The Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions), Circle-1, Ahmedabad V. Mudra Foundation for Communication Research & Education, Ahmedabad

ITA 2424/AHD/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 117 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 1420 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 7 month(s) 7 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 10-06-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: D
• Assessment Year: 2014-2015
• Appeal Filed On: 03-11-2017
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Depreciation; Charitable institution; Capital expenditure
• Section: 143(3); 12A; 12AA; 12; 11

Judgement Text

ITA NO. 2424/AHD/2017 & CO NO.11/AHD/2019 DCIT VS. MUDRA FOUNDATION FOR COMN RSRCH & EDN ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2014-15 PAGE 1 OF 7 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, AHMEDABAD BENCH D, AHMEDABAD [CORAM: JUSTICE P P BHATT, PRESIDENT, AND PRAMOD KU MAR, VICE PRESIDENT] ITA NO. 2424/AHD/2017 & CO NO. 11/AHD/2019 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2014-15 THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX ............ ..APPELLANT (EXEMPTIONS), CIRCLE-1, AHMEDABAD VS MUDRA FOUNDATION FOR COMMUNICATIONS ......... ........RESPONDENT RESEARCH AND EDUCATION & CROSS-OBJECTO R MUDRA TOWER, OFF C.G. ROAD, ELLISBRIDGE, AHMEDABAD [PAN : AAATM 2168 D] APPEARANCES BY VINOD TANWANI, FOR THE APPELLANT SANJAY R. SHAH, FOR THE RESPONDENT & CROSS-OBJECTOR DATE OF CONCLUDING THE HEARING : 03.06.2019 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 10.06.2019 O R D E R PER PRAMOD KUMAR, VICE PRESIDENT: 1. THIS SET OF APPEAL AND THE CROSS-OBJECTION ARE D IRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 24 TH AUGUST 2017 IN THE MATTER OF ASSESSMENT UNDER SECT ION 143(3) OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961, FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2014- 15. 2. GRIEVANCES OF THE APPELLANT ASSESSING OFFICER, A S RAISED IN THE APPEAL, ARE AS FOLLOWS:- 1. THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN THE LAW AND ON FACT S IN ALLOWING ASSESSEES APPEAL NEGLECTING THE FINDINGS OF ASSESSING OFFICER REGARDING ADDITION OF RS.3,69,15,183/- AND RS.3,28,00,000/- BEING ACCUMUL ATION CLAIMED U/S 11(1)(A) AND 11(2) RESPECTIVELY. 2. THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN ALLOWING ASSESSEES APPEAL NEGLECTING THE FINDING OF ASSESSING OFFICER REGARDI NG ADDITION OF RS.55,69,427/- ON ACCOUNT OF CAPITAL EXPENDITURE. 3. THE ISSUE IN APPEAL LIES WITHIN A NARROW COMPASS OF MATERIAL FACTS. DURING THE COURSE OF SCRUTINY ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE ASSE SSING OFFICER TOOK NOTE OF THE ITA NO. 2424/AHD/2017 & CO NO.11/AHD/2019 DCIT VS. MUDRA FOUNDATION FOR COMN RSRCH & EDN ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2014-15 PAGE 2 OF 7 ASSESSEES CLAIM THAT THE ASSESSEE TRUST IS CARRYIN G OUT ACTIVITIES OF PROVIDING EDUCATION AND TRAINING IN THE FIELD OF COMMUNICATIO N AND THAT THE ASSESSEE TRUST IS DULY REGISTERED UNDER SECTION 12AA BUT REJECTED THE SE SUBMISSIONS BY RELYING UPON THE FINDINGS IN THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09 AND HOL DING THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT CARRYING OUT AN EDUCATION ACTIVITY BUT ANY OTHER ACTIVITY OF GENERAL PUBLIC UTILITY PURELY WITH A COMMERCIAL MOTIVE. IT WAS HELD THAT THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 13(8) COME INTO PLAY, AND, ACCORDINGLY THE BENEFIT OF EXE MPTIONS UNDER SECTION 11 AND 12 WERE DECLINED. THE ACCUMULATIONS UNDER SECTION 11( 1)(A) AND 11(2) WERE DECLINED TO THE ASSESSEE. THE CAPITAL EXPENDITURE WAS ALSO NOT TREATED AS APPLICATION FOR OBJECTS OF THE ASSESSEE-TRUST. AGGRIEVED, ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MATTER IN APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT(A). LEARNED CIT(A), RELYING UPON HI S OWN DECISION FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2012-13, REVERSED THE ACTION OF THE CIT(A) AND HELD THAT THE APPELLANT IS COVERED BY THE CLAUSE OF EDUCATION UND ER SECTION 2(15) AND NOT THE LAST LIMB OF ADVANCEMENT OF GENERAL PUBLIC UTILITY AND THUS, THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 2(15) WOULD NOT BE APPLICABLE TO THE APPELLANT . HE THUS CONCLUDED THAT THE APPELLANT WOULD BE ELIGIBLE FOR BENEFIT OF SECTION 11(1)(A) AND 11(2) OF THE ACT . AS REGARDS THE TREATMENT OF CAPITAL EXPENDITURE AS APP LICATION OF FUNDS FOR OBJECTS OF THE TRUST, HE ALLOWED THE SAME AS A COROLLARY FOR THE E ARLIER FINDINGS. THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS AGGRIEVED AND IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 4. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS, PERUSED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD AND DULY CONSIDERED FACTS OF THE CASE IN THE LIGHT OF THE AP PLICABLE LEGAL POSITION. 5. LEARNED REPRESENTATIVES FAIRLY AGREE THAT THE AF ORESAID ISSUES ARE COVERED, IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE, BY THE ORDER DATED 07.07.20 17 PASSED BY THE COORDINATE BENCH IN ITA NO.1644/AHD/2014, IN ASSESSEES OWN CA SE FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10, WHEREIN THE TRIBUNAL HAS HELD AS UNDER:- 9. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUSED THE RECORDS PLACED BEFORE US AND GONE THROUGH THE JUDGMENT OF HONBLE APEX COURT AND JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF ASSESSEE. REVENUE HAS RAISED THE ISSUE ABOUT THE NATURE OF ACTIVITIES CARRIED ON BY THE ASSESSEE AS TO WHETHER THEY ARE IN THE NATURE OF EDUCATIONAL ACTIVITIES U/ S.2(15) OF THE ACT OR IN THE NATURE OF TRADE OR COMMERCE PROVIDED IN PROVISO TO SECTION 2(15) OF THE ACT. WE OBSERVE THAT ASSESSEE IS A CHARITABLE TRUST REGI STERED U/S.12AA OF THE ACT. ITS MAIN BUSINESS IS TO PREPARE VARIOUS PERSON FOR CARRIER IN THE FIELD OF COMMUNICATION AND ADVERTISING. IT PROVIDE 2 YEAR PG DM COURSE AND IS REGISTERED WITH ALL INDIA COUNCIL OF TECHNICAL EDUC ATION (AICTE). IT ALSO ADMINISTERS SHORT TERM COURSES CALLED CAREER DEVELO PMENT AND PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT. 10. WE OBSERVE THAT LD.CIT(A) HAS ALLOWED ASSESSEE S PLEA AND ACCEPTED IT AS TRUST CARRYING ON CHARITABLE ACTIVITIES BY WAY O F PROVIDING EDUCATION BY OBSERVING AS FOLLOWS: 5.3 I HAVE CONSIDERED THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AND THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BY THE APPELLANT. THE APPELLANT IS A CHARITABL E TRUST REGISTERED UNDER SECTION 12A OF THE ACT, WHICH IS ENGAGED IN A DMINISTERING MUDRA ITA NO. 2424/AHD/2017 & CO NO.11/AHD/2019 DCIT VS. MUDRA FOUNDATION FOR COMN RSRCH & EDN ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2014-15 PAGE 3 OF 7 INSTITUTE OF COMMUNICATIONS (MICA). MICA IS ENGAGED IN PROVIDING HIGHER EDUCATION IN THE FIELD OF COMMUNICATIONS AND ADVERTISING. MICA PROVIDES TRAINING TO STUDENTS IN THE FIELD OF COMM UNICATIONS AND ADVERTISING AND CONDUCTS FLAGSHIP 2 YEAR COURSE CAL LED PGDM WHICH IS APPROVED BY THE AICTE. THE COURSE IS CONSIDERED TO BE ONE OF THE BEST MANAGEMENT COURSES IN COMMUNICATIONS AND ADVERTISIN G IN INDIA. APART FROM THAT, THERE ARE OTHER SHORT-TERM COURSES FOR QUALIFIED PROFESSIONALS AND MID-TERM PRACTITIONERS. THE COURS ES BEING CONDUCTED BY MICA ARE IN NATURE OF SYSTEMATIC INSTRUCTION WIT H DEFINED COURSE CONTENTS, CLASSROOM TRAINING, ETC. THE APPELLANT IS PRIMARILY EXISTING FOR THE PURPOSE OF PROVIDING EDUCATION AND TRAINING IN THE FIELD OF COMMUNICATION AND ADVERTISING. 5.4 I THEREFORE DO NOT AGREE WITH THE OBSERVATION O F THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT THE ACTIVITIES OF THE ASSESSEE IS NOT EDUCATION BUT ANY OTHER ACTIVITY OF GENERAL PUBLIC INTEREST. THE WORD 'EDUC ATION' HAS TO BE GIVEN ITS NATURAL MEANING WHICH ENCOMPASSES WITHIN ITSELF SYSTEMATIC TRAINING, SCHOOLING AND INSTRUCTION. AS APPARENT FR OM THE FACTS OF THE CASE, THE APPELLANT IS PROVIDING SYSTEMATIC TRAININ G IN THE FIELD OF COMMUNICATION. THE TRAINING IS IN NATURE OF CLASS R OOM TRAINING WITH DEFINED COURSE CONTENTS AND OBJECTIVES AND AT THE E ND OF EACH COURSE, THE RECOGNITION IS CONFERRED BY THE APPELLA NT UPON THE PARTICIPANT OF THE RESPECTIVE COURSE. FURTHER, THE FLAGSHIP COURSE OF THE APPELLANT BEING PGDM PROGRAMME IS BEING REGULATED B Y THE AICTE. ACCORDINGLY, THE ACTIVITY CARRIED OUT BY THE APPELL ANT CAN BE CLASSIFIED UNDER 'EDUCATION' UNDER SECTION 2(15) OF THE L.T.AC T AND CANNOT BE CONSIDERED TO BE 'ANY OTHER OBJECT OF ADVANCEMENT O F GENERAL PUBLIC UTILITY'. IN THIS REGARD, THE RATIO OF THE DECISION OF THE HON' BLE GUJARAT HIGH COURT GUJARAT CO-OPERATIVE (SUPRA) AND HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN LOKA SIKSHANA (SUPRA) IS RELEVANT.) 5.5 FURTHER, IT IS ALSO OBSERVED THAT, THE AHMEDABA D BENCH OF THE HON'BLE ITAT IN THE CASE OF AHMEDABAD MANAGEMENT AS SOCIATION, WHICH CONDUCTS SHORT MANAGEMENT COURSES WHICH ARE N OT EVEN RECOGNIZED BY AICTE, HAS HELD THAT MERE EARNING OF SURPLUS CANNOT BE CONSIDERED AS REASON FOR CONSIDERING EDUCATIONAL AC TIVITY UNDER 'ANY OTHER OBJECT OF ADVANCEMENT OF GENERAL PUBLIC UTILI TY' AND APPLY PROVISO TO SECTION 2(15) OF THE L.T. ACT. THE APPELLANT HAS ALSO SUBMITTED THAT THE DLT(EXEMPTION), BASED ON THE FINDING OF THE IMP UGNED ASSESSMENT ORDER HAD INITIATED PROCEEDING U/S 12AA(3) , BUT HA S DROPPED THE PROCEEDINGS VIDE ORDER NO DLT(E)/12AA/MUDRA?12-13/1 077 DATED 03/03/2014. 5.6 ACCORDINGLY, IT IS HELD THAT, THE ACTIVITY OF T HE APPELLANT IS IN NATURE OF 'EDUCATION' WHICH IS INCLUDED IN DEFINITION OF ' CHARITABLE PURPOSE' AS PER SECTION 2(15) OF THE L.T. ACT AND HENCE INCOME OF THE APPELLANT IS TO BE COMPUTED AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 11(1) OF THE ACT. THEREFORE, THE ADDITION OF RS. 2,72,17,916/- IS HER EBY DELETED. ITA NO. 2424/AHD/2017 & CO NO.11/AHD/2019 DCIT VS. MUDRA FOUNDATION FOR COMN RSRCH & EDN ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2014-15 PAGE 4 OF 7 11. WE FURTHER OBSERVE THAT HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN THEIR ORDERS DATED 28-29/07/2015 VIDE SPECIAL LEAVE APPLI CATION NO.6086/2015 HAS HELD THAT THE INSTITUTION RUN BY THE ASSESSEES TRU ST IS ESTABLISHED FOR THE SOLE PURPOSE OF IMPARTING EDUCATION IN THE SPECIALIZED F IELD AND THE ACTIVITIES ARE COVERED UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 2(15) OF TH E ACT AND ACCORDINGLY IS ELIGIBLE FOR EXEMPTION U/S.11(1)(A) OF THE ACT. WE FURTHER FIND THAT REVENUES SLP FILED BEFORE THE HONBLE APEX COURT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT OF HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT REFERRED ABOVE ALSO STAND S DISMISSED BY THE ORDER DATED 10/05/2016 IN SUPREME COURT IN CIVIL APPEAL N O.5040 OF 2016. 12. WE THEREFORE RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE JUDGMEN T OF JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT AND IN THE GIVEN FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF T HE CASE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED VIEW THAT ASSESSEE ACTIVITIES OF IMPARTI NG EDUCATION ARE CHARITABLE IN NATURE AS PROVIDED IN SECTION 2(15) OF THE ACT. WE THEREFORE FIND NO REASON TO INTERFERE WITH THE FINDINGS OF LD.CIT(A) AND UPH ELD THE SAME. ACCORDINGLY GROUND NO.1, 2 AND 3 OF THE REVENUES APPEAL ARE DI SMISSED. 13. NOW WE TAKE UP SECOND ISSUE RAISED BY THE REVE NUE IN GROUND NO.4 AGAINST THE ORDER OF LD.CIT(A) DELETING DISALLOWANC E OF CAPITAL EXPENDITURE OF RS.1,34,89,333/- INCURRED BY THE ASSESSEE AND CLAI MED TO HAVE BEEN APPLIED FOR CHARITABLE PURPOSE U/S.11(1)(A) OF THE ACT. 14. LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE SUPPORTED T HE ORDER OF LD.AO AND LD. AR REITERATED THE SUBMISSION MADE BEFORE LD .CIT(A) AND THE FINDING OF LD.CIT(A) THEREOF. 15. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUSED THE RECORDS PLACED BEFORE US. WE HAVE DISMISSED THE REVENUES GROUND N O.1,2 AND 3 BY FOLLOWING THE JUDGMENT OF JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE AND ACCEPTED THAT ITS ACTIVITIES OF PROVIDING EDUC ATION ARE OF CHARITABLE IN NATURE AND ARE COVERED UNDER THE PROVISION OF SECTI ON 2(15) OF THE ACT AND THEREFORE THE EXPENDITURE INCURRED BY THE ASSESSEE TOWARDS ATTAINMENT OF THE OBJECTIVES OF PROVIDING EDUCATION ARE TO BE CONSIDE RED TO HAVE BEEN APPLIED FOR CHARITABLE PURPOSE. 16. WE FURTHER OBSERVE THAT PROVISION OF SECTION 11 (1)(A) CONTEMPLATES THAT, INCOME DERIVED FROM PROPERTY (WHICH IN THIS CASE IS FROM RUNNING EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTION) HELD UNDER TRUST WHOLLY FOR CHARITABL E OR RELIGIOUS PURPOSE TO THE EXTENT, WHICH SUCH INCOME IS APPLIED TO SUCH PURPOS ES IN INDIA AND WHETHER ANY SUCH INCOME IS ACCUMULATED OR SET APART FOR APP LICATION TO SUCH PURPOSES IN INDIA TO THE EXTENT TO WHICH THE INCOME SO ACCUM ULATED OR SET APART WOULD NOT IN EXCESS OF THE 15% OF THE INCOME FROM SUCH PR OPERTY THAN SUCH INCOME IS NOT TO BE INCLUDED IN THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE P REVIOUS YEAR OF THE PERSON IN RESPECT OF SUCH INCOME. 17. IN LIGHT OF ABOVE PROVISION, LET US EXAMINE THE ISSUE THAT, WHETHER THE CAPITAL EXPENDITURE OF RS.1,34,89,333/- INCURRED BY THE ASSESSEE IS ELIGIBLE FOR EXEMPTION U/S.11(1)(A) OF THE ACT. WE FIND THAT ASS ESSEE INCURRED CAPITAL EXPENDITURE OF RS.1,34,89,333/- AND CLAIMED IT AS A N EXPENDITURE AGAINST THE ITA NO. 2424/AHD/2017 & CO NO.11/AHD/2019 DCIT VS. MUDRA FOUNDATION FOR COMN RSRCH & EDN ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2014-15 PAGE 5 OF 7 INCOME. WE FURTHER FIND THAT ASSESSEE HAS ADDED BAC K THE DEPRECIATION OF RS.61,07,021/- DEBITED TO THE PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOU NT TO THE INCOME IN THE COMPUTATION OF INCOME. THERE IS NO DISPUTE TO THE F ACTS THAT ASSESSEE IS NOT CARRYING ANY OTHER ACTIVITIES OTHER THAN PROVIDING EDUCATION. IT IS ALSO NOT DISPUTED THAT THE CAPITAL EXPENDITURE OF RS.1,34,89 ,333/- HAS BEEN MADE FOR PURCHASING ASSET TO BE USED FOR THE PURPOSE OF PROV IDING EDUCATION. WE ARE THEREFORE OF THE VIEW THAT THE CAPITAL EXPENDITURE INCURRED AT RS.1,34,89,333/- SQUARELY FALLS IN THE PROVISION OF SECTION 11(1)(A) OF THE ACT WHICH PROVIDES FOR DEDUCTION AGAINST THE INCOME. OUR VIEW FURTHER FIN D SUPPORT FROM THE JUDGMENT OF JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF SATYA VIJAY PATEL HINDU DHARAMSHALA TRUST VS. CIT 86 ITR 683 WHEREIN HONBL E COURT OBSERVED AS FOLLOWS: AS REGARDS THE CONTENTION WHETHER THE WHOLE OF THE NET SURPLUS INCOME OF THE TRUST PROPERTIES APPLIED IN CONSTRUCTING THE NEW DHARAMSHALA OR ONLY EQUIVALENT TO 25 PER CENT OF THE NET INCOME WO ULD BE EXEMPT FROM TAX, THE DOMINANT OBJECT OF CREATING THE TRUST BEIN G TO ESTABLISH DHARAMSHALA FOR THE BENEFIT OF HINDUS, THE UTILISAT ION OF NET SURPLUS INCOME OF THE TRUST PROPERTIES IN THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE NEW DHARAMSHALA, EVEN IF IT EXCEEDED TWENTY-FIVE PER CE NT OF THE NET INCOME OF THE TRUST PROPERTIES, COULD NOT BE SAID T O BE APPLICATION TO PURPOSES OTHER THAN THE CHARITABLE PURPOSES OF THE TRUST. SO LONG AS THE APPLICATION OF THE NET SURPLUS INCOME OF THE TRUST PROPERTIES TO THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE NEW DHARAMSHALA COULD NOT BE SA ID TO BE OUTSIDE THE PURPOSES OF THE TRUST, AND INDEED IT COULD NOT BE, FOR, OTHERWISE IT WOULD AMOUNT TO BREACH OF TRUST WHICH IT WAS CLEARL Y NOT, AND WHICH EVEN THE REVENUE DID NOT ALLEGE, IT MUST BE HELD TH AT THE APPLICATION WAS TO THE CHARITABLE PURPOSES OF THE TRUST. THE WH OLE OF THE NEW SURPLUS INCOME OF THE TRUST PROPERTIES WAS, THEREFO RE, CLEARLY APPLIED TO THE CHARITABLE PURPOSES FOR WHICH THE TRUST PROPER TIES WERE HELD BY THE TRUSTEES AND WAS ACCORDINGLY EXEMPT FROM TAX UNDER SECTION 11, SUB- SECTION (1), CLAUSE (A).' 18. WE THEREFORE RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE JUDGMEN T OF JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT AND IN THE GIVEN FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF T HE CASE FIND NO REASON TO INTERFERE IN THE FINDINGS OF LD.CIT(A) WHO HAS DELE TED DISALLOWANCE BY OBSERVING AS FOLLOWS: 6.2 I HAVE CONSIDERED THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AND THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BY THE APPELLANT. SINCE THE APPELLANT WAS CLAI MING EXEMPTION UNDER SECTION 11 OF THE ACT IN RESPECT OF INCOME AP PLIED FOR CHARITABLE PURPOSES, IN THE RETURN OF INCOME, THE APPELLANT HA D CLAIMED THE EXEMPTION IN RESPECT OF CAPITAL EXPENDITURE OF RS.1 ,34,89,333/- AS APPLICATION OF INCOME FOR CHARITABLE PURPOSES. THE AO HAS HELD THAT AS PER NORMAL ACCOUNTING PRINCIPLES THE EXPENSES HAVE TO BE SPREAD OVER THE USEFUL LIFE OF THE FIXED ASSETS OR EXPENSES OF CAPITAL IN NATURE TO ARRIVE AT TRUE AND CORRECT OF ANY INSTITUTION. THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF S.RM.M.CT.M. TIRUPPANI TRUST 96 TAXM AN 635 WHEREBY EXPENDITURE INCURRED FOR CONSTRUCTION OF BUILDING W AS CONSIDERED AS ITA NO. 2424/AHD/2017 & CO NO.11/AHD/2019 DCIT VS. MUDRA FOUNDATION FOR COMN RSRCH & EDN ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2014-15 PAGE 6 OF 7 HAVING BEEN APPLIED FOR CHARITABLE PURPOSES AND SUC H INCOME APPLIED WAS HELD TO BE EXEMPT. FURTHER, THE HON'BLE GUJARAT HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF SATYA VIJAY PATEL HINDU DHARAMSHALA TRUST(S UPRA) HAS ALSO HELD THAT INCOME APPLIED FOR CONSTRUCTION OF NEW DH ARMASHALAS WAS APPLICATION OF INCOME FOR CHARITABLE PURPOSES AND A CCORDINGLY, INCOME SO APPLIED WAS EXEMPT UNDER SECTION 11[1] (A) OF TH E ACT. ACCORDINGLY, CONSIDERING THE FACT THAT THE APPELLANT IS ELIGIBLE TO EXEMPTION UNDER SECTION 11 TO 13 OF THE ACT AND FOLLOWING THE RATIO LAID DOWN BY HON'BLE SUPREME COURT AND THE GUJARAT HIGH COURT, THE ADDIT ION OF RS.1,34,89,333/- BEING CAPITAL EXPENDITURE INCURRE D BY APPELLANT DURING THE YEAR IS HEREBY DELETED. HOWEVER, SINCE N ET ADDITION MADE BY THE AO AFTER GRANTING DEPRECIATION TO THE APPELLANT IS OF THE ORDER OF RS.73,82,312/- THE SAME IS DIRECTED TO BE DELETED. 19. ACCORDINGLY GROUND NO.4 OF THE REVENUE IS DISMI SSED. GROUND NO.5 IS GENERAL IN NATURE WHICH NEEDS NO ADJUDICATION. 6. WE SEE NO REASONS TO TAKE ANY OTHER VIEW OF THE MATTER THAN THE VIEW SO TAKEN BY THE CO-ORDINATE BENCH. RESPECTFULLY FOLLOW ING THE VIEWS SO TAKEN BY THE CO- ORDINATE BENCH (SUPRA) IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR A Y 2009-10 IN ITA NO.1644/AHD/2014, WE REJECT THE GRIEVANCES OF THE A SSESSING OFFICER. 7. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL IS DISMISSED. 8. AS REGARDS THE CROSS-OBJECTION FILED BY THE ASSE SSEE, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE DID NOT PRESS THE SAME. ACCORDINGLY, CO I S DISMISSED FOR WANT OF PROSECUTION. 9. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL AS WELL AS CROSS-OBJEC TION BOTH ARE DISMISSED. PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT TODAY ON THE 10 TH DAY OF JUNE, 2019. SD/- SD/- JUSTICE P P BHATT PRAMOD KU MAR (PRESIDENT) (VICE PRESIDENT) AHMEDABAD, DATED THE 10 TH DAY OF JUNE, 2019 BT COPIES TO: (1) THE APPELLANT (2) THE RESPOND ENT (3) CIT (4) CIT(A) (5) DR (6) GUARD FILE BY ORDER ETC TRUE COPY ASSISTANT REGISTRAR INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD BENCHES, AHMEDABAD