Kalinga Institute of Industrial Technology (KIIT), Bhubaneswar V. Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption), Hyderabad

ITA 45/CTK/2021

• Counselvise Citation: [2022] 105 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 4928 (ITAT-CUTTACK)
• Duration Of Justice: 11 month(s) 17 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 07-04-2022
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: misc
• Appeal Filed On: 20-04-2021
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Revision of order; Audit objection; Assessment record; Set aside
• Section: 68; 69; 263; 143(3); 142(1); 69A

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, BEFORE S/ AND ARUN KHODPIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Kalinga Institute of Industrial Technology (KIIT Bhubaneswar PAN/GIR No. (Appellant Per C.M.Garg This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the CIT(E), Hyderabad yea 2016-17 . 2. The assessee has raised the following grounds: “1.That, the order of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption) passed u/s 263 of the Act for doing of denovo assessment is not sustainable in view of the fact that, the assessment order passed u/s and proper scrutiny which is neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the interest of revenue. IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CUTTACK BENCH, CUTTACK S/SHRI CHANDRA MOHAN GARG, JUDICIAL AND ARUN KHODPIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.45/CTK/2021 Assessment Year : 2016-17 Kalinga Institute of Industrial Technology (KIIT), Bhubaneswar vs CIT (Exemptions), Hyderabad No.AAATK 3103 C (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Assessee by : Shri S.K.Agarwal Revenue by : Shri Manoj Kumar Goutam, Date of Hearing : 7 /3/ 20 Date of Pronouncement : 08/ O R D E R g, JM This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the Hyderabad u/s.263 of the Act dated 30.3.2021 . The assessee has raised the following grounds: “1.That, the order of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption) passed u/s 263 of the Act for doing of denovo assessment is not sustainable in view of the fact that, the assessment order passed u/s 143(3) of the Act after through enquiry and proper scrutiny which is neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the interest of revenue. Page1 | 18 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND ARUN KHODPIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER CIT (Exemptions), Respondent) S.K.Agarwal, AR Manoj Kumar Goutam, CIT (DR) / 2022 /4/2022 This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the Pr. dated 30.3.2021 for the assessment “1.That, the order of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption) passed u/s 263 of the Act for doing of denovo assessment is not sustainable in view of the fact that, the 143(3) of the Act after through enquiry and proper scrutiny which is neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the ITA No.45/CTK/2021 Assessment Year : 2016-17 Page2 | 18 2. That, Ld. Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption) has committed an error of law in holding the amount of Rs.70,19,70,931 as anonymous donation which is comprised of Rs.62,03,872 is the Grant-in-Aid received from different Govt. Agencies/Departments and Rs.69,57,67,059 is the development fees collected from the students which were duly examined by the Ld. Assessing Officer during the course of assessment proceeding by issuing on notice u/s 142(1). Therefore the word anonymous is misnomer and the direction of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption) is not sustainable and the order passed u/s 263 is liable to be quashed. 3. That, the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions) is not justified in drawing the wrong inference that, there is a difference in balance of the bank account no. 514010110000001 of Rs.6,42,77,146 which is to be taxed u/s 69A whereas the balance in the said account tallied with the Balance Sheet. Hence the direction of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption) is contrary to the facts and liable to be quashed. 4. That, the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption) is wrong in setting aside the assessment order and directing the Ld. Assessing Officer to redo the assessment in view of the fact that the issues which are the subject matter of 263 proceedings had been adjudicated by the Ld. Assessing Officer during the course of assessment proceeding by issuing of notice u/s 142(1) and therefore the revisional order passed u/s 263 is illegal and liable to be quashed. 5. That, the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption) has erred in law in directing the Ld. Assessing Officer to denovo assessment after making enquiry of alleged anonymous donation and difference of closing balance as the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption) passed the impugned revisional order on mere presumption of lack of enquiry which does not confer jurisdiction on him to pass the order u/s 263 of the Act. 6. That, the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption) passed the impugned order mechanically without referring to the documents / submission made in course of hearing. As such, the impugned order is not sustainable in law due to non-application of mind and same is liable to be quashed. 7. That, the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption) has committed an error of law in passing revisional order passed u/s 263 ITA No.45/CTK/2021 Assessment Year : 2016-17 Page3 | 18 without conducting any independent inquiry to the submission of the assessee as mandated u/s 263(1) of the Act and therefore the revisional order passed u/s 263 is liable to be quashed” 3. Facts of this case are that the Assessing Officer completed the assessment u/s.143(3) of the Act on 13.12.2018. Thereafter, the Pr. CIT called for the assessment records and observed that the assessment order is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. Accordingly, notice u/s.263 of the Act was issued to the assessee to show cause as to why the assessment order will not be revised. In the notice, the Pr. CIT asked to show on the following issues: “(i) On verification of assessment records, it is noticed that Statement of income shows that the assessee trust has received voluntary contributions including anonymous donations of Rs. 70,19,70,931/-. In respect of the said donation, no record showing identity of donors, relationship between donors and trust worthiness of donors to donate, date and mode of payment of donation and genuineness of donation etc., has been furnished. This issue has not been verified during the course of scrutiny assessment though the case was selected for complete scrutiny. In view of the above, the voluntary contributions including anonymous donations of Rs. 70,19,70,931/- is required to be treated as anonymous donation and taxable at the rate of 30% u/s 115BBC. (ii) It is noticed that closing balance of the assessee trust as on 31.03.2016 in savings bank account bearing a/c no. 514010110000001 of Bank of India is Rs. 1,52,26,630.89. But the assessee shows in note-2.13 forming part of balance sheet under the head that closing balance as on 31.03.2016 in savings bank account of Bank of India is Rs. (-) 4,90,50,516/-. Hence, Rs. 6,42,77,146/- (Rs. 1,52,26,630 - (-) Rs. 4,90,50,516) was required to be added to the income as undisclosed income of the assessee u/s 69A of the Act. Section 115BBE(1) of the IT Act provides that where the total income of an assessee includes any income referred to in section 68 or 69 of the Act, the income tax payable shall be the aggregate of the ITA No.45/CTK/2021 Assessment Year : 2016-17 Page4 | 18 amount of income tax calculated on income referred to in section 68 or 69 at the rate of 30% and the amount of income tax chargeable on the remaining income determined under normal provisions.” 4. In response to show cause notice u/s.263 of the Act, with regard to first issue i.e. the assessee had received anonymous donation of Rs.70,19,70,931/-, it was submitted that the assessee had not received any donations from anybody in the impugned assessment year. It was submitted that the alleged amount of Rs.70,19,70,931/- comprises of Rs.62,03,872/- received from different government departments as non- recurring grants and Rs.69,57,67,059/- as development fees from different students studying in the institution, as per the guidelines of AICTE/UGC/DTET/NCVT, therefore, the provisions of section 115BC is not applicable. With regard to second point raised in the notice, the assessee submitted that the assessee maintains the different bank accounts in different banks. On 31.3.2016, as per the bank statement, the balance in SB A/.c No.514010110000001 maintained in Bank of India is Rs.1,52,256,630.89 and in SB A/.c No.514010110000203 maintained in Bank of India is Rs.9,49,545.12. A cheque of Rs.5,00,00,000 had been issued from the A/c No. 514010110000203 and cleared at the year end. Thus, the closing balance is Rs.4,90,50,516/- which had been disclosed in the balance sheet and the balance in bank account is Rs.(-)4,90,50,516/-. It was submitted that both the account cannot be mixed as they are separate account. It was in this backdrop and in view of the clinching ITA No.45/CTK/2021 Assessment Year : 2016-17 Page5 | 18 information; the assessee submitted that the proceedings u/s.263 may be dropped. 5. After considering the submissions of the assessee and also due to audit objection on the points, the Commissioner observed as under: “(i) The Statement of income shows that the assessee trust has received voluntary contributions including anonymous donations of Rs. 70,19,70,931/-. In respect of the said donation, no record showing identity of donors, relationship between donors and trust worthiness of donors to donate, date and mode of payment of donation and genuineness of donation etc., has been furnished. This issue has not been verified during the course of scrutiny assessment though the case was selected for complete scrutiny. In view of the above, the voluntary contributions including anonymous donations of Rs. 70,19,70,931/- is required to be treated as anonymous donation and taxable at the rate of 30% u/s.115BBC. . (ii) The closing balance of the assessee trust as on 31.03.2016 in savings bank account bearing a/c no. 514010110000001 of Bank of India is Rs. 1,52,26,630.89. But the assessee shows in note-2.13 forming part of balance sheet under the head that closing balance as on 31.03.2016 in savings bank account of Bank of India is Rs. (-) 4,90,50,516/-. Hence, Rs. 6,42,77,146/- (Rs. 1,52,26,630 - (-) Rs. 4,90,50,516) was required to be added to the income as undisclosed income of the assessee u/s 69A of the Act. Section 115BBE(1) of the IT Act provides that where the total income of an assessee includes any income referred to in section 68 or 69 of the Act, the income tax payable shall be the aggregate of the amount of income tax calculated on income referred to in section 68 or 69 at the rate of 30% and the amount of income tax chargeable on the remaining income determined under normal provisions..” 6. The Ld CIT(E) held that the AO has failed to make proper enquires on the above issues before passing the assessment order, therefore, the order passed u/s.143(3) is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue and, therefore, set aside the assessment order with the direction to ITA No.45/CTK/2021 Assessment Year : 2016-17 Page6 | 18 the AO examine the issues and redo the assessment after verification of the issues in accordance with law. 7. Hence, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 8. We have heard the arguments of both sides and carefully considered the materials placed on record of the Tribunal, Inter alia, two paper books filed by the assessee spread over 177 and 475 pages. Ld A.R. drew our attention towards notice vide dated 24.3.2021 u/s.263 of the Act Paras 5 & 6, and submitted that the Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption), Hyderabad ( in short ‘CIT(E)’ has pointed out two discrepancies in the impugned scrutiny assessment order dated 13.12.2018 passed u/s.143(3) of the Act. He further pointed out that as per para 6 (i) of the said notice, the CIT(E) alleges that the statement of income shows that the assessee trust has received voluntary contributions including anonymous donations of Rs. 70,19,70,931/- and In respect of the said donation, no record showing identity of donors, relationship between donors and trust worthiness of donors to donate, date and mode of payment of donation and genuineness of donation etc., has been furnished by the assessee before the AO. Ld A.R. pointed out that the CIT(E) after making this incorrect observation, further observed that this issue has not been verified though the case was selected for complete scrutiny and, therefore, the voluntary contributions including anonymous donations of Rs. 70,19,70,931/- is required to be treated as anonymous donation and taxable at the rate of 30% u/s.115BBC ITA No.45/CTK/2021 Assessment Year : 2016-17 Page7 | 18 of the Act. Ld counsel further drew our attention towards page 118 of APB- 1 i.e. audit report for financial year 2015-16 page-4 submitted that the assessee has not received any anonymous donation from anybody or any entity or authority. In fact, during the relevant financial period, the assessee has received aggregate of Rs.62,03,872/- from different government agencies/department as non-recurring grants and Rs.69,,57,67,059 as development fee from the students total of which comes to Rs.70,19,70,931/-. Therefore, the CIT(E) has pointed out defects in the assessment order by showing incorrect facts ignoring the audit report and notes No.2.1 and 2.2 forming part of annual account of the assessee. Ld counsel also submits details of grant-in-aid of Rs.62,03,872/- and submitted that the assessee has received grant-in-aid from competent authority and details of which was submitted before the AO during the assessment proceedings. Ld A.R. further pointed out that the assessee also submitted copy of statement of development fees received from the students in compliance to notice of the AO u/s.142(1) of the Act on 4.7.2018. Ld counsel submitted that since the CIT(E) has taken incorrect facts for making addition in para 5 of the notice as well as relevant part of impugned revisionary order u/s.263 of the Act, therefore, the revisionary notice and impugned order cannot be held as sustainable in view of these factual position. ITA No.45/CTK/2021 Assessment Year : 2016-17 Page8 | 18 9. Ld counsel further pointed out that in para 6 of the notice, the CIT(E) has alleged that the closing balance of assessee trust as on 31.3.2016 in SB A/c No.xxxx001 of Bank of India is Rs.1,52,26,630.89 but the assessee shows in the note of account No.2.13 forming part of balance sheet under the head, the closing balance as on 31.3.2016 in SB A/c. of Bank of India if (-) Rs.4,90,50,516/-, hence, Rs.6,42,77,146 was required to be added as income in the hands of the assessee as undisclosed income u/s.69A of the Act. Ld counsel further pointed out that in this para, the CIT(E) has also alleged that the provisions of section 115BBE(1) is also applicable to the case of the assessee. Ld A.R. further drew our attention towards pages 122 to 124 of APB-1 and submitted that during original scrutiny assessment proceedings, the AO issued notice u/s.142(1) of the Act dated 4.7.2018, alongwith questionnaire asking 19 questions, wherein, in Q No.4, the AO asked to furnish the individual ledger account of all income & expenditure and in Q. No.12, to furnish the detail of specific grants/corpus fund alongwith documentary evidences, if any. In compliance to said notice and Q. Nos.4 & 12, the assessee submitted copy of statement showing development fees received from the students, copy of statement showing grant-in-aid, for the financial year 2015-16, which was examined and verified by the AO and after being satisfied allowed the explanation of the assessee that the impugned amount of Rs.70,19,70,931/- is nothing but grant-in-aid and amount of development fees received from the students. ITA No.45/CTK/2021 Assessment Year : 2016-17 Page9 | 18 Therefore, the allegation of no enquiry in this regard made by the AO, alleged by ld CIT(E) is not correct and justified. Therefore, the assessment order cannot be held to be sustainable on account of non-verification by the AO during the scrutiny assessment proceedings. Ld A.R further pointed out that in response to notice u/s.142(1) of the Act dated 4.7.2018, the assessee made additional compliance through letter dated 15.11.2018 and in response to Q. No.4, submitted copies of ledger account and income and expenditure account. 10. Ld A.R. further drew our attention towards copy of statement showing the closing balance of the assessee in SB A/c. No.XXX203 and other five current accounts including current A./c No.XXXX001 and submitted that in para 6, the CIT(E) has taken wrong facts pertaining to assessee’s current a/c No.XXX001 with Bank of India as per balance sheet of Rs.1,52,26,630.89 and picked up closing balance of S.B A/c No.XXXX203 (-) Rs.4,90,50,516 to allege that on account of this discrepancy, addition u/s.69A is to be taxed u/s.115BBE(1) of the Act as undisclosed income of the assessee. Ld A.R. again drew our attention towards statement of Bank of India SB A/c No.XXXX203 and closing balance pertaining to current account No.XXXX001 and submitted that the AO has mixed up the A/c No. and closing balance and made wrong allegation that due to closing balance show in the balance sheet and as per bank statement is different and differential amount has to be treated as undisclosed income of the ITA No.45/CTK/2021 Assessment Year : 2016-17 Page10 | 18 assessee. Ld A.R. finally pointed out that the closing balance of SB A/c No.XXXX203 was actually Rs.9,49,454.12 after issuing cheque for Rs.5,00,000/- on 31.3.2016, which was presented for payment with the bank and the closing balance of current A/c No.xxxx001 was Rs.1,52,26,630.89. Therefore, the allegation made by the CIT(E) in para 6 of the notice and relevant part of the impugned revisionary order are based on incorrect assumption of facts, which are not sustainable and clearly established that these allegations are not in consonance with the factual position and closing balance of the assessee’s SB A/c No.XXXX203 and current A./c No.XXXX001. As the closing balance of (-) Rs.4,90,50,,516/- belong to SB Account No.XXXX203, whereas the closing balance further picked up by the CIT(E) Rs.1,52,26,630.89 pertaining to current A/c No.XXXX001. Ld counsel submitted that copy of the current A./c with BOI XXXX001 was placed before the AO in compliance to notice u/s.142(1) of the Act dated 4.7.2018. Thus, it is to be presumed that the AO has made detailed examination and verification of the audit report and all relevant statements during the course of scrutiny assessment proceedings, therefore, the allegation of no enquiry cannot be made against the AO for alleging the impugned scrutiny assessment order as erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. Placing reliance on the decision of Hon’ble P&H High Court in the case of CIT vs Reita Biscuits Co. (P) Ltd.,, 309 ITR 154 (P&H), ld counsel submitted that once the issue has been ITA No.45/CTK/2021 Assessment Year : 2016-17 Page11 | 18 decided against the revenue on the same issue during subsequent year, there is no need to take a different view on a technical reason and thus, the notice and revisionary order u/s.263 of the Act is not valid and bad in law. 11. Replying to above, ld CIT DR pointed out that there is no plausible and reliable proof that the copy of statement with regard to development fees received from the students by the assessee contained in PB-2 pages 475 was furnished before the AO. He further pointed out that no bank statement and details of development fees was submitted before the AO and this fact has been noted by the CIT(E) in para 6 of revisionary order u/s.263 of the Act, wherein, he categorically held that the AO failed to make proper enquiry in this regard on both the issues, therefore, he was right in holding that the alleged scrutiny assessment order is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. Ld CIT DR pointed out that it is a clear case of no enquiry, therefore, revisionary order u/s.263 of the Act may kindly be upheld. Ld CIT DR pointed out that in compliance to notice u/s.142(1) of the Act, the AO raised 19 questions and the assessee replied only four questions leaving 15 questions unanswered, therefore, the enquiry made by the AO was not sufficient and adequate on both points, which have been raised by the ld CIT(E) in the notice u/s.263 of the Act and in para 6 of revisionary order u/s.263 of the Act, there was no enquiry by the AO, therefore, the assessment has been rightly treated as erroneous and ITA No.45/CTK/2021 Assessment Year : 2016-17 Page12 | 18 prejudicial to the interest of the revenue and the order u/s.263 of the Act be upheld. 12. Placing rejoinder to above, ld A.R. submitted that the assessee has filed all the required details, explanation and documentary evidences including the audit report for the financial year 2015-16, copies of bank statement and copy of the statement showing development fees received from the students, wherein, all details including name of the students, his class, roll no., amount, which is clearly discernible that same was placed before the AO during the scrutiny assessment proceedings. Ld A.R. submitted that for taking action u/s.263 of the Act, the CIT(E) must have called relevant assessment records including all papers filed by the assessee before the AO during the assessment proceedings and this action clearly reveals the closing balance of all the bank account of the assessee but the CIT(E) has picked up incorrect and irrelevant facts and figures for alleging the scrutiny assessment order as erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue, which clearly shows non-application of mind for revising the assessment order against the assessee, therefore, the impugned revisionary order u/s.263 of the Act may kindly be quashed. 13. Ld counsel for the assessee submitted that if the CIT (E) was under impression that the AO has not verified the relevant records, then, the Ld CIT (E) should have made enquiry himself to know the facts. For this proposition, he relied on the following decisions: ITA No.45/CTK/2021 Assessment Year : 2016-17 Page13 | 18 i) DIT vs Jyoti Foundation, 357 ITR 388 (Del) ii) ITO vs DG Housing Projects ALtd., 343 ITR 329 (Del) iii) Pr. CIT vs Delhi Airport Metro Express (P) Ltd., 398 ITR 8 (Del) iv) Nanda Kishore Agarwalla vs Pr. CIT in ITA No.212/CTK/2017 14. On the first issue, after considering the rival submissions of both the sides and keeping in view the documentary evidences submitted by the assessee in paper book Vol. I & II, we clearly note that case of the assessee was selected for complete scrutiny and the AO has issued notice u/s.142(1) of the Act on 4.7.2018 alongwith questionnaire, wherein, the assessee was asked to furnish individual ledger account of income and expenditure and to furnish details of specific grant-in-aid alongwith documentary evidence. The said notice was replied by the assessee vide letter dated 15.11.2018 and copy of ledger account and income and expenditure account were submitted by the assessee before the AO. From ‘E’ filing compliance to the said notice u/s.142(1) of the Act dated 4.7.2018, we note that the assessee has submitted copy of the statement pertaining to development fees received from the student containing 475 pages, which has also been produced before this Bench as PB Vol-II of the assessee. 15. At this juncture, we may point out that in para 6(i) of impugned revisionary order u/s.263 of the Act, and in para 5 of the notice u/s.263 of the Act, which has been reproduced in para 3 of this order, we observe that the CIT(E) has alleged that the assessee trust received voluntary ITA No.45/CTK/2021 Assessment Year : 2016-17 Page14 | 18 contribution including anonymous donations of Rs.70,19,70,931/- and in respect of said donation, no record showing identity of donors, relationship between donors and trust worthiness of donors to donate, date and mode of payment of donation and genuineness of donation, etc. has been furnished He also alleges that this issue has not been verified during the course of scrutiny assessment and the case was selected for complete scrutiny. With these observations, the ld CIT(E) concluded that the voluntary donation including anonymous donation is required and taxable @ 30% u/s.115BBC of the Act. As we have noted that during the scrutiny assessment proceedings, in reply to notice u/s.142(1) of the Act,, the assessee submitted copies of ledger account and income and expenditure account as Annexure-1 alongwith copy of the audit report for the financial year 2015-16, which includes notes of account No.2(1) wherein, it is clearly discernible that the assessee has received grant-in-aid of Rs.62,03,872/- and development fees of Rs.69,57,67,059/- totaling to Rs.70,19,70,931/- and the same issue has been picked up the ld CIT(E) observing that the assessee has received voluntary contribution including anonymous donation. These documents were submitted before the CIT(E) alongwith reply to notice u/s.263 dated 28.3..2021 in para 3.1. These facts were brought to the notice of CIT(E) alongwith copies of development fees as Annexure-1 and details of grant-in-aid as Annexure-II and sanction letters ITA No.45/CTK/2021 Assessment Year : 2016-17 Page15 | 18 of Govt. of India as Annexure-3 but we are unable to see any adjudication by the CIT (E) in the impugned revisionary order on the issue. 15. Further, from the issue raised by the CIT(E) in para 6(ii) of impugned revisionary order, as has been reproduced in earlier para 3 of this order, we clearly observe that the AO has mixed up the facts to allege difference in the closing balance shown by the assessee in the balance sheet, wherein, the CIT(E) while considering the account in XXXX 001 Bank of India noted that as on 31.3.2016, the closing balance of the trust was Rs.1,52,26,630.89 but this was not SB account and was a current account with Bank of India operated by the assessee. Thereafter, the CIT (E) further alleges that the closing balance as on 31.3.2016 in the said bank account (-) Rs.4,90,50,516/-, which was closing balance of SB Account No.XXXX203 and thereafter, mixing these irrelevant facts, the CIT (E) held that the addition is required to be made u/s.69A of the provisions of section 115BBE(1) of the Act are also applicable. From the reply of the assessee available at pages 21 to 25 at para 4 to 4.2, which is clearly discernible that the assessee submitted all the relevant details pointing out incorrect assumption of facts regarding saving and current bank account of the assessee and also submitted copies of the bank statement alongwith reconciliation as Annexure-7 before the CIT(E) but in the revisionary order, there is no discussion and deliberation by the CIT(E) in this regard about the reply of the assessee to notice u/s.263 of the Act and documentary ITA No.45/CTK/2021 Assessment Year : 2016-17 Page16 | 18 evidence submitted thereto. In view of above, we are compelled to hold that the CIT(E) on both the issues, has picked up incorrect, irrelevant and wrong facts to allege the assessment order as erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. Per contra, from the documents and evidence submitted by the assesse, we are satisfied that during scrutiny assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer has made proper, detailed and adequate enquiry on both the issues. Therefore, this is a case of no enquiry by the AO. Ld A.R. has successfully demonstrated that all the relevant papers including copy of the statement showing receipt of development fees from the students, details of all relevant bank accounts were submitted before the AO during the assessment proceedings alongwith audit report for financial year 2015-16. It is also clear that in reply to notice u/s.263 of the Act, the assessee has submitted all the correct factual position on both the issues alaongwith relevant documentary evidence as Annexure-1 to 6 on first issue and as Annexure-7 to second issue but we are unable to see any consideration and adjudication on these explanation and submissions of the assessee in the revisionary order. 15. In the case of Jyoti Foundation (supra), it has been held that if the Director felt that the enquiry conducted by the AO is not sufficient, then, the Director should have made enquiry himself without setting aside the assessment order. ITA No.45/CTK/2021 Assessment Year : 2016-17 Page17 | 18 16. In the case of Delhi Airport Metro Express Pvt Ltd., (supra), the CIT remanded the matter back to the file of the AO without exercising his power for conducting enquiry himself. The Hon’ble High Court held that the Pr. CIT should have exercised his power after undertaking an enquiry himself. Similar view has been taken by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of DG Housing Projects Ltd., (supra). 17. In the case before us, the Pr. CIT without conducting any enquiry, has set aside the assessment order and directed the AO make further enquiry on both the issues and redo the assessment. 18. Therefore, we are compelled to hold that the impugned revisionary order u/s.263 of the Act has been passed by taking into consideration incorrect, irrelevant wrong facts and without application of mind and the same has also been passed in violation of principles of natural justice because the CIT(E) has not considered reply of the assessee to notice u/s.263 of the Act and documents submitted alognwith the said reply. At the cost of repetition, we may point out that since in the earlier part of this order, we have reached the conclusion that the AO has made adequate, sufficient and proper enquiry on both the issues during scrutiny assessment proceedings by way of issuing notice u/s.142(1) of the Act and taking all course of action, reply and documentary evidence furnished by the assessee. Therefore, the allegation of no enquiry as contended by ld CIT ITA No.45/CTK/2021 Assessment Year : 2016-17 Page18 | 18 DR cannot be made against the assessee. Therefore, we are not in agreement with the ld CIT(E) that the assessment is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue and, therefore, on both counts, the revisionary order cannot be held as sustainable being bad in law. Consequently, impugned notice u/s.263 of the Act, impugned revisionary order dated 30.3.2021 and subsequent proceedings and orders are quashed. 19. In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed. Order pronounced on 08/4/2022. Sd/- sd/- (Arun Khodpia) (Chandra Mohan Garg) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Cuttack; Dated 08 /04/2022 B.K.Parida, SPS (OS) Copy of the Order forwarded to : By order Sr.Pvt.secretary ITAT, Cuttack 1. The Appellant : Kalinga Institute of Industrial Technology (KIIT, Bhubaneswar 2. The Respondent. CIT (Exemptions), Hyderabad 3. Pr.CIT-, Bhubaneswar 4. DR, ITAT, Cuttack 5. Guard file. //True Copy//