Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH: ‘B’ NEW DELHI
Before: SHRI N. K. BILLAIYA & MS SUCHITRA KAMBLE
ORDER PER SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JM
This appeal is filed by the Revenue against order dated 12/12/2017 passed by CIT(A)-Haldwani for assessment year 2014-15.
The grounds of appeal
are as under:- 1. “The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and facts in deleting the additions of Rs. 17,15,732/- made by the AO against the surplus received during the year.
2. The Ld. C1T(A) has erred in law and facts in deleting the depreciation of Rs. 22,90,026/- made by the AO. 3. The order of Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and facts in deleting the disallowance of Rs. 49,93,587/- made by the AO against the Inter organizational donations received. 4. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and facts in deleting the addition of Rs. 10,30,98,704/- made by the AO against the corpus donations received during the year. 5. The order of Ld. CIT(A) be cancelled and the order of the AO be restored.”
3. The assessee is a trust registered on 10.04.1989 with the objects to establish and develop schools and colleges for imparting education and also medical aid to the needy. The assessee trust is registered u/s 12A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 with the Commissioner of Income Tax, Meerut vide SI. No. 11/89-90, C.N. 40(3)/ Registration/Rishikesh/81-90/C.I.B. /22448 dated 31.01.1990 w.e.f. 01.04.1989. The Assessee trust furnished its return of Income for A.Y. 2014-15 on 29.09.2014 claiming entire income of Rs. 15,38,18,534/- as exempt income. Audit Report in form No. 10B was attached with the Return of Income. The Assessing Officer made addition of Rs. 17,15,732/- thereby disallowing the surplus received during the year. The Assessing Officer also disallowed depreciation of Rs. 22,90,026/- as well as organizational donation of Rs.49,93,587/- and corpus donations of Rs. 10,30,98,704/- received during the year.
Being aggrieved by the penalty order, the assessee filed appeal before the CIT(A). The CIT (A) allowed the appeal of the assessee.
The Ld. DR relied upon the assessment order and the submitted that the CIT(A) was not correct in allowing the appeal of the assessee thereby deleting all the additions.
The Ld. AR relied upon the order of the CIT(A) and the order of the Tribunal in assessee’s own case being .
We have heard both the parties and perused all the relevant materials available on record. It is pertinent to note that for A.Y. 2002-03 also the Tribunal has dismissed the appeal of the Revenue vide order dated 04.10.2006, thereby granting benefit of the exemption u/s 11/12 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Thereafter from A.Ys. 2003-04 till 2009-10, the Assessing Officer has accepted the claim of the assessee that it is eligible for deduction u/s 11/12 of the Act. For A.Y. 2010-11, the Tribunal vide order dated 04.08.2017 held that the assessee is eligible to the claim. The Tribunal in Assessment Year 2011-12 dismissed the appeal vide order dated 30.05.2018 as well as for A.Y. 2012-13, the Tribunal vide order dated 23.08.2019. Now coming to the Ground No. 1 of the Revenue’s appeal, the surplus received of Rs. 17,15,723/ was deleted by the CIT(A) based on the earlier order for A.Y. 2010-11 and the stand of the assessee was accepted by the Revenue in that year. Thus, Ground No. 1 of the Revenue’s appeal in the present Assessment Year 2014-15 is dismissed. As regards to Ground No. 2, the CIT(A)’s finding for A.Y. 2010-11 which was decided in favour of the assessee by the Tribunal. In fact, during the year under consideration, the assessee in its books of account claimed depreciation of Rs. 22,90,026/- on the movable assets of the Trust, however this depreciation amount was added back in the return of income and was not claimed as application of income which is evident from the balance sheet and computation of income. Thus, Ground No. 2 of the Revenue’s appeal is dismissed. As regards to Ground No. 3, the Tribunal in A.Y. 2010-11 while upholding the deletion made against the inter organization donation received and upheld the findings of the CIT(A) when such additions made was found to be untenable. The facts are similar in the present assessment year 2014-15, hence Ground No. 3 of the Revenue’s appeal is dismissed. As regards to Ground No. 4, the corpus donations are not the income since it has been specifically received by way of corpus and this view is upheld by the Tribunal in A.Y. 2010-11. Thus, Ground No. 4 of the Revenue’s appeal is dismissed. The Revenue has not pointed out any distinguishing facts in the present Assessment Year to that of earlier Assessment Years. Therefore, all the grounds of the Revenue are dismissed.