ACIT, Kollam V. Sabarigiri Trust, Kollam

ITSSA 186/COCH/2005

• Counselvise Citation: [2014] 121 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 9983 (ITAT-COCHIN)
• Duration Of Justice: 8 year(s) 2 month(s) 13 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax (Search & Seizure) Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 31-01-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Next Hearing Date: 10-12-2013
• Assessment Year: misc
• Appeal Filed On: 17-11-2005
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: K K JOHN
• Assessee Lawyers: C B M WARRIER
• Keywords: Income from undisclosed sources; Charitable institution; Block assessment; Capital receipt
• Section: 40A(3); 12A; 132; 139

Judgement Text

1 IT(SS)A NO.186/COCH/2005 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL COCHIN BENCH, COCHIN BEFORE SHRI N.R.S. GANESAN (JM) AND SHRI B.R. BASKA RAN(AM) I.T(SS)A NO. 186/COCH/2005 (BLOCK PERIOD 01-04-1996 TO 28-05-2002) THE A.C.I.T, CENT.CIR VS SABARIGIRI TRUST KOLLAM ANCHAL, KOLLAM PAN : AAATS6504P (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) C.O. NO.18/COCH/2006 (ARISING OUT OF I.T(SS)A NO. 186/COCH/2005) (BLOCK PERIOD 01-04-1996 TO 28-05-2002) SABARIGIRI TRUST VS THE DY.CIT, CENT.CIR. ANCHAL, KOLLAM KOLLAM (CROSS OBJECTOR) (RESPONDENT) REVENUE BY : SHRI K.K. JOHN ASSESSEE BY : SHRI C.B.M. WARRIER DATE OF HEARING : 10-12-2013 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 31-01-2014 O R D E R PER N.R.S. GANESAN (JM) THIS APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A)-I, KOCHI DATED 10-08-2005 AND PERTAINS TO BL OCK PERIOD 01-04-1996 TO 28-05-2002. 2 IT(SS)A NO.186/COCH/2005 2. SHRI K.K. JOHN, THE LD.DR SUBMITTED THAT THE ASS ESSEE, A PRIVATE FAMILY TRUST, ESTABLISHED A HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL AT ANCHAL. THERE WAS A SEARCH IN THE PREMISES OF ONE DR V.K. JAYAKUMAR ON 28-05-2002. DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH OPERATION, INCRIMINATING DOCUM ENTS WERE FOUND WHICH DISCLOSED UNDISCLOSED INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. ACCO RDING TO THE LD.DR, MRS. SULA JAYAKUMAR IS THE MANAGING TRUSTEE OF THE TRUST. HER CHILDREN ARE THE SOLE BENEFICIARIES OF THE TRUST. ACCORDING TO THE LD.DR, THE TRUST WAS ESTABLISHED FOR THE BENEFITS OF THE CHILDREN OF MRS . SULA JAYAKUMAR. DURING THE COURSE OF EXAMINATION, THE MANAGING TRUSTEE ADM ITTED THE RECEIPT OF UNACCOUNTED MONEY OUTSIDE THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT. AP ART FROM THAT UNACCOUNTED RECEIPTS WERE SAID TO BE DEPOSITED IN P ALLURUTHY MANDALAM SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK IN HER NAME AND HER HUSBA ND. ACCORDING TO THE LD.DR, THE ASSESSEE HAS COLLECTED DEVELOPMENT F UND DURING THE ADMISSION OF THE STUDENTS OVER AND ABOVE THE PRESCR IBED FEES. THE DEVELOPMENT FUND COLLECTED, THOUGH ROUTED THROUGH I NTERMEDIARY SOCIETY BY THE NAME SABARIGIRI SCHOOL SOCIETY, WAS MANAGED BY MRS. SULA JAYAKUMAR. ACCORDING TO THE LD.DR, NO BOOKS OF ACC OUNT WERE MAINTAINED FOR COLLECTION OF THE DEVELOPMENT FUND. HOWEVER, I T IS ENTERED IN A NOTE BOOK. ACCORDING TO THE LD.DR, THE ASSESSEE TRUST C LAIMED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT THE TRUST EXISTED SOLELY FOR THE EDUCATIONAL PURPOSE, THEREFORE, IT WAS ELIGIBLE FOR EXEMPTION U/S 10(22) OF THE ACT AS IT WAS THEN 3 IT(SS)A NO.186/COCH/2005 IN EXISTENCE. THE SEIZED MATERIAL FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH OPERATION SHOWS EXCESS COLLECTION OVER AND ABOVE TH E FEES IN THE NAME OF DEVELOPMENT FUND. THE FUNDS SO COLLECTED WERE NOT ACCOUNTED IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OF THE TRUST. THE COLLECTION OF T HE FUNDS IN THE NAME OF THE TRUST WAS ADMITTEDLY DEPOSITED IN THE INDIVIDUA L ACCOUNT OF THE TRUSTEE, VIZ. MRS. SULA JAYAKUMAR. SINCE THE DEVELOPMENT FU ND COLLECTED BY THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT BROUGHT INTO THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT AND IT WAS DEPOSITED IN THE INDIVIDUAL ACCOUNT OF THE TRUSTEE, MRS. SULA JAYAKUMAR, THE ASSESSING OFFICER TREATED THE SAME AS UNDISCLOSED I NCOME OF THE TRUST. SINCE IT IS A FAMILY TRUST FOR THE BENEFIT OF CHILD REN OF MRS. SULA JAYAKUMAR, THE ASSESSING OFFICER REJECTED THE CLAIM OF THE ASS ESSEE FOR EXEMPTION U/S 10(22) AND 10(23C) OF THE ACT. HOWEVER, ON APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE, THE APPELLATE COMMISSIONER ALLOWED THE CLAIM OF THE ASS ESSEE ON THE GROUND THAT IT IS A CAPITAL RECEIPT. 3. ACCORDING TO THE LD.DR, WHEN THE ASSESSEE COLLEC TED MONEY FROM THE STUDENTS FOR ADMISSION OVER AND ABOVE THE PRESC RIBED FEES, IT CANNOT BE CAPITAL RECEIPT. EVEN THE MONEY WAS NOT CREDITE D IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OF THE TRUST. WHEN THE MONEY WAS DEPOSITED IN THE INDIVIDUAL ACCOUNT OF THE TRUSTEE, MRS. SULA JAYAKUMAR, NATURA LLY, THE MONEY WILL GO TO THE CHILDREN OF MRS. SULA JAYAKUMAR EITHER AS A LEGAL HEIRS OR 4 IT(SS)A NO.186/COCH/2005 BENEFICIARIES OF THE TRUST. THEREFORE, ACCORDING T O THE LD.DR, THE TRUST IS IN EXISTENCE WITH PROFIT MOTTO. 4. ACCORDING TO THE LD.DR, DURING THE COURSE OF SEA RCH OPERATION 10 DEPOSITS WERE FOUND TO THE EXTENT OF RS.5 LAKHS IN THE NAME OF DR V.K. JAYAKUMAR. THE SAME WAS TREATED AS UNACCOUNTED I NCOME OF DR V.K. JAYAKUMAR IN HIS ASSESSMENT. HOWEVER, ON APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE, THE CIT(A) DIRECTED THAT THIS DEPOSIT SHOULD BE CONSIDE RED ONLY IN THE HANDS OF THE TRUST. THEREFORE, ACCORDING TO THE LD.DR, THE ASSESSING OFFICER MADE ADDITION SINCE IT WAS NOT DECLARED IN THE RETURN FI LED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2002-03. ACCORDING TO THE LD.DR, T HE DEPOSIT OF RS.5 LAKHS WAS NOT DECLARED TO THE DEPARTMENT IN THE RET URN FILED BY THE TRUST, THEREFORE, AS PER THE DIRECTION OF THE CIT(A), IN T HE CASE OF DR V.K. JAYAKUMAR, IT WAS TREATED AS INCOME OF THE TRUST. ON APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE, HOWEVER, THE CIT(A) DIRECTED THE ASSESSIN G OFFICER TO VERIFY THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE THAT IT WAS COLLECTED AS DEPO SIT FROM THE TEACHERS WHILE SEEKING APPOINTMENT IN SABARIGIRI HIGH SCHOOL . ACCORDING TO THE LD.DR, IT IS NOT KNOWN UNDER WHAT CAPACITY, THE MON EY WAS COLLECTED FROM TEACHERS WHILE SEEKING APPOINTMENTS IN THE HIGH SCH OOL. MOREOVER, THE MONEY WAS DEPOSITED IN THE NAME OF DR V.K. JAYAKUMA R. THEREFORE, THIS HAS TO BE TREATED AS UNACCOUNTED INCOME OF THE TRUS T AND IT CANNOT BE 5 IT(SS)A NO.186/COCH/2005 CONSIDERED TO BE THE MONEY RECEIVED FROM THE TEACHE RS, WHO WERE SEEKING APPOINTMENTS IN THE HIGH SCHOOL. 5. REFERRING TO THE NEXT ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSES SING OFFICER, THE LD.DR POINTED OUT THAT SEIZED MATERIAL AM-127 SHO WS THE RECEIPT OF MONTHLY FEE, TERM FEE, ETC. VERIFICATION OF BOOKS OF ACCOUNT SHOWS THAT THE MONTHLY FEE, TERM FEE, ETC. WAS COMPLETELY OMITTED TO BE ACCOUNTED FOR IN THE CASH BOOK. AN EXPLANATION WAS CALLED FOR FROM THE ASSESSEE WITH REGARD TO OMISSION TO ACCOUNT THE MONTHLY FEES AND TERM FEES IN THE CASH BOOK. AFTER THE SEARCH, THE ASSESSEE FILED THE RET URN OF INCOME, THAT TOO, AFTER ISSUING NOTICE U/S 158BD OF THE ACT. SINCE T HIS MONEY WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISCLOSED TO THE DEPARTMENT, BUT FOR THE SEARCH, ACCORDING TO THE DR, THIS UNACCOUNTED MONTHLY FEES AND TERM FEES HAVE TO BE TREATED AS UNDISCLOSED INCOME OF THE TRUST. HOWEVER, ON AP PEAL, THE CIT(A) DELETED THE ADDITION ON THE GROUND THAT THE MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT IN CIT VS NITIN MUNJE (2003) 185 CTR (MP) 255 DECLINED TO ADMIT THE APPEAL FILED BY THE DEPARTMENT AGAINST THE DECISION OF THE INDORE BENCH OF THIS TRIBUNAL WHEREIN IT WAS HELD THAT WHERE THE TIME LI MIT FOR FILING THE RETURN OF INCOME U/S 139(1) HAS NOT LAPSED THE INCOME PERTAIN ING TO THAT PERIOD FOUND AT THE TIME OF SEARCH CANNOT BE TREATED AS UN DISCLOSED INCOME. ACCORDING TO THE LD.DR, THE DEFINITION OF UNDISCLOS ED INCOME IS VERY CLEAR. THE INCOME WHICH WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISCLOSED TO T HE DEPARTMENT 6 IT(SS)A NO.186/COCH/2005 OTHERWISE HAS TO BE TREATED AS UNDISCLOSED INCOME. IN THIS CASE, THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT ENTERED THE MONTHLY FEES AND TERM FEES IN THE CASH BOOK MAINTAINED IN THE REGULAR COURSE. THEREFORE, THIS WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISCLOSED TO THE DEPARTMENT HAD IT NOT BEEN UNEARTH ED DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH OPERATION. THEREFORE, ACCORDING TO THE LD.D R, THE CIT(A) IS NOT JUSTIFIED IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS.19,82,672. 6. REFERRING TO THE NEXT ADDITION TO THE EXTENT OF RS.16,27,738 AND RS.3,61,040, THE LD.DR SUBMITTED THAT THIS AMOUNT W AS DISALLOWED U/S 40A(3) OF THE ACT. ACCORDING TO THE LD.DR, IT WAS FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH OPERATION THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS RECEIVED MONEY ON SALE OF BOOKS AND STATIONERY. DOCUMENTS AM-13 & AM-28 FO UND DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH OPERATION SHOW THE DETAILS. THE L D.DR FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT ON VERIFICATION IT WAS FOUND THAT HUGE FUNDS W ERE GIVEN IN CASH OR CASH CHEQUES TO THE BOOK DEALERS. THOUGH THE ASSESSEE C LAIMS THAT SALE OF BOOKS WAS DONE BY SABARIGIRI SCHOOL SOCIETY, THE EX ISTENCE OF SABARIGIRI SCHOOL SOCIETY WAS NOT ESTABLISHED BY PRODUCING ANY DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE. THEREFORE, THE PROFIT ON SALE OF BOOKS H AS TO BE ASSESSED AS UNDISCLOSED INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. HOWEVER, ON AP PEAL BY THE ASSESSEE, THE CIT(A) FOUND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS PR ODUCED REGISTRATION CERTIFICATE AND CERTIFIED COPY OF THE MEMORANDUM OF ASSOCIATION OF SABARIGIRI SCHOOL TRUST AND ACCORDINGLY DELETED THE ADDITION IN THE HANDS 7 IT(SS)A NO.186/COCH/2005 OF THE PRESENT ASSESSEE. ACCORDING TO THE LD.DR, T HESE ARE DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCES WHICH ARE NOT PRODUCED BEFORE THE ASSESSI NG OFFICER. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS ALSO DISALLOWED A SUM OF RS.3 ,61,040 SINCE IT IS PAID IN CASH BEYOND THE PRESCRIBED LIMIT. 7. THE NEXT GROUND OF APPEAL IS WITH REGARD TO ADD ITION OF RS.6,47,000. ACCORDING TO THE LD.DR, THE CIT(A) DIRECTED THE ASS ESSING OFFICER TO VERIFY THE CONFIRMATION LETTERS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE. AC CORDING TO THE LD.DR, THE CIT(A) HAS NO POWER TO REMISSION, THEREFORE, HE CAN NOT DIRECT THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO VERIFY THE CONFIRMATION LETTER . 8. THE NEXT GROUND OF APPEAL IS WITH REGARD TO LEVY OF SURCHARGE UNDER PROVISO TO SECTION 113 OF THE ACT. ACCORDING TO TH E LD.DR, SURCHARGE COULD BE LEVIED EVEN THOUGH THE AMENDMENT WAS CARRIED OUT IN THE LATER YEARS IN VIEW OF THE JUDGMENT OF THE APEX COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS SURESH N GUPTA (2008) 297 ITR 322 (SC). 9. ON THE CONTRARY, SHRI CBM WARRIER, THE LD.REPRES ENTATIVE FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE IS AN EDUCATIO NAL TRUST, THEREFORE, ELIGIBLE FOR EXEMPTION U/S 10(22) OF THE ACT AS IT WAS EXISTED THEN. ACCORDING TO THE LD.REPRESENTATIVE, AN EDUCATIONAL TRUST WAS NOT REQUIRED TO FILE RETURN OF INCOME TILL 01-04-2006. THEREFORE, FOR THE YEAR UNDER 8 IT(SS)A NO.186/COCH/2005 CONSIDERATION, THE ASSESSEE IS NOT EXPECTED TO FILE THE RETURN OF INCOME. REFERRING TO PROVISIONS OF SECTION 10(22) OF THE AC T AS IT EXISTED THEN, THE LD.REPRESENTATIVE SUBMITTED THAT THE ENTIRE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE IS EXEMPT FROM TAXATION. THEREFORE, ACCORDING TO THE LD.REPRESENTATIVE, THE CIT(A) HAS RIGHTLY ALLOWED THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSE E. 10. REFERRING TO THE ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER, THE LD.REPRESENTATIVE SUBMITTED THAT THE DEVELOPMENT FU NDS WERE RECEIVED BY ANOTHER SOCIETY, VIZ. PARENT TEACHER ASSOCIATION AN D THEN IT WAS GIVEN TO THE SOCIETY FOR CONSTRUCTION OF THE BUILDING. THER EFORE, AS FAR AS THIS SOCIETY IS CONCERNED, IT IS A CAPITAL RECEIPT, HENCE, IT CA NNOT BE TAXED. EVEN OTHERWISE, THE ASSESSEE IS ELIGIBLE FOR EXEMPTION U /S 10(22) OF THE ACT, HENCE, THE CIT(A) HAS RIGHTLY ALLOWED THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE. 11. AS FAR AS THE ADDITION OF RS.5 LAKHS WITH REGAR D TO DEPOSIT IS CONCERNED, THE LD.REPRESENTATIVE SUBMITTED THAT THI S WAS COLLECTED FROM THE TEACHERS, WHO WERE SEEKING APPOINTMENT IN SABARIGIR I HIGH SCHOOL. THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED CONFIRMATION LETTERS FROM 22 PER SONS. THE COMMISSIONER HAS DIRECTED THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO VERIFY THE CONFIRMATION LETTERS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE. SINCE THESE ARE ALL AMOUNT PAID BY THE TEACHERS, WHO SOUGHT EMPLOYMENTS, ACCORDING TO THE LD.REPRESENTATIVE, THIS CANNOT BE TREATED AS INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE TRUST. 9 IT(SS)A NO.186/COCH/2005 12. REFERRING TO THE ADDITION OF RS.19,82,672, THE LD.REPRESENTATIVE SUBMITTED THAT THESE ARE ALL MONTHLY FEES AND TERM FEES RECEIVED FROM THE STUDENTS. THE ASSESSEE IS ENTITLED FOR EXEMPTION U /S 10(22) AND 10(23C) OF THE ACT. APART FROM THIS, ACCORDING TO THE LD.R EPRESENTATIVE, THE RECEIPT OF FUNDS FROM THE TEACHER, WHO SOUGHT EMPLOYMENT WA S DISCLOSED IN THE RETURN OF INCOME FILED IN THE REGULAR COURSE AFTER THE SEARCH. ACCORDING TO THE LD.REPRESENTATIVE, ON THE DATE OF SEARCH, THE P ERIOD FOR FILING THE RETURN OF INCOME WAS NOT EXPIRED. THEREFORE, IT WAS DISCL OSED TO THE DEPARTMENT IN THE REGULAR COURSE. THEREFORE, ACCORDING TO THE LD.REPRESENTATIVE, THE CIT(A) HAS RIGHTLY DELETED THE ADDITION. 13. REFERRING TO THE ADDITION OF RS.16,27,738 TOWAR DS SALE OF BOOKS, THE LD.REPRESENTATIVE SUBMITTED THAT THE BOOKS WERE SOL D BY SABARIGIRI SCHOOL TRUST WHICH IS A REGISTERED SOCIETY. THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS NOT CORRECT IN SAYING THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT ESTABLISHED THE EX ISTENCE OF TRUST IN FACT, THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED THE REGISTRATION CERTI FICATE AND THE CERTIFIED COPY OF THE MEMORANDUM OF ASSOCIATION OF THE TRUST BEFORE CIT(A). THE ASSESSING OFFICER, HOWEVER, MADE THE ADDITION WITHO UT PROPER ENQUIRY. THEREFORE, THE CIT(A) DELETED THE ADDITION. 10 IT(SS)A NO.186/COCH/2005 14. WITH REGARD TO THE ADDITION OF RS.3,61,040 ACCO RDING TO THE LD.REPRESENTATIVE, THESE ARE PURCHASES MADE BY SABA RIGIRI SCHOOL TRUST. THEREFORE, IF THERE IS VIOLATION OF PROVISIONS OF S ECTION 40A(3), THE DISALLOWANCE, IF ANY, HAS TO BE MADE ONLY IN THE CA SE OF THE TRUST, SABARIGIRI SCHOOL TRUST AND NOT IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE T RUST. 15. REFERRING TO THE ADDITION OF RS.6,47,000 THE LD .REPRESENTATIVE SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED CONFIRMATION LETTER BEFORE THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS), WHO DIRECTED THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO VERIFY THE CONFIRMATION LETTER. THEREFORE, THER E IS NO INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A). THE LD.REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE ASSES SEE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT NO PART OF THE INCOME WAS USED FOR A PURPOSE O THER THAN EDUCATIONAL PURPOSE. THE ENTIRE RECEIPT OF MONEY WAS USED FOR EDUCATIONAL PURPOSE ONLY AND NOT FOR ANYTHING ELSE. THEREFORE, ACCORDI NG TO THE LD.REPRESENTATIVE, THE ENTIRE INCOME OF THE ASSESSE E IS ELIGIBLE FOR EXEMPTION U/S 10(22) OF THE ACT AS IT WAS IN EXISTE NCE AT THE RELEVANT POINT OF TIME. 16. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS ON EIT HER SIDE. THE FIRST QUESTION ARISES FOR CONSIDERATION IS WHETHER THE AS SESSEE IS ENTITLED FOR EXEMPTION U/S 10(22) AND 10(23C) OF THE ACT AS IT W AS IN EXISTENCE AT THE RELEVANT POINT OF TIME. SECTION 10(22) HAS BEEN OM ITTED WITH EFFECT FROM 11 IT(SS)A NO.186/COCH/2005 01-04-1999 BY FINANCE (NO.2) ACT, 1998 AND THIS SEC TION HAS BEEN RE- ENACTED IN SECTION 10(23C). WE ARE CONCERNED WITH BLOCK PERIOD 01-04- 1996 ONWARDS. SO, SECTION 10(22) BEFORE ITS OMISSI ON IS APPLICABLE FROM THE PERIOD 01-04-1996 TO 31-03-1999 AND SECTION 10( 23C) IS RELEVANT FOR THE PERIOD 01-04-1999 ONWARDS. SUB SECTION (22) OF SECTION 10 BEFORE ITS OMISSION FROM 01-04-1999 READ AS FOLLOWS: (22) ANY INCOME OF A UNIVERSITY OR OTHER EDUCATION AL INSTITUTION, EXISTING SOLELY FOR EDUCATIONAL PURPOS ES AND NOT FOR PURPOSES OF PROFIT. SECTION 10(23C) READS AS FOLLOWS: 10. IN COMPUTING THE TOTAL INCOME OF A PREVIOUS YE AR OF ANY PERSON, ANY INCOME FALLING WITHIN ANY OF THE FOLLOW ING CLAUSES SHALL NOT BE INCLUDED (23C) ANY INCOME RECEIVED BY ANY PERSON ON BEHALF O F (I) TO (IIIAC) XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX (IIIAD) ANY UNIVERSITY OR OTHER EDUCATIONAL INSTITU TION EXISTING SOLELY FOR EDUCATIONAL PURPOSES AND NOT FOR PURPOSE S OF PROFIT IF THE AGGREGATE ANNUAL RECEIPTS OF SUCH UNIVERSITY OR EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTION DO NOT EXCEED THE AMOUNT OF ANNUAL RECEIPTS AS MAY BE PRESCRIBED; 12 IT(SS)A NO.186/COCH/2005 FROM THE ABOVE SECTION IT IS OBVIOUS THAT THE EDUCA TIONAL INSTITUTION EXISTS SOLELY FOR EDUCATIONAL PURPOSE AND NOT FOR PURPOSES OF PROFIT IS ELIGIBLE FOR EXEMPTION. IN THIS CASE, THE TRUST IS ESTABLISHED FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE CHILDREN OF MRS. SULA JAYAKUMAR. IT IS A PRIVATE F AMILY TRUST. THEREFORE, THE QUESTION ARISES FOR CONSIDERATION IS WHEN THE TRUST ITSELF WAS ESTABLISHED FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE TWO CHILDREN OF MRS. SULA JAYAKU MAR, WHETHER THE TRUST HAS ANY PROFIT MOTIVE OR NOT? 17. WE HAVE CAREFULLY GONE THROUGH THE COPY OF THE TRUST DEED FILED BY THE ASSESSEE. A BARE READING OF THE TRUST DEED UND ER WHICH THE ASSESSEE CAME INTO EXISTENCE CLEARLY SHOWS THAT THE TRUST WA S ESTABLISHED FOR THE BENEFIT OF TWO CHILDREN OF MR. SULA JAYAKUMAR. THE RE IS A CLAUSE IN THE TRUST DEED WHICH ENABLES THE CHILDREN OF MRS. SULA JAYAKUMAR TO APPROPRIATE THE PROFIT. THE ASSESSEE HAS NO OBLIGA TION TO REINVEST THE PROFIT IN THE EDUCATIONAL ACTIVITIES. THEREFORE, THIS TRI BUNAL IS OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT IN EXISTENCE SOLEL Y FOR EDUCATIONAL PURPOSE. THE ASSESSEE TRUST EXISTS ONLY FOR PROFIT MOTIVE. HENCE, THE ASSESSEE IS NOT ELIGIBLE FOR EXEMPTION U/S 10(22) O R 10(23C) OF THE ACT. THIS VIEW OF THE TRIBUNAL IS FORTIFIED BY THE JUDGM ENT OF THE APEX COURT IN SOLE TRUSTEE, LOKA SHIKSHANA TRUST VS COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (1975) 101 ITR 234 (SC). WHILE EXAMINING THE WORDS CHARITY AND 13 IT(SS)A NO.186/COCH/2005 PROFITS, THE APEX COURT FOUND THAT THE USE OF THE EXPRESSION PROFIT MOTIVE IS NOT INTENDED THAT PROFIT MUST IN FACT BE EARNED. THE APEX COURT FOUND THAT IT PRETEXTS A MOTIVE. THEREFORE, WHEREVER, THERE IS A MOTIVE TO EARN MONEY, THE APEX COURT FOUND THAT SUC H TRUST EXISTS ONLY FOR THE PURPOSE OF PROFIT. HENCE, THE TRUST C ANNOT BE SAID TO BE EXISTING NOT FOR THE PURPOSE OF PROFIT. SUCH TRUST CANNOT BE CONSIDERED TO BE A CHARITABLE TRUST. IN FACT, THE APEX COURT HAS OBSERVED AS FOLLOWS AT PAGES 255 & 256 OF THE ITR: . AS A RULE, IF THE TERMS OF THE TRUST PERMIT ITS OPERATION FOR PROFIT, THEY BECOME, PRIMA FACIE, E VIDENCE OF A PURPOSE FALLING OUTSIDE CHARITY. THEY WOULD I NDICATE THE OBJECT OF PROFIT MAKING UNLESS AND UNTIL IT IS SHOWN THAT TERMS OF THE TRUST COMPEL THE TRUSTEE TO UTILIZE TH E PROFITS OF BUSINESS ALSO FOR CHARITY. THIS MEANS THAT THE TEST INTRODUCED BY THE AMENDMENT IS : DOES THE PURPOSE O F A TRUST RESTRICT SPENDING THE INCOME OF A PROFITABLE ACTIVITY EXCLUSIVELY OR PRIMARILY UPON WHAT IS CHARITY IN LAW? IF THE PROFITS MUST NECESSARILY FEED A CHARITABLE PURP OSE, UNDER THE TERMS OF THE TRUST, THE MERE FACT THAT TH E ACTIVITIES OF THE TRUST YIELD PROFIT WILL NOT ALTER THE CHARITABLE CHARACTER OF THE TRUST. THE TEST NOW IS, MORE CLEA RLY THAN IN THE PAST, THE GENUINENESS OF THE PURPOSE TESTED BY THE 14 IT(SS)A NO.186/COCH/2005 OBLIGATION CREATED TO SPEND THE MONEY EXCLUSIVELY O R ESSENTIALLY ON CHARITY. IN THAT OBLIGATION IS THE RE, THE INCOME BECOMES ENTITLED TO EXEMPTION. THAT, IN OUR OPI9NION, IS THE MOST RELIABLE TEST. 18. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE OBSERVATIONS OF THE APEX C OURT, WHEN THERE IS NO OBLIGATION TO UTILIZE THE PROFIT ARISIN G OUT OF CHARITABLE ACTIVITY FOR CHARITABLE PURPOSE, THE INCOME IS NOT ENTITLED FOR EXEMPTION. IN THIS CASE, THE TRUST IS ADMITTEDLY E STABLISHED FOR THE BENEFIT OF CHILDREN OF MRS. SULA JAYAKUMAR AND THER E IS NO OBLIGATION TO USE THE SURPLUS FUNDS FOR THE CHARITABLE PURPOSE , VIZ. EDUCATION. AS PER THE TRUST DEED, THE PROFIT WOULD GO TO THE B ENEFIT OF CHILDREN OF MRS. SULA JAYAKUMAR. THEREFORE, THIS TRIBUNAL IS O F THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT SO LONG AS THERE IS NO OBLIGATION TO I NVEST THE MONEY FOR CHARITABLE PURPOSE, THE ASSESSEE IS NOT ENTITLED FO R EXEMPTION U/S 10(22) OR 10(23C) OF THE ACT. IT IS NOT KNOWN HOW AN AMOUNT COLLECTED OVER AND ABOVE THE PRESCRIBED FEES WOULD BE A CAPITAL RECEIPT. THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE THAT IT WAS CAP ITAL RECEIPT WAS NOT EXAMINED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. APPARENTLY, THI S ISSUE WAS NOT RAISED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THEREFORE, TH IS TRIBUNAL IS OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS T O EXAMINE THE 15 IT(SS)A NO.186/COCH/2005 CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE. ACCORDINGLY, THE ORDER OF T HE CIT(A) IS SET ASIDE AND REMANDED BACK TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSIN G OFFICER. THE ASSESSING OFFICER SHALL EXAMINE THE CLAIM OF THE AS SESSEE AND FIND OUT WHETHER IT IS CAPITAL RECEIPT OR REVENUE RECEIP T AND THEREAFTER DECIDE THE SAME IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW AFTER GIVING REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING TO THE ASSESSEE. 19. THE NEXT GROUND OF APPEAL IS WITH REGARD TO ADD ITION OF RS.5 LAKHS. THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOUND 10 DEPOSITS OF RS.50,000 EACH IN PALLURUTHI MANDALAM SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK TO TH E EXTENT OF RS.5 LAKHS IN THE NAME OF MRS. SULA JAYAKUMAR. WHILE CONSIDERING THE APPEAL OF SHRI V.K. JAYAKUMAR, THE CIT(A) DIRECTED THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO CONSIDER THE DEPOSIT IN THE HANDS OF THE PRESENT ASSESSEE. FROM THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD IT APPEARS TH AT THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) WHEREIN A DIRECTION WAS ISSUED TO TREAT THE ABOVE SAID DEPOSIT IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE HAS ATTAINED FINALITY. ADMITTEDLY, THE ASSESSEE TRUST HAS NOT INCLUDED THIS RS.5 LAKHS IN THE UNDISCLOSED INCOME. THE ASSESSING OFFICER, BY VIRTUE OF THE DI RECTION OF THE CIT(A) INCLUDED THIS AMOUNT OF RS.5 LAKHS AS UNDISCLOSED I NCOME IN THE HANDS OF THE TRUST. HOWEVER, THE CIT(A) FOUND THAT THE DEPOSITS WERE 16 IT(SS)A NO.186/COCH/2005 MADE FROM CORPUS FUND FOR MAKING INFRASTRUCTURE FO R THE HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL. THE CIT(A) HAS NOT TAKEN ANY PAI N TO VERIFY THE SOURCE OF THE SO-CALLED CORPUS FUND. HOWEVER, THE CIT(A) SAYS THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS EXPLAINED THE FIXED DEPOSIT RECEIP TS. FROM THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) IT IS NOT KNOWN WHAT WAS THE EX PLANATION OFFERED BY THE ASSESSEE AND UNDER WHAT CIRCUMSTANCES, THE C IT(A) ACCEPTED THE EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE IS NOT KNOWN. THE FACT REMAINS IS THAT THE ASSESSEE TRUST IS NOT ELIGIBLE FOR EXEMPTI ON EITHER U/S 10(22) OR U/S 10(23C) OF THE ACT. THE ASSESSEE TRUST IS A LSO NOT REGISTERED U/S 12A OF THE ACT, AND THEREFORE, NOT ELIGIBLE FOR EXEMPTION U/S 11 OF THE ACT; HENCE, THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE TRUST HA S TO BE COMPUTED ON COMMERCIAL PRINCIPLES. SINCE THE SOURCE OF THE SO-CALLED CORPUS FUND WAS NOT EXPLAINED BY THE ASSESSEE, THIS TRIBUN AL IS OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT THE CIT(A) COMMITTED AN ERR OR IN SAYING THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS EXPLAINED THE SOURCE OF FIXED DEPO SIT RECEIPT. IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY MATERIAL ON RECORD TO SHOW THAT THE INCOME WAS GENERATED IN THE COURSE OF THE ACTIVITY OF THE ASSE SSEE TRUST OR IT WAS RECEIVED FROM IDENTIFIABLE SOURCES, THIS TRIBUNAL I S OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT THE CIT(A) OUGHT NOT TO HAVE DELETED T HE ADDITION MADE 17 IT(SS)A NO.186/COCH/2005 BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. HENCE, THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) IS SET AIDE AND THAT OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS RESTORED ON T HIS ISSUE. 20. THE NEXT GROUND OF APPEAL IS WITH REGARD TO ADD ITION OF RS.19,82,672. THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOUND THAT SEI ZED MATERIAL AM 127 SHOWS THE RECEIPT OF MONTHLY FEE AND THE TERM FEE FOR THE SCHOOL RUN BY THE TRUST. SEIZED MATERIAL AM 16 IS THE R EGULAR CASH BOOK FOR THE PERIOD 12-12-2001 ONWARDS. THE ASSESSEE ALSO A DMITTED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT THE RECEIPT OF TERM FEE AND MONTHLY FEE WAS NOT ACCOUNTED IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT. THE ONLY CO NTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE IS THAT ON THE DATE OF THE SEARCH, THE PER IOD FOR FILING THE RETURN OF INCOME HAS NOT EXPIRED. THE RECEIPT OF M ONTHLY FEE AND TERM FEE WAS DISCLOSED TO THE DEPARTMENT IN THE REG ULAR RETURN OF INCOME FILED SUBSEQUENT TO THE SEARCH, THEREFORE, I T CANNOT BE TREATED AS UNDISCLOSED INCOME. 21. WE HAVE CAREFULLY GONE THROUGH THE PROVISIONS O F SECTION 158BB(1)(D) WHICH READS AS FOLLOWS: (D) WHERE THE PREVIOUS YEAR HAS NOT ENDED OR THE D ATE OF FILING THE RETURN OF INCOME UNDER SUB-SECTION (1 ) OF 18 IT(SS)A NO.186/COCH/2005 SECTION 139 HAS NOT EXPIRED, ON THE BASIS OF ENTRIE S RELATING TO SUCH INCOME OR TRANSACTIONS AS RECORDED IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT AND OTHER DOCUMENTS MAINTAINED IN THE NORMAL COURSE ON OR BEFORE THE DATE OF THE SEARCH O R REQUISITION RELATING TO SUCH PREVIOUS YEARS. IN VIEW OF THIS SUB CLAUSE, VIZ. SECTION 158BB(1)(D ), WHEREVER THE DATE OF FILING OF THE RETURN OF INCOME U/S 139(1) H AS NOT EXPIRED, THE ENTRIES RELATING TO INCOME FOUND IN THE BOOKS OF AC COUNT MAINTAINED IN THE NORMAL COURSE OF ACTIVITY BEFORE THE DATE OF SE ARCH NEEDS TO BE EXCLUDED. IN THIS CASE, ADMITTEDLY, THE MONTHLY FE E AND TERM FEE COLLECTED FROM THE STUDENTS WERE NOT ACCOUNTED IN T HE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT. IT WAS UNEARTHED DURING THE COURSE OF SEA RCH OPERATION. BUT FOR THE SEARCH, THE COLLECTION OF MONTHLY FEE A ND TERM FEE FROM THE STUDENTS WOULD NOT HAVE COME TO LIGHT. THE LEGISLA TURE HAS PRESCRIBED A SPECIFIC MODE OF COMPUTATION OF UNDISC LOSED INCOME. WHEREVER, THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT ARE MAINTAINED IN TH E REGULAR COURSE OF ACTIVITY AND THE ENTRIES WERE FOUND IN SUCH BOOK S OF ACCOUNT, THE INCOME ARISING OUT OF SUCH TRANSACTION HAS TO BE EX CLUDED IN CASE THE DUE DATE OF FILING OF THE RETURN HAS NOT ENDED. IN THIS CASE, THE RECEIPT, VIZ. MONTHLY FEE AND TERM FEE WAS NOT RECO RDED IN THE BOOKS 19 IT(SS)A NO.186/COCH/2005 OF ACCOUNT MAINTAINED IN THE REGULAR COURSE OF ACTI VITIES, THIS TRIBUNAL IS OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT MERELY BECAUSE TH E TIME LIMIT FOR FILING THE RETURN OF INCOME HAS NOT EXPIRED, THE RE CEIPT WHICH WAS NOT ENTERED IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT CANNOT BE EXCLUDED. THEREFORE, THE CIT(A) IS NOT JUSTIFIED IN DELETING THE ADDITION MA DE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THIS TRIBUNAL IS OF THE CONSIDERED OPINIO N THAT THE JUDGMENT OF THE MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT IN NITIN MUNJE (20 03) 185 CTR (MP) 255 IS NOT APPLICABLE TO THE FACTS OF THE PRES ENT CASE. ACCORDINGLY, THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) IS SET ASIDE A ND THAT OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS RESTORED. 22. THE NEXT GROUND OF APPEAL IS WITH REGARD TO ADD ITION OF RS. 16,27,738 ON SALE OF BOOKS AND RS. 3,61,040 BEING T HE DISALLOWANCE U/S 40A(3) OF THE ACT. THE ONLY CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE IS THAT SABARIGIRI SCHOOL SOCIETY IS A GENUINE TRUST. THE CERTIFICATE OF REGISTRATION IS CLAIMED TO HAVE BEEN PRODUCED BEFOR E THE CIT(A). HOWEVER, FROM THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER IT APPEARS THAT THE CERTIFICATE OF REGISTRATION WAS NOT PRODUCED BEFORE HIM AND THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT ESTABLISHED THE EXISTENCE OF THE S ABARIGIRI SCHOOL SOCIETY. THEREFORE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NO O CCASION TO EXAMINE 20 IT(SS)A NO.186/COCH/2005 THE GENUINENESS OF THE SABARIGIRI SCHOOL TRUST. TH E CIT(A) ALSO HAS NOT MADE ANY ENQUIRY WITH REGARD TO THE GENUINENESS OF THE SO-CALLED CERTIFICATE SAID TO HAVE BEEN PRODUCED BY THE ASSES SEE. WHEN THE ASSESSEE CLAIMS THAT THE ENTIRE PAYMENT WAS MADE BY ANOTHER TRUST, VIZ. SABARIGIRI SCHOOL SOCIETY, THE EXISTENCE OF TH E TRUST HAS TO BE ESTABLISHED BY PRODUCING THE DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE. THE CIT(A), WITHOUT MAKING ANY ENQUIRY ACCEPTED THE SO-CALLED C ERTIFICATE OF REGISTRATION AND OTHER DOCUMENTS FILED BY THE ASSES SEE TO ESTABLISH THE EXISTENCE OF THE TRUST, HAS ACCEPTED THE CONTEN TION OF THE ASSESSEE. THIS TRIBUNAL IS OF THE CONSIDERED OPINI ON THAT THE DOCUMENT SAID TO HAVE BEEN FILED BEFORE THE CIT(A) WAS NOT AVAILABLE BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER. SINCE THE GENUINENES S OF THE TRUST WAS NOT ENQUIRED INTO BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER, THE ISS UE NEEDS TO BE EXAMINED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. ACCORDINGLY, TH E ISSUE OF GENUINENESS OF THE TRUST IS REMITTED BACK TO THE FI LE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THE ASSESSING OFFICER SHALL RECONSIDER TH E MATTER AFRESH IN THE LIGHT OF THE SO-CALLED REGISTRATION CERTIFICATE AND OTHER DOCUMENTS AND THEREAFTER DECIDE THE SAME AFRESH IN ACCORDANCE WIT H LAW AFTER GIVING REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING TO THE ASSESSEE. 21 IT(SS)A NO.186/COCH/2005 23. THE NEXT GROUND OF APPEAL IS WITH REGARD TO DIS ALLOWANCE OF RS. 6,47,000. THE ASSESSEE APPEARS TO HAVE FILED CONFI RMATION LETTER BEFORE THE CIT(A) AND THE CIT(A) DIRECTED THE ASSES SING OFFICER TO VERIFY THE CONFIRMATION LETTER. THE ONLY OBJECTION OF THE REVENUE IS THAT THE CIT(A) HAS NO POWER TO SET ASIDE THE MATTER TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THE FACT REMAINS IS THAT THE AS SESSEE HAS FILED CONFIRMATION LETTER BEFORE THE CIT(A) WHICH NEEDS T O BE EXAMINED. THE CIT(A) ADMITTEDLY HAS NO POWER TO SET ASIDE THE MATTER TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THE CIT(A) BEING AN OFFI CER HAVING POWER CO-TERMINUS WITH THAT OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER OUGH T TO HAVE EXAMINED THE GENUINENESS OF THE CONFIRMATION LETTER, THE IDE NTITY OF THE PARTY, GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTION AND CREDITWORTHINESS OF THE CREDITOR. WITHOUT DOING SO, THE CIT(A) SIMPLY SET ASIDE THE M ATTER TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THIS TRIBUNAL IS OF THE CON SIDERED OPINION THAT SINCE THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED THE CONFIRMATION LETTE R IT NEEDS TO BE EXAMINED. ACCORDINGLY, IN EXERCISE OF THE POWERS O F THIS TRIBUNAL, THE ISSUE OF ADDITION OF RS.6,47,000 IS REMITTED BACK T O THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THE ASSESSING OFFICER SHALL EXA MINE THE ISSUE AFTER EXAMINING THE CONFIRMATION LETTER AND OTHER DOCUMEN TS FILED BY THE 22 IT(SS)A NO.186/COCH/2005 ASSESSEE AND THEREAFTER DECIDE THE ISSUE IN ACCORDA NCE WITH LAW AFTER GIVING OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING TO THE ASSESSEE. 24. THE NEXT ISSUE IS WITH REGARD TO LEVY OF SURCHA RGE U/S 113 OF THE ACT. THE APEX COURT IN THE CASE OF SURESH N GUPTA (SUPRA) FOUND THAT SURCHARGE CAN BE LEVIED EVEN BEFORE THE AMENDMENT O F SECTION 113 OF THE ACT IN VIEW OF THE FINANCE ACT PASSED BY THE PARLIAMENT IN THE RESPECTIVE ASSESSMENT YEAR. THEREFORE, THE CIT(A) IS NOT JUSTIFIED IN DELETING THE SURCHARGE LEVIED BY THE ASSESSING OFFI CER. ACCORDINGLY, THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) IS SET ASIDE AND THAT OF TH E ASSESSING OFFICER IS RESTORED. 25. NOW COMING TO THE CROSS OBJECTION OF THE ASSESS EE, THE FIRST GROUND OF APPEAL IS WITH REGARD TO VALIDITY OF THE BLOCK ASSESSMENT MADE U/S 158BD OF THE ACT. ADMITTEDLY, THE SEARCH WAS CONDUCTED IN THE CASE OF DR. V.K. JAYAKUMAR ON 28-05-2002 U/S 13 2 OF THE ACT. THE ASSESSEE TRUST IS NOT THE SEARCHED PERSON. IN OTHER WORDS, THE ASSESSEE TRUST IS A PERSON OTHER THAN SEARCHED PERS ON. THEREFORE, THIS TRIBUNAL IS OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT THE PROCEEDINGS HAVE BEEN VALIDLY BEEN INITIATED U/S 158BD OF THE ACT. THEREFORE, THIS 23 IT(SS)A NO.186/COCH/2005 TRIBUNAL DO NOT FIND ANY INFIRMITY IN THE ORDERS OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES. ACCORDINGLY, THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) ON THIS ISSUE IS CONFIRMED. 26. THE NEXT GROUND OF APPEAL IS WITH REGARD TO LIM ITATION. THE LEGISLATURE HAS SPECIFICALLY PRESCRIBED TIME LIMIT U/S 158BE(2)(B) OF THE ACT IN RESPECT OF SEARCHES CARRIED OUT AFTER 01-01- 1997. AS PER THIS SECTION ASSESSMENT COULD BE COMPLETED WITHIN TWO YE ARS FROM THE END OF THE MONTH IN WHICH NOTICE WAS SERVED ON THE ASSESSEE. IN THIS CASE, ADMITTEDLY, THE SEARCH TOOK PLACE ON 28-05-20 02 NOTICE U/S 158BC R.W.S. 158BD WAS ISSUED ON 12-12-2002 AND THE ASSESSMENT ORDER WAS PASSED ON 30-12-2004. THEREFORE, THE ORD ER PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS WITHIN THE PERIOD OF TWO Y EARS AS PROVIDED IN SECTION 158BE(2)(B) OF THE ACT; HENCE THE CONTENTIO N OF THE ASSESSEE WITH REGARD TO LIMITATION IS NOT SUSTAINABLE. 27. THE NEXT GROUND OF APPEAL IS WITH REGARD TO COR RIGENDUM ISSUED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THE CORRIGENDUM ISSUED B Y THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS ONLY TO CORRECT THE YEAR OF ASSESSMENT. IN RESPECT OF THE ADDITIONS, ETC. THE ASSESSMENT ORDER IS INTACT. TH EREFORE, THIS 24 IT(SS)A NO.186/COCH/2005 TRIBUNAL DO NOT FIND ANY INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER OF THE LOWER AUTHORITY. ACCORDINGLY, THE SAME IS CONFIRMED. 28. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS PAR TLY ALLOWED AND THE CROSS OBJECTION OF THE ASSESSEE STANDS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THIS 31 ST JANUARY, 2014. SD/- SD/- (B.R. BASKARAN) (N.R.S. GANESAN) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER COCHIN, DT : 31 ST JANUARY, 2014 PK/- COPY TO: 1. THE A.C.I.T., CENT.CIR., KOLLAM 2. SABARIGIRI TRUST, ANCHAL, KOLLAM 3. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL, KOCHI 4. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX(A)-I, KOCHI 5. THE DR (TRUE COPY) BY ORDER ASSTT. REGISTRAR, INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, COCHIN BENCH