THE LD. DR SUBMITTED THAT THE CIT(A) ERRED IN LA W BY DIRECTING THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO ALLOW THE EXEMPTION U/S 11 & 12 BY HOLDING THAT THERE WAS NO VIOLATION OF SECTION 13 WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE FACT THAT THE TRUSTEES HAVE DIVERTED THE FUND OF TRUST FOR PURPOSE OF MERC EDES BENZ CAR FOR PERSONAL USE DESPITE HAVING NO DOCUMENTS REGARDING PERFORMAN CE/PART PERFORMANCE OF THE CONDITIONS AS LAID DOWN IN SECTION 53/53A OF T HE TRANSFER OF PROPERTY ACT. THEREFORE, THE LD. DR REQUESTED THAT THE ORDER OF T HE CIT(A) BE SET ASIDE. 6. THE LD. AR SUBMITTED THAT ALL THE DOCUMENTS RELA TING TO THE TRANSFER OF PROPERTY WAS BEFORE THE CIT(A) AS WELL AS THE ASSES SING OFFICER BUT THE SAME WAS NOT TAKEN BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. AS RELATED TO THE STATEMENT THE ASSESSEE HAS EXPLAINED ALL THE RELEVANT FACTS RELAT ING TO THE VEHICLE USED BY THE SCHOOL/TRUST. THE CIT(A) AFTER VERIFYING ALL THE DOCUMENTS HAS GIVEN A PROPER FINDING . THERE IS NO NEED TO INTERFERE WITH THE O RDER OF THE CIT (A). 7. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE M ATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. AS REGARDS TO GROUND NO. 1 TO 3, THERE IS NO FINDING TO THE EXTENT THAT HOW THE CAR HAS BEEN USED FOR THE PURPOSE OF THE SC HOOL EDUCATION AND THE USE FOR THE PURPOSE OF TRUST SO AS TO BE ELIGIBLE FOR E XEMPTION U/S 11 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961. THE SAME NEEDS TO BE VERIFIED. THERE FORE, THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) IS SET ASIDE AND THE MATTER IS REMANDED BACK TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR VERIFYING ALL THE RELEVANT MATERIALS IN RESPECT OF THIS ISSUE ONLY. NEEDLESS TO SAY THAT THE ASSESSEE BE GIVEN OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD AND PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE TO BE FOLLOWED. THUS, GROUND NO. 1 TO 3 ARE PARTLY ALLOWED. 8. AS RELATES TO GROUND NO. 4 TO 5, THE ISSUE OF TR ANSACTION BETWEEN THE APPELLANT TRUST AND M/S GODWIN CONSTRUCTION PVT. LT D. THE ASSESSING OFFICER 8 ITA NOS. 4014 & ORS /DEL/2015 OBSERVED THAT THE PURPOSE OF PAYMENT BY THE TRUST T O THE COMPANY IS NOT MENTIONED IN THE SEIZED DOCUMENTS. BUT THE ASSESSEE EXPLAINED THAT THE PURPOSE OF THIS TRANSACTION WAS FOR PURCHASE OF A P LOT OF LAND. A MEMORANDUM TO THIS EFFECT WAS ALSO SUBMITTED BEFORE THE ASSESS ING OFFICER. HOWEVER, THE ASSESSING OFFICER DID NOT ACCEPT THE EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE MAINLY ON THE GROUND THAT THE TRANSACTION BETWEEN TWO INTERRELATE D PARTIES BY WAY OF MEMORANDUM CANNOT BE TREATED AS RELIABLE. THE CIT(A ) IS RIGHT IN HOLDING THAT THE TRANSACTIONS REFERRED TO BY THE ASSESSING OFFIC ER ARE BETWEEN THE TRUST AND A COMPANY WHICH IS ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF REAL ESTATE DEVELOPMENT. THERE IS NO BAR IN THE STATUTE THAT A TRUST WHICH IS CLAI MING EXEMPTION U/S 11 CANNOT HAVE COMMERCIAL TRANSACTION WITH A COMPANY IN WHICH THE TRUSTEES ARE DIRECTORS. THE ONLY CONDITION IN SUCH TRANSACTION C AN BE THAT THE TRANSACTION SHOULD BE AT APPROPRIATE VALUE AND NO UNDUE BENEFIT ACCRUES TO EITHER OF THE TRANSACTING PARTIES. THE COPY OF ACCOUNT OF THE ASS ESSEE TRUST AS APPEARING IN THE BOOKS OF THE COMPANY WAS FILED BEFORE THE ASSES SING OFFICER. FURTHER, THERE IS NO FINDING BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT THE ASS ET CLAIMED TO BE PURCHASED BY THE ASSESSEE TRUST WAS NOT RECORDED IN THE BOOKS OF TRUST AS ON THE DATE OF SEARCH. THUS, THERE IS NO NEED TO INTERFERE WITH TH E FINDINGS OF THE CIT(A). GROUND NO. 4 TO 5 ARE DISMISSED. 9. IN RESULT, ALL THE THREE APPEALS OF THE REVENUE ARE PARTLY ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSE. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 30 TH JANUARY, 2018 . SD/- SD/- (G. D. AGRAWAL) (SUCHITRA KAMBLE) PRESIDENT JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED: 30/01/2018 R. NAHEED * COPY FORWARDED TO: 9 ITA NOS. 4014 & ORS /DEL/2015 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(APPEALS) 5. DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT NEW DELHI DATE 1. DRAFT DICTATED ON 05/12/2017 PS 2. DRAFT PLACED BEFORE AUTHOR 06/12/2017 PS 3. DRAFT PROPOSED & PLACED BEFORE THE SECOND MEMBER .2018 JM/AM 4. DRAFT DISCUSSED/APPROVED BY SECOND MEMBER. JM/AM 5. APPROVED DRAFT COMES TO THE SR.PS/PS 30.01.2018 PS/PS 6. KEPT FOR PRONOUNCEMENT ON PS 7. FILE SENT TO THE BENCH CLERK 31.01.2018 PS 8. DATE ON WHICH FILE GOES TO THE AR 9. DATE ON WHICH FILE GOES TO THE HEAD CLERK. 10. DATE OF DISPATCH OF ORDER.