KUPPAM EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY,KUPPAM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER (EXEMPTIONS), TIRUPATI

आदेश/ORDER PER MADHUSUDAN SAWDIA, A.M:

This appeal is filed by M/s. Kuppam Educational Society (“the

assessee”), feeling aggrieved by the order passed by the Learned

Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre

(NFAC), Delhi (“Ld. CIT(A)”), dated 19.10.2023 for the A.Y. 2013-14.

appeal for which the assessee has filed a condonation petition along with

affidavit explaining the reasons for such delay. After considering the contents

ITA No.29/Hyd/2024 2

of the condonation petition and after hearing the Ld. DR, the delay of 26 days

in filing of this appeal is condoned and the appeal is admitted for adjudication.

“ 1. The ground on which the assessing officer has disallowed the depreciation claim of the appellant society as an application of income is not at all sustainable for the simple reason that the depreciation is allowable to every assessee and it is not right on part of the assessing officer to state that the depreciation is allowable only in dealing with business profits. This has never been the provision of the law and depreciation is expenditure just like any other expenditure which ought to be allowed to the appellant society. Moreover various courts have held that the depreciation is a valid application of income and the jurisdictional ITAT, HYD has very recently upheld the claim of depreciation. The assessing authority is bound by the ITAT, HYD and the claim depreciation is ought to be allowed by the appellate authority 2. All the bank transactions and the banking transactions have been duly disclosed and accounted for in the books of accounts of the appellants and as such there are no undisclosed bank accounts and the addition made by the assessing authority requires to be deleted by the appellate authority 3. The credit is transferred from the principal account and the dame is deposited as fixed deposit in the state bank of Mysore. But in the books of accounts it is treated as that the fixed deposits is made directly by principal account, there is no non disclosure of the credit in bank. Hence it is prayed your honourable appellate authority to delete the addition. 4. The cash deficit doesn't arise at all. The said addition appears to be made based on the individual set of books of accounts of the kuppam degree college, kuppam junior college, kuppam public school, kuppam engineering college, hostel but in effect there is no cash deficit to the fact that all these colleges for part and parcel of kuppam educational society. As such the said addition requires to be deleted by this appellate authority. 5. The said addition has been made without assigning any reasons for the same and without bringing any reasons for the same and without bringing on record any proof/ground for establishing the alleged discrepancy. All the bank loan statement has been furnished at the time of assessment and all the loan accounts as per the books match with the loan account statements issued by bank. As such there is no discrepancy in the loan accounts of the appellant and hence this addition may be deleted by the appellate authority. 6. The assessing officer said that the bills that we are produced are bogus that the seller is not in the location and tampered. The purchases are purchased from the suppliers and the observation of the assessing officer is not genuine as the entity does not exist in the given address is not at all relevant to us. We cannot ensure the continuity of the business. Hence it prayed your honourable appellate authority to delete this addition. The said purchase is supported by bills/Invoices issued by the supplier and they carry the relevant VAT registration numbers etc. As such the said purchases are genuine and made in the normal course of the

ITA No.29/Hyd/2024 3

appellant society's activities. As such there are no bogus bills/Purchases so as to be subjected to an addition on the ground. 7. The assessing officer stated that majority of the cheques are drawn by the college staff and other persons associated with the college management. The said purchases are made by the assessee in good faith and all the bills are given at hand length prices. The said transactions are made in the normal course of the business. As such there are no bogus bills/Purchases so as to be subjected to an addition on the ground.”

“ Additional Ground (Ground No 8): 8. The Learned Assessing Officer (Ld. AO) has erred on facts of the case by making additions of the total adjustments without considering the loss computed in the return filed as per the provisions of the Income Tax Act, 1961.”

view of judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of

National Thermal Power Co. Ltd. v. CIT (1998) 229 ITR 383 (SC). The prayer for

admission of additional ground noted above which are not in memorandum of

appeal are being admitted for adjudication in terms of Rule 11 of the Income

Tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules, 1963 owing to the fact that objections raised in

additional ground are legal in nature for which relevant facts are stated to be

emanating from the existing records.

filed its return of income for A.Y. 2013-14 on 31.10.2013 declaring total

income of Rs.NIL after claiming exemption u/s.11 of the Income Tax Act, 1961

(“the Act”). The case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny and the

assessment was completed by the Learned Assessing Officer (“Ld. AO”)

u/s.143(3) of the Act on 31.03.2016 by making addition of Rs.4,92,56,800/.

ITA No.29/Hyd/2024 4

raised one additional ground before us.

of disallowance of depreciation claimed by the assessee for

Rs.1,77,53,859/-. The brief facts with regard to this ground are that, the

assessee had claimed depreciation of Rs.1,77,53,859/- in profit and loss

account. However, the Ld. AO disallowed the claim of the assessee on

the ground that the assessee has already claimed the amount of

investment made in fixed assets as application of income and the

allowance of depreciation on the same fixed assets will result in

allowance of double deduction to the assessee.

8.1 Feeling aggrieved by the order passed by Ld. AO, the assessee filed

appeal before the Ld. CIT(A), who dismissed the claim of the assessee as

per his observation under para no. 5.1.3 of his order, which is

reproduced as under:

“ 5.1.3. DECISION:- The appellant claimed depreciation of Rs. 1,77,53,859/- which was debited to the Income & Expenditure Account and the same was treated as application of income. During the assessment proceedings, the AO asked the appellant to show cause as to why the same should not be considered as application od and of income. In response to the same, the appellant claimed that depreciation of Rs.1,77,53,859/- was an expenditure incurred by it towards wear & tear of the fixed assets of the society and hence the same should be considered as application of income. However the AO noted that acquisition of assets was already treated as application of income and hence depreciation of the same assets again can not be treated as application of income. If depreciation on such assets is claimed simultaneously, so much of depreciation allowed will generate income outside the books of accounts. Therefore, the AO has correctly disallowed the depreciation.

ITA No.29/Hyd/2024 5

In view of the facts narrated above, the contention of the appellant society is wood hereby rejected and Ground No. 1 is dismissed.”

8.2 Feeling aggrieved with the order of Ld. CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal

before us. The Ld.AR submitted that the Ld. AO disallowed Rs.1,77,53,859/- on

account of claim of depreciation, contending that the assessee has already

claimed the amount of investment made in fixed assets as application of

income and the allowance of depreciation on the same fixed assets will result

in allowance of double deduction to the assessee. In this regard, the Ld. AR

submitted that the allowance of depreciation under similar cases has been

restricted u/s. 11(6) of the Act w.e.f. 1.4.2015 i.e. w.e.f. A.Y. 2015-16. Hence

for the year under consideration the provisions u/s. 11(6) of the Act are not

applicable to the assessee. Therefore, the disallowance made by the Ld. AO is

bad in law and is required to be deleted. To justify their claim, the Ld. AR also

relied on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner

of Income Tax v/s Rajasthan and Gujarati Charitable Foundation Poona, 402 ITR

441,in which the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that depreciation should be

allowed as a deduction while computing income for a charitable trust, even

though the acquisition of the asset had already been treated as an application

of income. The hon’ble Supreme Court also held that the restriction imposed

by section 11(6) of the Act is prospective in nature and will be applicable w.e.f.

ITA No.29/Hyd/2024 6

A.Y. 2015-16. Hence the Ld. AR prayed that this ground raised by the assessee

be allowed.

8.3 Per contra, the Ld. DR placed heavy reliance on the order of authorities

below and requested to uphold the order of the revenue authorities.

8.4 We have heard the rival contentions and gone through the record in

the light of submissions made by the either side. In the case of the assessee,

the Ld. AO disallowed Rs.1,77,53,859/- on account of claim of depreciation,

contending that the assessee has already claimed the amount of investment

made in fixed assets as application of income and the allowance of

depreciation on the same fixed assets will result in allowance of double

deduction to the assessee. In this regard, it is relevant to mentioned here that,

the allowance of depreciation under similar cases has been restricted u/s.

11(6) of the Act w.e.f. 1.4.2015 i.e. w.e.f. A.Y. 2015-16. Similar issue was also

came before Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Income

Tax v/s Rajasthan and Gujarati Charitable Foundation Poona(Supra), in which

the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that depreciation should be allowed as a

deduction while computing income for a charitable trust, even though the

acquisition of the asset had already been treated as an application of income.

The hon’ble Supreme Court also held that the restriction imposed by section

11(6) of the Act is prospective in nature and will be applicable w.e.f. A.Y. 2015-

ITA No.29/Hyd/2024 7

the case of Commissioner of Income Tax v/s Rajasthan and Gujarati Charitable

Foundation Poona(Supra), we hold that in the case of the assessee the

provisions mentioned u/s. 11(6) of the Act are not applicable for the year

under consideration. Therefore, we are of the considered opinion that, the

disallowance made by the Ld. AO is bad in law and is required to be deleted.

Accordingly, we delete the disallowance made by the Ld. AO amounting to

Rs.1,77,53,859/- on account of claim of depreciation.

8.5 Hence the Ground No.1 of the assessee is allowed.

bank accounts amounting to Rs.56,72,313/- added to the total income. The

brief facts with regard to this ground are that, five banks accounts of the

assessee had not been disclosed in the audited financial statements of the

assessee. Therefore the Ld. AO treated the total credits of Rs.56,72,313/- in

those five banks account during the A.Y. 2013-14 as undisclosed income of the

assessee and added to the total income of the assessee.

9.1 Feeling aggrieved by the order passed by Ld. AO, the assessee filed

appeal before the Ld. CIT(A), who affirming the observation of the Ld. AO,

dismissed the claim of the assessee.

ITA No.29/Hyd/2024 8

9.2 Feeling aggrieved with the order of Ld. CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal

before us. The Ld.AR innocently accepted before the revenue authority and

before us that it is true that all the impugned five bank accounts were not

disclosed in the audited financial statements of the assessee. He further

submitted that, although the impugned five bank accounts were not disclosed

in the financial statements of the assessee, the effect of the total income and

expenditure corresponding to debit and credit entries of those impugned five

bank accounts had been considered in the profit and loss account of the

assessee. Hence the addition made by the Ld. AO on this account resulted in

double taxation in the hands of the assessee, which is bad in law and therefore

liable to be delete. Hence the Ld. AR prayed that this ground raised by the

assessee be allowed.

9.3 Per contra, the Ld. DR placed heavy reliance on the order of authorities

below and requested to uphold the order of the revenue authorities.

9.4 We have heard the rival contentions and gone through the record in

the light of submissions made by the either side. In support of their

submission, the Ld. AR brought our attention to page number 27 of the PB and

demonstrated, how the debit and credit entries of those five impugned bank

accounts had been considered in the preparation of the profit and loss account

of the assessee. However the Ld. AR accepted that some amounts still

ITA No.29/Hyd/2024 9

remained to be accounted for in the financial statement of the assessee. The

working of the amount which have been considered in the preparation of the

profit and loss account of the assessee and which still remained to be

accounted for, require verification from the records and books of the accounts

of the assessee. Keeping in our mind the principle of natural justice, so that,

there should not be any double taxation in the hands of the assessee, we

remand the matter to the Ld. AO with the direction to verify the contention of

the assessee afresh and if any amount has already been considered by the

assessee in the financial statements and already been offered to tax, to delete

the addition to such extent, so that there should not be any double taxation in

the hands of the assessee. It is needless to mention that the Ld. AO must

provide opportunity of being heard to the assessee before deciding this issue.

Accordingly, we partly allow the appeal of the assessee for statistical purpose.

9.5 Hence the Ground No.2 of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose. 10. Ground No.3 of the assessee relates to addition on account of credit not

reflected in Books of Accounts for Rs. 52,14,000/-. The brief facts with regard

to this ground are that, one bank account of the assessee with the State bank

of Mysore had not been disclosed in the audited financial statements of the

assessee. Therefore the Ld. AO treated the total credits of Rs. 52,14,000/ in the

ITA No.29/Hyd/2024 10

said bank account during the A.Y. 2013-14 as undisclosed income of the

assessee and added to the total income of the assessee.

10.1 Feeling aggrieved by the order passed by Ld. AO, the assessee filed

appeal before the Ld. CIT(A), who affirming the observation of the Ld. AO,

dismissed the claim of the assessee.

10.2 Feeling aggrieved with the order of Ld. CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal

before us. The Ld.AR innocently accepted before the revenue authority and

before us that it is true that one bank account of the assessee with the State

bank of Mysore had not been disclosed in the audited financial statements of

the assessee. He further submitted that, although the impugned bank account

was not disclosed in the financial statements of the assessee, the effect of the

debit and credit entries of that bank account had been considered in the

financial statements of the assessee. Hence the addition made by the Ld. AO

on this account is bad in law and therefore liable to be delete. Hence the Ld.

AR prayed that this ground raised by the assessee be allowed.

10.3 Per contra, the Ld. DR placed heavy reliance on the order of authorities

below and requested to uphold the order of the revenue authorities.

10.4 We have heard the rival contentions and gone through the record in

the light of submissions made by the either side. The Ld.AR submitted that,

although the impugned bank account was not disclosed in the financial

ITA No.29/Hyd/2024 11

statements of the assessee, the effect of the debit and credit entries of that

bank account had been considered in the financial statements of the assessee.

He further submitted that in effect, there was no undisclosed credits in books

of accounts, because first the amount of Rs.50,00,000/- transferred from KEC

principal account No:510940727 to State Bank of Mysore account No:

54038400732 and then two fixed deposits of Rs.25,00,000/- each were made

with the State bank of Mysore. However in the books of accounts, it had been

shown that the fixed deposits were directly made from principal account. The

contention of the assessee, require verification from the records and books of

the accounts of the assessee. Keeping in our mind the principle of natural

justice, so that, there should not be any unlawful addition in the hands of the

assessee, we remand the matter to the Ld. AO with the direction to verify the

contention of the assessee afresh and decide the same as per law, so that

there should not be any unlawful addition in the hands of the assessee. It is

needless to mention that the Ld. AO must provide opportunity of being heard

to the assessee before deciding this issue. Accordingly, we allow the appeal of

the assessee for statistical purpose.

10.5 Hence the Ground No.3 of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose. 11. Ground No.4 of the assessee relates to addition on account of Cash Deficit

of Rs. 89,87,318/- in books of accounts of the assessee. The brief facts with

regard to this ground are that, the Ld. AO found cash deficit in the cash book of

ITA No.29/Hyd/2024 12

6 divisions of the assessee and added the same to the total income of the

assessee.

11.1 Feeling aggrieved by the order passed by Ld. AO, the assessee filed

appeal before the Ld. CIT(A), who affirming the observation of the Ld. AO,

dismissed the claim of the assessee.

11.2 Feeling aggrieved with the order of Ld. CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal

before us. The submission of the Ld. AR in this regard was in two fold. In their

first argument, Ld.AR submitted that the assessee was maintaining separate

set books of accounts for each division of educational institution, and all the

divisions covered under the single society. The cash balance in one division was

utilized by other division on need basis and such utilization once in a while was

offset at a later date as and when the fund is available. As such, the cash deficit

was only an internal accounting aspect and it did not represent the physical

deficit in any way. Hence the addition made by the Ld. AO on this account is

bad in law and therefore liable to be delete. Hence the Ld. AR prayed that this

ground raised by the assessee be allowed.

11.3 In their alternate argument, Ld.AR submitted that if the bench is not

convinced with their first argument, then their alternate argument may kindly

be considered by the bench. In this regard the Ld. AR submitted that the Ld. AO

made addition to the total income of the assessee by making summation of

ITA No.29/Hyd/2024 13

cash deficit of each day during the year. The Ld. AR further submitted that as

per the settled legal position only the peak balance of the cash deficit during

the year should be added to the total income. In support of their argument the

Ld. AR place their reliance on decision of co-ordinate bench of ITAT in the case

of Bandi Sadanandam v/s Income Tax Officer, ITA No 758/2014 for A.Y. 2010-

11 dated 03/05/2017, wherein the ITAT held at para no. 7 of their order as

under :

“7. We have considered rival contentions and perused the orders of the authorities.Admittedly, Assessee is not in a position to justify fully the large number of deposits. Assessee before CIT(A) furnished certain sources for cash deposits and withdrawals, particularly amounts borrowed by cheques and drawn in cash. Considering that there is no allegation that Assessee has made unexplained investments and/or indulging any business, there is nothing on record to say that the withdrawals cannot be a source of subsequent deposits. In these circumstances, Assessee request for bringing to tax the peak credits can be accepted. Even though this working is not verifiable by us in the absence of complete details of domestic expenditure or expenditure which is in nature of outgoing out of the withdrawls and the Receipt-Payment statement. Since this aspect was not examined by A.O, we set aside the issue to the file of the A.O to examine the peak credit, based on receipts and payments statement of Assessee and the consolidated deposits and withdrawals in the five banks and to bring to tax only the amount of peak credit / deficit cash as the case may be. Assessee should be given due opportunity by AO to file necessary details. The grounds raised by Assessee are accordingly considered allowed.”

11.4 Per contra, the Ld. DR placed heavy reliance on the order of authorities

below and requested to uphold the order of the revenue authorities.

11.5 We have heard the rival contentions and gone through the record in

the light of submissions made by the either side. We are not in agreement with

the first submission of the assessee that the cash balance in one division was

utilized by other division on need basis and such utilization once in a while was

offset at a later date as and when the fund is available and as such, the cash

ITA No.29/Hyd/2024 14

deficit was only an internal accounting aspect and it did not represent the

physical deficit in any way. In our considered view, once a deficit balance arises

in the cash book, it is only on account of the expenses incurred out of

unaccounted cash only and no subsequent introduction of cash can make good

the earlier balance of cash deficit. Hence in our opinion the contention of the

assessee that the cash balance in one division was utilized by other division on

need basis and such utilization once in a while was offset at a later date as and

when the fund is available is not acceptable and we dismiss this contention of

the assessee.

11.6 Now coming to the alternate submission of the assessee, we are in

agreement with the submission of the assessee that if there were deficit cash

balances on different dates during any year, only the peak balance of the cash

deficit during the year should be added to the total income. The similar issue

was came before the co-ordinate bench of ITAT in the case of Bandi

Sadanandam v/s Income Tax Officer (Supra), wherein the ITAT was also of the

same view. Hence respectfully relying on the decision of the co-ordinate bench

of ITAT in the case of Bandi Sadanandam v/s Income Tax Officer (Supra),we

hold that, the peak balance of the cash deficit during the year should be added

to the total income of the assessee. Therefore we remand the matter to the

Ld. AO with a direction to examine the peak credit/deficit cash, based on

ITA No.29/Hyd/2024 15

receipts and payments statement of assessee of all the five division of the

assessee and to bring to tax only the amount of peak credit / deficit cash. It is

needless to mention that the Ld. AO must provide opportunity of being heard

to the assessee before deciding this issue. Accordingly, we allow the alternate

ground of the assessee for statistical purpose.

11.7 Hence the Ground No.4 of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose. 12. Ground No.5 of the assessee relates to addition of Rs. 46,00,000/- on

account of difference found in loan account of KEC-Principal. The brief facts

with regard to this ground are that, there was difference in loan account of

KEC-Principal to the extent of Rs.46,00,000/-, which the assessee did not able

to explain. Therefore the Ld. AO treated the said difference Rs.46,00,000/- as

undisclosed income of the assessee and added to the total income of the

assessee.

12.1 Feeling aggrieved by the order passed by Ld. AO, the assessee filed

appeal before the Ld. CIT(A), who affirming the observation of the Ld. AO,

dismissed the claim of the assessee.

12.2 Feeling aggrieved with the order of Ld. CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal

before us. The Ld.AR brought our attention to page number 45 of PB and

submitted that the difference is due to timing difference in passing the entry in

the books of the assessee and its division. In fact there is no escapement of

ITA No.29/Hyd/2024 16

income due to such difference. Hence the addition made by the Ld. AO on this

account is bad in law and therefore liable to be delete. Hence the Ld. AR

prayed that this ground raised by the assessee be allowed.

12.3 Per contra, the Ld. DR placed heavy reliance on the order of authorities

below and requested to uphold the order of the revenue authorities.

12.4 We have heard the rival contentions and gone through the record in

the light of submissions made by the either side. On perusal of page number

45 of the PB and the corresponding Ledger accounts, we came to know that

there was a opening difference of Rs.47,00,000/- in the account of the

assessee and it's KFC division, for which no proper explanation are provided by

the Ld. AR. Therefore we did not find any merits in the submission made by the

Ld. AR. Accordingly, we dismiss this ground of the assessee.

12.5 Hence the Ground No.5 of the assessee is dismissed. 13. Ground No.6 & 7 of the assessee relates to addition of Rs.70,29,310/-

(Rs.26,46,173/- + Rs.43,83,137/-) on account of bogus purchases. The brief

facts with regard to these grounds are that, the Ld. AO found many

discrepancies with regards to purchases for Rs. 70,29,310/- e.g. the amount of

the bills were tempered, the seller was not found at the given address, the

payments were made through bearer cheques on the name of individuals

which were identical with the first name of the firm from which the purchases

were made, the payments were withdrawn in cash from local bank however

ITA No.29/Hyd/2024 17

many purchases were located at other places. Therefore the Ld. AO made an

addition of Rs.70,29,310/- to the total income of the assessee on account of

bogus purchases.

13.1 Feeling aggrieved by the order passed by Ld. AO, the assessee filed

appeal before the Ld. CIT(A), who affirming the observation of the Ld. AO,

dismissed the claim of the assessee.

13.2 Feeling aggrieved with the order of Ld. CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal

before us. The Ld.AR submitted that the purchases were made from the

genuine suppliers and the observation of the Ld. AO that the entity did not

exist at the given address was not genuine. The Ld. AR also submitted that the

continuity of the business can not be ensured. He also submitted that all the

purchases were supported by bills/Invoices issued by the supplier and they

carried the relevant VAT registration numbers etc. As such the said purchases

were genuine and were made in the normal course. As such there were no

bogus bills/Purchases so as to be subjected to an addition on that ground.

Hence the Ld. AR prayed that this ground raised by the assessee be allowed.

13.3 Per contra, the Ld. DR placed heavy reliance on the order of authorities

below and requested to uphold the order of the revenue authorities.

13.4 We have heard the rival contentions and gone through the record in the light of submissions made by the either side. As pointed out by the Ld. AO in his order, there were many discrepancies with regards to purchases for Rs.

ITA No.29/Hyd/2024 18

70,29,310/- e.g. the amount of the bills were tempered, the seller was not found at the given address, the payments were made through bearer cheques on the name of individuals which were identical with the first name of the firm from which the purchases were made, the payments were withdrawn in cash from local bank however many purchasers were located at other places. The Ld. AR did not able to substantiate the discrepancies notice by the Ld. AO i.e. why the amount of the bills were tempered, why the seller were not found at the given address, why the payments were made through the bearer cheques on the name of individual and not on the name of the firm from whom the purchases were made, why the cash had been withdrawn against the bearer cheques from a local bank in spite of the facts that the seller were located at different outside places. Therefore we did not find any merits in the submission made by the Ld. AR. Accordingly, we dismiss this ground of the assessee. 13.5 Hence the Ground No.6 & 7 of the assessee are dismissed. 14. Now coming to the additional ground raised by the assessee. the Ld. AR

submitted that, the Ld. AO did not considered the loss of the assessee as

computed in the income tax return filed for the year under consideration. He

also submitted that during the year under consideration the assessee had

applied towards their object over and above their income. Therefore there was

an excess application of funds over and above their income, which resulted a

loss to the assessee. Therefore the Ld. AR requested that the amount of loss

should be adjusted against the additions made by the Ld. AO.

ITA No.29/Hyd/2024 19

14.1 Per contra, the Ld. DR did not make any objection against the

submission made by the Ld. AR.

14.2 We have heard the rival contentions and gone through the record in

the light of submissions made by the either side. The Ld. AR brought our

attention to the computation of income filed by the assessee for the year

under consideration. There is no dispute about the fact that the assessee had

applied funds in excess of their income during the year under consideration,

which resulted into loss to the assessee. Agreeing to the submission made by

the Ld. AR, we direct the Ld. AO to set off the amount of loss incurred by the

assessee as per law against the additions made on the assessee. It is needless

to mention that the Ld. AO must provide opportunity of being heard to the

assessee before deciding this issue. Accordingly, we allow the additional

ground of the assessee for statistical purpose.

14.3 Hence the additional ground of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose. 15. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed.

Order pronounced in the open Court on 16th Aug., 2024.

Sd/- Sd/-

(K. NARAIMHA CHARY) (MADHUSUDAN SAWDIA) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

Hyderabad. Dated: 16.08.2024. * Reddy gp

ITA No.29/Hyd/2024 20

Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. M/s. Kuppam Educational Society, 14-58, Radha Krishna Road, KLuppam, Chittoor District, A.P.-517 425 2. ITO (Exemptions), Tirupati. 3. Pr. CIT, Tirupati. 4. DR, ITAT, Hyderabad. 5. Guard file.

BY ORDER,