Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, MUMBAI BENCH “G” MUMBAI
Before: SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT & SHRI SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL
PER OM PRAKASH KANT, AM PER OM PRAKASH KANT, AM This appeal by the Revenue and the Cross-objection by the objection by the assessee are directed against order dated 15.09.2021 passed by the assessee are directed against order dated 15.09.2021 passed by the assessee are directed against order dated 15.09.2021 passed by the National Faceless Appeal Centre (in short ‘the Ld. First Appellate National Faceless Appeal Centre (in short ‘the Ld. First Appellate National Faceless Appeal Centre (in short ‘the Ld. First Appellate Authority’) for assessment Authority’) for assessment year 2006-07. The grounds raised by the 07. The grounds raised by the Revenue are reproduced as under: Revenue are reproduced as under:
Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Id. CIT(A) has erred in granting the relief to the law, the Id. CIT(A) has erred in granting the relief to the law, the Id. CIT(A) has erred in granting the relief to the assessee, on the issue of granting advance of Rs. 4,39,75,000/ assessee, on the issue of granting advance of Rs. 4,39,75,000/ assessee, on the issue of granting advance of Rs. 4,39,75,000/ to M/s Ritika Hotels Pvt. Ltd, by relying on CIT(A) order dated M/s Ritika Hotels Pvt. Ltd, by relying on CIT(A) order dated M/s Ritika Hotels Pvt. Ltd, by relying on CIT(A) order dated 29.05.2011 in A.Y. 2008 2009, while ignoring the fact that 29.05.2011 in A.Y. 2008 2009, while ignoring the fact that 29.05.2011 in A.Y. 2008 2009, while ignoring the fact that Hon'ble ITAT Mumbai vide its order in ITA NO. 5803 / M * UM Hon'ble ITAT Mumbai vide its order in ITA NO. 5803 / M * UM Hon'ble ITAT Mumbai vide its order in ITA NO. 5803 / M * UM / 2011 dated 31.07.2015, has set aside the CIT(A) order dated / 2011 dated 31.07.2015, has set aside the CIT(A) order dated / 2011 dated 31.07.2015, has set aside the CIT(A) order dated 29.05.2011 ba 29.05.2011 back to the file of Id. CIT(A) for de novo ck to the file of Id. CIT(A) for de novo adjudication and that the said appellate order dated adjudication and that the said appellate order dated adjudication and that the said appellate order dated 29.05.2011 is not in existence?" 29.05.2011 is not in existence?" 2. "Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in "Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in "Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Id. CIT(A) has erred in concluding that the provisions law, the Id. CIT(A) has erred in concluding that the provisions law, the Id. CIT(A) has erred in concluding that the provisions of section 13(1)(c)(ii) of the Act are not applicable to the tion 13(1)(c)(ii) of the Act are not applicable to the tion 13(1)(c)(ii) of the Act are not applicable to the assessee while ignoring that in the remand report, the AO has assessee while ignoring that in the remand report, the AO has assessee while ignoring that in the remand report, the AO has established that the directors of M / s Ritika Hotels Pvt. Ltd. established that the directors of M / s Ritika Hotels Pvt. Ltd. established that the directors of M / s Ritika Hotels Pvt. Ltd.
Sai Shiva Educational Trust Sai Shiva Educational Trust 3 ITA No. 124/M/2022 & CO No. 71/M/2022 ITA No. 124/M/2022 & CO No. 71/M/2022
i.e. Shri Arunkumar Muchhala and Mrs. Ritika Arunkumar i.e. Shri Arunkumar Muchhala and Mrs. Ritika Arunkumar i.e. Shri Arunkumar Muchhala and Mrs. Ritika Arunkumar Muchhala are the per Muchhala are the person who are squarely covered by sub son who are squarely covered by sub- section 13(3)?" section 13(3)?" 3. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the ld. CIT(A) has failed to appreciate the property of the law, the ld. CIT(A) has failed to appreciate the property of the law, the ld. CIT(A) has failed to appreciate the property of the trust or the institution is used or applied, directly for the trust or the institution is used or applied, directly for the trust or the institution is used or applied, directly for the benefit of M / s Ri benefit of M / s Ritika Hotels Pvt. Ltd., being a concern tika Hotels Pvt. Ltd., being a concern referred to in sub referred to in sub-section 13(3)(ii) of the Income section 13(3)(ii) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 in the grab of advances for construction of school 1961 in the grab of advances for construction of school 1961 in the grab of advances for construction of school building in violation of the provis building in violation of the provisions of section 13(1)(c)(ii)? ions of section 13(1)(c)(ii)? 4. Whether on the facts and circumstan Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in ces of the case and in law, the ld. CIT(A) has failed to appreciate that M/s Ritika law, the ld. CIT(A) has failed to appreciate that M/s Ritika law, the ld. CIT(A) has failed to appreciate that M/s Ritika Hotels Pvt. Ltd. has not commenced the construction work for Hotels Pvt. Ltd. has not commenced the construction work for Hotels Pvt. Ltd. has not commenced the construction work for the proposed school and the agreements referred to by the ld. the proposed school and the agreements referred to by the ld. the proposed school and the agreements referred to by the ld. ClT(A) are ruse to enable it to use the trust funds without ClT(A) are ruse to enable it to use the trust fun ClT(A) are ruse to enable it to use the trust fun payment of any interest?" payment of any interest?" 5. "Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in "Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in "Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition made by law, the ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition made by law, the ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition made by the AO ignoring the discussion of the AO in assessment as well the AO ignoring the discussion of the AO in assessment as well the AO ignoring the discussion of the AO in assessment as well as remand proceedings?" as remand proceedings?"
The grounds raised in the cross unds raised in the cross-objection of the assessee are objection of the assessee are
reproduced as under: reproduced as under:
Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the Learned CIT(A) has erred in not considering the law the Learned CIT(A) has erred in not considering the law the Learned CIT(A) has erred in not considering the facts that Notice for reopening the assessment was without facts that Notice for reopening the assessment was without facts that Notice for reopening the assessment was without
Sai Shiva Educational Trust Sai Shiva Educational Trust 4 ITA No. 124/M/2022 & CO No. 71/M/2022 ITA No. 124/M/2022 & CO No. 71/M/2022
complyi complying the requirement of Section 151(2) of the Act and ng the requirement of Section 151(2) of the Act and not providing reasons recorded for reopening was in gross not providing reasons recorded for reopening was in gross not providing reasons recorded for reopening was in gross violation of principles of natural justice and reassessment. violation of principles of natural justice and reassessment. violation of principles of natural justice and reassessment. 2. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the Learned CIT (A) fai law the Learned CIT (A) failed to consider that to attain the led to consider that to attain the jurisdiction the service of a notice under section 143 (2) is jurisdiction the service of a notice under section 143 (2) is jurisdiction the service of a notice under section 143 (2) is mandatory and any assessment without notice would be mandatory and any assessment without notice would be mandatory and any assessment without notice would be against the principles of natural justice and order would be against the principles of natural justice and order would be against the principles of natural justice and order would be invalid. invalid. 3. Whether on the facts and circumstan Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in ces of the case and in law the Learned CIT(A) erred in considering the fact that law the Learned CIT(A) erred in considering the fact that law the Learned CIT(A) erred in considering the fact that as provided in Section 144 (1) of I.T. Act to provide an as provided in Section 144 (1) of I.T. Act to provide an as provided in Section 144 (1) of I.T. Act to provide an opportunity before passing ex parte order to the assesse, no opportunity before passing ex parte order to the assesse, no opportunity before passing ex parte order to the assesse, no such opportunity was provided to the assesse. such opportunity was provided to the assesse. 4. Whether on Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the learned CIT (A) failed to appreciate that : law the learned CIT (A) failed to appreciate that : (i) The assessing officer has taken the Gross receipts of Rs. (i) The assessing officer has taken the Gross receipts of Rs. (i) The assessing officer has taken the Gross receipts of Rs. 2,32,12,740/ 2,32,12,740/- as income, without allowing the deduction of as income, without allowing the deduction of Rs. 1,30,04,532/ Rs. 1,30,04,532/- the expenses incurred for the object of the rred for the object of the trust, thereby net income would be at Rs. 1,02,08,208/- for trust, thereby net income would be at Rs. 1,02,08,208/ trust, thereby net income would be at Rs. 1,02,08,208/ tax purposes. tax purposes. (ii) A sum of Rs. 1,01,00,000/ A sum of Rs. 1,01,00,000/- was set apart for the was set apart for the building fund resulting net balance of Rs. 1,08,208/ building fund resulting net balance of Rs. 1,08,208/ building fund resulting net balance of Rs. 1,08,208/ allowable for deduction U/s. 11. allowable for deduction U/s. 11.
Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the asessee is a ed, the facts of the case are that the asessee is a ed, the facts of the case are that the asessee is a
public charitable trust public charitable trust and during the year under consideration and during the year under consideration was
Sai Shiva Educational Trust Sai Shiva Educational Trust 5 ITA No. 124/M/2022 & CO No. 71/M/2022 ITA No. 124/M/2022 & CO No. 71/M/2022
engaged in running a polytechnic college. The assessee filed its running a polytechnic college. The assessee filed its running a polytechnic college. The assessee filed its return of income for the year under consideration on 31.10.2006 return of income for the year under consideration on 31.10.2006 return of income for the year under consideration on 31.10.2006 declaring Nil income. The ng Nil income. The assessment was reopened by way of issue was reopened by way of issue of notice u/s 148 of the Act on 25.03.2011. /s 148 of the Act on 25.03.2011. The Assessing Officer Assessing Officer completed re-assessment u/s 147 r.w.s. 144 of the Act on assessment u/s 147 r.w.s. 144 of the Act on assessment u/s 147 r.w.s. 144 of the Act on 30.12.2011. In the said assessment order the said assessment order, the claim of exemption the claim of exemption u/s 11 of the Act was denied the Act was denied and income of the assessee was income of the assessee was determined at ₹2,32,12,740/ 2,32,12,740/-. The said exemption was withdrawn, he said exemption was withdrawn, in view of the finding of the Ld. Assessing Officer in assessment year n view of the finding of the Ld. Assessing Officer in assessment year n view of the finding of the Ld. Assessing Officer in assessment year 2008-09 on the ground that interest 09 on the ground that interest-free advances were given to free advances were given to one of the trustee and the business concern wherein the trustee the trustee and the business concern wherein the trustee the trustee and the business concern wherein the trustee’s were having substantial were having substantial interest. On further appeal, the interest. On further appeal, the assessee filed additional evidence before the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A) after filed additional evidence before the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A) after filed additional evidence before the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A) after considering the remand report of the Assessing Officer and considering the remand report of the Assessing Officer and considering the remand report of the Assessing Officer and rejoinder of the assessee ejoinder of the assessee, directed the Assessing Officer the Assessing Officer to grant exemption to the assessee u/s 11 of the Act. exemption to the assessee u/s 11 of the Act.
Sai Shiva Educational Trust Sai Shiva Educational Trust 6 ITA No. 124/M/2022 & CO No. 71/M/2022 ITA No. 124/M/2022 & CO No. 71/M/2022
Before us, the Ld. Counsel of the assessee has filed a Paper Before us, the Ld. Counsel of the assessee has filed a Paper Before us, the Ld. Counsel of the assessee has filed a Paper Book containing pages 1 to 60. Book containing pages 1 to 60.
We have heard rival submissions of the parties We have heard rival submissions of the parties on the isuse-in- dispute and perused the material on record. In the case of the dispute and perused the material on record. In the case of the dispute and perused the material on record. In the case of the assessee addition in assessment year 2008 assessee addition in assessment year 2008-09 was made on the 09 was made on the ground that interest-free advances have been granted to the persons free advances have been granted to the persons free advances have been granted to the persons covered u/s 13(3) of the Act and therefore, of the Act and therefore, the assessee was assessee was not entitled for exemption u/s 11 of the Act. In the assessment year entitled for exemption u/s 11 of the Act. In the assessment year entitled for exemption u/s 11 of the Act. In the assessment year 2008-09, the Tribunal 09, the Tribunal in ITA No. 5803/Mum/2011 in ITA No. 5803/Mum/2011 restored the issue to the Assessing Officer to the Assessing Officer for verification of the fact whether the for verification of the fact whether the interest-free advances was free advances was for benefit of the trust the trust or was for the benefit of the trustee. The relevant finding of the Tribunal benefit of the trustee. The relevant finding of the Tribunal benefit of the trustee. The relevant finding of the Tribunal (supra) is reproduced as under: reproduced as under:
“6. We have heard the rival contentions and have perused 6. We have heard the rival contentions and have perused 6. We have heard the rival contentions and have perused the material available on record. It is seen that the learned the material available on record. It is seen that the learned the material available on record. It is seen that the learned CIT(A) as well as CIT(A) as well as by the learned Counsel for the assessee by the learned Counsel for the assessee seems to be plausible. But on these contentions, reasonings seems to be plausible. But on these contentions, reasonings seems to be plausible. But on these contentions, reasonings
Sai Shiva Educational Trust Sai Shiva Educational Trust 7 ITA No. 124/M/2022 & CO No. 71/M/2022 ITA No. 124/M/2022 & CO No. 71/M/2022
have to be supported with the facts and evidences. Certain have to be supported with the facts and evidences. Certain have to be supported with the facts and evidences. Certain questions still remain unanswered and the learned Counsel questions still remain unanswered and the learned Counsel questions still remain unanswered and the learned Counsel for the assessee could not show any mat for the assessee could not show any material to find answers erial to find answers of these questions e.g., what happened to the advance and of these questions e.g., what happened to the advance and of these questions e.g., what happened to the advance and whether any such or any other property was actually whether any such or any other property was actually whether any such or any other property was actually purchased, or whether the advance was returned, or the purchased, or whether the advance was returned, or the purchased, or whether the advance was returned, or the same was squared off, or it was adjusted against some other same was squared off, or it was adjusted against some other same was squared off, or it was adjusted against some other property property and whether the property proposed to be and whether the property proposed to be purchased was of any use for the assessee trust, etc., etc. All purchased was of any use for the assessee trust, etc., etc. All purchased was of any use for the assessee trust, etc., etc. All these facts need to be analysed and only then appropriate these facts need to be analysed and only then appropriate these facts need to be analysed and only then appropriate decision can be taken to decide the issue whether the decision can be taken to decide the issue whether the decision can be taken to decide the issue whether the interest free advance was for the benefi interest free advance was for the benefit of trust or was for t of trust or was for the benefit of the trustee. The learned CIT(A), while the benefit of the trustee. The learned CIT(A), while the benefit of the trustee. The learned CIT(A), while adjudicating this issue, has not passed a speaking order and adjudicating this issue, has not passed a speaking order and adjudicating this issue, has not passed a speaking order and has not given any such facts or referred to any such evidence has not given any such facts or referred to any such evidence has not given any such facts or referred to any such evidence in support of the contentions of the assessee. In our opinion, in support of the contentions of the assessee. In our opi in support of the contentions of the assessee. In our opi this issue deserves to be restored to the file of the learned this issue deserves to be restored to the file of the learned this issue deserves to be restored to the file of the learned CIT(A) for denovo adjudication after examining all the CIT(A) for denovo adjudication after examining all the CIT(A) for denovo adjudication after examining all the evidences which the assessee may place before the learned evidences which the assessee may place before the learned evidences which the assessee may place before the learned CIT(A) to decide the issue with the help of actual facts and CIT(A) to decide the issue with the help of actual facts and CIT(A) to decide the issue with the help of actual facts and figures, as to figures, as to whether the interest free advance was given for whether the interest free advance was given for the benefit of the assessee trust, or for the benefit of the the benefit of the assessee trust, or for the benefit of the the benefit of the assessee trust, or for the benefit of the trustees. The questions that came to our mind some of which trustees. The questions that came to our mind some of which trustees. The questions that came to our mind some of which have been referred to herein above, need to be answered have been referred to herein above, need to be answered have been referred to herein above, need to be answered with the help of evidences and with the help of evidences and in addition to that the learned in addition to that the learned CIT(A) is free to call for any other details / evidence to CIT(A) is free to call for any other details / evidence to CIT(A) is free to call for any other details / evidence to decide the issue as per law and facts. We thus set aside the decide the issue as per law and facts. We thus set aside the decide the issue as per law and facts. We thus set aside the impugned order passed by the learned Commissioner impugned order passed by the learned Commissioner impugned order passed by the learned Commissioner
Sai Shiva Educational Trust Sai Shiva Educational Trust 8 ITA No. 124/M/2022 & CO No. 71/M/2022 ITA No. 124/M/2022 & CO No. 71/M/2022
(Appeals) and allow ground no.1, raised by the Revenue for (Appeals) and allow ground no.1, raised by the Revenu (Appeals) and allow ground no.1, raised by the Revenu statistical purposes. statistical purposes.” 5.1 All the grounds raised by the Revenue are related to the issue All the grounds raised by the Revenue are related to the issue- All the grounds raised by the Revenue are related to the issue in-dispute of exemption u/s 11 of the Act. In Ground No. 1, the dispute of exemption u/s 11 of the Act. In Ground No. 1, the dispute of exemption u/s 11 of the Act. In Ground No. 1, the Revenue has urged that since order for the assessment year 2008 Revenue has urged that since order for the assessment year 2008 Revenue has urged that since order for the assessment year 2008- 09 has been restored to the file 09 has been restored to the file of the Assessing Officer. Therefore, of the Assessing Officer. Therefore, in the year under consideration also the issue should be restored to in the year under consideration also the issue should be restored to in the year under consideration also the issue should be restored to the file of the Assessing Officer. he Assessing Officer. However, we find that in the year , we find that in the year under consideration, the Ld. CIT(A) sent the additional evidences to under consideration, the Ld. CIT(A) sent the additional evidences to under consideration, the Ld. CIT(A) sent the additional evidences to the Assessing Officer for calling his comments ng Officer for calling his comments. The The Ld. Assessing Officer in the remand report after verifying the documents furnished Officer in the remand report after verifying the documents furnished Officer in the remand report after verifying the documents furnished by the assessee has categorically stated that no direct benefit or by the assessee has categorically stated that no direct benefit or by the assessee has categorically stated that no direct benefit or advantage had been given to the persons specified u/s 13(3) of th advantage had been given to the persons specified u/s 13(3) of th advantage had been given to the persons specified u/s 13(3) of the Act. The relevant finding of the Assessing Officer has been Act. The relevant finding of the Assessing Officer has been Act. The relevant finding of the Assessing Officer has been reproduced by the Ld. CIT(A) in para 5.7 and 5.8 of the impugned reproduced by the Ld. CIT(A) in para 5.7 and 5.8 of the impugned reproduced by the Ld. CIT(A) in para 5.7 and 5.8 of the impugned order. For ready reference, the said finding is extracted as under: order. For ready reference, the said finding is extracted as under: order. For ready reference, the said finding is extracted as under:
Sai Shiva Educational Trust Sai Shiva Educational Trust 9 ITA No. 124/M/2022 & CO No. 71/M/2022 ITA No. 124/M/2022 & CO No. 71/M/2022
“5.7 During the course of the appellate proceedings the 5.7 During the course of the appellate proceedings the 5.7 During the course of the appellate proceedings the appellant furnished the copies of the land agreement made appellant furnished the copies of the land agreement made appellant furnished the copies of the land agreement made with with with Ritika Ritika Ritika Hotels Hotels Hotels Pvt. Pvt. Pvt. Ltd., Ltd., Ltd., Memorandum Memorandum Memorandum of of of Understanding with Ritika Hotels Pvt. Ltd. and with Shri. Understanding with Ritika Hotels Pvt. Ltd. and with Shri. Understanding with Ritika Hotels Pvt. Ltd. and with Shri. Arun Kumar Muchhala. Since these before the Assessing Arun Kumar Muchhala. Since these before the Assessing Arun Kumar Muchhala. Since these before the Assessing Officer, the same were sent to the Assessi Officer, the same were sent to the Assessing hese werences ng hese werences were not produced Officer for submission of a remand were not produced Officer for submission of a remand were not produced Officer for submission of a remand report. 5.8 The Assessing Officer vide his reply dated 11/03/2020 5.8 The Assessing Officer vide his reply dated 11/03/2020 5.8 The Assessing Officer vide his reply dated 11/03/2020 submitted that the trustees Shri. Arunkumar Muchhala and submitted that the trustees Shri. Arunkumar Muchhala and submitted that the trustees Shri. Arunkumar Muchhala and Smt. Ritika Arun kumar Muchhala were also directors in Smt. Ritika Arun kumar Muchhala were also directors in Smt. Ritika Arun kumar Muchhala were also directors in Ritika H Ritika Hotels Pvt. Ltd. It could be seen that as per the MOU otels Pvt. Ltd. It could be seen that as per the MOU between the Trust and Ritika Hotels Pvt. Ltd., it was between the Trust and Ritika Hotels Pvt. Ltd., it was between the Trust and Ritika Hotels Pvt. Ltd., it was mentioned that developers shall be entitled to retain the mentioned that developers shall be entitled to retain the mentioned that developers shall be entitled to retain the 5th floor of the building for their own exclusive and the 5th floor of the building for their own exclusive and the 5th floor of the building for their own exclusive and the bona fide use, however no direct bona fide use, however no direct benefit to/advantage has benefit to/advantage has been given to these persons. been given to these persons. 5.9 From the remand report of the Assessing Officer, it 5.9 From the remand report of the Assessing Officer, it 5.9 From the remand report of the Assessing Officer, it could be observed that no evidence has been brought on could be observed that no evidence has been brought on could be observed that no evidence has been brought on record against the appellant to prove that the provisions of record against the appellant to prove that the provisions of record against the appellant to prove that the provisions of Section 13(1)(c)(ii) could be Section 13(1)(c)(ii) could be applied to the appellant's applied to the appellant's case. Appellant had clearly established that the advances case. Appellant had clearly established that the advances case. Appellant had clearly established that the advances made to the trustee Shri. Arun Kumar Muchhala was made to the trustee Shri. Arun Kumar Muchhala was made to the trustee Shri. Arun Kumar Muchhala was towards purchase of vacant plot/land for the use of the towards purchase of vacant plot/land for the use of the towards purchase of vacant plot/land for the use of the trust.”
Sai Shiva Educational Trust Sai Shiva Educational Trust 10 ITA No. 124/M/2022 & CO No. 71/M/2022 ITA No. 124/M/2022 & CO No. 71/M/2022
5.2 In our opinion, the Assessing Officer himself has ver In our opinion, the Assessing Officer himself has verified these In our opinion, the Assessing Officer himself has ver facts and accepted that there is no direct benefit or advantage to the facts and accepted that there is no direct benefit or advantage to the facts and accepted that there is no direct benefit or advantage to the person specified u/s 13(3) of the Act. person specified u/s 13(3) of the Act. In such circumstances, t In such circumstances, there is no need to restore the matter back to the file of the Assessing no need to restore the matter back to the file of the Assessing no need to restore the matter back to the file of the Assessing Officer. The Assessing Officer himself has accepted that no Officer. The Assessing Officer himself has accepted that no Officer. The Assessing Officer himself has accepted that no advantage has been passed on to the specified persons u/s 13(3) of advantage has been passed on to the specified persons u/s 13(3) of advantage has been passed on to the specified persons u/s 13(3) of the Act still the Assessing Officer has filed the appeal the Act still the Assessing Officer has filed the appeal the Act still the Assessing Officer has filed the appeal on the same issue. This action of the Assessing Officer is not justified unless same issue. This action of the Assessing Officer is not justified unless same issue. This action of the Assessing Officer is not justified unless same is not bonafide. Before us, the Revenue has nowhere said anything is not bonafide. Before us, the Revenue has nowhere said anything is not bonafide. Before us, the Revenue has nowhere said anything on the bonafidy of the Assessing Officer while sending the remand of the Assessing Officer while sending the remand of the Assessing Officer while sending the remand report.
5.3 In view of the above facts In view of the above facts and circumstances, we do not find and circumstances, we do not find any error in the order of the Ld. CIT(A) on the issue any error in the order of the Ld. CIT(A) on the issue any error in the order of the Ld. CIT(A) on the issue-in-dispute and accordingly, we uphold the same. accordingly, we uphold the same.
Sai Shiva Educational Trust Sai Shiva Educational Trust 11 ITA No. 124/M/2022 & CO No. 71/M/2022 ITA No. 124/M/2022 & CO No. 71/M/2022
In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is accordingly In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is accordingly In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is accordingly dismissed. The cross- -objection filed by the assessee was not pressed was not pressed and therefore, same is and therefore, same is also dismissed as infructuous. dismissed as infructuous.
Order pronounced in the open Court in ounced in the open Court in 26/08/2022. /08/2022. Sd/- Sd Sd/- (SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL) (OM PRAKASH KANT OM PRAKASH KANT) JUDICIAL MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Mumbai; Dated: 26/08/2022 Rahul Sharma, Sr. P.S. Copy of the Order forwarded to Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. The Appellant 2. The Respondent. 3. The CIT(A)- 4. CIT 5. DR, ITAT, Mumbai 6. Guard file. BY ORDER, //True Copy// (Sr. Private Secretary Sr. Private Secretary) ITAT, Mumbai ITAT, Mumbai