THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. BHAGWAN MAHAVEER MEMORIAL JAIN EDUCATIONAL AND CULTURAL TRUST

1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 17TH 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.2 OF 2021 BETWEEN: 1. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX EXEMPTIONS, 6TH FLOOR UNITY BUILDING ANNEXE MISSION ROAD, BENGALURU-560027. 2. THE ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX EXEMPTIONS PRESENT ADDRESS DCIT EXEMPTIONS, CIRCLE-1 6TH FLOOR, UNITY BUILDING ANNEXE MISSION ROAD, BENGALURU-560027. .... APPELLANTS (BY MR. K.V. ARAVIND, ADV.,) AND: BHAGWAN MAHAVEER MEMORIAL JAIN EDUCATIONAL AND CULTURAL TRUST NO.285, 2ND FLOOR, ESWARI MANSION AVENUE ROAD, BENGALURU-560002 PAN-AABTS 1497G. ... RESPONDENT (BY MR. SHARATH S, ADV., FOR MR. TATA KRISHNA, ADV.,) - - -

2 THIS I.T.A. IS FILED UNDER SEC. 260-A OF INCOME TAX ACT 1961, ARISING OUT OF ORDER DATED 21.08.2019 PASSED IN ITA NO.1731/BANG/2016 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2011- 12, PRAYING TO FORMULATE THE SUBSTANTIAL AND SET ASIDE THE ORDERS PASSED BY THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, BENGALURU IN ITA NO.1731/BANG/2016 DATED:21.08.2019 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2011-12 ANNEXURE-C AND CONFIRM THE ORDER OF THE APPELLATE COMMISSIONER CONFIRMING THE ORDER PASSED BY THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, EXEMPTIONS, CIRCLE-1, BENGALURU. THIS I.T.A. COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ALOK ARADHE J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: JUDGMENT Heard. This appeal is admitted on the following substantial question of law: "Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned Tribunal has erred in allowing the claim of the assessee for carry forward of deficit, ignoring the fact that there is no express provision in the Income Tax Act 1961 allowing such claim, and without appreciating the fact that this would have the effect of granting double benefit to the assessee, first as accumulation of income under section 11(1)(a) or corpus donation under section 11(1)(d) in earlier/current year, or exempt income under section 10(34), and then as application of income under section 11(1)(a) in subsequent years which is legally not permissible?"

3 Learned counsel for the assesee submits that the aforesaid substantial question of law has been answered in his favour vide judgment dated 20.01.2021 passed in ITA No.80/2016. On the other hand, learned counsel for the revenue could not dispute the aforesaid submission. In view of the aforesaid submissions and for the reasons assigned in the judgment dated 20.01.2021 in ITA No.80/2016, the substantial question of law is answered against the revenue. In the result, we do not find any merit in this appeal, the same fails and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- JUDGE Sd/- JUDGE ss