SJ Charitable Trust, Bhubaneswar V. ACIT, Bhubaneswar

ITSSA 84/CTK/2011

• Counselvise Citation: [2012] 124 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7533 (ITAT-CUTTACK)
• Duration Of Justice: 5 month(s) 21 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax (Search & Seizure) Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 04-04-2012
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Next Hearing Date: 19-03-2012
• Assessment Year: 2004-2005
• Appeal Filed On: 14-10-2011
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: PARAMITA TRIPATHY
• Assessee Lawyers: S C BHADRAB MOHANTY ARS
• Keywords: Unexplained investment; Unexplained expenditure; Income from undisclosed sources; Search and seizure; Charitable institution; Principle of natural justice
• Section: 142(1); 131; 68; 12; 10

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CUTTACK BENCH, CUTTACK BEFORE : SHRI K.K.GUPTA, AM, AND SHRI K.S.S.PRASAD RAO, JM IT (SS) A NO S . 8 4,85,86 AND 87/CTK/2011 (ASSESSMENT YEAR S 2004 - 05,2005 - 06, 2006 - 07 AND 2007 - 08) S.J.CHARITABLE TRUST PLOT NO.502, RA JENDRA VIHAR, FOREST PARK, BHUBANESWAR PAN: AAGTS 2207 M VERSUS ASST.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME - TAX, CIRCLE 2(2), BHUBANESWAR. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) FOR THE APPELLANT: SHRI S.C.BHADRA/B.MOHANTY,ARS FOR THE RESPONDENT SMT. PARAMITA TRIPATHY, CIT - DR DAT E OF HEARING : 19.03.2012 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 04.04.2012 ORDER PER BENCH : THESE APPEALS ARE BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDERS OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME - TAX (APPEALS) OF EVEN DATED THE 30 TH JUNE, 2011 FOR THE AYS 2004 - 05,2005 - 06, 2006 - 07 AND 2007 - 08. SINCE THE ISSUES ARE COMMON EXCEPT FOR FIGURES IN DISPUTE , ALL THESE APPEALS WERE HEARD TOGETHER AND ARE DISPOSED OF BY THIS COMMON ORDER FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE. 2. THE BRIEF FACTS ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE IS A TRUST CREATED ON 2 6.9.2003 AND IT RUNS ONE EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTION UNDER NAME & STYLE OF APEX INSTITUTE OF SCIENCE (+2). A SEARCH AND SEIZURE OPERATION WAS CONDUCTED IN THE MUDALI GROU P OF CASES U/S.132 OF THE I.T.AC T,1961 ON 23.8.2006. VARIOUS DOCUMENTS AND CASH AMOUNTING TO 3,26,000 BELONG TO THE TRUST WERE SEIZED DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH OPERATIONS. THE ASSESSING OFFICER NOTICED NOTICE U/S.153C READ WITH SECTION 153A, IN RESPONSE TO WHICH THE ASSESSEE FILED RETURN U/S.153A/C SHOWING TOTAL INCOME AT NIL CLAIMING EXEMP TION U/S.11 OF THE I.T.ACT. THE RETURN OF INCOME WAS ALSO ACCOMPANIED WITH CERTIFIED TRUE COPIES INCOME AND EXPENDITURE ACCOUNT, BALANCE SHEET AND AUDIT REPORT U/S.12A(B) OF THE I.T.ACT IN FORM NO.10B. THE ASSESSEE FILED ANOTHER RETURNS STATING THEREIN TH AT APPLICATION WAS MADE FOR REGISTRATION U/S.12AA OF THE I.T.ACT. THE ASSESSING OFFICER ISSUED NOTICES U/S.143(2) AND 142(1) ALONG WITH IT(SS)A NOS.84,85,86 AND 87/CTK/2011 2 QUESTIONNAIRES. AFTER CONSIDERING THE RETURNS AND SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER DISALLOWED THE CLAI M OF EXEMPTION U/S.11 OF THE I.T.ACT. FURTHER DISALLOWING THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE U/S.10(23C)(VI), ON THE GROUND THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT REGISTERED U/S.12AA, THE ASSESSING OFFICER BROUGHT TO TAX THE RECEIPT OF FUNDS BY THE TRUST. THE ASSESSING OFFICER F OUND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD OBTAINED UNSECURED LOAN OF 12,41,400, 60,77,760, 57,67,800 AND 47,400 IN THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2004 - 05,2005 - 06, 2006 - 07 AND 2007 - 08 RESPECTIVELY BY WAY OF CASH OR DEMAND DRAFTS. THE ASSESSING OFFICER OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE DID NOT M AINTAIN ANY PARTY WISE LOAN LEDGER. THE ASSESSEE HAS CLAIMED THAT THESE LOANS ARE INTEREST FREE AND NOT RETURNED TO THE LOAN CREDITOR TILL DATE. REGARDING RECEIPT OF LOAN BY DEMAND DRAFTS, THE ASSESSING OFFICER OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE DID NOT SUBMIT ANY DETAILS THEREOF AND ITS REFLECTION IN THE BANK ACCOUNT. FOR THE LOANS TAKEN IN CASH, THE ASSESSING OFFICER OBSERVED THAT THOSE COULD NOT BE VERIFIABLE FROM THE CASH BOOK OF THE ASSESSEE. HE FURTHER OBSERVED THE ASSESSEE DID NOT DISCHARGE THE ONUS OF PROVI NG THE IDENTITY AND CREDITWORTHINESS OF THE LOAN CREDITORS. THUS OBSERVING, THE ASSESSING OFFICER DISALLOWED THE CLAIM OF UNSECURED LOAN S AND ADDED THE SAME TO THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE AS INCOME FROM UNDISCLOSED SOURCES IN ALL OF THE AYS UNDER CONSIDERAT ION. BESIDES, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS ALSO MADE ADDITION ON ACCOUNT UNEXPLAINED EXPENDITURE OF 13,09,500 AND 3,56,564 IN THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2006 - 07 AND 2007 - 08 RESPECTIVELY. HE ALSO MADE ADDITION OF 1,92,403 ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT AND 59,196 TOWARDS SUNDRY CREDITORS. 3 . AGGRIEVED, THE ASSESSEE FILED APPEALS BEFORE THE CIT(A) RAIS ING THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL , WHICH ARE IDENTICAL IN ALL OF THE AYS UNDER CONSIDERATION . IT(SS)A NOS.84,85,86 AND 87/CTK/2011 3 1. THE ASSESSMENT ORDER U/S.153A(B) / 143(3)/153C IS AGAINST LAW, WEIGHT OF EVIDENCES AND PROBABILITIES OF THE CASE. 2. THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT ACTED ASSUMING PROPER JURISDICTION AND / OR ACTE D IN EXCESS OF HIS JURISDICTION. 3. THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER HAS ERRED IN NOT HONOURING THE LAW OF THE LAND AS ENVISAGED IN SEC - 10(23C)(VI) OF INCOME TAX AC T, 1961 THAT, UNLESS RECEIPTS BY AN EDUCATIO NAL INSTITUTION EXCEED RS.100 LAKHS, NO APPLICATION IS NEEDED FOR EXEMPTION AND AS SUCH IT IS NOT REQUIRED TO FILE ITS RETURN OF INCOME IRRESPECTIVE OF HAVING SURPLUS/DEFICIT. 4. THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER WITHOUT GIVING RECOGNITION TO THE FACTS, WITH OUT REFERRING TO THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT, WITHOUT CONSIDERING THE CONFIRMATIONS, BANK STATEMENTS, IT RETURNS ETC. ARBITRARILY AND WHIMSICALLY MADE ADDITION OF TRUST FUND AND UNSECURED LOAN AND BROUGHT THE SAME TO TAX NET WHICH IS ILLEGAL AND NOT CAL LED FOR. F OR THIS REASON, THE ORDER NEEDS TO BE ANNULLED. 5. THAT THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER DID NOT TAKE UP THE PROCEEDINGS FOR MORE THAN TWO YEARS AND SUDDENLY AT THE END OF THE YEAR, 2008 PROCEEDED WITH HEARING OF THE MATTER AND DID NOT ALLOW THE ASSESSEE RE ASONABLE TIME AND FAIR OPPORTUNITY TO DEFEND THE ALLEGATIONS AND TO PRODUCE RELEVANT DOCUMENTS. HENCE DENIED FAIR AND NATURAL JUSTICE TO THE ASSESSEE. 6. THAT THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER NEVER APPLIED HIS MIND TO THE PROCEEDING AND ISSUED ASSESSMENT OR DER MECHANICALLY AND ARBITRARILY WITHOUT THE PRIOR APPROVAL OF THE HIGHER AUTHORITY AND VIOLATED MANDATORY PROVISIONS OF LAW. 7 . THAT, NEITHER SHOW CAUSE NOTICE WAS ISSUED TO APPELLANT NOR WAS OPPORTUNITY ALLOWED TO CONFRONT OR REBUT THE FINDINGS AGAINST THE TRUST. 8. THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER ARBITRARILY REJECTED/ACCEPTED SOME OF THE DOCUMENTS RELATING TO THE TRUST AND DELIBERATELY AVOIDED TO TAKE INTO CONSIDERATION THE OTHER IMPORTANT MATERIALS IN THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. 9 FOR THAT THE CONTRIBU TION MADE BY THE TRUSTEE MEMBERS, TOWARDS CORPUS FUND CAN NOT TO BE TREATED AS INCOME U/S.11(1)(D). 10 . FOR THESE AND AMONG OTHER GROUNDS THAT MAY EMERGE AT THE TIME OF HEARING IT IS PRAYED THAT THE ORDER OF ASSESSMENT BE QUASHED IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTI CE AND EQUITY. 4. THE LEARNED CIT(A) CALLED FOR REMAND REPORT FROM THE ASSESSING OFFICER. AFTER CONSIDERING THE ASSESSMENT ORDERS, SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE AND IT(SS)A NOS.84,85,86 AND 87/CTK/2011 4 THE REMAND REPORT OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER, THE LEARNED CIT(A) DISMISSED THE GROUNDS NO.1 AND 2 ABOVE ON THE FINDING THAT ON GOING THROUGH THE ASSESSMENT, HE DID NOT FIND ANY SUCH IRREGULARITIES AS POINTED BY THE ASSESSEE WHEN IT WAS CONTENDED THAT THE ASSESSMENT ORDER U/S.153A(B)/143(3)/153C OF THE ACT IS AGAINST LAW, WEIGHT OF EVIDENCE AND P ROBABILITIES OF THE CASE. THE LEARNED CIT(A) DISMISSED GROUND NO.3 OBSERVING THAT WITHOUT VALID REGISTRATION/S.12AA OF THE ACT, NO CLAIM CAN BE MADE FOR EXEMPTION U/S.11 BECAUSE REGISTRATION U/S.12AA IS ONE OF THE CONDITIONS FOR GRANTING EXEMPTION U/S.11 O F THE ACT IN ACCORDANCE WITH SECTION 12 OF THE ACT. THE LEARNED CIT(A) UPHELD THE ADDITION MADE ON ACCOUNT OF UNSECURED LOANS BUT DELETED T HE ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON ACCOUNT OF TRUST FU ND. HOWEVER, THE LEARNED CIT(A) UPHELD THE ADDITION M ADE ON ACCOUNT UNEXPLAINED EXPENDITURE OF 13,09,500 AND 3,56,564 IN THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2006 - 07 AND 2007 - 08 RESPECTIVELY. HE ALSO CONFIRMED THE ADDITION OF 1,92,403 ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT AND 59,196 TOWARDS SUNDRY CREDITORS. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDERS OF THE CIT(A), THE ASSESSEE HA S FILED THE PRESENT APPEALS BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL RAISED IN THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2004 - 05, WHICH ARE COMMON IN ALL THE AYS UNDER CONSIDERATION EXCEPT FOR THE FIGURES IN DISPUTE, IS QUOTED HEREUNDER : 1. THE ASSESSMENT ORDER U/S.153A(B) /143 (3)/153C AS WELL THE APPELLATE ORDER IS AGAINST LAW, WEIGHT OF EVIDENCES AND PROBABILITIES OF THE CASE. 2. THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT ACTED ASSUMING PROPER JURISDICTION AND / OR ACTED IN EXCESS OF HIS JURISDICTION. SO ALSO THE HONOURABLE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY WHO ACCEPTED THE ADDITIONS EFFECTED ON THE ORDER. 3. THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER AS WELL THE HONOURABLE 1ST APPELLATE AUTHORITY HAVE ERRED IN NOT HONOURING THE LAW OF THE LAND AS ENVISAGED IN SEC - 10(23C)(VI) OF I NCOME TAX ACT, 1961 THAT, UNLESS RECEIPTS BY AN EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTION EXCEED RS.100 LAKHS, NO APPLICATION IS NEEDED FOR EXEMPTION AND AS SUCH IT IS NOT REQUIRED TO FILE ITS RETURN OF INCOME IRRESPECTIVE OF IT(SS)A NOS.84,85,86 AND 87/CTK/2011 5 HAVING SURPLUS/DEFICIT AND HENCE ADDITION OF SURPLUS OF THE YEA R AMOUNTING TO RS.4,02,947.00 IS NOT TAXABLE. 4. THE HONOURABLE 1ST APPELLATE AUTHORITY WITHOUT GIVING RECOGNITION TO THE REMAND REPORT OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER ARBITRARILY SUSTAINED ADDITION OF UNSECURED LOAN AMOUNTING TO RS.12,41,000.00 WHICH IS ILLEGAL AND NOT CALLED FOR. FOR THIS REASON, THE ORDER ON THIS POINT NEEDS TO BE ANNULLED. 5. FIRSTLY, THE LEARNED AR OF THE ASSESSEE CONTENDED THAT IN VIEW OF SEEKING PERMISSION U/S.10(23C)(VI) OF THE ACT PENDING AND IN THE INTERVENING PERIOD SEARCH TOOK PLACE AND ON THE BASIS OF WHICH RAISING GROUND FOR IMPROPER PROCEEDINGS UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTIONS.153A(B) /143 (3)/153C MAY BE CONSIDERED AS DEALT WITH BY THE LEARNED CIT(A). BUT WE REFRAINED ON THE ISSUE OF THE CLAIM OF EXEMPTION U/S.10(23C)(VI) AS IT IS PENDING BEFORE THE RESPECTIVE AUTHORITIES AS THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE IN HIS WISDOM LEFT TO DECIDE THE ISSUE AS DEALT WITH BY THE LEARNED CIT(A). WE ALSO REFRAIN ON COMMENDING ON THE PENDENCY OF CLAIMING EXEMPTION U/S.10(23C) AS THE LEARNED A R OF THE ASSESSEE IN THE COURSE OF ARGUMENT FAIR ENOUGH TO STATE THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS YET TO COMMENCE RECEIPTS AS PER FOR SEEKING EXEMPTION UNDER THE SAID PROVISIONS. 6. THE LEARNED AR OF THE ASSESSEE NEXT ARGUED THAT APART FROM DELETION OF THE PURPORTED LOANS OBTAINED BY THE ASSESSEE TO SET UP ITS INSTITUTE THAT HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF THE I.T.ACT AFTER THE SEARCH OPERATION MUST BE DELETED INSOFAR AS HAVING DOUBTED THE CONTRIBUTION OF THE CORPUS BY THE TRUSTEE S, THE ASSESSING OFFICER FURTHER TRIED TO VERIFY THE UNSECURED LOANS FOR WANT OF VERIFYING THE SAME IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HELD THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT DISCHARGED ITS ONUS WHICH LAY UPON HIM TO IDENTITY, CREDITWORT HINESS AND GENUINENESS OF THE LOAN CREDITORS. FURTHERMORE IT WAS SUBMITTED BEFORE THE LEARNED CIT(A) THAT THE TRUST FUNDS ALONG WITH UNSECURED LOAN CANNOT BE TAXED AS THE ASSESSEE WAS CONTINUING TO ESTABLISH ITSELF AND THE ONUS WHICH IT(SS)A NOS.84,85,86 AND 87/CTK/2011 6 LAY UPON THE ASSESSEE TO PROVE IDENTITY, CREDITWORTHINESS AND GENUINENESS WAS OBTAINED BY THE LEARNED CIT(A). THE LEARNED CIT(A) CONSIDERING THE UNSECURED LOANS SOUGHT TO BE TAXED FOR THE FOUR AYS UNDER CONSIDERATION ERRED IN GIVING A SIMPLE REMARK OF THE ASSESSEE NOT HAVING DI SCHARGED ITS ONUS. THE LEARNED AR OF THE ASSESSEE , THEREFORE, VEHEMENTLY CONTENDED THAT THE PROVED THE IDENTITY, CREDITWORTHINESS AND GENUINENESS BY PRODUCING THE CONFIRMATIONS, PAN NUMBERS OF LOAN CREDITORS, THE LEARNED CIT(A) SHOULD HAVE ACCEPTED THE CLA IM OF THE ASSESSEE AND DELETE THE ADDITION MADE ON ACCOUNT OF LOAN CREDITS. 7. THE LEARNED CIT - DR, ON THE OTHER HAND, SUPPORTED THE IMPUGNED ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW . 8. HAVING HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSING THE IMPUGNED ORDERS OF THE AUTHORI TIES BELOW AND THE MATERIAL MADE AVAILABLE TO THE TRIBUNAL, WE FIND THAT THE LEARNED CIT(A) QUOTED THE OBSERVATION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN THE REMAND REPORT IN CONTINUATION TO THE INTERIM REPORT SEND EARLIER. AT THE END OF THE REPORT THE REPORTING OFFI CER HAS MADE AN OBSERVATION DESCRIBING IT AS IMPORTANT OBSERVATION, WHICH IS REPRODUCED AS UNDER : AN IMPORTANT OBSERVATION WAS MADE WHICH NEEDS TO BE POINTED OUT AND HIGHLIGHTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD CLAIMED TO HAVE RECEIVED UNSECURED LOANS FROM FOR AL L THE ASSESSMENT YEARS UNDER REMAND REPORTING. THE LISTS OF PERSONS FROM THE LOANS WERE RECEIVED WERE SUBMITTED DURING REMAND PROCEEDINGS. A FEW PERSONS AT BHUBANESWAR AS MENTIONED BELOW WERE SUMMONED AND THERE STATEMENTS HEARD/OBTAINED. SHRI JYOTI R ANJAN PANDA, SHRI DEBABRATA PAR IDA BOTH BY WRITTEN SUBMISSION AND SHRI SURYA NARA YEN SENAPATI OVER TELEPHONE CATEGORICALLY DENIED TO HAVE GIVEN ANY LOAN TO THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE HAS C/AIMED THAT EACH HAD GIVEN RS. 15000/ - AND EVEN HAD SUBMITTED THE LOAN CON FIRMATIONS ALLEGEDLY GIVEN BY SHRI PANDA AND SHRI PA RI DA. THESE FACTS SMACKS ON THE VERACITY AND AUTHENTICITY OF THE LOAN CONFIRMATIONS ITSELF. IF LOAN CONFIRMATIONS COULD BE PRODUCED IN THE NAMES OF CREDITORS WHO HAD THEMSELVES DENIED TO HAVE GIVEN ANY LO AN, THE AUTHENTICITY OF SUCH CONFIRMATIONS ARE ABSOLUTELY DOUBTFUL, SOME OF THE LOAN IT(SS)A NOS.84,85,86 AND 87/CTK/2011 7 CONFIRMATIONS SUBMITTED APPEAR TO BE OF SAME HAND WRITING. OBSERVING THIS TREND OF DENIAL BY LOAN CREDITORS , COMMISSIONS U/S 131 WERE ISSUED TO DCIT ,CIRCLE ROURKELA AND ITO WD - 3, BERHAMPUR TO VERIFY THE LOAN TRANSACTIONS AS MAJORITY OF CREDITORS HAILED FROM THESE 2 PLACES. DCIT CIRCLE ROURKELA VIDE HIS LETTER DTD. 1/8.4.2010 HELD THAT 2 PERSONS, SMT. RESHMA ROUT & SMT. NIRANJANA NAYAK HAD DENIED TO HAVE GIVEN ANY LOAN TO THE ASSESSEE. HE RECORDED STATEMENTS OF 13 PERSONS. THE DCIT CIRCLE ROURKELA A/SO CASTED DOUBTS ON THE GENUINENESS OF THE LOANS BECAUSE (I) THE CREDITORS FAILED TO ESTABLISH DIRECT NEXUS BETWEEN ADVANCEMENT OF LOAN AND WITHDRAWAL (II) ALL THE LOANS WERE O UTSTANDING EVEN AFTER SO MUCH TIME (III) THERE ARE NO CORRESPONDING BANK WITHDRAWALS BY THE CREDITORS (IV) ROUTINE EXPLANATION THAT THE LOANS WERE GIVEN FROM PAST SAVINGS. ITO WD.3 BERHAMPUR SUMMONED 31 PERSONS AND RECORDED THEIR STATEMENTS WHICH WERE FORW ARDED TO THIS OFFICE. IT IS THUS FELT THAT EVEN THOSE WHO ARE CONFIRMING TO HAVE ADVANCED THE LOAN, THE INFLUENCING OF SUCH CREDITORS CANNOT BE RULED OUT. THE LEARNED CIT(A) CONSIDERING THE FINAL OBSERVATION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER, WAS OF THE VIEW THA T IT CASTS A PALE OF SHADOW ON THE CLAIM OF LOAN CREDITORS AND HOLDING THAT THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO PROVE THE IDENTITY, CREDITWORTHINESS AND GENUINENESS, HE CONFIRMED THE ACTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER UPHOLDING THE IMPUGNED ADDITIONS MADE IN THIS REGARD IN THE RESPECTIVE ASSESSMENT YEARS UNDER CONSIDERATION. BUT WE FIND THAT THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS NOT CONSIDERED THE REMAND REPORT IN ITS PROPER PERCEPTIVE. WE HAVE CAREFULLY GONE THROUGH THE SUBMISSIONS AS MADE BY THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE PERUSI NG THE PAPER BOOK FILED BY THE ASSESSEE. THE PAPER BOOK ENCLOSES THE REMAND REPORT AS GIVEN BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER, WHICH WAS CALLED FOR BY THE LEARNED CIT(A) FOR VERIFYING THE ACCEPTABILITY OF THESE LOAN CREDITORS AS NON - GENUINE. THE ASSESSING OFFICER I N HIS REMAND REPORT HAS VERIFIED ALL THE DETAILS IN TWO PHASES APPARENTLY ACCEPTING THE LOAN AMOUNTS TO BE VERIFIED AS THE ONUS WAS TO BE DISCHARGED BY THE ASSESSEE WAS TO ESTABLISH THE IDENTITY, GENUINENESS AND CREDITWORTHINESS. FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 20 04 - 05, IN THE TWO REMAND REPORTS RELEASED BY HIM HE HAS ACCEPTED IT(SS)A NOS.84,85,86 AND 87/CTK/2011 8 THE LOAN AMOUNT OF 6,91,600 VIDE REPORT DT.10.2.2010 AND 5,49,800 VIDE REPORT DT.12.4.2011 (PAGES 26 TO 35 OF PB), WHICH TOTAL COUNTS TO 12,41,400, WHICH THE AMOUNT THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS CONFIRMED INSPITE OF HAVING CALLED FOR THE REMAND REPORT. WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT THE LEARNED CIT(A) DID NOT ADJUDICATE THE ISSUE IN THE MANNER THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD COMPLIED WITH ON HIS REQUISITION. HE SIMPLY OBSERVED THAT CONFIRMATIONS FROM 4 TO 5 CREDITORS WERE NOT PROPER WHICH DID NOT RELATE TO THE YEAR IN DISPUTE. THEREFORE, W E ARE OF THE CONSIDERED VIEW THAT HAVING GIVEN AN OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO SUBMIT A REMAND REPORT TO THE LEARNED CIT(A), THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN A SPAN OF TWO YEARS HAD ACCEPTED THE IDENTIFY, CREDITWORTHINESS AND GENUINENESS OF THE LOAN CRE DITORS WHICH DID NOT REQUIRE THE LEARNED CIT(A) TO GO BACK TO THE ORIGINAL ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER S OBSERVATION OF HAVING NOT DISCHARGED THE ONUS WHICH LAY UPON THE ASSESSEE. THE TOTAL AMOUNT BROUGHT TO TAX FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2004 - 05 AS UNSECU RED LOANS TO BE TAXED U/S.68 THEREFORE IS DIRECTED TO BE DELETED. 9. FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005 - 06, THE UNSECURED LOAN OF 60,77,760 WAS CONFIRMED BY THE LEARNED CIT(A) INSPITE OF HAVING OBTAINED THE REMAND REPORT IN TWO PHASES WHICH HAVE BEEN ANNEXED AT PAGES 78 TO 80 OF PB AND ALSO ANOTHER REPORT DT.12.4.2011 (PAGE 28 OF THE PB) WHEN THE LOAN AMOUNTING TO 80,89,000 AND LOA N FROM M/S.PRIME CAPITAL OF 20 LALKHS WERE REPORTED AS HAVING BEEN VERIFIED VIED REPORT DT.10.2.2010 ANDRS.19,87,760 VIDE REPORT DT.12.4.2011 WHICH TOTAL TO 58,62,780. THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THESE WE RE CONSIDERED AS GENUINE A S THE EXPLANATIONS WERE BASED ON THE PRESENTATION OF FURTHER DETAILS AND ISSUE OF SUMMONS U/S.131 TO DCI, ROURKELA AND INCOME - TAX OFFICER, WARD - 3, BERHAMPUR RESPECTIVELY. THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT A SUM OF 2,15,000 BELONG ED TO 14 INDIVIDUALS C OULD NOT BE BROUGHT ON RECORD IT(SS)A NOS.84,85,86 AND 87/CTK/2011 9 EVEN INSPITE OF THE REMAND REPORT, THEREFORE, WAS THE BASIS FOR THE LEARNED CIT(A) TO DISALLOW THE WHOLE OF THE AMOUNT AS WAS MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN HIS ORDER TOTALING 60,77,780. WE HAVE VERIFIED THE R EMAND REPORT AND ARE OF THE CONSIDERED VIEW THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS DISCHARGED ITS ONUS OF ESTABLISHING THE IDENTITY, CREDITWORTHINESS AND GENUINENESS IN ALL RESPECTS AS NOTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN THE REMAND REPORT WHEREIN THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS AN THE OPINION AGAINST THE ASSESSEE ON CERTAIN OPERATIONAL ISSUE WHICH ARE NOT IN THE CONTROL OF THE ASSESSEE INSOFAR AS THE EVIDENCES SATISFIED THE DISCHARGE OF ONUS AS CONTEMPLATED UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 68 OF THE ACT. THE LEARNED CIT(A) THEREFOR E ARBITRARILY AND WITHOUT ANY BASIS REJECTED THE EXPLANATIONS AND SUSTAINED THE ADDITION AS FOUND DURING THE SEARCH ASSESSMENT. THE TOTAL RECONCILIATION AND OTHER DETAILS IN RESPECT OF THE CREDITORS HAVING BEEN PRODUCED WERE TO BE ADJUDICATED BY THE LEARNE D CIT(A) AND WAS NOT DONE, THEREFORE, WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED VIEW THAT OUT OF THE TOTAL AMOUNT OF ADDITION CONFIRMED AMOUNTING TO 60,77,780, THE CONFIRMATION BY THE LEARNED CIT(A) OF TH E ADDITION TO THE EXTENT OF 58,62,760 IS NOT JUSTIFIED AND ACCORDINGLY, WE DELETE THE SAME AND THE BALANCE AMOUNT OF 2,15,000 AS NOT EXPLAINED, IS CONFIRMED . 10. SIMILAR IS THE CASE IN RESPECT OF THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006 - 07, THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE LEARNED CIT(A) WITHOUT RECOGNITION OF THE REMAND REPORT OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER ARBITRARILY SUSTAINED ADDITION OF UNSECURED LOAN AMOUNTING TO 57,67,800. ON CAREFUL PERU SAL OF THE REMAND REPORT, WE FIND THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER I N REMAND PROCEEDINGS HAD VERIFIED ALL THE DETAILS AND APPARENTLY ACCEPTED LOAN OF 5 2,59,400 INCLUDING OF 20,00,000 FROM WARNER MULTIMEDIA LIMITED VIDE REMAND REPORT DT.12.04.2011 (PAGE 29 OF P B). THESE WERE DONE THROUGH ISSUE OF SUMMONS TO THE DIRECTOR OF THE LENDER COMPANY AND COMMISSIONS U/S.131 TO DCIT, IT(SS)A NOS.84,85,86 AND 87/CTK/2011 10 ROURKELA AND INCOME - TAX OFFICER, WARD 3, BERHAMPUR. HOWEVER, WE FIND THAT THE REMAND REPORT REVEALS THAT ONLY CREDITORS AMOUNTING TO 5,80,4 00 COULD NOT BE VERIFIED. WHEN IN THE REMAND REPORT, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS APPARENTLY ACCEPTED THE LOAN AMOUNTING TO 5 2,59,400 IN THE REMAND REPORT, WE DO NOT FIND ANY REASON WITH THE LEARNED CIT(A) NOT TO ACCEPT THE SAME. S INCE THE ASSESSEE HAS ESTAB LISHED THE ONUS THAT LAY UPON IT BY PROVING THE IDENTITY, CREDITWORTHINESS AND GENUINENESS BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN THE REMAND PROCEEDINGS, THE ADDITION MADE IN THIS REGARD TO THE EXTENT OF 52,5 9,400 IS NOT JUSTIFIED AND WE DELETE THE SAME . 10.1. HOWEVER, ON THE BASIS OF REMAND REPORT THAT THE CREDITORS AMOUNTING TO 5, 08 ,400 COULD NOT BE VERIFIED AND IN ABSENCE OF ANY DETAILS FURNISHED EITHER BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER DURING REMAND PROCEEDINGS, APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS OR EVEN BEFORE US, WE UPHO LD THE ADDITION TO THE EXTENT OF 5,80,400 AS AGAINST THE TOTAL ADDITION OF 5 7,67,800 MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND CONFIRMED BY THE LEARNED CIT(A). 11. FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007 - 08, ON THIS ISSUE, WE F IND THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER I N THE REMAND PROCEEDINGS HAD VERIFIED ALL THE DETAILS AND APPARENTLY ACCEPTED LOAN AMOUNTING TO 53,33,200 OUT OF THE TOTAL CLAIM OF LOAN CREDIT OF 57,41,000 AFTER VERIFICATION OF THE DETAILS AND ALSO AFTER VERIFICATION BY THE DCIT, ROURKELA AND I.T.O., WARD 3, BERHA MPUR BASED ON COMMISSIONS U/S.131. WE FURTHER FIND THAT THE DETAILED RECONCILIATION AND OTHER DETAILS (PAGES 38 AND 39 OF THE PB) IN RESPECT OF CREDITORS PRODUCED BEFORE THE LEARNED CIT(A) WERE NOT APPRECIATED PROPERLY. THEREFOR E, WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED VIEW THAT THE ADDITION TO THE EXTENT OF 53,33,200, FOR WHICH THE ASSESSEE HAS ESTABLISHED ITS ONUS OF PROVING THE IDENTITY, CREDITWORTHINESS AND GENUINENESS BY PRODUCING NECESSARY EVIDENCES BEFORE IT(SS)A NOS.84,85,86 AND 87/CTK/2011 11 THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN THE REMAND PROCEEDINGS AS WELL A S BEFORE THE LEARNED CIT(A), CANNOT BE SUSTAINED. THEREFORE, WE DELETE THE ADDITION OF 53,33,200. 11.1. HOWEVER, ON THE BASIS OF REMAND REPORT THAT THE CREDITORS AMOUNTING TO 4,07,800 COULD NOT BE VERIFIED AND IN ABSENCE OF ANY DETAILS FURNISHED EITHER BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER DURING REMAND PROCEEDINGS, APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS OR EVEN BEFORE US, WE UPHOLD THE ADDITION TO THE EXTENT OF 4,07,800 AS AGAINST THE TOTAL ADDITION OF 57,41,000. 12. BESIDES THE ABOVE ISSUE, THE ASSESSEE HAD RAISED GROUND S I N THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006 - 07 ASSAILING THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT(A) IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF 13,09,500 ON ACCOUNT OF DIFFERENCE OF LEDGER ACCOUNT. 13. THE ASSESSING OFFICER OBSERVED IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER THAT ON VERIFICATION OF CASH BOOK FOR T HE FY 2005 - 06 RELEVANT TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006 - 07, HE FOUND THAT AN AMOUNT OF 7,00,000 WAS PAID BY THE ASSESSEE TO METRO BUILDERS (ORISSA) PVT. LTD., ON 18.8.2005 AS ADVANCE FOR PROCUREMENT OF LAND ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE. BUT METRO BUILDERS (ORISS A) PVT. LTD., STATED IN THEIR SUBMISSION THAT THIS CASH RECEIPT WAS 20,00,000. THEREFORE , THE ASSESSING OFFICER HELD THE DIFFERENT AMOUNT OF CASH OF 13,00,000 AS UNEXPLAINED EXPENDITURE. FURTHER THE ASSESSING OFFICER OBSERVED THAT THE BILLS RAISED BY SUB HASHREE CONSTRUCTION & TRANSMISSION PVT. LTD., FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006 - 07 WAS 1,12,236 OUT OF WHICH THE SAID PARTY CLAIMED TO HAVE BEEN RECEIVED 9,500 LEAVING A BALANCE OUTSTANDING OF 1,02,736 BUT NO ACCOUNT IN THE NAME OF SUBHASHREE CONSTRUCTION & TRANSMISSION PVT. LTD., WAS FOUND IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE. THEREFORE, HE ADDED THE AMOUNT OF 9,500 DURING THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006 - 07 ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED EXPENDITURE. IN APPEAL, THE LEARNED CIT(A) CONFIRMED THE SAME. IT(SS)A NOS.84,85,86 AND 87/CTK/2011 12 14. THE LEARNE D COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE REITERATED THE SUBMISSIONS AS WERE MADE BEFORE THE AUTHORITIES BELOW THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS REFLECTED IN ITS ACCOUNTS WHAT HAS PAID TO M/S.METRO BUILDER (ORISSA) LTD. THE ASSESSEE PLEADED IGNORANCE OF THE AMOUNT OF 13,00,000 STAT ED TO HAVE BEEN RECEIVED BY THE SAID PARTY. SIMILARLY, THE ASSESSEE PLEADED IGNORANCE OF ANY SUCH PAYMENT TO SUBHASHREE CONSTRUCTION& TRANSMISSION PVT. LTD. THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE CONTENDED BEFORE US THAT THE ABOVE ADDITIONS HAVE BEEN MADE BA SED ON INFORMATION OF THIRD PARTY. WE FIND THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER AS WELL AS THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS MADE THE IMPUGNED ADDITION SINCE THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO EXPLAIN THE AMOUNTS AS CLAIMED TO HAVE BEEN RECEIVED BY THE ABOVE PARTIES. BUT WE FIND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS SUBMITTED THE DETAIL CLARIFICATION (PAGE 35 OF ADDITIONAL P.B.) AND ALSO THE CLARIFICATION BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN THE REMAND PROCEEDINGS (PAGE 5 OF ADDITIONAL PB) AND THE REPLY TO THE REMAND REPORT (PAGE 35 OF PB). BUT WITHOUT VERIFYI NG THE SAME AND JUST RELYIN G ON THE ACCOUNTS AND STATEMENT OF THIRD PARTIE S THE IMPUGNED ADDITIONS HAVE BEEN MADE BY THE DEPARTMENTAL AUTHORITIES , WHICH IN OUR CONSIDERED VIEW, IS NOT JUSTIFIED BECAUSE THE AUTHORITIES BELOW HAVE SOUGHT EXPLANATION TO PROVE A NEGATIVE WHEN THE ASSESSEE HAS CATEGORICALLY DENIED TO HAVE HAD SUCH TRANSACTIONS WITH THE ABOVE TWO PARTIES. IN SUCH VIEW OF THE MATTER, THE ADDITIONS OF 13,00,000 AND 9,500 AS EXPENDITURE MADE BUT NOT CLAIMED HAS NO LEGS TO STAND ON AND AS SUCH THE ADDITIONS MADE IN THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006 - 07 ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED EXPENDITURE CANNOT BE SUSTAINED FOR LEGAL SCRUTINY. WE, THEREFORE, DELETE THE SAME BY ALLOWING THE GROUND IN THIS REGARD RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE. 13. IN THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007 - 08 , T HE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO DISPUTED THE CONFIRMATION OF THE ADDITION OF 3,56,564 ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED EXPENDITURE. THE ASSESSING OFFICER OBSERVED THAT AS PER THE BILLS RAISED BY IT(SS)A NOS.84,85,86 AND 87/CTK/2011 13 SUBHASHREE CONSTRUCTION & TRANSMISSION PVT. LTD., IN THE FY 2006 - 07 RELEVANT T O THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007 - 08, THEY HAVE RAISED BILLS FOR 3,07,949 IN THE NAME OF THE ASSESSEE, OUT OF WHICH THEY HAVE RECEIVED PAYMENT OF 3,56,564 IN CASH LEAVING BALANCE OUTSTANDING OF 54,121, BUT NO ACCOUNT IN THE NAME OF SUBHASHREE CONSTRUCTION & TR ANSMISSION PVT. LTD., IS FOUND IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE. HENCE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER ADDED THE SUM OF 3,56,654 TO THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007 - 08 AND THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS CONFIRMED THE SAME. 14. WE HAVE ALREA DY DEALT WITH THIS ISSUE IN THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006 - 07 AND FOR THE REASONS DISCUSSED IN PARAGRAPH 12 ABOVE, THE ADDITION OF 3,56,654 MADE IN THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007 - 08 ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED EXPENDITURE ALSO CANNOT BE S USTAINED FOR LEGAL SCRUTINY. WE, THEREFORE, DELETE THE SAME BY ALLOWING THE GROUND IN THIS REGARD RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE. 15. ANOTHER ISSUE, WHICH IS COMMON IN THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2006 - 07 AND 2007 - 08 RELATES TO ADDITION OF 7,43,092 AND 5,57,319 RESPECTI VELY U/S.40(A)(IA) OF THE I.T.ACT ,1961 . 16. HAVING HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSING THE IMPUGNED ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW, WE FIND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS PAID THE ABOVE AMOUNTS TO ORISSA LIFT IRRIGATION CORPORATION LTD., AS RENT BUT ADMITTEDLY HAS NOT DEDUCTED TAX AT SOURCE ON SUCH PAYMENTS. THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED THAT TDS WAS NOT DEDUCTED FROM PAYMENT OF RENT TO ORISSA LIFT IRRIGATION CORPORATION LIMITED AS IT IS A GOVT. UNDERTAKING AND INSISTED FOR NO DEDUCTION DUE TO THEIR AILING CONDITION. THE AS SESSING OFFICER OBSERVED THAT ORISSA LIFT IRRIGATION CORPORATION LTD., IS NOT A GOVERNMENT CONCERN AND ASSESSED TO TAX UNDER PAN AAACO 5986 G THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT PRODUCED ANY CERTIFICATE FROM THE SAID AUTHORITY FOR NON - DEDUCTION OF TAX. THE LEARNED COUNSE L FOR THE ASSESSEE IT(SS)A NOS.84,85,86 AND 87/CTK/2011 14 COULD NOT CONTROVERT SUCH OBSERVATION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THEREFORE, FOR NON - DEDUCTION OF TAX ON THE PAYMENT OF RENT TO ORISSA LIFT IRRIGATION CORPORATION ATTRACTS THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 40(A)(IA) AND THEREFORE, THE AUTHORITIES BELOW ARE JUSTIFIED IN DISALLOWING THE CLAIM OF EXPENDITURE ON SUCH RENT OF 7,43,092 AND 5,57,319 U/S.40(A)(IA) OF THE ACT IN THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006 - 07 AND 2007 - 08 RESPECTIVELY, HAVING ADMITTEDLY NOT DEDUCTED TAX AT SOURCE THEREON. IN SUCH VIEW OF THE MATTER WE UPHOLD THE SAID DENIAL OF PAYMENT U/S.40(A)(IA) OF THE ACT IN THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006 - 07 AND 2007 - 08 WITHOUT AND DISMISS THE GROUND RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THIS REGARD , AS NO FURTHER SUPPORTIVE SUBMISSION HAVE BEEN MADE FOR ALLOWANCE THEREOF . 17. THE OTHER ISSUE RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IS AGAINST ADDITION OF 1,93,403 ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT IN THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007 - 08. 18. HAVING HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSING THE IMPUGNED ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES AND THE MATERIAL MADE AV AILABLE TO THE TRIBUNAL, WE FIND THAT THE ASSESSEE STARTED CONSTRUCTION OF COLLEGE BUILDING AT PAHAL IN THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007 - 08. THE VALUATION AS PER THE ASSESSEES BOOKS OF ACCOUNT IS 27,53,126 AS AGAINST DVOS VALUATION AT 29,45,529. THE ASSESSING OFFICER OBSERVED IN HIS ORDER THAT THE ASSESSEE DID NOT FURNISH ANY EXPLANATION FOR THE DIFFERENCE IN THE VALUATION. THEREFORE, HE TREATED THE DIFFERENTIAL AMOUNT OF 1,92,403 IN VALUATION OF THE BUILDING AS UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT AND THE LEARNED CIT(A) HA S UPHELD THE SAME. THE LEARNED AR OF THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED BEFORE US THAT THE CONSTRUCTION WORK WAS CARRIED ON THROUGH SUPERVISION OF TRUSTS OWN PERSONS. ALL THE PURCHASES, PAYMENTS ETC., WERE MONITORED BY THE TRUSTS PERSONS ENGAGED IN IT. BECAUSE OF OW N SUPERVISION THE EXPENSES INCURRED FOR CONSTRUCTION IS NECESSARILY TO BE LESS THAN THE VALUE ARRIVED AT BASED ON MARKET COST BY THE DVO. THERE IS NO MATERIAL BROUGHT ON RECORD TO CONTROVERT THE ABOVE SUBMISSIONS AS ALSO MADE IT(SS)A NOS.84,85,86 AND 87/CTK/2011 15 BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE LEA RNED ASSESSING OFFICER VIDE HIS SUBMISSION DT.29.12.2008 WHICH WAS NOT CONSIDERED BY HIM THOUGH THE ASSESSMENT ORDER WAS PASSED ON 31.12.2008 (PAGES 67 AND 70 OF THE PB). WE FIND THAT THE DIFFERENCE IN THE VALUATION OF THE ASSESSEE AND THAT OF THE DVO IS A ROUND 7% OF THE TOTAL COST OF CONSTRUCTION, WHICH IN OUR CONSIDERED VIEW IS VERY NOMINAL AND CAN BE IGNORED CONSIDERING THE EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE STATED ABOVE. THEREFORE, THE ADDITION OF 1,92,403 MADE ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT BASED ON TH E DIFFERENCE ON VALUATION OF COST OF CONSTRUCTION OF THE BUILDING IN QUESTION, CANNOT BE SUSTAINED FOR LEGAL SCRUTINY AND AS SUCH WE DELETE THE SAME AND ALLOW THE GROUND RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THIS REGARD. 19 . IN THE RESULT, ALL THE APPEALS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE PARTLY ALLOWED AS INDICATED ABOVE. SD/ - SD/ - (K.S.S.PRASAD RAO) JUDICIAL MEMBER (K.K.GUPTA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATE: 04.04.2012 H.K.PADHEE, SENIOR PRIVATE SECRETARY. COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. THE APPELLANT: S.J.CHARITABLE TRUST PLOT NO.502, RAJENDRA VIHAR, FOREST PARK, BHUBANESWAR 2. THE RESPONDENT: ASST.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME - TAX, CIRCLE 2(2), BHUBANESWAR 3. THE CIT, 4. THE CIT(A), 5. THE DR, CUTTACK 6. GUARD FILE (IN DUPLICATE ) TRUE COPY, BY ORDER, SENIOR PRIVATE SECRETARY.