Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Detected automatically from the text. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, AHMEDABAD “B” BENCH
Before: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Amarjit Singh
आदेश/ORDER PER : AMARJIT SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:-
This revenue’s appeal for A.Y. 2014-15, arises from order of the CIT(A)-9, Ahmedabad dated 05-01-2018, in proceedings under section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961; in short “the Act”.
Page No 2 DCIT vs. Gujarat Council of Vocational Training
The revenue has raised following ground of appeal:-
1. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in the law and on facts in allowing the accumulation of Rs.4,89,00,000/- u/s.11(2) and accumulation of Rs. 1,28,57,204/- u/s.11(1)(a) of the Act without appreciating the fact that the case of the assessee is clearly falling under the proviso (1) & (2) of section 2(15) of the Act.”
The fact in brief is that assessing officer has passed order u/s. 143(3) of the act on 25th Nov, 2006 determined the total income of the assessee at Rs. 6,17,57,204/- as against total income of Rs. nil declared by the assessee. The assessee is a trust and its main object is to carry out surveys regarding demand for man power requirement in various vocational skill, trade and on the basis of these surveys work out projection of requirement of skilled manpower in the state. The assessee trust also promotes development of the requirement for trades conducted in the private vocational training institute. The assesse has been granted registration u/s. 12AA on 31st Jan, 2006. During assessment, the assessing officer was of the view that the assessee also carried out activities of advancment of public utilities in the form of advancment, vocational skills and charges fees for such activities, therefore, the same was not a charitable activity by any means. Therefore, the assessing officer has stated that assessee’s activities were not for a charitable purpose and invoked the provision of proviso to section 2, sub-section 15 r.w. 13(8) of the act and denied benefit of section 11 and 12 to the assessee.
Aggrieved assessee has filed appeal before the ld. CIT(A). The ld. CIT(A) has allowed the appeal of the assessee.
We have heard the rival contentions and perused the maternal on record. During the course of appellate proceedings before us, the ld. counsel Page No 3 DCIT vs. Gujarat Council of Vocational Training has brought to our notice that Co-ordinate Bench of the ITAT, Ahmedabad in the case of the assessee itself for assessment year 2009-10 and 2012-13 vide & 3379/Ahd/2016 has decided the identical issue on similar fact in favour of the assessee. With the assistance of ld. representatives, we have gone through the above cited order of the ITAT Ahmedabad and noticed that identical issue has been decided in favour of the assessee. The relevant parts of the order of ITAT vide ITA No. 3378 & 3379/Ahd/2016 is reproduced as under:- “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)/ll(2) of the Act was denied by the AO on the ground that the 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 \ its finality. In our considered view, once, the order of the 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 the Hon'ble ITAT in other years. In this regard, we draw support and guidance from the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Excel Industries Limited reported in 358 ITR 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 Court but without any success. That 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 other 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.” Respectfully following the decision of ITAT as referred above wherein the identical issue on similar facts has been decided in favour of the Page No 4 DCIT vs. Gujarat Council of Vocational Training assessee, therefore, we do not find any merit in the appeal of the revenue, therefore, the same is dismissed.