DCIT (E) -2(1), MUMBAI vs. ST. FRANCIS INDL TRAINING INSTITUTE, MUMBAI

The present Appeal filed by the revenue is against the order of Ld. CIT (Appeal) – 1, Mumbai dated 22.12.17 for AY 2012-13. St. Francis Industrial Training Institute 2. The solitary ground raised by the revenue relates to challenging the order of Ld. CIT(A) in allowing the carry forward deficit of earlier years and allowing set off against the income of the succeeding years.

At the very outset, Ld. AR appearing on behalf of the assessee submitted before us that these grounds are covered by the order of Hon’ble ITAT in to 5924/Mum/16 for AY 2010-11. 2009-10, 2011-12 & 2008-09 in assessee’s own case, wherein the identical grounds raised in the present appeal have already been decided on merits.

On the other hand, Ld. DR contested the appeal and relied upon the assessment order passed by AO.

We have heard both the parties and we have also perused the material placed on record as well as the orders passed by revenue authorities. We find that the identical ground has already been decided by the Coordinate Bench of Hon’ble ITAT in to 5924/Mum/16 for AY 2010-11. 2009-10, St. Francis Industrial Training Institute 2011-12 & 2008-09 in assessee’s own case. The operative portion of the order of Hon’ble ITAT passed in ITA No. 5921 to 5924/Mum/16 contained in para no. 8, which is reproduced below:- 8. Similarly, the second issue raised by the Revenue is with regard to carry forward of the deficit of Rs.7,25,17,949/- to be set-off against the future income. On this aspect also, CIT(A) has allowed the claim following the judgment of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Institute of Banking Personnel Selection (supra); in fact, similar situation has been further affirmed by the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of M/s. Mumbai Education Trust (supra). Therefore, on this aspect also, we find no error on the part of the CIT(A) in allowing the claim of the assessee, which we hereby affirm.

After having heard the counsels at length and after having gone through order of ITAT as mentioned above in assessee’s own case, we find that the identical issue has already been decided by the Hon’ble ITAT in to 5924/Mum/16 for AY 2010-11. 2009-10, 2011-12 & 2008-09 in assessee’s own case. Therefore, respectfully following the decision of the Coordinate Bench of Hon’ble ITAT and in order to maintain St. Francis Industrial Training Institute judicial consistency, we apply the same findings which are applicable mutatis mutandis in the present case. Resultantly, this ground raised by the revenue stands dismissed.

In the net result, the appeal filed by the revenue stands dismissed with no order as to cost.