THE BOMBAY HOCKEY ASSOCIATION LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. THE INCOME-TAX OFFICER EXEM. WARD 2(4), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 2456/MUM/2023Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 October 2023AY 2016-20174 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal restored the case to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. This was because the assessee's email address on record was inactive, leading to non-receipt of hearing notices.

What were the facts?

The assessee claimed depreciation on assets used for charitable objects. The AO disallowed this, viewing it as double deduction. The CIT(A) dismissed the assessee's appeal ex-parte due to non-receipt of notices.

What were the issues?

Whether depreciation on assets used for charitable objects constitutes double deduction. Whether an ex-parte order passed due to non-receipt of notices should be set aside.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 11,Section 12A,Section 250

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “SMC” BENCH, MUMBAI

Hearing: 16.10.2023Pronounced: 20.10.2023

आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh (AM): This appeal filed by the assesse is directed against the order passed by the NFAC dated 20.05.2023 for A.Y. 2016-17. The assessee has raised the following grounds before us: “. The Learned Commissioner of Income-tax Appeal, National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, has erred in confirming the disallowance of depreciation of Rs.61,43,093/-, being allowable expenditure towards application on the Objects of the Trust on the basis that it amounts to double deduction as addition to the assets as well as depreciation thereon both are claimed as an application on the objects of the Trust, without considering the fact that no claim has been made on addition of properties used on Objects of the Trust after the amendment of the Provisions of the 1.T.Act, 1961 as and from 01/04/2015.

1.

2. The Learned Commissioner of Income-tax Appeal. National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, has erred in making disallowance of Total P a g e | 2 The Bombay Hockey Associatin Ltd. Vs. ITO, Exemption Ward 2(4) Depreciation of Rs. 61,43,093/- as appearing in Income & Expenditure A/c without appreciating the fact that Appellant had only claimed Rs. 12,14,789/- as Depreciation as application during A.Y 2016 17 and balance Unabsorbed Depreciation of Rs.49,28,304/- was carried forward to subsequent years for set off.

3. The Learned Commissioner of Income-tax Appeal, National Faceless Appeal Centre. Delhi, has erred in confirming the disallowance of depreciation as expenditure incurred on assets used for the charitable activities though no claim for deduction of addition of Fixed Assets/ capital expenditure acquired out of Income accumulated us. 11(1)(a) or 11(2) of the I.T. Act, 1961 was made in earlier years 4. The Learned Commissioner of Income-tax Appeal, National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, has erred in not allowing set off of the carried forward losses as available to Appellant for earlier years against the Taxable Income arrived as per the Orders of the ITAT and/or High Court with respect to set off of Unabsorbed expenditure of earlier years.

5.

The Appellant reserves the right to add, alter or amend the above grounds of appeal as and when found necessary.”

2. Fact in brief is that assessee filed its return of income along with income and expenditure account, balance sheet and audit report in Form No. 10B on 16.10.2016 declaring nil income. The assesse trust was registered as a charitable organization with Charity Commissioner and also registered with CIT(Exemption) u/s 12A of the Act. During the course of assessment the AO noticed that assesse has claimed depreciation of Rs.61,43,093/- (on movable assets of Rs.22,15,281/- and on immovable assets of Rs.39,27,812/-) respectively. The assessing officer has disallowed the claim of deprecation on the ground that it amount to double taxation as addition to the asset as well as depreciation both were claimed as an application of the object of the trust.

3.

The assessee filed the appeal before the ld. CIT(A). The ld. CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal of the assessee and also not allowed the claim of carry forward losses.

More judgments on Section 11

All 7,190 judgments and leading authorities on Section 11 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →