The ITO Corporate Wd-1(4), Cochin V. M/s.Lakshadweep Development Corporation Ltd, Cochin

ITA 146/COCH/2020

• Counselvise Citation: [2022] 106 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 5565 (ITAT-COCHIN)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 3 month(s) 26 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 19-06-2022
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: 2015-2016
• Appeal Filed On: 24-02-2020
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Benefit of exemption

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL COCHIN BENCH, COCHIN Before Shri George George K, JM & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu, AM ITA No.146/Coch/2020 : Asst.Year 2015-2016 The Income Tax Officer Ward 1(4) Kochi. v. M/s.Lakshadweep Development Corporation 27/1038B, Panampilly Nagar Kochi – 682 036. PAN : AAACL6164H. (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by : Smt.J.M.Jamunna Devi, Sr.DR Respondent by : Sri.Venkateswaran S, Advocate Date of Hearing : 20.06.2022 Date of Pronouncement : 20.06.2022 O R D E R Per George George K, JM : This appeal at the instance of the Revenue is directed against CIT(A)’s order dated 06.12.2019. The relevant assessment year is 2015-2016. 2. The grounds raised read as follows:- “1. The order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-1, Kochi opposed to the facts and circumstances of the case. 2. In the facts and the circumstances of the case, the learned Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals) is not correct to hold that the assessee is entitled for exemption u/s. 10(26B) 2.1 The learned commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals) ought to have taken into consideration the fact that the assessee is not a corporation constituted under an Act of the Centre, State or Province and has not established or formed for promoting the interests of the members of the scheduled castes or the Scheduled Tribes and hence not entitled for exemption u/s. 10(26B). ITA No.146/Coch/2020. M/s.Lakshadweep Development Corporationn. 2 2.2 The learned commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals) ought to have appreciated that the assessee is a company registered under the companies Act and the upliftment of the schedule tribe community is not seen as an objective as per article of association. 3. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) is not correct in not adjudicating the issue of prior period expenditure. 3.1 The learned CIT(A) should have considered that deduction can be permitted in respect of only those expenses which are incurred in the relevant accounting year for the purpose of computing yearly profits and gains. 3.2 The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) ought to have appreciated that nothing has been brought on record by the assessee to substantiate its claim of prior period expenses neither before the Assessing Officer or before the CIT(A). 4. For these and other grounds that may be urged at the time of hearing, it is requested that the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) may be set aside and that of the Assessing Officer restored.” 3. At the very outset, the learned AR submitted that the Revenue challenges the correctness of the CIT(A)’s order in holding that the assessee is entitled to exemption u/s 10(26B) of the I.T.Act. The learned AR submitted that an identical was considered by the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in assessee’s own case for assessment years 2011-2012 [reported in 438 ITR 342 (Ker.)] and 2012-2013 by holding that the assessee is entitled to the benefit of exemption u/s 10(26B) of the I.T.Act. 4. The learned Departmental Representative was unable to controvert the above submission of the learned AR. ITA No.146/Coch/2020. M/s.Lakshadweep Development Corporationn. 3 5. We have heard rival submissions and perused the material on record. On identical facts, the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in assessee’s own case for assessmetn years 2011-2012 and 2012-2013 (supra) has considered the mater in favour of the assessee. In view of the judgment of the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court, we uphold the order of the CIT(A) as correct and in accordance with law and no interference is called for. It is ordered accordingly. 6. In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed. Order pronounced on this 20 th day of June, 2022. Sd/- (Laxmi Prasad Sahu) Sd/- (George George K) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Kochi ; Dated : 20 th June, 2022. Devadas G* Copy to : 1. The Appellant. 2. The Respondent. 3. The CIT(A)-I, Kochi. 4. The CIT, Cochin. 5. The DR, ITAT, Cochin. 6. Guard File. Asst.Registrar/ITAT, Cochin