ITO (E) 2(3), MUMBAI vs. SHREE MANAV SEVA SANGH, MUMBAI

The captioned appeal by the Revenue and Cross-objection by the assessee are directed against the order of CIT(A)-1, Mumbai dated 26.04.2016, pertaining to Assessment Year 2009-10, which in turn has arisen from the order dated 14.11.2011 passed by the Assessing Officer under section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’).

3. In this background, now we may refer to the relevant facts. The respondent-assessee is a charitable organisation registered u/s 12A of the Act and is engaged in the activities of charitable nature. The Assessing Officer noticed that assessee had claimed depreciation allowance of Rs.78,35,371/- on the cost of fixed assets, whereas such cost of fixed assets has also been taken as an application of income while computing the total income. According to the Assessing Officer, this amounted to a double deduction and he, therefore, disallowed the assessee’s claim for depreciation. The CIT(A) has since allowed the claim of the assessee following the judgment of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Institute of Banking Personnel Selection, 264 ITR 110 (Bom).

4. Before us, the plea of the Department is that the decision of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Institute of Banking Personnel Selection (supra) has not been accepted by the Department on merits and on a similar issue, SLP (Civil) no. 9891 of 2014 has been filed before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation (MIDC). Further, it is contested that allowing of depreciation would amount to a double deduction, which was impermissible having regard to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Escorts Ltd., 199 ITR 43 (SC).

“(a) Whether on the facts and in the circumstance of the case and in law, the Tribunal was justified in confirming the order of the CIT(A) to allow the claim of depreciation relying on the decision of this Court in the case of CIT v/s. Institute of Banking Personnel Services reported in 264 ITR 110 (Bom) ignoring the ratio of Hon'ble Supreme Court judgment in the case of Escorts Ltd. V/s. Union of India (199 ITR 43) wherein Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that double deduction cannot be presumed if the same is not specifically provided by law, in addition to normal deduction?

(b) Whether on the facts and in the circumstance of the case and in law, the Tribunal was justified in confirming the order of the CIT(A) to allow to carry forward of deficit of earlier years relying on the decision of this Court in the case of CIT v/s. Institute of Banking Personnel Services reported in 264 ITR 110 (Bom) while the revenue did not file SLP against the case of CIT v/s. Institute of Banking Personnel Services reported in 264 ITR110 (Bom) due to low tax effect?”. stand on the same footing as are being canvassed before us in the instant case, including the reliance placed by the Revenue on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Escorts Ltd., (supra). Thus, there is no error on the part of the CIT(A) in following the decision of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Institute of Banking Personnel Selection (supra) and allowing the stand of the assessee. The other argument taken by the Revenue that its SLP filed before the Hon'ble Supreme Court is pending on a similar issue is of no consequence inasmuch as the binding judgments of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Institute of Banking Personnel Selection (supra) as well as in the case of M/s. Mumbai Education Trust (supra) continue to subsist. Therefore, in this background, we find no merit in the Ground raised by the Revenue and the same is accordingly dismissed.