Appeal Details
Counselvise Citation
[2017] 127 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6204 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
Assessee PAN
Bench
Appeal Number
Duration Of Justice
2 month(s) 20 day(s)
Appellant
Respondent
Appeal Type
Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date
13-09-2017
Appeal Filed By
Assessee
Order Result
Allowed
Bench Allotted
B
Assessment Year
2011-2012
Appeal Filed On
23-06-2017
Judgement Text
, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL B BENCH: CHENNAI , # , ' ( BEFORE SHRI SANJAY ARORA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER ./ ITA NOS.1633 & 1634/MDS/2017 '# # /ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2010-11 & 2011-12 M/S.RANI MEYYAMMAI ACHI OF CHETTINAD CHARITABLE TRUST, RANI SEETHAI HALL, VTH FLOOR, 603, ANNASALAI, CHENNAI-600 006. VS. THE DY. DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS)-1, CHENNAI. [PAN: AAATR 0715 R ] ( * /APPELLANT) ( +,* /RESPONDENT) ./ ITA NOS.1635/MDS/2017 '# # /ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2010-11 M/S.RAJAH SIR ANNAMALAI CHATTIAR MEMORIAL TRUST, RANI SEETHAI HALL, VTH FLOOR, 603, ANNASALAI, CHENNAI-600 006. VS. THE DY. DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS)-1, CHENNAI. [PAN: AAATR 05 00 N ] ( * /APPELLANT) ( +,* /RESPONDENT) * - / APPELLANT BY : MR.NONE +,* - /RESPONDENT BY : MS.ANN MARY BABY, JCIT - /DATE OF HEARING : 12.09.2017 - /DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 13.09.2017 ITA NO.1633 & 1634, 1635/MDS/2017 :- 2 -: / O R D E R PER BENCH : ITA NO.1633 & 1634/MDS/2017 IS AN APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER OF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (AP PEALS)-17, CHENNAI, IN ITA NOS.328/13-14 & 122/14-15/CIT(A)-17 DATED 31 .01.2017 FOR THE AYS 2010-11 & 2011-12 IN THE CASE OF M/S.RANI MEYYA MMAI ACHI OF CHETTINAD CHARITABLE TRUST & ITA NO.1635/MDS/2017 I S AN APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER OF COMMISSIONER OF I NCOME TAX (APPEALS)- 17, CHENNAI, IN ITA NOS.320/13-14/CIT(A)-17 DATED 2 7.02.2017 FOR THE AY 2010-11 IN THE CASE OF M/S.RAJAH SIR ANNAMALAI C HATTIAR MEMORIAL TRUST. 2. MS.ANN MARY BABY, JCIT, REPRESENTED ON BEHALF OF THE REVENUE AND NONE REPRESENTED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE. 3. ALL APPEALS ARE RELATED TO SINGLE ISSUE REPRESE NTING NON-GRANTING OF DEPRECIATION IN RESPECT OF THE ASSETS, WHICH HAS BE EN ALREADY ALLOWED AS APPLICATION U/S.11 IN THE EARLIER YEARS. THE LD.DR VEHEMENTLY SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF THE LD.CIT(A). IT WAS A SUBMISSION TH AT THE DEPRECIATION WAS NOT LIABLE TO BE ALLOWED. HOWEVER, IT WAS FAIRLY A GREED THAT THE HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT OF MADRAS IN THE CASE OF MEDICAL TRUST OF THE SEVENTH DAY ADVENTISTS IN TCA NOS.844, 845, 848, 84 9, 1079 OF 2010, 99 ITA NO.1633 & 1634, 1635/MDS/2017 :- 3 -: TO 102, 118, 120, 125, 475 TO 478 OF 2011, 457 OF 2 012, 650 OF 2014, 949, 498, 500, 509, 511, 530, 696, 727, 736, 739, 7 60, 993, 997, 1099 OF 2015 AND 771 OF 2016 DATED 08.08.2017 WHEREIN TH E HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT HAS HELD AS FOLLOWS: 24. TRUTH TO TELL, THIS COURT IN THE MATTER OF CALA VALA CUNNAN CHARITIES, HAS DECIDED THE QUESTION NOW UNDER CONSIDERATION IN FAVOUR OF THE A SSESSEE AND WE COULD WELL HAVE DECIDED THIS BATCH OF APPEALS SIMPLY ON THE STRENGTH OF THE AFORESAID DECISION. WE ARE HOWEVER PERSUADED TO PROCEED FURTHER WITH THE DISCUSSION SI NCE A CONFLICTING VIEW HAS BEEN EXPRESSED BY THE KERALA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF L ISSIE MEDICAL INSTITUTIONS (SUPRA). THOUGH THE ATTENTION OF THE DIVISION BENCH OF THE K ERALA HIGH COURT WAS DRAWN TO THE DECISION IN RAO BAHADUR CALAVALA CUNNAN CHETTY CHAR ITIES (SUPRA) AND SEVERAL DECISIONS ALONG SIMILAR LINES, THE COURT WAS PERSUADED TO TAK E A CONTRARY VIEW PREFERRING TO FOLLOW THE RATIONALE OF THE JUDGMENT OF THE SUPREME COURT IN T HE CASE OF ESCORTS (SUPRA). 25. AS NOTED BY US EARLIER, THE JUDGMENT OF THE SUP REME COURT IN ESCORTS TURNS ON AN ENTIRELY DIFFERENT POSITION OF LAW AND WOULD NOT IM PACT THE ISSUE BEING DISCUSSED IN THE PRESENT CASE. 26. WE ARE SUPPORTED IN OUR VIEW BY A PLETHORA OF D ECISIONS OF VARIOUS HIGH COURTS THE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT V.. MUNISUVRAT JAIN (1994 TAX LAW REPORTER 1084) AND DIT (EXEM) V. FRAMJEE CAWASJEE INSTITUTE (109 CT R 463); KARNATAKA HIGH COURT IN CIT V. SOCIETY OF THE SISTERS OF ST.ANNE (146 ITR 28); M ADHYAPRADESH HIGH COURT IN CIT V. RAIPUR PALLOTTINE SOCIETY (180 ITR 579); GUJARATH HI GH COURT IN CIT VS. SHETH MANILAL RACHHNODDAS VISHRAM BHAVAN TRUST 198 ITR 598; PUNJA B AND HARYANA HIGH COURT IN CIT V. MARKET COMMITTEE PIPLI (330 ITR 16) AND CIT V. TINY TOTS EDUCATION SOCIETY (330 ITR 21); MADHYAPRADESH HIGH COURT IN CIT V. DEVI SAKUNTALA T HARAL CHARITABLE FOUNDATION (358 ITR 452) AND THE CALCUTTA HIGH COURT IN IT V. SILLUGURI REGULATED MARKET COMMITTEE (366 ITR 51). IN ADDITION, THE DELHI HIGH COURT IN DIT V. VIS HWA JAGRITI MISSION 262 CTR 558 AND THE KARNNATAKA HIGH COURT IN DIT (EXEM) V. AL-AMEEN CHAR ITABLE FUND TRUST (2016) 67 TAXMANN.COM 160 HAVE ACCEPTED THE CLAIM OF THE ASSE SSEE DISTINGUISHING BOTH THE JUDGMENT OF THE SUPREME COURT IN ESCORTS AS WELL AS THAT OF THE KERALA HIGH COURT. 27. IN VIEW OF THE DISCUSSION ABOVE, THE QUESTION OF LAW IS ANSWERED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE AND AGAINST THE REVENUE. 4. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS. AS IT IS NOTICED THAT THE ISSUE IS SQUARELY COVERED BY THE DECISION OF THE HO NBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF MEDICAL TRUST OF THE SEVENTH D AY ADVENTISTS REFERRED TO SUPRA, RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF TH E HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT OF MADRAS, THE AO IS DIRECTED TO GRANT T HE ASSESSEE THE BENEFIT OF DEPRECIATION AS CLAIMED. ITA NO.1633 & 1634, 1635/MDS/2017 :- 4 -: 5. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEALS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE STANDS ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON SEPTEMBER 13 , 2017, AT CHENNAI. SD/- SD/- ( ) ( SANJAY ARORA ) /ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ( # ) (GEORGE MATHAN) ' /JUDICIAL MEMBER /CHENNAI, 3 /DATED: SEPTEMBER 13, 2017. TLN - +'45 65 /COPY TO: 1. * /APPELLANT 4. 7 /CIT 2. +,* /RESPONDENT 5. 5 +'' /DR 3. 7 ( ) /CIT(A) 6. # /GF
