Sri Vijay Vidhyalaya english Medium Matriculation Higher Secondary School, Dharmapuri V. Chief CIT, Trichy

ITA 2089/CHNY/2015

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 132 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 9406 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 6 month(s) 1 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 29-04-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 28-03-2016
• Assessment Year: misc
• Appeal Filed On: 28-10-2015
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: AJIT KUMAR VARMA
• Assessee Lawyers: T BANUSEKAR
• Keywords: Charitable institution
• Section: 12A; 12AA; 10; 11

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL B BENCH : CHENNAI . . . , . !' , # $ % [ BEFORE SHRI N.R.S. GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ] ./ I.T.A.NO.2089/MDS/2015 / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2014-15 SRI VIJAY VIDHYALAYA ENGLISH MEDIUM MATRICULATION HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL GANDHI NAGAR DHARMAPURI 636 701 VS. THE CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX TIRUCHIRAPALLI [PAN AAAAS 2989 M ] ( &' / APPELLANT) ( ()&' /RESPONDENT) ./ I.T.A.NO.2090/MDS/2015 / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2014-15 SRI VIJAY VIDHYALA YA ENGLISH MEDIUM MATRICULATION HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL 33, BAGALUR ROAD, HUDCO HOSUR 635 109 VS. THE CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX TIRUCHIRAPALLI [PAN AAAJS 0705 N ] ( &' / APPELLANT) ( ()&' /RESPONDENT) ./ I.T.A.NO.2091/MDS/2015 / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2014-15 SRI VIJAY VIDHYALAYA ENGLISH MEDIUM MATRICULATION HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL PENNAGRAM ROAD DHARMAPURI 636 703 VS. THE CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX TIRUCHIRAPALLI [PAN AAAJS 0 350 B] ( &' / APPELLANT) ( ()&' /RESPONDENT) ITA NOS.2089, 2090 & 2091/15 :- 2 -: / APPELLANT BY : SHRI T. BANUSEKAR, CA /RESPONDENT BY : SHRI AJIT KUMAR VARMA, CIT / DATE OF HEARING : 28 - 0 3 - 2016 ! / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 29 - 04 - 2016 / O R D E R PER N.R.S.GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER THESE APPEALS IN THE CASE OF DIFFERENT ASSESSEES ARE DIRECTED AGAINST SEPARATE ORDERS OF THE CHIEF COMMISSIONER O F INCOME-TAX, TIRUCHIRAPALLI, DATED 20.8.2015. SINCE COMMON ISSU E ARISES FOR CONSIDERATION IN ALL THE APPEALS, WE HEARD THEM TOG ETHER AND DISPOSING OF THE SAME BY THIS COMMON ORDER. 2. SHRI T. BANUSEKAR, LD. REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE ASSE SSEE SUBMITTED THAT ALL THE ASSESSEES FILED APPLICATION S FOR APPROVAL U/S 10(23C)(VI) OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961. ACCORDING TO THE LD. REPRESENTATIVE, THE ASSESSEE-SCHOOLS SOUGHT THE AP PROVAL OF CCIT U/S 10(23C(VI) OF THE ACT AS AOP. THE AOPS ARE ENGAG ED IN EDUCATIONAL ACTIVITIES WITHOUT ANY PROFIT MOTIVE. THE LD. REPR ESENTATIVE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE SCHOOLS ARE CONTROLLED AND MANAG ED BY DHARMAPURI SRI VIJAY VIDYALAYA EDUCATIONAL TRUST. DHARMAPURI SRI VIJAY VIDYALAYA EDUCATIONAL TRUST IS REGISTERED U/ S 12A OF THE ACT AS A CHARITABLE INSTITUTION. ON A QUERY FROM THE BENCH WHEN THE PARENT TRUST IS REGISTERED AS A CHARITABLE INSTITUTION U/ S 12A OF THE ACT WHY A ITA NOS.2089, 2090 & 2091/15 :- 3 -: SEPARATE APPROVAL IS REQUIRED U/S 10(23C(VI) OF TH E ACT, THE LD. REPRESENTATIVE SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEES FILED S EPARATE APPLICATIONS, HOWEVER, THE REASONS FOR SEPARATE APP ROVAL IS NOT KNOWN. SINCE THE SOLE OBJECT OF THE SCHOOLS IS TO RUN THE MATRICULATION SCHOOL, ACCORDING TO THE LD. REPRESENTATIVE, THE ASSESSEES ARE ENTITLED FOR APPROVAL U/S 10(23C(VI) OF THE ACT. REFERRING TO THE OBSERVATION MADE BY THE CCIT THAT THE APPLICATION FILED IN THE EARLI ER ASSESSMENT YEAR WAS REJECTED AND THE MATTER IS NOW PENDING BEFORE T HE HIGH COURT, THE LD. REPRESENTATIVE SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEES CH ALLENGED THE ORDER OF THE CCIT REJECTING THE APPLICATIONS FOR THE EARL IER ASSESSMENT YEAR BEFORE THE HIGH COURT AND THE SAME IS PENDING. ACC ORDING TO THE LD. REPRESENTATIVE, MERELY BECAUSE THE MATTER IS PENDIN G BEFORE THE HIGH COURT AGAINST THE EARLIER ORDER OF THE CCIT THAT WO ULD NOT PRECLUDE THE ASSESSEES FROM FILING ANOTHER APPLICATION BEFORE TH E CCIT FOR APPROVAL U/S 10(23C)(VI) OF THE ACT. THE LD. REPRESENTATIVE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE HIGH COURT HAS STAYED THE EARLIER ORDER PA SSED BY THE CCIT REFUSING TO GRANT APPROVAL U/S 10(23C)(VI) OF THE ACT. 3. ON THE CONTRARY, SHRI AJIT KUMAR VARMA, LD. DEPARTM ENTAL REPRESENTATIVE SUBMITTED THAT APPLICATIONS OF THE ASSESSEES FOR APPROVAL U/S 10(23C)(VI) OF THE ACT WERE REJECTED IN THE EARLIER ASSESSMENT YEAR AND THE MATTER IS NOW PENDING BEFOR E THE HIGH COURT, THEREFORE, SUBSEQUENT APPLICATIONS FILED BY THE AS SESSEES ARE NOT ITA NOS.2089, 2090 & 2091/15 :- 4 -: MAINTAINABLE. MOREOVER, THE PARENT TRUST OF THE SC HOOLS VIZ. M/S DHARMAPURI SRI VIJAY VIDYALAYA EDUCATIONAL TRUST WA S REGISTERED U/S 12A OF THE ACT. THEREFORE, THE ASSESSEES CAN VERY WELL CLAIM EXEMPTION U/S 11 OF THE ACT. REFERRING TO SEC. 11 (7) OF THE ACT, THE LD. DR SUBMITTED THAT WHEN THE REGISTRATION WAS GRA NTED EITHER U/S 12A OR 12AA AND THE REGISTRATION WAS IN FORCE, THEN THE PROVISIONS OF SEC. 10 OF THE ACT SHALL NOT OPERATE TO EXCLUDE ANY INCOME DERIVED FROM THE PROPERTY HELD UNDER THE TRUST. IN THIS CA SE, THE REGISTRATION U/S 12A WAS IN FORCE, THEREFORE, THE PROVISIONS OF SEC. 10 IS NOT APPLICABLE AT ALL. ACCORDING TO THE LD. DR, THE A SSESSEES ARE NOT ENTITLED FOR APPROVAL U/S 10(23C)(VI) OF THE ACT. 4. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS ON EITHER SIDE AND ALSO PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. ADM ITTEDLY, THESE ASSESSEES FILED APPLICATIONS FOR APPROVAL U/S 10(2 3C)(VI) OF THE ACT. IN THE EARLIER ASSESSMENT YEAR, THE ASSESSEES FILED A PPLICATIONS FOR APPROVAL U/S 10(23C)(VI) OF THE ACT. THE CCIT FOR THE REASONS STATED THEREIN REJECTED THE APPLICATIONS OF THE ASSESSEES . ALL THE THREE ASSESSEES CHALLENGED THE ORDER OF THE CCIT BEFORE T HE MADRAS HIGH COURT BY WAY OF WRIT PETITION. IN FACT, THE WRIT P ETITION WAS ADMITTED BY THE HIGH COURT AND THE ASSESSEES REPRESENTATIV E CLAIMS THAT THE HIGH COURT ALSO GRANTED STAY. THEREFORE, IT IS OBV IOUS THAT THE APPLICATIONS FILED BY THE ASSESSEES FOR APPROVAL U/S 10(23C)(VI) FOR ITA NOS.2089, 2090 & 2091/15 :- 5 -: THE EARLIER OCCASION ARE PENDING CONSIDERATION BY T HE HIGH COURT. NOW THE QUESTION ARISES FOR CONSIDERATION IS WHEN THE ASSESSEES ARE PURSUING THE REMEDY BEFORE THE HIGH COURT AGAINST T HE IDENTICAL ORDER OF THE CCIT PASSED ON THE APPLICATIONS FILED BY THE ASSESSEES ON THE EARLIER OCCASION, WHETHER THE PRESENT APPLICATIONS FILED BY THE ASSESSEES ON IDENTICAL SET OF FACTS, ARE MAINTAINAB LE OR NOT? OF COURSE, THERE IS NO PROHIBITION UNDER THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1 961 FOR FILING A SECOND APPLICATION. THE PROCEEDING BEFORE THE CCIT IS A JUDICIAL PROCEEDING U/S 136 OF THE ACT AND THE ORDER THAT M AY BE PASSED BY THE CCIT EITHER GRANTING OR REJECTING APPROVAL IS A QUASI-JUDICIAL ORDER, THEREFORE, CONSISTENCY IN THE JUDICIAL PROCEEDING A ND ITS DECISION NEEDS TO BE MAINTAINED. IF THE ASSESSEES GO ON FILING A PPLICATION AFTER APPLICATION, THEN THERE IS A CHANCE FOR CONFLICTING JUDICIAL OPINION AND MULTIPLICITY OF PROCEEDINGS. THIS TRIBUNAL IS O F THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT CONSISTENCY IS THE HALLMARK OF JUDICIA L OPINION. THEREFORE, BY WAY OF FILING REPEATED APPLICATION ONE AFTER ANO THER, THE ASSESSEES CANNOT BE ALLOWED TO COMPLICATE THE MATTER AND MULT IPLY THE PROCEEDINGS. SINCE THE ASSESSEES ARE PURSUING THE REMEDY BEFORE THE HIGH COURT AGAINST THE IDENTICAL ORDER OF THE CCIT PASSED ON IDENTICAL SET OF FACTS, THIS TRIBUNAL IS OF THE CONSIDERED O PINION THAT ENTERTAINING THIS APPLICATION WOULD AMOUNT TO MULTIPLICITY OF PR OCEEDINGS AND IT WOULD LEAD TO CONFLICTING JUDICIAL OPINION. THEREF ORE, THE APPLICATIONS ITA NOS.2089, 2090 & 2091/15 :- 6 -: FILED BY THE ASSESSEES ARE NOT MAINTAINABLE BEFORE THE CCIT. HENCE, THIS TRIBUNAL DO NOT FIND ANY REASON TO INTERFERE W ITH THE ORDER OF THE CCIT. ACCORDINGLY, THE SAME IS CONFIRMED. 5. IN THE RESULT, ALL THE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEES AR E DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 29 TH APRIL, 2016, AT CHENNAI. SD/- SD/- ( . !' ) (A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY) # / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ( . . . ' ) (N.R.S. GANESAN) / JUDICIAL MEMBER #$ / CHENNAI %& / DATED: 29 TH APRIL, 2016 RD &' ()*) / COPY TO: 1 . / APPELLANT 4. + / CIT 2. / RESPONDENT 5. ),- . / DR 3. +/' / CIT(A) 6. -01 / GF