PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1 vs. SEKHAR KUMAR MOHAPATRA

1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF FEBRUARY 2022 PRESENT THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE AND THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL I.T.A. NO.65 OF 2022 BETWEEN: 1. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX EXEMPTIONS, 6TH FLOOR UNITY BUILDING ANNEXE MISSION ROAD, BENGALURU 560 027. 2. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER EXEMPTION, WARD-1 PRESENT ADDRESS ADDL. CIT EXEMPTIONS RANGE 6TH FLOOR, UNITY BUILDING ANNEXE MISSION ROAD, BENGALURU 560 027. .... APPELLANTS (BY MR. ARAVIND K.V. ADV.,) AND: M/S. GLOBAL CITY EDUCATIONAL TRUST 135, RAMAIAH GARDEN JALAKANTESHWARA TEMPLE STREET 5TH MAIN, 6TH CROSS MALLESHPALYA, BENGALURU 560 075 PAN:AABTG3599H. ... RESPONDENT - - -

2 THIS I.T.A. IS FILED UNDER SEC. 260-A OF INCOME TAX ACT 1961, ARISING OUT OF ORDER DATED 20.07.2021 PASSED IN ITA NO.695/BANG/2020 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2016-17, PRAYING TO: (i) FORMULATE THE SUBSTANTIAL QUESTIONS OF LAW STATED ABOVE. (ii) ALLOW THE APPEAL AND SET ASIDE THE ORDERS PASSED BY THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, BENGALURU IN ITA NO.695/BANG/2020 DATED 20/07/2021 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2016-17 ANNEXURE-C CONFIRMING THE ORDER OF THE APPELLATE COMMISSIONER AND CONFIRM THE ORDER PASSED BY THE ADDL. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, EXEMPTIONS RANGE, BENGALURU & ETC., THIS I.T.A. COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ALOK ARADHE J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: JUDGMENT Mr.K.V.Aravind, learned counsel for the revenue. This appeal under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’, for short) has been filed against the order dated 20.07.2021 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. The following substantial question of law has been proposed in the memorandum of appeal: "Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the orders passed by CIT(A) and Tribunal are perverse in nature in setting aside disallowance of carry forward of deficit ignoring the fact that there is no excess provision in Act allowing such claim

3 and without appreciating the fact that this would have effect of granting double benefit to assessee, first as accumulation of income under section 11(1)(a) or corpus donation under section 11(1)(d) in the earlier/current year or exempt income under section 10(34) and then as application of income under section 11(1)(d) in subsequent years which is legally not permissible?" 2. The aforesaid substantial question of law has already been answered by a Bench of this Court vide judgment dated 20.01.2021 passed in ITA No.80/2016. 3. For the reasons assigned in the aforesaid judgment, we find that no substantial question of law arise for our consideration in this appeal. In the result, the appeal fails and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- JUDGE Sd/- JUDGE RV