DCIT, EXEMPTION CIRCLE, GHAZIABAD vs. SWAMI OMKARANANDA SARASWATI CHARITABLE TRUST, TEHRI GARHWAL

The grounds of appeal

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.