THE DCIT (EXEMPTIONS), CIR.-1., AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. GUJARAT COUNCIL OF VOCATIONAL TRAINING, GANDHINAGAR

PAN: AABTG3148A (Applicant) (Responent) Revenue by : Shri Surendra Kumar, CIT.D.R, Assessee by : Shri Tushar Hemani, & Shri P.B. Parmar, A.Rs सुनवाई क� तार�ख/Date of Hearing : 12/07/2019 घोषणा क� तार�ख /Date of Pronouncement: 06/08/2019 आदेश/O R D E R PER Ms MADHUMITA ROY, JUDICIAL MEMBER:

The instant appeal preferred by the Revenue is directed against the order dated 25.09.2017, passed by the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals)-9, Ahmedabad ( in short “ Ld.CIT(A)”) , arising out of the order dated 02.03.2016 passed by the D.C.I.T(Exemption), Circle-1, Ahmedabad under section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961( hereinafter referred to as “the Act’’) for the Assessment Year 2013-14, whereby and whereunder the ''Ld.CIT(A)” allowed the accumulation of Rs.69,22,00,000/- u/s.11(2) and accumulation of Rs.1,77,71,034/- u/s.11(1)(a) of the Act.

“…9. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the materials available on record. In the instant case, the deduction claimed by the assessee u/s ll(l)(a)11(2) of the Act was denied by the AO on the ground that me activity of the assessee involves advancement of any other abject of general public utility and its receipts exceeds the mandatory limit as specified under proviso to section 2( 15) of the Act, From the preceding discussion, we note that there was no appeal preferred by the Revenue against the order of Ld. CIT(A) pertaining to the A.Y. 2011-12 which implies that the order of Ld. CIT(A) reached to iis finality. In our considered view, once, the order of (he Ld CIT(A) has reached to its finality to any of the assessment year then on the same ground no appeal by the Revenue can be preferred to ihe Hon'ble IT AT in other years. In ibis regard, we draw support and guidance from the judgment of 3 Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Excel Industries Limited reported in 358ITR 295 wherein it was held as under: "31. It appears from the record that in several assessment years, the Revenue accepted the order of the Tribunal in favour of the assessee and did not pursue the matter any further but in respect of some assessment years the matter was taken up in appeal before the Bombay High Conn bat without any success. Thai being so, the Revenue cannot be allowed to flip-flop on the issue and it ought let the matter rest rather than spend the tax payers' money in pursuing litigation for the sake of it." 9.1 We also observed that there is no change in the facts and circumstances in the impugned case in comparison to the previous assessment years and the Revenue in earlier year has accepted the same. Therefore in our considered view the principles of consistency should be applied. In this regard we find principles laid down in the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Radhasoami Satsang vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (1992) 193 ITR 0321 (SC) are directly attracted to the instant case wherein it was observed that in the absence of any material change in the facts, the Revenue should not take a different view in the omer year-In view of the above, it is clear that the assessee is eligible for deduction u/s ll(l)(a)/ll(2) of the Act. Accordingly, we do not find any infirmity in the order of Ld. CIT(A). Hence, the ground of appeal of the revenue is dismissed…”

5. Since we find that the issue is identical to that of the issue decided by the Hon’ble Tribunal in assessee’s own case, we find no infirmity in the order passed by the ''Ld.CIT (A)'' and hence Revenue’s appeal is found to be devoid of any merit, thus dismissed.