returns, which has been accepted. It is also a matter of record that in the subsequent assessment years, the entire income accruing and arising from the hospital is being accounted for in the books of the assessee trust and no amount has been paid by the assessee to the Metro Hospital as management fees. No case has been made out by the Assessing Officer for diversion of income within the meaning of Section13(2)(g); and in fact various evidences have been filed in support of rendition accrued services by four individuals to Metro Hospital for a period of five years for which they were paid consultancy charges. For invoking of Section 13(2)(g), the income of the property of the Trust or any part of income or property is deemed to have been used or applied for a benefit of a person referred to sub-section 2 of Section 13, if any income or property is diverted during the previous year in favour of any such persons. Here, in this case, nowhere it has been brought on record that any income or property has been used or applied for the benefit of specified persons. It has rightly been held by the ld. CIT (A) that there is no case of diversion of income within the meaning of Section 13(2)(g).Otherwise also, if the Assessing Officer has drawn an adverse inference regarding diversion of income within the meaning of Section 13(2)(g), then at the most Assessing Officer can deny the benefit of Section 11, but he is not empowered to notionally treat the alleged diversion as income of the assessee. The reason being no income accrued to the Trust. The income earned by the four persons was consultancy fees given by Metro Institute and Assessing Officer has actually failed to establish nexus between its income and Section 13. Accordingly, the order of the ld. CIT (A) is affirmed and the ground raised by the Revenue is dismissed.
