DDIT, CHENNAI V. Sri Vekkaliamman Educational and Charitable Trust, CHENNAI

ITA 970/CHNY/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2014] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 81183 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 month(s) 23 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 10-09-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Bench Allotted: C
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 17-04-2014
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: N MADHAVAN
• Assessee Lawyers: G SEETHARAMAN
• Keywords: Depreciation; Charitable institution
• Section: 12; 11

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL C BENCH, CHE NNAI . . . , ! , ' # $ BEFORE DR. O.K. NARAYANAN, VICE PRESIDENT & SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY, JUDICIAL MEMBER . / I.T.A. NO. 970/MDS/2014 / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2010-11 DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS)-II, CHENNAI 34 ( !% /APPELLANT) VS M/S. SRI VEKKALIAMMAN EDUCATIONAL AND CHARITABLE TRUST, NO.108, EAST MADHA STREET, ROYAPURAM, CHENNAI 600 013 [PAN: AAFTS 7863 Q] ( &'!% /RESPONDENT) REVENUE BY : SHRI N. MADHAVAN, JCIT ASSESSEE BY : SHRI G.SEETHARAMAN, CA / DATE OF HEARING : 09-07-2014 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 10-09-2014 #( / O R D E R PER VIKAS AWASTHY, J.M: THE APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED BY THE REVENUE AGAINST T HE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(APPEALS)-VII, CHE NNAI DATED 27-12-2013 RELEVANT TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR (AY) 201 0-11. I.T.A. NO. 970/MDS/2014 2 2. THE ASSESSEE IS A REGISTERED PUBLIC CHARITABLE T RUST. THE ASSESSEE FILED ITS RETURN OF INCOME FOR THE AY.2010 -11 ON 18-10-2010 DECLARING NIL TAXABLE INCOME. THE CAS E OF THE ASSESSEE WAS SELECTED FOR SCRUTINY AND NOTICE U/S. 143(2) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (HEREIN AFTER REFERRED TO AS THE ACT) WAS ISSUED TO THE ASSESSEE ON 14-09-2011. THE ASSESSIN G OFFICER IN SCRUTINY ASSESSMENT MADE CERTAIN ADDITIONS/DIS-ALLO WANCES AND DETERMINED THE TAXABLE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE AS ` 2,52,28,792/-. AGGRIEVED BY THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 25-02-2013, ASSESSEE FILED APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT(APPEALS). THE CIT(APPEALS) VIDE IMPUGNED ORDER ALLOWED THE APPEAL OF THE ASSES SEE IN FULL. NOW, THE REVENUE HAS COME IN APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIB UNAL IMPUGNING THE FINDINGS OF CIT(APPEALS). 3. IN APPEAL, THE REVENUE HAS RAISED AS MANY AS SIX GROUNDS. GROUND NOS.1 & 6 ARE GENERAL IN NATURE. IN GROUND NO.2, THE REVENUE HAS ASSAILED THE FINDINGS OF CIT(APPEALS) I N ALLOWING DEPRECIATION ON ASSETS PURCHASED BY THE ASSESSEE-TR UST. THE STAND OF THE REVENUE IS THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT EN TITLED FOR DEPRECIATION ON ASSETS PURCHASED, AS THE COST OF AS SETS WAS CONSIDERED AS APPLICATION OF INCOME. ALLOWING DEPR ECIATION WILL TANTAMOUNT TO GRANT OF DOUBLE BENEFIT TO THE ASSESS EE. IN GROUND I.T.A. NO. 970/MDS/2014 3 NO.3, THE REVENUE HAS CHALLENGED THE FINDINGS OF CI T(APPEALS) IN ALLOWING THE PAYMENT MADE FOR CONTRACT WORK TO A FI RM OWNED BY ONE OF THE MANAGING TRUSTEES OF THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE HAD ALLOTTED CERTAIN CIVIL WORK TO M/S.VEKKALIAMMAN BUI LDERS & PROMOTERS. PAYMENT OF ` 5.02 CRORES WAS MADE TO THE SAID FIRM. THE REVENUE HAS ALLEGED THAT THERE IS VIOLATION OF THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 13(2)(C) OF THE ACT. IN THE 4 TH GROUND OF APPEAL, THE REVENUE HAS ASSAILED THE FINDINGS OF CIT(APPEALS) W ITH REGARD TO ADVANCES MADE TO M/S.SOUTHERN ACADEMY OF MARITIME S TUDIES PVT. LTD., (IN SHORT M/S.SAMS PVT. LTD.) IN VIOLATI ON OF THE PROVISION OF SECTION 13(1)(C) OF THE ACT. IN ORDER TO SUPPOR T HIS SUBMISSIONS, THE LD.DR HAS PLACED RELIANCE ON THE DECISION OF TH E HON'BLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA IN THE CASE OF DIT VS. BHARAT DIAMOND BOURSE REPORTED AS 126 TAXMAN 345 (SC). IN GROUND NO.5 OF THE APPEAL, THE REVENUE HAS IMPUGNED THE FINDINGS OF CI T(APPEALS) WITH RESPECT TO INVESTMENT MADE BY THE ASSESSEE IN GOLD BULLIONS IN VIOLATION OF PROVISIONS OF SECTION 11(5) OF THE ACT. THE LD.DR CONTENDED THAT THE ASSESSEE MADE INVESTMENT IN GOLD BULLION TO THE TUNE OF ` 26.85 LAKHS WITH M/S. PRINCE GEN & JEWELLERY P. LTD ., AND M/S.JOYALUKKAS. THE LD.DR FURTHER CONTENDED TH AT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT BEEN ABLE TO SUBSTANTIATE THAT THE GOLD I.T.A. NO. 970/MDS/2014 4 COINS/SOVEREIGNS WERE UTILIZED FOR DISTRIBUTION AS PRIZES AND AWARDS TO MERITORIOUS STUDENTS. 4. SHRI G.SEETHARAMAN, APPEARING ON BEHALF OF THE A SSESSEE CONTROVERTING THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BY THE LD.DR SUB MITTED THAT THE CIT(APPEALS) HAS RIGHTLY ALLOWED THE DEPRECIATI ON CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE. THE LD.AR IN ORDER TO SUPPORT THE FINDIN GS OF THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY, PLACED RELIANCE ON THE DECISIO N OF THE HON'BLE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS.MARKET COMMITTEE PIPLI REPORTED AS 330 ITR 16 (P&H). ON THE ISSUE OF VIOLATION OF PROVISIONS OF SECTION 13(2)(C) WITH RE SPECT TO ALLOTTING OF CONTRACT WORK TO M/S. VEKKALIAMMAN BUILDERS AND PRO MOTERS, THE LD.AR PLACED RELIANCE ON THE DECISION OF CO-ORDINAT E BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE IN ITA NO.1402/MDS/ 2013 FOR THE AY.2009-10 DECIDED ON 27-09-2013. IN AFORE STATED APPEAL, SAME ISSUE WAS RAISED BY THE REVENUE AND THE TRIBUNAL DE CIDED THE ISSUE IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE. THE LD.AR PLACED ON RECORD A COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL DT.27-09-2013 (SU PRA). IN REPLY TO GROUND NO.4 WITH RESPECT TO ADVANCE PAYMENTS MADE T O M/S.SAMS PVT. LTD., THE LD.AR CONTENDED THAT THE AS SESSEE-TRUST IS USING INFRASTRUCTURE FACILITIES OF M/S.SAMS PVT. LTD., WITHOUT PAYMENT FOR THE SERVICES RENDERED BY THE COMPANY. THEREFORE, I.T.A. NO. 970/MDS/2014 5 THERE IS NO VIOLATION OF PROVISIONS OF SECTION 13(1 )(C) AS ALLEGED BY THE REVENUE. ON THE LAST GROUND, WITH RESPECT TO I NVESTMENT IN GOLD BULLION, THE LD.AR SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD PURCHASED GOLD COINS OF VARIOUS DENOMINATIONS FOR DISTRIBUTIN G THEM AS AWARDS AND PRIZES TO MERITORIOUS STUDENTS. THE ASS ESSEE HAD PURCHASED 1500 GMS., OF GOLD OUT OF WHICH 500 GMS., OF GOLD WAS UTILIZED FOR DISTRIBUTION OF PRIZES. THEREAFTER, T HE SCHEME WAS WITHDRAWN AND IN THE NEXT YEAR, THE ENTIRE BALANCE AMOUNT OF GOLD I.E., 1,000 GMS., WAS SOLD. THE PURCHASE OF GOLD C OINS WAS MADE NOT FOR INVESTMENT PURPOSES BUT ONLY FOR DISTRIBUTI ON OF PRIZES AND AWARDS TO THE STUDENTS. PURCHASE OF GOLD WAS APPLI CATION OF FUNDS AND NOT INVESTMENT OF FUNDS. 5. WE HAVE HEARD THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BY REPRESENTA TIVES OF BOTH THE SIDES. WE HAVE ALSO PERUSED THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW AND THE DECISIONS ON WHICH BOTH SIDES HAVE PL ACED RELIANCE. THE REVENUE IN ITS APPEAL HAS PRIMARILY RAISED FOUR ISSUES. THE FIRST ISSUE RELATES TO ASSESSEES CLAIM OF DEPRECIA TION ON ASSETS PURCHASED. THE STAND OF THE REVENUE IS, THE COST O F ASSETS WAS CONSIDERED AS APPLICATION OF INCOME, THE ASSESSEE B EING A TRUST CANNOT CLAIM THE BENEFIT OF DEPRECIATION ON SAME AS SETS. DEPRECIATION IS A NOTIONAL EXPENDITURE, AND THE SAM E CANNOT BE I.T.A. NO. 970/MDS/2014 6 EXCLUDED FROM THE RECEIPTS EVEN FOR THE PURPOSE OF COMPUTATION OF APPLICATION OF FUNDS. DEPRECIATION IF ALLOWED AMOU NTS TO GRANTING OF DOUBLE BENEFIT TO THE ASSESSEE. WE DO NOT AGREE WITH THE CONTENTIONS OF THE LD.DR O N THE ISSUE. THE HON'BLE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS.MARKET COMMITTEE PIPLI (SUPRA) HAS DEALT WITH A SIMILAR ISSUE. THE HON'BLE COURT DISMISSING THE APPEAL OF R EVENUE HELD THAT THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE BEING EXEMPT, THE A SSESSEE IS ONLY CLAIMING THAT DEPRECIATION SHOULD BE REDUCED F ROM THE INCOME FOR DETERMINING PERCENTAGE OF FUNDS WHICH HAD TO BE APPLIED FOR THE PURPOSE OF THE TRUST. THERE IS NO DOUBLE DEDUC TION CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE LAW LAID DOWN B Y THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT, THE ASSESSEE IS ENTITLED FOR CLAIMING D EPRECIATION. THE ISSUE IN APPEAL IS SQUARELY COVERED BY THE DECISION OF THE HON'BLE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT. HENCE, THIS GROUND OF APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED. 6. THE SECOND ISSUE RAISED IN THE APPEAL IS WITH RE GARD TO PAYMENTS MADE TO M/S. VEKKALIAMMAN BUILDERS. THE S AID FIRM IS THE PROPRIETARY CONCERN OF ONE OF THE MANAGING TRUS TEES. AS PER THE STAND OF REVENUE, THE PAYMENTS MADE TO M/S. VEK KALIAMMAN I.T.A. NO. 970/MDS/2014 7 BUILDERS IS HIT BY THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 13(2)( C) R.W.S. 13(3) OF THE ACT. THE LD.AR HAS PLACED ON RECORD A COPY OF THE ORDER OF CO- ORDINATE BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN ITA NO.1402/MDS/2 013 IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR THE AY.2009-10 (SUPRA), WHE REIN SIMILAR ISSUE HAS BEEN DECIDED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE. THE RELEVANT EXTRACT OF THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL DT.27-09-2013 IS RE-PRODUCED HEREIN UNDER: 5. WE HAVE HEARD THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BY THE REPRESENTATIVES OF BOTH THE SIDES AND HAVE PERUSED THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. IT IS AN ADMITTED FACT T HAT THE FIRM OF THE MANAGING TRUSTEE, M/S. SRI VEKKALIAMMAN BUILDER S HAD CARRIED OUT THE CONSTRUCTION OF BUILDING OF THE TRU ST. IT IS ALSO AN ADMITTED FACT THAT THE AFORESAID FIRM HAD EARNED A BENEFIT OF ` 17.30 LAKHS FROM THE AFORESAID CONTRACT. A PERUSAL OF SECTION 13(1)(C) WOULD SHOW THAT THE ACT PUTS RESTR ICTION ON THE USE OF INCOME OR ANY PROPERTY OF THE TRUST DIRE CTLY OR INDIRECTLY FOR THE BENEFIT OF ANY PERSON REFERRED T O IN SUB- SECTION(3) OF SECTION 13. THE RELEVANT EXTRACT OF SECTION 13(3) IS RE-PRODUCED HEREIN BELOW: 13 (3) THE PERSONS REFERRED TO IN CLAUSE (C) OF SU B-SECTION (1) AND SUB-SECTION (2) ARE THE FOLLOWING, NAMELY :- (A) THE AUTHOR OF THE TRUST OR THE FOUNDER OF THE I NSTITUTION ; (B) ANY PERSON WHO HAS MADE A SUBSTANTIAL CONTRIBUT ION TO THE TRUST OR INSTITUTION, THAT IS TO SAY, ANY PERSON WH OSE TOTAL CONTRIBUTION UP TO THE END OF THE RELEVANT PREVIOUS YEAR EXCEEDS FIFTY THOUSAND RUPEES ; I.T.A. NO. 970/MDS/2014 8 (C) WHERE SUCH AUTHOR, FOUNDER OR PERSON IS A HINDU UNDIVIDED FAMILY, A MEMBER OF THE FAMILY ; (CC) ANY TRUSTEE OF THE TRUST OR MANAGER (BY WHATEV ER NAME CALLED) OF THE INSTITUTION ; (D) ANY RELATIVE OF ANY SUCH AUTHOR, FOUNDER, PERSO N, MEMBER, TRUSTEE OR MANAGER AS AFORESAID ; (E) ANY CONCERN IN WHICH ANY OF THE PERSONS REFERRE D TO IN CLAUSES (A), (B), (C), (CC) AND (D) HAS A SUBSTANTI AL INTEREST. A READING OF CLAUSE (CC) OF SUB-SECTION 3 WOULD SH OW THAT IT INCLUDES ANY TRUSTEE OF THE TRUST OR MANAGER. THE ASSESSING OFFICER DECLINED TO GRANT BENEFIT OF SECTION 11, AS IN THE PRESENT CASE CONSTRUCTION OF BUILDING HAS BEEN CARR IED OUT BY THE FIRM OF A MANAGING TRUSTEE AND THUS, DERIVED DI RECT BENEFIT FROM THE ASSESSEE-TRUST. A FURTHER PERUSAL OF CLAU SE(C) OF SUB- SECTION(2) OF SECTION 13 WOULD SHOW THAT WITHOUT PR EJUDICE TO THE GENERALITY OF THE PROVISIONS OF CLAUSE-(C) AND CLAUSE-(D) OF SUB-SECTION(1) OF SECTION 13, THE INCOME OR PROPERT Y OF THE TRUST OR ANY PART OF SUCH INCOME OR PROPERTY SHALL BE DEEMED TO HAVE BEEN USED OR APPLIED FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE PERSON REFERRED TO IN SUB-SECTION (3), IF ANY AMOUNT IS PA ID BY WAY OF SALARY, ALLOWANCE OR OTHERWISE DURING THE PREVIOUS YEAR TO ANY PERSON REFERRED TO IN SUB-SECTION(3) OUT OF THE RES OURCES OF THE TRUST OR INSTITUTION FOR SERVICES RENDERED AND THE AMOUNT SO PAID IS IN EXCESS OF WHAT MAY BE REASONABLY PAID FO R SUCH SERVICES. IN THE PRESENT CASE, THE ASSESSING OFFIC ER HAS OUT RIGHTLY HELD THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT ENTITLED TO T HE BENEFIT OF SECTION 11 WITHOUT ASCERTAINING THE REASONABLENESS OF THE AMOUNT PAID FOR THE SERVICES RENDERED. WE FIND TH AT, THE CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT HAS BEEN AWARDED TO THE FIRM M/S. SRI VEKKALIAMMAN BUILDERS ON THE BASIS OF OPEN BID. SI NCE, THE I.T.A. NO. 970/MDS/2014 9 FIRM QUOTED LOWEST RATES, THE CONTRACT WAS AWARDED TO THE FIRM. THE CIT(APPEALS) HAS GIVEN A CATEGORIC FINDING THAT IN CASES OF CIVIL CONSTRUCTION CONTRACTS, ESPECIALLY WERE NO PROPER BOOKS ARE MAINTAINED THE ACT RECOGNIZES NORMAL PROFIT MAR GINS @ 8%. WHEREAS, THE FIRM M/S. SRI VEKKALIAMMAN BUILDE RS HAS EARNED A PROFIT OF 5.8% WHICH IS VERY REASONABLE. WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT SINCE, THE CONTRACT WAS AWARDED ON COMPETITIVE BASIS AND THE PROFIT EARNED IS REASO NABLE, THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 13(2)(C) ARE NOT VIOLATED. IN THE AY UNDER CONSIDERATION, THE ASSESSEE HAS PAI D ` 5.02 CRORES TO M/S.VEKKALIAMMAN BUILDERS & PROMOTERS AND THE FIRM HAS ALLEGEDLY EARNED NET PROFIT OF ` 21.51 LAKHS. THE PROFIT EARNED BY THE FIRM IS 4.28% WHICH IS QUITE REASONABLE. FO R THE REASONS STATED IN THE ORDER OF TRIBUNAL RE-PRODUCED HEREIN ABOVE, THE PRESENT ISSUE IN APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED . 7. THE THIRD ISSUE RAISED BY THE REVENUE IS WITH RE GARD TO ADVANCES MADE BY THE ASSESSEE TO M/S.SAMS PVT. LTD. THE DR HAS POINTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS ADVANCED HUGE SUM S TO M/S.SAMS PVT. LTD., AS FEE FOR THE SERVICES. THE S AID ADVANCES WERE NOT ADJUSTED AND WERE STILL OUTSTANDING IN THE BOOKS OF M/S.SAMS PVT. LTD., AS ON 31-03-2011. THE STAND OF ASSESSEE IS, IT IS USING INFRASTRUCTURE FACILITIES OF M/S.SAMS P VT. LTD., FOR PROVIDING MARITIME COURSES TO ITS STUDENTS. THE A SSESSEE IS USING I.T.A. NO. 970/MDS/2014 10 INFRASTRUCTURE FACILITIES WITHOUT PAYMENT OF ANY CH ARGES. THE ADVANCE PAID IS TO BE ADJUSTED AGAINST THE CHARGES FOR USING FACILITIES. THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT GIVEN ANY REASON AS TO WHY TH E AMOUNT ADVANCED TO M/S.SAMS PVT. LTD., HAS NOT BEEN SO FOR APPROPRIATED TOWARDS CHARGES FOR USING INFRASTRUCTU RE FACILITIES. AS PER THE CONTENTIONS OF THE REVENUE, ` 1.94 CRORES ARE OUTSTANDING AS ON 31-03-2011 TOWARDS FEE FOR SERVICES. THE FIN DINGS OF THE CIT(APPEALS) ON THE ISSUE ARE SKETCHY. WE DO NOT A GREE WITH THE OBSERVATIONS OF THE CIT(APPEALS) THAT THE COMPANY I S NOT BENEFITTED BY THE TRUST. THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT GIVE N THE DETAILS OF CHARGES TO BE PAID/ADJUSTED FOR USING INFRASTRUCTUR E FACILITIES PROVIDED BY M/S.SAMS PVT. LTD. THE SAID PAYMENTS M AY NOT FALL WITHIN THE MISCHIEF OF SECTION 13(3)(A) R.W.S. 13(1 )(C) OF THE ACT, BUT THE REASONABLENESS OF THE CHARGES HAS TO BE ASCERTA INED TO ENSURE COMPLIANCE OF THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 13(2)(C) OF THE ACT. IN OUR CONSIDERED OPINION, THE ISSUE NEEDS A REVIS IT TO CIT(APPEALS) FOR FRESH CONSIDERATION. THE CIT(APPE ALS) SHALL ASCERTAIN THE NATURE OF INFRASTRUCTURE FACILITIES A VAILED BY THE ASSESSEE AND REASONABLENESS OF THE CHARGES VIZ-A-VI Z FACILITIES. I.T.A. NO. 970/MDS/2014 11 THUS, THE GROUND OF APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS ALLOWE D FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSE. 8. THE LAST ISSUE RAISED BY THE REVENUE IN APPEAL I S WITH REGARD TO INVESTMENT MADE BY THE ASSESSEE IN GOLD BULLION. THE ASSESSEE HAS ADMITTED TO HAVE PURCHASED GOLD WEIGHI NG 1.5 KG. THE GOLD WAS ALLEGEDLY PURCHASED IN THE FORM OF SOV EREIGNS AND COINS OF DIFFERENT DENOMINATIONS FOR DISTRIBUTION T O MERITORIOUS STUDENTS. THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE IS THAT O UT OF TOTAL 1.5 KG OF GOLD BULLION, 500 GMS. OF GOLD WAS DISTRIBUTED A S PRIZES. HOWEVER, DUE TO FREQUENT RISE IN PRICES OF GOLD, TH E ASSESSEE DISPENSED WITH DISTRIBUTION OF GOLD MEDALS AND SOLD THE BALANCE 1,000 GRAMS OF GOLD IN THE SUBSEQUENT YEAR ENDED ON 31-03-2011. FROM THE EXAMINATION OF RECORDS, WE OBSERVE THAT TH E ASSESSEE HAS NOT PRODUCED ANY DETAILS OF MERITORIOUS STUDENT S WHO HAVE BEEN AWARDED WITH THE GOLD MEDALS. THE CIT(APPEALS ) HAS ERRED IN ACCEPTING BALD ASSERTIONS OF THE ASSESSEE, WHICH ARE WITHOUT ANY BASIS. IN OUR OPINION, PURCHASE OF GOLD BY ASSESSEE WAS N OT APPLICATION OF FUNDS BUT AN INVESTMENT IN GOLD BULL ION. THE ASSESSEE HAS MADE INVESTMENT IN GOLD BULLION IN VIO LATION OF THE I.T.A. NO. 970/MDS/2014 12 PROVISIONS OF SECTION 11(5). ACCORDINGLY, THE INCO ME EARNED BY THE ASSESSEE FROM THE SALE OF GOLD IS LIABLE TO BE TAXE D, IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW. THIS GROUND OF APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS ALLOWED. 9. IN RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS PARTLY A LLOWED IN THE AFORESAID TERMS. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON WEDNESDAY, THE 10 TH SEPTEMBER, 2014 AT CHENNAI. SD/- SD/- ( . . . ) ( ! ) (DR. O.K. NARAYANAN) (VIKAS AWAS THY) / VICE PRESIDENT ! / JUDICIAL MEMBER '# /CHENNAI, $ /DATED: 10 TH SEPTEMBER, 2014 TNMM #% & '( )#( /COPY TO: 1. *+ /APPELLANT 2. &,*+ /RESPONDENT 3. - () /CIT(A) 4. - /CIT 5. (01 & 2 /DR 6. 13 4 /GF