आयकर अपील(cid:547)य अ(cid:876)धकरण,‘सी’ Ûयायपीठ, चÛे नई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘C’ BENCH, CHENNAI (cid:302)ी जॉज (cid:91) जॉज (cid:91) के, उपाÚय¢ एवं (cid:302)ी जगद(cid:547)श, लेखा सदèय के सम¢

BEFORE SHRI GEORGE GEORGE K, VICE PRESIDENTAND SHRI JAGADISH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA No.: 138/CHNY/2025 िनधा(cid:6981)रण वष(cid:6981)/Assessment Year: 2017-18 The Income Tax Officer, M/s. Hemla Trust, Exemptions Ward, Vs. B-46, First Cross Street, Nellai City Centre, Maharaja Nagar, Tiruchendur Road, Tirunelveli – 627 011.

Rahmath Nagar, Tirunelveli – 627 011. PAN: AAATH 6898K (अपीलाथ(cid:7278)/Appellant) ((cid:7079)(cid:7004)यथ(cid:7278)/Respondent)

अपीलाथ(cid:7278) क(cid:7409) ओर से/Appellant by : Shri V. Justin, CIT (cid:7079)(cid:7004)यथ(cid:7278) क(cid:7409) ओर से/Respondent by : Shri S. Sridhar, Advocate सुनवाई क(cid:7409) तारीख/Date of Hearing : 06.05.2025 घोषणा क(cid:7409) तारीख/Date of Pronouncement : 08.05.2025 आदेश / O R D E R PER GEORGE GEORGE K, VICE PRESIDENT:

This appeal at the instance of the Revenue is directed against the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi order dated 20.11.2024, passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter called ‘the Act’). The relevant Assessment Year is 2017-18.

2. The grounds raised read as follows:-

1. Whether Ld.CIT(A) was justified in ruling that trust had not violated the provisions of Sec 13(2)(cc) of Income Tax Act when the fact remains that trust has not furnished any corroborative evidence to substantiate that vehicle had been put to use by trust for its objectives and when ownership was held by Trustee?

2. Whether Ld.CIT(A) was justified in shifting the onus on burden of proof on Revenue regarding vehicle being used by trustee when the fact remains that trust has not discharged the primary onus cast on it to substantiate that vehicle had indeed been used by trust for it's stated objectives?

3. Whether Ld.CIT(A) was justified in admitting additional evidences during the course of appeal proceedings without calling for remand report from the Assessing Officer ?

4. Whether Ld.CIT(A) was justified in holding that trust has not done any commercial activity as far as purchase and sale of books were concerned when the fact remains that trust has generated huge surplus by overpricing the students in above transaction and when the fact remains that such surplus generated was not given back to students but distributed to schools in an arbitrary manner?

5. Whether Ld.CIT(A) was justified in allowing an amount of Rs.2,41,00,000/- (which is donation given to other trust) as application of income, when the factual matrix suggests that assessee ought to be treated as AOP and not as AOP(Trust) given the specified violations and commercial nature of activities undertaken?

6. Any other grounds with permission of Honorable Bench at time of hearing.

3. Brief facts of the case are as follows: The assessee is a trust established on 10.02.1988. The assessee trust has been registered u/s.12A of the Act w.e.f. assessment year 2008-09. For the assessment year 2017-18, the return of income was filed on 22.12.2017 declaring ‘nil’ income. The assessment was selected for scrutiny and notice u/s.143(2) of the Act was issued on 24.08.2018.

During the course of scrutiny proceedings, the AO issued show-cause notice dated 14.12.2019 directing the assessee to explain why exemption claimed u/s.11 of the Act ought not to be denied, since assessee had violated the provisions of section 13(1)(c) of the Act. In this context, it is to be mentioned that assessee trust had purchased Tata Venture LCV school van and van was registered in the name of the trustee Shri V. Jayendran. The AO in the show- cause notice had stated that the van was purchased through a vehicle loan from Tata Motor Finance Ltd., and portion of the purchase cost was also paid by the assessee trust. It was further mentioned that interest on the said loan was paid by the assessee trust an