RAMANANDA ADIGALAR FOUNDATION,COIMBATORE vs. DCIT (EXEMPTIONS), CHENNAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 3051/CHNY/2017Status: DisposedITAT Chennai13 June 2018AY 2011-124 pages

In favour of the assessee: the assessee's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, prioritizing substantial justice over technical considerations. The Tribunal allowed the assessee's claim for depreciation, following a Supreme Court decision on an identical issue.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed appeals with a significant delay, citing bonafide reasons related to staff oversight and a misunderstanding of demand notices. The core issue involved the denial of depreciation on capital expenditure by the AO, who believed it would lead to a double deduction.

What were the issues?

Whether the delay in filing the appeal should be condoned due to bonafide reasons. Whether depreciation can be claimed on capital expenditure when the entire cost has already been claimed as application of income.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 156

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(2)Show list

Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “C” BENCH, CHENNAI

Before: SHRI GEORGE MATHAN & SHRI S. JAYARAMAN

For Appellant: Shri. Saroj Kumar Parida, Advocate
For Respondent: Shri. Clement Ramesh Kumar, Addl. CIT
Hearing: 13.06.2018Pronounced: 13.06.2018

आदेश/ O R D E R

PER S. JAYARAMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:

1.

The assessee filed these appeals against the orders of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-2, Coimbatore in 14 & ITA No. 8/2015-16 dated 28.03.2016 & 31.03.2017 for assessment years 2011-12 & 2012-13, respectively.

:-2-: & 3052/Chny/2017

2.

The appeal related to assessment year 2011-12 was filed with a delay of 521 days and the appeal related to assessment year 2012-13 was filed with a delay of 175 days. The assessee pleaded that the staff of the assessee entrusted in handling of taxation issues was under the bonafide impression that since there is a nil demand in the notice u/s. 156, the orders are in favour of the trust and did not bring to the notice of the responsible person.

On an identical issue, the Jurisdictional High Court in assessee’s own case held in favour of the assessee. When the CA verified with the company, whether order has been passed for the subsequent years only it came to notice and assessee took steps to file these appeals. Since, the delay in filing these appeals are neither wilful nor wanton but only due to aforesaid bonafide reasons, it pleaded that the delay in filing these appeals may be condoned.

3.

We heard the rival submissions. The Hon’ble Supreme Court held in the case reported in 167 ITR 471, inter alia, that when the substantial justice and technical considerations are pitted against each other, the cause of substantial justice deserves to be preferred, for the other side cannot claim to have a vested right in injustice being done because of a non-deliberate delay etc. In the facts and circumstances, we condone the delay.

4.

While making the assessments for the assessment years 2011-12 & 2012-13 in the case of the assessee, M/s. Ramananda Adigalar Foundation, the AO relying on the decision of the Hon’ble Kerala High Court in the case of :-3-: & 3052/Chny/2017 Lissie Medical Institutions Vs. CIT 348 ITR 344 (Ker.) read with CBDT Circular refused to allow the assessee’s claim of depreciation on the capital expenditure incurred from year to year holding that when the entire costs of assets have already been claimed as application of income towards objects of the Trust, the claim of depreciation on the cost of the very same assets results in double deduction. Aggrieved, the assessee filed the appeals before the Ld. CIT(A). The CIT(A) dismissed them.

5.

We heard the rival submissions. We find that this issue is settled in favour of the assessee by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of CIT Vs. Rajasthan and Gujarati Charitable Foundation, Poona, in Civil Appeal No.7186 of 2014 dated 13.12.2017, and hence the assessee’s appeals are allowed.

6.

In the result, the assessee’s appeals in & 3052/Chny/2017 are allowed.

Order pronounced in the Open Court on 13th June, 2018 at Chennai.

More judgments on Section 156

All 694 judgments and leading authorities on Section 156 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →