Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, BANGALORE BENCH ‘A’, BANGALORE
Before: SMT ASHA VIJAYARAGHAVAN & SHRI ABRAHAM P GEORGE
PER SMT ASHA VIJAYARAGHAVAN, JM:
This appeal has been filed by the revenue against an order dated 04-
12-2014 of CIT(A), Mysore for the assessment year 2008-09.
In this case, the assessee had filed its return of income on 23-10-
2008 declaring total income as nil. Subsequently, the case was selected
for scrutiny.
2 ITA No.594(B)/15
The facts of the case are that the assessee a charitable trust
enjoying registration u/s 12A of the IT Act. For the impugned assessment
year, the assessee had a gross receipt of Rs.143.49 Crores. Having spent
Rs.120.12 Crores towards the objectives of the trust, the assessee had a
surplus of Rs.23.36 Crores which was set off, as permitted u/s 11 of the
Act, against investment made in infrastructural facilities. Thus, the
returned income was nil.
The AO completed the assessment accepting the facts and figures.
However, as a set off, the AO allowed an expenditure of Rs.100.59 Crores
as against he claim of the assessee of Rs.120.12 Crores. The AO has not
discussed as to the reason for restricting the expenditure. The AO has not
permitted the depreciation claimed by the assessee to the extent of
Rs.19.53 Crores.
It was submitted before the CIT(A) that the AO had erred in not
allowing the claim of depreciation of approximately Rs.19.53 Crores
without furnishing any reasons. Without prejudice, even where the AO
had undertaken this action on the ground that the capital expenditure on
the fixed assets was claimed as application of income in the earlier years,
the AO did not consider the rulings of various High Courts which have
upheld the position adopted by the assessee including that of the
jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT Vs Society of the Sisters of
St.Anne (16 Taxman 400) and the jurisdictional Bangalore ITAT in
assessee’s own case in ACIT Vs Shri Adichunchunagiri Shikshana Trust,
3 ITA No.594(B)/15
(ITA Nos.774 & 775(Bang.) 2011) the approach of the assessee is also
upheld in an August 2013 ruling of the Bangalore ITAT in the case of DDIT
Vs Cutchi Memon Union (38 Taxmann.com 276).
Learned AR further submitted that the stand of the assessee is
also supported by the amendment to section 11 by the introduction of
sub-section 6 (vide Finance (No.2) Act, 2014) which seeks to specially
provide with effect from AY: 2015-16 prospectively that income for the
purposes of application shall be determined without any deduction or
allowance by way of depreciation in respect of any asset, acquisition of
which has been claimed as an application of income under these sections
in the same or any other previous year and as such, for the previous
years, in the absence of such a provision, the stand of the assessee is not
barred by the law.
The learned CIT(A) had agreed with the argument of the assessee
that prior to the amendment this is a covered issue and accordingly, he
directed the AO to allow the claim of the assessee for the assessment year
2008-09.
The revenue has raised the following grounds of appeal;
“a. The learned CIT(A) has erred in allowing the claim of depreciation by the assessee holding that it is covered issue prior to the amendment by the Finance (No.2) Act, 2014. b. The learned CIT(A) has erred in allowing the claim as the assessee has already availed benefit under section 11 in respect of the entire cost of the assets. Allowing depreciation
4 ITA No.594(B)/15
on the same assets will amount to double benefit for the assessee which is not intended by the law. c. The learned CIT(A) has erred in not appreciating that the amendment only seeks to explain the existing law. This is clear from para-7.5 of Circular No.1 of 2015 issue by the CBDT explaining the provisions of the Finance (No.2) Act, 2014 d. The learned CIT(A) has erred in not appreciating that the department has not accepted the decision of the ITAT in the assessee’s own case for the assessment years 2006-07 & 2007-08 and appeals under section 260A have been filed before the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka”.
We find that the issue is covered by the decision of the Co-
ordinate Bench of this Tribunal in assessee’s own case, wherein it has
been held as under;
“ 13. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the materials on record. The Tribunal in the assessee’s own case for the assessment year 2006-07 at paragraph-7 of its order has decided the issue in favour of the assessee. The relevant finding of the Tribunal reads as under; “7. We have heard both parties. We have in the earlier para referred to the findings of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Institute of Banking (2003) 264 ITR 110 (Bom.) We have also gone through the decision of the jurisdictional High Court. The Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court held that the amount of depreciation debited to the account of charitable institutions is to be deducted to arrive at an available income from charitable religious purposes.
5 ITA No.594(B)/15
Following the decision of the jurisdictional High Court, we therefore, hold that the depreciation is to be deducted to arrive at an income available to charitable and religious purposes”.
The above order of the Tribunal has not been reversed by the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court. The facts for the assessment year 2007-08 and 2008-09 being identical to the facts considered by the Tribunal for the assessment year 2006-07 (ITA No.775/Bang/2009) dated January 29, 2010), we follow the Co-ordinate Bench order of the Tribunal in the assessee’s own case for the assessment year 2006-07 and hold that the Commissioner of Income-tax (A) is justified in directing the AO to grant depreciation in respect of the assessment years 2007-08 and 2008-09”.
Respectfully following the decision of the Co-ordinate Bench of
this Tribunal, we dismiss the appeal filed by the revenue.
In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed.
Order pronounced in the open Court on the
Sd/- Sd/- (ABRAHAM P GEORGE (ASHA VIJYARAGHAVAN) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER P l a c e : Bangalore D a t e d : 10-11-2015 am*
6 ITA No.594(B)/15
Copy to : 1 Appellant 2 Respondent 3 CIT(A) 4 CIT 5 DR, ITAT, Bangalore. 6 Guard file By order
AR, ITAT, Bangalore