ITO (E) - 1(3), MUMBAI vs. FAYZ E HUSAYNI, MUMBAI

The Ld. Authorized Representative for Assessee [AR], at the outset, submitted that first appellate authority followed the recent decision of Hon’ble Apex Court rendered in CIT Vs. Rajasthan & Gujarat Charitable Foundation & Others [161 DTR 33 SC] and therefore, no infirmity could be found in the same since the issued was squarely covered in assessee’s favor. The Ld. DR could not controvert the aforesaid fact.

Facts on record reveal that the assessee trust registered u/s 12A reflected deficit of Rs.236.44 Lacs during impugned AY and claimed carry forward of the same to subsequent years, inter-alia, by relying on the decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court rendered in CIT Vs. Institute of Banking Personnel [264 ITR 110]. However, the Ld. AO denied the same citing multiple reasons as extracted at para 6.1 of the quantum assessment order. One of the reasons was that the department’s Special Leave Petition against the said judgment was pending before Hon’ble Supreme Court. 4. Upon further appeal, Ld. first appellate authority allowed assessee’s claim by following the afore-said binding judicial pronouncement. Aggrieved the revenue is in further appeal before us. 5. As submitted by Ld. AR, we find that the issue has squarely been settled by Hon’ble Supreme Court, in revenue’s miscellaneous application titled as CIT (E) Vs. Subros Educational Society 166 DTR (SC) 257, with the following observations: - 1. In this application filed by the Income Tax Department it is stated that Civil Appeal No. 5171 of 2016 arises out of Special Leave Petition (C)... CC No. 8982/2016 was tagged with other appeals and the batch matters were decided by this Court on 13.12.2017. However, the following question was also raised in the instant appeal which was not the subject matter of those appeals: