THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S CHILDRENS EDUCATION SOCIETY

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.139 OF 2022 BETWEEN: 1. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX EXEMPTIONS, 6TH FLOOR UNITY BUILDING ANNEXE MISSION ROAD, BENGALURU-560027. 2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX EXEMPTIONS, CIRCLE-1, PRESENT ADDRESS ADDL. CIT, EXEMPTIONS RANGE 6TH FLOOR, UNITY BUILDING ANNEXE MISSION ROAD, BENGALURU-560027. .... APPELLANTS (BY MR. ARAVIND K.V. ADV.,) AND: M/S. CHILDRENS EDUCATION SOCIETY NO.40, 1ST PHASE, J.P.NAGAR BANGALORE-560078 PAN-AAATC1553A. ... RESPONDENT - - -

2 THIS I.T.A. IS FILED UNDER SEC. 260-A OF INCOME TAX ACT 1961, ARISING OUT OF ORDER DATED 01.09.2021 PASSED IN ITA NO.698/BANG/2020 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2016-17, PRAYING TO: (i) FORMULATE THE SUBSTANTIAL QUESTIONS OF LAW STATED THEREIN. (ii) ALLOW THE APPEAL AND SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED BY THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, BENGALURU IN ITA NO.698/BANG/2020 DATED 01/09/2021 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 01.09.2021 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. The following substantial questions of law have been proposed in the memorandum of appeal: "1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal order can be said as perverse in nature in allowing claim of assessee for carry forward of excess application and claim of application of income for subsequent year ignoring the fact that

3 there is no express provision in Act allowing such claim and this will result in granting double deduction, first as accumulation of income under section 11(1)(a) or corpus donation under section 11(1)(d) in the earlier/current years or exempt income under section 10(34) and then as application of income under section 11(1)(a) in subsequent years which is not permissible under said provisions of the Act? 2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in law in allowing claim of assessee for carry forward of deficit ignoring that none of the provisions as contained in section 11 do not permit such a claim of assessee-Trust as Section 11 is a self-code by itself and no other provisions of setting off are available to assessee?" 2. The aforesaid substantial questions of law have already been answered by a Bench of this Court vide judgment dated 20.01.2021 passed in ITA No.80/2016.

4 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