BVM Global Education Trust, CHENNAI V. ITO, CHENNAI

ITA 889/CHNY/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 131 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 8773 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 month(s) 28 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 05-08-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Appeal Filed On: 07-04-2016
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: A B MAURYA
• Assessee Lawyers: A S SRIRAMAN
• Section: 143(3); 263; 11

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL B BENCH : CHENNAI . . . , . !' , # $ % [ BEFORE SHRI N.R.S. GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ] ./ I.T.A.NO.889/MDS/2016 / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2011-12 M/S BVM GLOBAL EDUCATION TRUST NEW NO.9, OLD NO.5 FIRST CROSS STREET KARPAGAM GARDENS ADYAR, CHENNAI 600 020 VS. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER (EXEMPTIONS) WARD 4 CHENNAI [PAN AABTB 5168 P] ( &' / APPELLANT) ( ()&' /RESPONDENT) / APPELLANT BY : SHRI A.S. SRIRAMAN, ADVOCATE /RESPONDENT BY : SHRI A.B. MAURYA, CIT / DATE OF HEARING : 09 - 0 6 - 2016 ! / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 05 - 08 - 2016 / O R D E R PER N.R.S.GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER THIS APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX(EXEMPTIONS), CHENNAI , DATED 31.3.2016 AND PERTAINS TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2011-12 . 2. SHRI A.S. SRIRAMAN, LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SU BMITTED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER COMPLETED THE ASSESSMENT U/S 143(3) ON 30.3.2014. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS EXAMINED ALL THE RECEIPTS OF THE ITA NO. 889/16 :- 2 -: ASSESSEE AND ALLOWED EXEMPTION U/S 11 OF THE ACT. THE CIT(E) IN THE GUISE OF EXERCISING HIS POWER U/S 263 OF THE ACT, FOUND THAT THERE WAS ADDITION OF ` 1,84,53,000/- TOWARDS CORPUS FUND ON ACCOUNT OF ADMISSION FEE. THE CIT(E) HAS ALSO FOUND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS RECEIVED LEASE ADVANCES WHICH WAS ACCEPTED BY THE A SSESSING OFFICER WITHOUT ANY SCRUTINY. ACCORDING TO THE LD. COUNSEL , THE ASSESSING OFFICER EXAMINED ALL THE RECEIPTS OF THE ASSESSEE AND FOUND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS APPLIED MORE THAN 85% OF THE SAME FOR CHARITABLE ACTIVITY. THEREFORE, THE CIT(E) IS NOT JUSTIFIED I N REVISING THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 3. ON THE CONTRARY, SHRI A.B MAURYA, LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT APPLIED IS MIND TO THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. THE ASSE SSMENT ORDER IS VERY SILENT AND CRYPTIC. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT EXAMINED ANYTHING WHILE COMPLETING THE ASSESSMENT. THE LD. DR FURTHE R SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS SIMPLY ACCEPTED THE CLAIM MADE BY THE ASSESSEE AND COMPLETED THE ASSESSMENT WITHOUT ANY F URTHER EXAMINATION. THEREFORE, THE CIT(E) HAS DIRECTED T HE ASSESSING OFFICER TO REDO THE ASSESSMENT AFTER EXAMINING THE TRANSACT IONS ENTERED INTO BY THE ASSESSEE WITH M/S EDUCATE INFRASTRUCTURE S ERVICES PVT. LTD. AND ALSO RECEIPT OF CORPUS FUND TO THE EXTENT OF ` 1,84,53,000/-. SINCE ITA NO. 889/16 :- 3 -: THESE ASPECTS WERE NOT EXAMINED, THE CIT(E) HAS RIG HTLY DIRECTED THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO REDO THE ASSESSMENT AFTER EXAM INING THE SAME. 4. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS ON EITHER SIDE AND ALSO PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. TH E ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS A JUDIC IAL PROCEEDING U/S 136 OF THE ACT, THEREFORE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS EXPECTED TO PASS A SPEAKING ORDER. IN OTHER WORDS, THE APPLICATION OF MIND TO THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD SHALL BE REFLECTED IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER ITSELF. THE ASSESSING OFFICER CANNOT SUPPORT HIS OR DER BY WAY OF FILING AN AFFIDAVIT OR ADDITIONAL MATERIAL BEFORE THE APPE LLATE/REVISIONAL AUTHORITIES. UNDER THE SCHEME OF THE INCOME-TAX AC T, 1961, APPEAL/REVISION WAS PROVIDED AGAINST THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, THEREFORE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS TO RECORD HIS OWN REASONI NG FOR THE CONCLUSION REACHED. OTHERWISE, APPELLATE/REVISIONAL REMEDIES PROVIDED UNDER THE SCHEME OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961 WOULD BE MEANINGLESS. IN OTHER WORDS, APPELLATE/REVISIONAL AUTHORITIES C OULD APPRECIATE THE CONCLUSION REACHED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER PROVIDE D THE REASONS FOR THE CONCLUSION REACHED WERE RECORDED IN THE ASSESS MENT ORDER. IN THE CASE BEFORE US, NO SUCH REASONS WERE RECORDED. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT DISCUSSED ANYTHING ABOUT THE TRANSA CTIONS ENTERED INTO BY THE ASSESSEE WITH M/S EDUCATE INFRASTRUCTURE SE RVICES PVT. LTD AND ITA NO. 889/16 :- 4 -: ALSO THE SO CALL CORPUS FUND TO THE EXTENT OF ` 1,84,53,000/-. THIS TRIBUNAL IS OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT THE ASSE SSING OFFICER HAS TO SPECIFICALLY DISCUSS EACH AND EVERY ISSUE AND BRING ON RECORD ALL THE RELEVANT MATERIAL. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS TO RE CORD HIS OWN REASONING FOR THE CONCLUSION REACHED. SINCE SUCH A N EXERCISE WAS NOT DONE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER, THIS TRIBUNAL IS OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT THE MATER NEEDS TO BE REEXAMINED AS RI GHTLY FOUND BY THE CIT(E). HOWEVER, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS TO INDE PENDENTLY REEXAMINE THE MATTER ON THE BASIS OF THE MATERIAL A VAILABLE ON RECORD AND THEREAFTER DECIDE THE SAME IN ACCORDANCE WITH L AW AFTER GIVING A REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE WITHOUT BEI NG INFLUENCED BY ANY OF THE FINDING RECORDED BY THE CIT(E) IN THE IM PUGNED ORDER. WITH THE ABOVE OBSERVATION, THE ORDER OF THE CIT(E) IS C ONFIRMED. 5. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DISMI SSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 5 TH AUGUST, 2016, AT CHENNAI. SD/- SD/- ( . !' ) (A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY) # / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ( . . . ' ) (N.R.S. GANESAN) / JUDICIAL MEMBER #$ / CHENNAI %& / DATED: 5 TH AUGUST, 2016 RD ITA NO. 889/16 :- 5 -: &' ()*) / COPY TO: 1 . / APPELLANT 4. + / CIT 2. / RESPONDENT 5. ),- . / DR 3. +/' / CIT(A) 6. -01 / GF