Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “C” BENCH, CHENNAI
Before: SHRI GEORGE MATHAN & SHRI S. JAYARAMAN
आदेश/ O R D E R
PER S. JAYARAMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.