M/s Malviya Public School, New Delhi V. ITO (Exemption), New Delhi

ITA 18/DEL/2011

• Counselvise Citation: [2011] 135 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 0323 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 month(s) 6 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 10-03-2011
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: E
• Next Hearing Date: 10-03-2011
• Assessment Year: 2005-2006
• Appeal Filed On: 03-01-2011
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: PIYUSH SONKAR SENIOR
• Keywords: Depreciation

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (DELHI BENCH E : NEW DELHI) BEFORE SHRI RAJPAL YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI B.C. MEENA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO.18/DEL./2011 (ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2005-06) M/S. MALVIYA PUBLIC SCHOOL, VS. ITO (EXEMPTION), T-55, MALVIYA NAGAR, TRUST WARD IV, NEW DELHI 110 017. (PAN : AAATM8113C) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : NONE REVENUE BY : SHRI PIYUSH SONKAR, SENIOR DR ORDER PER B.C. MEENA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER : THIS IS AN APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ARISES OUT OF THE ORDER OF THE CIT (APPEALS)-XXI, NEW DELHI DATED 12.11.2010. THE GR OUNDS OF APPEAL READ AS UNDER:- 1. THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEAL) IS BAD IN LAW AND ON THE FACTS OF THE CASE . 2. DISALLOWANCE OF DEPRECIATION OF RS.3,04,391/- IS UNJUST AND UNCALLED AND NOT ACCORDING TO LAW. 3. THE ASSESSEE CRAVE LEAVE TO ADD OR AMEND THE GRO UNDS OF APPEAL BEFORE THE HEARING OR AT THE TIME OF HEARING APPEAL. 2. THE ASSESSEE SOCIETY REGISTERED UNDER THE REGIST RATION ACT, 1860. THE SOCIETY IS ALSO REGISTERED U/S 12A(A) OF THE INCOME -TAX ACT, 1961. THE OBJECTS OF ITA NO.18/DEL./2011 2 THE ASSESSEE ARE CHARITABLE. THE ASSESSEE SOCIETY RUNS A SCHOOL IN THE NAME OF MALVIYA PUBLIC SCHOOL AT MALVIYA NAGAR, NEW DELHI. 3. THE ONLY ISSUE INVOLVED IN THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL IS DISALLOWANCE OF DEPRECIATION OF RS.3,04,391/-. 4. NONE ATTENDED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE. HOWEVE R, AN APPLICATION FOR ADJOURNMENT DATED 10.3.2011 IS PLACED ON RECORD, WH ICH WAS REJECTED BY US. 5. LEARNED DR WAS HEARD AND HE HAS FAIRLY CONCEDED THAT THE ISSUE STANDS COVERED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE BY VARIOUS JUDICI AL PRONOUNCEMENTS. THE ISSUE IS ALSO COVERED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE BY THE DECIS ION OF HON'BLE PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT, KARNAL VS. MARKET CO MMITTEE, PIPLI IN ITS JUDGEMENT DATED 5.7.2010 IN ITA NO.535/2009. 6. WE HAVE HEARD LEARNED DR AND GONE THROUGH THE MA TERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. AS STATED ABOVE, THE AFORESAID ISSUE IS CO VERED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE BY VARIOUS DECISIONS JUDICIAL PRONOUNCEMENTS AND ALSO BY THE DECISION OF HON'BLE PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT, KAR NAL VS. MARKET COMMITTEE, PIPLI IN ITA NO.535/2009 DATED 5.7.2010. RESPECTFU LLY FOLLOWING THE SAME, WE ALLOW THE GROUND OF APPEAL IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSE E AND DIRECT TO ALLOW THE DEPRECIATION. 7. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALL OWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON THIS 10 TH DAY OF MARCH, 2011 AFTER THE CONCLUSION OF THE HEARING. SD/- SD/- (RAJPAL YADAV) (B.C. MEENA) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED THE 10 TH DAY OF MARCH, 2011/TS COPY FORWARDED TO: 1.APPELLANT 2.RESPONDENT 3.CIT 4.CIT (A)-XXI, NEW DELHI. 5.CIT(ITAT), NEW DELHI. AR, ITAT NEW DELHI.