Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Mumbai
Dcit (Exemption) - 2(1), Mumbai vs Shree Sadguru Seva Sangh Trust, Mumbai on 30 August, 2017
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
MUMBAI BENCH "A", MUMBAI
BEFORE SHRI G.S. PANNU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND
SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER
ITA NO. 5920/MUM/2016 : A.Y : 2012-13
DCIT (Exemptions)-2(1), Vs. Shree Sadguru Seva Sangh
Mumbai (Appellant) 4th floor, Mafatlal House,
Backbay Reclamation,
Mumbai 400 020 (Respondent)
PAN : AAATS0575N
Appellant by : Shri Saurabh Deshpande
Respondent by : Ms. Arati Vissanji
Date of Hearing : 17/08/2017
Date of Pronouncement : 30/08/2017
ORDER
PER G.S. PANNU, AM :
The captioned appeal by the Revenue is directed against the order of CIT(A)-1, Mumbai dated 12.07.2016 pertaining to the Assessment Year 2012-13, which in turn has arisen from the order passed by the Assessing Officer dated 21.02.2015 under section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short 'the Act').
2. Although the Revenue has raised multiple Grounds of appeal, but the dispute involved in this appeal is on two issues. Firstly, the Revenue is aggrieved by the decision of the CIT(A) in directing the Assessing 2 Shree Sadguru Seva Sangh ITA No. 5920/Mum/2016 Officer to allow the benefit of depreciation. Secondly, the grievance of the Revenue is against the action of the CIT(A) in allowing the assessee the benefit of carry forward of the deficit for future set-off.
3. At the time of hearing, it was a common point between the parties that on both the issues, the CIT(A) has followed the decision of his predecessor in the assessee's own case for Assessment Years 2008- 09 to 2010-11, which had been approved by the Tribunal in ITA Nos. 3387 to 3389/Mum/2015 dated 31.7.2015. It was also a common point between the parties that the decision of the Tribunal dated 31.7.2015 (supra) continues to hold the field and has not been altered by any higher authority.
4. In this background, now we may refer to the relevant facts. The respondent-assessee is a charitable organisation registered u/s 12A of the Act and is, inter-alia, engaged in rural development programmes, including programmes for promoting social and economic welfare. The Assessing Officer noticed that assessee had claimed depreciation allowance of Rs.1,88,36,238/- on the cost of fixed assets, whereas such cost of fixed assets has also been taken as an application of income while computing the total income. According to the Assessing Officer, this amounted to a double deduction and he, therefore, disallowed the assessee's claim for depreciation. The CIT(A) has since allowed the claim of the assessee following the judgment of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Institute of Banking Personnel Selection, 264 ITR 110 (Bom).
3 Shree Sadguru Seva Sangh ITA No. 5920/Mum/2016
5. Before us, the only plea of the Department is that the decision of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Institute of Banking Personnel Selection (supra) has not been accepted by the Department on merits and on similar issue, a SLP No. 9891 of 2014 has been filed before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation (MIDC). Further, it is contested that allowing of depreciation would amount to a double deduction, which was impermissible having regard to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Escorts Ltd., 199 ITR 43 (SC).
6. We find that the decision in the case of Escorts Ltd. (supra) being relied upon by the Revenue before us has been considered by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Indraprastha Cancer Society, (2014) 112 DTR 345 dated 18.11.2014, wherein it has been opined that the allowance of depreciation in similar situation would not amount to a double deduction. Further, at the time of hearing, the learned representative for the respondent-assessee pointed out that the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Vishwa Jagriti Mission, ITA No. 140/2012 dated 29.3.2012 also allowed a similar claim after analysing the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Escorts Ltd. (supra), which is being relied upon by the Revenue. It was also pointed out that the Hon'ble Supreme Court has also dismissed the SLP filed by the Department against the said decision of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court vide SLP No. 19321 of 2013. We find that the Hon'ble Bombay High Court subsequent to the decision in the case of Institute of Banking Personnel Selection (supra) considered a similar argument of the Revenue in the case of M/s. Mumbai Education Trust, ITA No. 4 Shree Sadguru Seva Sangh ITA No. 5920/Mum/2016 11/2014 dated 3.5.2016 and allowed the claim of the assessee. In fact, the Grounds of appeal urged by the Revenue before the Hon'ble High Court, which read as under :-
"(a) Whether on the facts and in the circumstance of the case and in law, the Tribunal was justified in confirming the order of the CIT(A) to allow the claim of depreciation relying on the decision of this Court in the case of CIT v/s. Institute of Banking Personnel Services reported in 264 ITR 110 (Bom) ignoring the ratio of Hon'ble Supreme Court judgment in the case of Escorts Ltd. V/s. Union of India (199 ITR 43) wherein Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that double deduction cannot be presumed if the same is not specifically provided by law, in addition to normal deduction?
(b) Whether on the facts and in the circumstance of the case and in law, the Tribunal was justified in confirming the order of the CIT(A) to allow to carry forward of deficit of earlier years relying on the decision of this Court in the case of CIT v/s. Institute of Banking Personnel Services reported in 264 ITR 110 (Bom) while the revenue did not file SLP against the case of CIT v/s. Institute of Banking Personnel Services reported in 264 ITR110 (Bom) due to low tax effect?".
stand on the same footing as are being canvassed before us in the instant case. Thus, there is no error on the part of the CIT(A) in following the decision of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Institute of Banking Personnel Selection (supra) and allowing the stand of the assessee. The other argument taken by the Revenue that its SLP filed before the Hon'ble Supreme Court is pending on a similar issue is of no consequence inasmuch as the binding judgments of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Institute of Banking Personnel Selection (supra) as well as in the case of M/s. Mumbai Education Trust (supra) continue to subsist. Therefore, in this background, we find no 5 Shree Sadguru Seva Sangh ITA No. 5920/Mum/2016 merit in the Ground raised by the Revenue and the same is accordingly dismissed.
7. Similarly, the second issue raised by the Revenue is with regard to carry forward of the deficit of Rs.7,44,24,828/- to be set-off against the future income. On this aspect also, CIT(A) has allowed the claim following the judgment of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Institute of Banking Personnel Selection (supra); in fact, similar situation has been further affirmed by the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of M/s. Mumbai Education Trust (supra). Therefore, on this aspect also, we find no error on the part of the CIT(A) in allowing the claim of the assessee, which we hereby affirm.
8. Resultantly, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed.
Order pronounced in the open court on 30th August, 2017 Sd/- Sd/-
(AMARJIT SINGH) (G.S. PANNU)
JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
Mumbai, Date : 30th August, 2017
*SSL*
Copy to :
1) The Appellant
2) The Respondent
3) The CIT(A) concerned
4) The CIT concerned
5) The D.R, "A" Bench, Mumbai
6) Guard file
By Order
Dy./Asstt. Registrar
I.T.A.T, Mumbai