DCIT (E) 1(1), MUMBAI vs. INDO ITALIAN CHAMBERS OF COMMERCE & INDUSTRY, MUMBAI

सुनवाई क� तार�ख / : 31.08.2017 Date of Hearing घोषणा क� तार�ख / : 01.11.2017 Date of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Shamim Yahya, A. M.: This is an appeal by the Revenue arising out of the order of learned CIT(A), Mumbai dated 10.02.2017, pertaining to the assessment year 2010-11.

4. I have heard the ld. Departmental Representative and perused the records. It transpires that upon assessing officers disallowance on the above issue, the learned CIT-A has allowed the assessee’s appeal by following Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court direct decision on the issue. The ld. Departmental Representative could not dispute the proposition that the issue is covered in favour of the assessee by the decision of Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court relied upon by the learned CIT-A. The Revenue has also agreed to this in the grounds for appeal raised herein above as it is (A.Y. 2010-11) Dy. CIT (Exemption) vs. Indo Italian Chambers of Commerce & Industry mentioned that Department has not accepted the Hon’ble High Court’s decision on this issue. Be that as it may, the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court decision is binding upon the ITAT. In this regard, I may gainfully refer to the order of learned CIT-A on the issue as under:

6.2 I have considered the facts and circumstances of the case, gone through the assessment order of the A.O and the submissions of the appellant and also discussed the case with the AR of the appellant. The contentions and submissions of the appellant are being discussed and decided here in under: i. Appellant relying upon several case laws stated that deficit of the earlier years/current year is required to be carried forward to the subsequent years. On perusal of the facts I find that the case of appellant is squarely covered by the judgement of Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Institute of Banking Personnel 264 ITR 110 wherein the Hon. Jurisdictional High Court has observed as under - ............"5. Now coming to question No. 3, the point which arises for consideration is: whether excess of expenditure in the earlier years can be adjusted against the income of the subsequent year and whether such adjustment should be treated as application of income in subsequent year for charitable purposes? It was argued on behalf of the department that expenditure incurred in the earlier years cannot be met out of the income of the subsequent year and that utilization of such income for meeting the expenditure of earlier years would not amount to application of income for charitable or religious purposes. In the present case, the assessing officer did not allow carry forward of the excess of expenditure to be set off against the surplus of the subsequent years on the ground that in the case of a Charitable Trust, their income was assessable under self-contained code mentioned in section 11 to section 13 of the Income Tax Act and that the income of the Charitable Trust was not assessable under the head "profits and gains of business" under section 28 in which the provision for carry forward of losses was relevant That, in the case of a Charitable Trust, there was no provision for carry forward of the excess of expenditure of earlier years to be adjusted against income of subsequent years. We do not find any merit in this argument of the department. Income derived from the trust property has also got to be computed on commercial principles (A.Y. 2010-11) Dy. CIT (Exemption) vs. Indo Italian Chambers of Commerce & Industry and if commercial principles are applied then adjustment of expenses incurred by the Trust for charitable and religious purposes in the earlier years against the income earned by the Trust in the subsequent year will have to be regarded as application of income of the Trust for charitable and religious purposes in the subsequent year in which adjustment has been made having regard to the benevolent provisions contained in section 11 of the Act and that such adjustment will have to be excluded from the income of the Trust under section ll(l)(a) of the Act, Our view is also supported by the judgment of the Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT v. Shri Plot Swetamber Murti Pujak Jain Mandal (1995) 211 ITR 293 (Cuj). Accordingly, we answer question No. 3 in the affirmative i.e., in favour of the assesses and against the department." ii. Respectfully following the ratio laid down by the Hon. Jurisdictional High Court as above, the AO is directed to allow the carry forward of deficit in the succeeding years after due verification of facts.