MAHASEMAM TRUST, MADURAI V. PCIT CENTRAL-2, CHENNAI

ITA 601/CHNY/2020

• Counselvise Citation: [2021] 108 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 0642 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 1 month(s) 20 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 16-07-2021
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2016-2017
• Appeal Filed On: 26-05-2020
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: S. BHARATH
• Keywords: Benefit of exemption; Set aside
• Section: 263; 12; 11; 143(3); 201; 13

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL , A B ENCH, CHENNAI . , . , $ BEFORE SHRI V.DURGA RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI G.MANJUNATHA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ./ I.T.A.NO.601/CHNY/2020 ( / ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2016-17) M/S. MAHASEMAM TRUST PLOT NO.519, 16 TH MAIN ROAD, KARPAGA NAGAR, K.PUDUR, MADURAI-625 007. VS THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL-2, CHENNAI. PAN: AAATM 7040C ( /APPELLANT) ( /RESPONDENT) / APPELLANT BY : MRS. K.HEMALATHA, C.A. /RESPONDENT BY : MR. S.BHARATH, CIT /DATE OF HEARING : 22.04.2021 /DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 16.07.2021 / O R D E R PER G.MANJUNATHA, AM: THIS APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST ORDER OF THE LEARNED PCIT, CENTRAL-2, CHENNAI DATE D 17.03.2020 U/S.263 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 AND PERTAINS TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2016-17. 2. THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF A PPEAL:- 1. FOR THAT THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED PRINCIPAL COM MISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL-2,CHENNAI U/S.263 OF THE INC OME TAX ACT, 1961 IS OPPOSED TO LAW, FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCE S OF THE CASE. 2. FOR THAT THE LEARNED PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF I NCOME TAX, CENTRAL -2, CHENNAI ERRED IN ACQUIRING JURISDI CTION UNDER SECTION 263 OF THE ACT, WHEN THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMEN T MADE UNDER SECTION 143(3) IS NOT ERRONEOUS AND PREJUDIC IAL TO THE INTEREST OF THE REVENUE. 2 ITA NO.601/CHNY/2020 3. WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE GROUND TO 2 AND 3, THE LEARNED PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL -2, C HENNAI ERRED IN STATING THAT THE ACTIVITIES OF THE TRUST A RE NOT GENUINE. 4. WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO GROUND NO 2, THE LEARNED PR INCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL-2, CHENNAI ERRE D IN EXERCISING HIS JURISDICTION UNDER SECTION 263 ON TH E IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT ORDER U/S 143(3) MERELY BECAUSE THE AD H AS COMPLETED BY ASSESSMENT FOR THE SUBJECT AY BASED ON THE DIRECTIONS OF THE HONBLE TRIBUNAL IN THE APPELLANT S OWN CASE FOR AY 2011-12 AND 2012-13, WHICH WAS CHALLENGED BY THE DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE AND THE ASSESSMENT FOR AY 201 1-12 AND 2012-13 HAS NOT REACHED FINALITY. 5. WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE GROUND TO 2 AND 3, THE LEARNED PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL -2, C HENNAI ERRED IN SETTING ASIDE THE ORDER OF AO AND DIRECTIN G THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO RE-DO THE ASSESSMENT AFRESH AF TER ISSUANCE OF PROPOSAL TO CANCEL THE REGISTRATION U/S 1 2AA OF THE ACT. 6. WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE GROUND TO 2 AND 3, THE LEARNED PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL -2, C HENNAI ERRED IN SETTING ASIDE THE ORDER OF AO AND DIRECTIN G THE ASSESSING OFFICER TORE-DO THE ASSESSMENT AFRESH AFT ER VERIFICATION OF LENDING OF MONEY TO POOR PEOPLE AT AN EXORBITANT RATE OF INTEREST. 7. WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE GROUND TO 2 AND 3, THE LEARNED PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL -2, C HENNAI ERRED IN SETTING ASIDE THE ORDER OF AO AND DIRECTIN G THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO RE-DO THE ASSESSMENT AFRESH AF TER EXAMINING THE PAYMENT OF CONSULTATION CHARGES. 8. WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE GROUND TO 2 AND 3, THE LEARNED PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL -2, C HENNAI ERRED IN SETTING ASIDE THE ORDER OF AO AND DIRECTIN G THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO RE-DO THE ASSESSMENT AFRESH AF TER SCRUTINIZING THE ISSUE OF LOAN GIVEN TO SHRI. SEETH ARAMAN, DIRECTOR OF M/S. VISWAS PROMOTERS LTD. AND RECEIPT OF INTEREST, THEREON. 3 ITA NO.601/CHNY/2020 9. FOR THAT THE LEARNED PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF I NCOME TAX, CENTRAL -2, CHENNAI FAILED TO APPRECIATE THAT THE ASSESSMENT ORDER WAS COMPLETED BY THE ASSESSING OFF ICER AFTER TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION THE ENTIRE SUPPORTI NG EVIDENCE PRODUCED, FILED AND PLACED UPON RECORDS BY THE APPE LLANT COMPANY DURING ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, WHICH WAS EXTRACTED IN THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT ORDER U/S 143( 3) OF THE ACT. 3. BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSEM/S. MAHASEMAM TRUST REGISTERED U/S.12A(A) OF THE INCOM E TAX ACT, 1961 AND ALSO U/S.18G OF THE ACT, IS ENGAGED IN PROVIDING MICRO FINANCING ACTIVITY FILED ITS RETURN OF INCOME FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2016-17 DECLARING TOTAL INCOME AS NIL AFTER AV AILING EXEMPTION U/S.11 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961. THE ASSESSMENT FOR IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT YEAR HAS BEEN COMPLETED U/S.143(3) OF THE ACT, ON 31.12.2018 AN D ACCEPTED RETURNED INCOME AFTER ALLOWING BENEFIT OF EXEMPTIO N U/S.11 OF THE ACT. THE CASE HAS BEEN SUBSEQUENTLY TAKEN UP F OR REVISION PROCEEDINGS U/S.263 OF THE ACT, AND HENCE SHOW CAUS E NOTICE DATED 20.06.2019 WAS ISSUED U/S.263 OF THE ACT AND CALLED UPON THE ASSESSEE TO EXPLAIN AS TO WHY ASSESSMENT O RDER PASSED BY ASSESSING OFFICER U/S.143(3) DATED 31.1 2.2018 SHALL NOT BE REVISED FOR REASONS STATED IN THE SHOW CAUSE 4 ITA NO.601/CHNY/2020 NOTICE. THE LEARNED PCIT IN THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE HAS ALLEGED THAT ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFF ICER IS ERRONEOUS, INSOFAR AS IT IS PRE-JUDICIAL TO THE IN TERESTS OF REVENUE, BECAUSE THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS ALLOW ED BENEFIT OF SECTION 11 & 12 OF THE ACT TO THE TRUST, WITHOU T APPRECIATING FACT THAT ACTIVITY CARRIED OUT BY THE ASSESSEE I.E MICRO FINANCING IS HIT BY PROVISO TO SECTION 2(15) OF THE INCOME TA X ACT, 1961 AND HENCE, ENTIRE INCOME SHOULD BE TAXED AS AN A OP. IN RESPONSE TO SHOW-CAUSE NOTICE, THE ASSESSEE VIDE IT S LETTER SUBMITTED THAT ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED BY THE ASSES SING OFFICER IS NEITHER ERRONEOUS NOR PRE-JUDICIAL TO TH E INTERESTS OF REVENUE, BECAUSE THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS COMPLET ED ASSESSMENT, AFTER HAVING CONSIDERED VARIOUS MATERIA LS PLACED BY THE ASSESSEE DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, INCLUDING DECISION OF ITAT, CHENNAI IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE FO R EARLIER YEARS, WHERE THE TRIBUNAL HAS HELD THAT ACTIVITY CA RRIED OUT BY THE ASSESSEE IS CHARITABLE IN NATURE, WHICH IS NOT HIT BY PROVISO TO SECTION 2(15) OF THE ACT. SINCE THE ASSESSING O FFICER HAS EXAMINED ISSUE AND TAKEN ONE OF THE POSSIBLE VIEW O N THE ISSUE AND ALLOWED BENEFIT OF EXEMPTION TO THE ASSESSEE U/ S.11 & 12 5 ITA NO.601/CHNY/2020 OF THE ACT, THE PCIT CANNOT SAY THAT ASSESSMENT ORD ER PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS ERRONEOUS, INSOFAR AS IT IS PRE- JUDICIAL TO THE INTERESTS OF REVENUE. 4. THE LEARNED PCIT, AFTER CONSIDERING RELEVANT SUB MISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE AND ALSO BY RELIED UPON CERTAIN J UDICIAL PRECEDENTS HELD THAT ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED BY TH E ASSESSING OFFICER IS ERRONEOUS, INSOFAR AS IT IS PRE-JUDICIAL TO THE INTERESTS OF REVENUE, BECAUSE THE ASSESSING OF FICER HAS COMPLETED ASSESSMENT WITHOUT VERIFYING FACTS IN R IGHT PERSPECTIVE OF LAW, BEFORE ALLOWING BENEFIT OF EXEM PTION U/S.11 & 12 OF THE ACT, EVEN THOUGH ACTIVITY CARRIED OUT B Y ASSESSEE OF MICRO FINANCING TO SELF-HELP GROUPS IS NOTHING BUT AN ADVENTURE IN THE NATURE OF TRADE AND COMMERCE, WHICH IS HIT B Y PROVISO TO SECTION 2(15) OF THE ACT. THE LEARNED PCIT HAS DIS CUSSED ISSUE AT LENGTH IN LIGHT OF MODUS OPERANDI OF THE ASSESSE E TRUST IN ADVANCING LOANS TO SELF-HELP GROUPS AND CHARGING OF INTEREST ON SUCH LOANS AND CAME TO THE CONCLUSION THAT THE ASSESSEE IS ADVANCING LOANS TO SELF-HELP GROUPS AND CHARGING IN TEREST @ 24% ON SAID LOANS, WHICH IS EXORBITANTLY HIGHER THAN THE RATES 6 ITA NO.601/CHNY/2020 CHARGED BY COMMERCIAL BANKS AND HENCE, ACTIVITY CAR RIED OUT BY THE ASSESSEE CANNOT BE SAID THAT IT IS CHARITABLE I N NATURE AND COVERED UNDER THE DEFINITION OF SECTION 2(15) OF TH E ACT. THE LEARNED PCIT HAS ALSO DISCUSSED THE ISSUE IN LIGH T OF CONSULTATION CHARGES PAID BY THE TRUST TO THEIR R ELATIVES AND OPINED THAT THE ASSESSEE IS PAYING CONSULTATION CHA RGES WHICH IS NOT COMMENSURATE WITH PROFESSIONAL SERVICES PROV IDED TO THE TRUST AND HENCE, OPINED THAT IT IS NOTHING BUT AL LOWING BENEFIT OF TRUST FUNDS/PROPERTY TO THE INTERESTED PERSONS. THE LEARNED PCIT HAS ALSO DISCUSSED THE ISSUE IN LIGHT OF ONE LOAN TRANSACTION OF TRUST WITH M/S.VISWAS PROMOTERS PVT .LTD., MADURAI AND HELD THAT ALTHOUGH THE TRUST HAS GIV EN LOANS IN CASH TO SAID BORROWER, BUT THERE IS NO WHISPER EITH ER IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER OR ON RECORD TO SHOW THAT THE ASS ESSING OFFICER HAD MADE ANY INQUIRY ON THE ISSUE TO ASCER TAIN NATURE OF TRANSACTION, THEREFORE, HE OPINED THAT THE ASSES SING OFFICER HAS COMPLETED THE ASSESSMENT WITHOUT CONDUCTING REQ UIRED INQUIRY, HE OUGHT TO HAVE CARRIED OUT, IN ACCORDANC E WITH EXPLANATION 2 TO SECTION 263 OF THE ACT, WHICH WAS INSERTED BY FINANCE ACT, 2015 W.E.F 01.04.2015, WHICH RENDERED THE 7 ITA NO.601/CHNY/2020 ASSESSMENT ORDER ERRONEOUS, INSOFAR AS IT IS PRE-J UDICIAL TO THE INTERESTS OF REVENUE. HENCE, THE LEARNED PCIT SET ASIDE ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER A ND DIRECT THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO REDO ASSESSMENT DE NOVO A ND ALSO DIRECT HIM TO SEND PROPOSAL FOR CANCELLATION OF REG ISTRATION ALREADY GRANTED TO THE ASSESSEE TRUST. AGGRIEVED BY THE PCIT ORDER, THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 5. THE LEARNED AR FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT T HE LEARNED PCIT HAS ERRED IN REVISING ASSESSMENT ORDE R U/S.263 OF THE ACT, WITHOUT APPRECIATING FACT THAT IMPUGN ED ASSESSMENT ORDER IS NEITHER ERRONEOUS NOR PRE-JUDIC IAL TO THE INTERESTS OF REVENUE. THE AR FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS EXAMINED THE ISSUE AT LENGT H IN LIGHT OF DECISION OF ITAT., CHENNAI IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR EARLIER ASSESSMENT YEARS AND BY FOLLOWING JUDICIAL PRECEDE NTS HAS ALLOWED BENEFIT OF EXEMPTION TO THE ASSESSEE U/S.1 1 & 12 OF THE ACT, AFTER CONSIDERING THE FACT THAT ACTIVITY CARRIED OUT BY THE ASSESSEE IS IN THE NATURE OF CHARITABLE ACTIVITY AS DEFINED U/S.2(15) OF THE ACT. THE AR FURTHER SUBMITTED THA T ONCE ISSUE HAS BEEN CONSIDERED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN A SSESSMENT 8 ITA NO.601/CHNY/2020 PROCEEDINGS AND HAS ADOPTED ONE OF THE POSSIBLE VIE W, THEN THERE IS NO SCOPE FOR PCIT TO REVISE SAID ORDER O N THE GROUND THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT CARRIED OUT I NQUIRY OUGHT TO HAVE BEEN CARRIED OUT IN ACCORDANCE WITH EXPLANATIO N 2 TO SECTION 263 OF THE ACT. 6. THE LEARNED DR, ON THE OTHER HAND, SUPPORTING OR DER OF THE LEARNED PCIT, SUBMITTED THAT ACTIVITY CARRIED OUT BY THE ASSESSEE OF PROVIDING MICRO FINANCING TO SELF-HELP GROUPS WITH HIGHER RATE OF INTEREST CANNOT BE CONSIDERED AS C HARITABLE ACTIVITY AS DEFINED U/S.2(15) OF THE ACT. THE LEAR NED DR FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT ACTIVITY CARRIED OUT BY THE ASSESSE E IS IN THE NATURE OF ADVENTURE IN THE NATURE OF TRADE AND COM MERCE, WHICH IS HIT BY PROVISO TO SECTION 2(15) OF THE ACT . FURTHER, VARIOUS JUDICIAL FORUMS HAS REPEATEDLY HELD THAT M ICRO FINANCING ACTIVITY CARRIED OUT IN COMMERCIAL LINE I S NOT A CHARITABLE ACTIVITY, INCLUDING ITAT., CHENNAI IN THE CASE OF ACIT VS.GRAMA VIDIYAL TRUST (71 TAXMANN.COM.88 (201 6). HE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE LEARNED PCIT HAS BROUGH T OUT CLEAR FACTS TO THE EFFECT THAT ASSESSEE IS CARRYING OUT COMMERCIAL 9 ITA NO.601/CHNY/2020 ACTIVITY IN LINE WITH ANY OTHER COMMERCIAL BANKS / FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS AND CHARGING VERY HIGH RATE OF INTERES T, WHICH IS ALMOST DOUBLE THE RATE OF INTEREST CHARGED BY COMME RCIAL BANKS. THEREFORE, AT ANY STRETCH OF IMAGINATION, IT CANNOT BE HELD THAT ACTIVITY CARRIED OUT BY THE ASSESSEE IS CHARITABLE IN NATURE AND ASSESSEE IS ENTITLED FOR BENEFIT OF EX EMPTION U/S.11 & 12 OF THE ACT. 7. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES, PERUSED MATERI ALS AVAILABLE ON RECORD AND GONE THROUGH THE ORDERS O F THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 263 OF THE ACT EMPOWERS THE PCIT TO REVISE ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER, IF HE FEELS THAT ASSESSMENT ORD ER PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS ERRONEOUS, INSOFAR AS IT I S PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTERESTS OF THE REVENUE. FROM A PLAIN READING OF SECTION 263 OF THE ACT, IT IS VERY CLEAR THAT BEFORE EXERCI SING HIS JURISDICTION U/S.263 OF THE ACT, THE PCIT SHOULD S ATISFY HIMSELF THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS PASSED ORDER WHICH IS ERRONEOUS AND PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTERESTS OF REVENUE. UNLESS THE PCIT PROVES THAT ORDER PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS ERRONEOUS 10 ITA NO.601/CHNY/2020 OR WHICH IS NOT PASSED IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW IN RIGHT PERSPECTIVE OF FACTS, THE PCIT CANNOT REVISE ASSES SMENT ORDER PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. FURTHER, TO INVO KE JURISDICTION U/S.263 OF THE ACT, TWIN CONDITIONS EM BEDDED U/S.263 OF THE ACT MUST CO-EXIST. IN OTHER WORDS, IF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER I S ERRONEOUS, BUT IT IS NOT PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTERE STS OF REVENUE, OR VICE-VERSA, THEN THE PCIT DOES NOT HAVE ANY POWER TO REVISE THE ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFIC ER. THIS LEGAL PROPOSITION IS SUPPORTED BY PLETHORA OF JUDI CIAL DECISIONS INCLUDING THE DECISION OF HONBLE SUPREME COURT INC LUDING THE CASE OF M/S.MALABAR INDUSTRIES CO.LTD. VS. CIT (20 00) 243 ITR 83(SC). 8. IN THIS LEGAL BACKGROUND, IF YOU EXAMINE THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE ONE HAS TO UNDERSTAND AS TO WHETHER T HE ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS ERRONEOUS, INSOFAR AS PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTERESTS OF THE REVENUE. IN ORDER TO CONSIDER ANY ORDER TO BE ERRONEOUS, THE N IT SHOULD BE PASSED WITHOUT CONSIDERING FACTS OF THE CASE IN LIG HT OF THE 11 ITA NO.601/CHNY/2020 RELEVANT PROVISIONS OF THE ACT. IN THIS CASE, ISSU E BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS WHETHER ACTIVITY CARRIED OUT BY THE ASSESSEE IS CHARITABLE IN NATURE AND ASSESSEE IS EN TITLED FOR BENEFIT OF EXEMPTION U/S.11 & 12 OF THE ACT. UNDER THE GIVEN FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS COME TO THE CONCLUSION THAT MICRO FINANCING ACTIVI TY CARRIED OUT BY THE ASSESSEE IS IN THE NATURE OF CHARITABLE ACTI VITY, WHICH IS NOT HIT BY PROVISO TO SECTION 2(15) OF THE ACT. THE SAID FINDINGS OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS SUPPORTED BY DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2011-12 & 2013-14, WHERE THE TRIBUNAL HAS CATEGORICALLY HEL D THAT TRUST HAS RENDERED SERVICE IN THE NATURE OF PROVIDING REL IEF TO POOR AS ENVISAGED UNDER THE ACT AND THEREFORE, BENEFIT OF E XEMPTION U/S.11 & 12 CANNOT BE DENIED TO THE TRUST. THE ASSE SSING OFFICER, AFTER CONSIDERING RELEVANT FACTS INCLUDING ACTIVITY CARRIED OUT BY THE ASSESSEE AND ALSO BY FOLLOWING DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE HAS TAKEN ONE OF TH E POSSIBLE VIEW AND HAS ALLOWED BENEFIT OF EXEMPTION U/S.11 TO THE ASSESSEE. THEREFORE, WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED VIEW THAT VIEW TAKEN BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS ONE OF THE POSSIB LE VIEW, 12 ITA NO.601/CHNY/2020 WHICH IS DULY SUPPORTED BY THE DECISION OF THE TRIB UNAL IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR EARLIER YEARS AND HENCE, TH E PCIT, ALTHOUGH HE MAY NOT AGREE WITH THE VIEW TAKEN BY TH E ASSESSING OFFICER, CANNOT HOLD ASSESSMENT ORDER IS ERRONEOUS, INSOFAR AS IT IS PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTERESTS OF RE VENUE. 9. AS REGARDS, CASE LAWS RELIED UPON BY THE PCIT O F OTHER TRIBUNALS, WE FIND THAT ALTHOUGH THERE IS DIVERGENT VIEWS ON THE ISSUE OF MICRO FINANCING, WHETHER IT IS CHARITABLE IN NATURE OR COMMERCIAL ACTIVITY, BUT BECAUSE THE TRIBUNAL HAS T AKEN A VIEW THAT ACTIVITY CARRIED OUT BY THE ASSESSEE IS CHARIT ABLE IN NATURE IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR EARLIER ASSESSMENT YEARS , WE PREFER TO FOLLOW THE DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL IN ASSESSE ES OWN CASE FOR EARLIER YEARS. MOREOVER, THE ISSUE BEFORE US IS WHETHER ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS ERRONEOUS, INSOFAR AS PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTERESTS OF REVENUE IN LIGHT OF THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 263 OF THE ACT. THEREFORE, OUR EXAMINATION IS LIMITED ONLY TO THE EXTENT WHETHER ORDER PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS HIT BY PROVISIONS TO S ECTION 263 OF THE ACT OR NOT. IN OUR CONSIDERED VIEW, THE ASSESSM ENT ORDER 13 ITA NO.601/CHNY/2020 PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS NEITHER ERRONEOU S NOR PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTERESTS OF REVENUE, BECAUSE TH E ASSESSING OFFICER HAS EXAMINED THE ISSUE AT THE TIME OF ASSES SMENT PROCEEDINGS AND HAS TAKEN ONE OF THE POSSIBLE VIEW, WHICH IS SUPPORTED BY HIGHER JUDICIAL FORUM AND HENCE, THE V IEW TAKEN BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER CANNOT BE HELD TO BE ERRONEOU S AND PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTERESTS OF REVENUE. UNLESS THE VIEW TAKEN BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS UNSUSTAINABLE IN LAW, THER E IS NO SCOPE FOR THE PCIT TO TERM THE ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS ERRONEOUS, INSOFAR AS IT ISPRE JUDICIAL TO THE INTERESTS OF REVENUE. 10. AS REGARDS OTHER TWO POINTS QUESTIONED BY THE P CIT INCLUDING CONSULTATION CHARGES PAID TO TRUSTEES AN D ALSO LOAN GIVEN TO M/S. VISWAS PROMOTERS LTD., MADURAI, WE A RE OF THE CONSIDERED VIEW THAT THESE TWO ISSUES WERE NOT PART OF SHOW CAUSE NOTICE ISSUED BY PCIT AND HENCE, HE DOES NOT HAVE ANY POWER TO EXAMINE ISSUES OTHER THAN THOSE FIND PLACE IN SHOW CAUSE NOTICE. BE THAT AS IT MAY, EVEN OTHERWISE, T WO ISSUES QUESTIONED BY THE PCIT HAS ALREADY BEEN EXAMINED B Y THE 14 ITA NO.601/CHNY/2020 ASSESSING OFFICER, WHICH IS EVIDENT FROM FACT THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS ISSUED DETAILED QUESTIONNAIRE ALONG WI TH NOTICE ISSUED U/S.142(1) DATED 13.07.2018, WHERE HE HAS CA LLED FOR DETAILS ABOUT PAYMENTS MADE TO RELATED PARTIES AND ALSO LIST OF ADVANCES MADE TO MEMBERS. IN RESPONSE, THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED RELEVANT DETAILS. THE ASSESSING OFFICER, AFT ER EXAMINING DETAILS FILED BY ASSESSEE, HAS ACCEPTED FACT THAT ACTIVITIES CARRIED OUT BY THE ASSESSEE ARE CHARITABLE IN NATUR E, WHICH IS NOT HIT BY PROVISO TO SECTION 2(15) OF THE ACT. THE REFORE, WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT THE LEARNED PCIT HA S ERRED IN REVISING ASSESSMENT ORDER U/S. 263 OF THE ACT. 11. IN THIS VIEW OF THE MATTER AND CONSIDERING FACT S AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND ALSO BY FOLLOWING DEC ISION OF CHENNAI BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN ASSESSEES OWN CAS E IN ITA NO.2919 & 2920/MDS/2016 DATED 09.08.2017 FOR ASSES SMENT YEAR 2011-12 & 2012-13, WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED VI EW THAT ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS NEITHER ERRONEOUS NOR PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTERESTS OF REVE NUE AND HENCE, LEARNED PCIT HAS ERRED IN REVISING ASSESSMEN T ORDER 15 ITA NO.601/CHNY/2020 PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER U/S.263 OF THE AC T. HENCE, WE QUASH REVISION ORDER PASSED BY PCIT U/S.263 OF THE ACT AND RESTORE ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER U/S.143(3 ) OF THE ACT DATED 31.12.2018. 12. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 16 TH JULY, 2021 SD/- SD/- ( . ) ( . ) (V.DURGA RAO) ( G.MANJUNATHA) # % / JUDICIAL MEMBER % / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER # /CHENNAI, ( / DATED 16 TH JULY, 2021 DS *+ ,+ /COPY TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. - () /CIT(A) 4. - /CIT 5. + 1 /DR 6. /GF .