ACIT, Trichy V. National College Council, Trichy

ITA 1057/CHNY/2011

• Counselvise Citation: [2011] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 51868 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 month(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 09-09-2011
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 24-08-2011
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 08-06-2011
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: V S JAYAKUMAR
• Keywords: Business income

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CHENNAI A BENCH, CHENNAI. BEFORE SHRI.U.B.S. BEDI, J.M. & SHRI. N.S. SAINI, A .M. I.T.A. NO. 1057/MDS/2011 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2007-08 THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE I(2), TRICHY. VS. NATIONAL COLLEGE COUNCIL, P.B.NO.369, CHATTRAM BUS STAND, TRICHY. [PAN:AAATT6266H] (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) REVENUE BY : SHRI SHAJI P. JACOB, SR. DR ASSESSEE BY : SHRI V.S. JAYAKUMAR, ADVOCATE DATE OF HEARING : 24.08.2011 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 09.09.2011 ORDER PER U.B.S. BEDI, J.M. THIS APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LD. CIT(A), TIRUCHIRAPALLI DATED 11.03.2011 RELEVANT TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08, THE DEPARTMENT BESIDES CHALLENGING THE DELETION OF ADDITION OF ` . 24,69,447/- REPRESENTING THE RENTAL INCOME RECEIVED BY THE SOCI ETY TREATING AS BUSINESS INCOME, THE DEPARTMENT HAS ALSO CHALLENGED THE ACTI ON OF LD. CIT(A) IN GIVING RELIEF TO THE ASSESSEE-TRUST BY ALLOWING THE ACCUMULATION OF SURPLUS AMOUNT TO THE EXTENT OF ADDITION MADE BY REVISING THE FORM 10 DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS BY RELYING UPON THE DECISION OF HONBLE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURTS DECISION IN THE CASE OF CIT V. SIMLA CHANDI GARH DIOCESE SOCIETY [318 ITR 96] BY RAISING THE PLEA THAT SLP HAS BEEN FILED, WH ICH IS PENDING BEFORE THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT. I II I.T.A. NO. .T.A. NO. .T.A. NO. .T.A. NO.10 1010 1057 5757 57/MDS/ /MDS/ /MDS/ /MDS/11 1111 11 2 2. AT THE VERY OUTSET, THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASS ESSEE SUBMITTED THAT SO FAR AS FIRST ISSUE IS CONCERNED, SAME IS COVERED AGAINST T HE DEPARTMENT BY THE DECISION OF HONBLE MADRAS HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. CH ENNAI PROPERTIES AND INVESTMENTS LTD. 266 ITR 685 AND SO FAR AS 2 ND ISSUE RAISED IN THE APPEAL OF THE DEPARTMENT IS CONCERNED, THE SAID ISSUE IS ALSO COV ERED BY THE DECISION OF HONBLE PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT V SI MLA CHANDIGARH DIOCESE SOCIETY (SUPRA), AGAINST WHICH, THOUGH SLP HAS BEEN FILED, BUT THE SAME IS PENDING BEFORE THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT. THEREFORE, THE PL EA OF THE DEPARTMENT ON BOTH THE ISSUE IS UNTENABLE, WHICH MAY BE DISMISSED. 3. THE LD. DR RELIED UPON THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSI NG OFFICER AND PLEADED FOR REVERSING THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) AND WHEN SPEC IFICALLY ASKED THAT BOTH THE ISSUES ARE COVERED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE, HE CO ULD NOT BE ABLE TO CONTROVERT THIS FACTUAL ASPECT. 4. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE SIDES AND CONSIDERED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD. SO FAR AS FIRST ISSUE IS CONCERNED, WE FIND THAT THE LD. C IT(A) HAS FOLLOWED THE DECISION OF HONBLE MADRAS HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CHENNAI PR OPERTIES AND INVESTMENTS LTD. (SUPRA). SINCE THE ISSUE IS COVERED IN FAVOUR OF TH E ASSESSEE BY HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURTS DECISION, WE DO NOT FIN D ANY GROUND TO INTERFERE IN THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) IN THIS REGARD AND WHILE UP HOLDING THE SAME, WE DISMISS THE FIRST ISSUE RAISED BY THE DEPARTMENT. 5. AS REGARDS 2 ND ISSUE, WE FIND THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS PROCEEDED T O CONSIDER MODIFIED FORM 10 FILED BEFORE IT AND BY CONCLUDING IN PARA 18 & 19, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ALLOWED THE RELIEF TO THE ASSESSEE, WHICH IS RE PRODUCED AS UNDER: I II I.T.A. NO. .T.A. NO. .T.A. NO. .T.A. NO.10 1010 1057 5757 57/MDS/ /MDS/ /MDS/ /MDS/11 1111 11 3 18. FURTHER THE APPELLANT ARGUED THAT IN ACCORDAN CE WITH THE DECISION OF THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT IN TH E CASE OF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX VS. SIMLA CHANDIGARH DIO CESE SOCIETY [318 ITR 96], [227 CTR 630 (P&H)], MODIFIED FORM 10 MAY BE FURNISHED IN THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS A ND THERE IS NO SPECIFIC BAR PROHIBITING THE APPELLANT FROM MODIFYI NG THE FIGURE OF APPLICATION. IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES, THE APPELLANT PR AYED THAT THE MODIFIED FORM 10 MAY BE ACCEPTED AND ALLOW THEM TO ACCUMULATE THE SURPLUS FOR SUBSEQUENT YEARS. 19. THE MODIFIED FORM 10 FURNISHED BY THE APPELLAN T IS IN ORDER BASED ON THE ABOVE DECISION OF THE HONBLE HIGH COU RT. ACCORDINGLY, THE GROUND OF THE APPELLANT SUCCEEDS. 6. SINCE THE ISSUE IS SQUARELY COVERED BY THE DECI SION OF HONBLE PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT, WHICH HAS BEEN FOLLOWED BY THE LD. CIT(A) AND NO CONTRARY DECISION HAS BEEN CITED OR FILED BEFORE US FROM ANY HIGHER FORUM, THEREFORE, WHILE FOLLOWING SUCH PRECEDENT, WE UPHOLD THE ACTION OF T HE LD. CIT(A) ON THIS SCORE ALSO. 7. AS A RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE STANDS D ISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON 09.09.2011. SD/- SD/- (N.S. SAINI) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER (U.B.S. BEDI) JUDICIAL MEMBER CHENNAI, DATED, THE 09.09.2011 VM/- TO: THE ASSESSEE//A.O./CIT(A)/CIT/D.R.