The DCIT (Exemptions), Cir.-1., Ahmedabad V. M/s. Gujarat Council Of Vocational Training, Gandhinagar

ITA 2692/AHD/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 116 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6114 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 8 month(s) 5 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 06-08-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 12-07-2019
• Assessment Year: 2013-2014
• Appeal Filed On: 01-12-2017
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SU RENDRA KUMAR
• Assessee Lawyers: P B PARMAR
• Section: 143(3); 201; 10

Judgement Text

, IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, B BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE SHRI WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND MS MADHUMITA ROY, JUDICIAL MEMBER ./ ITA NO. 2692 /AHD/2017 & / ASSTT. YEAR: 2013 - 201 4 D.C.I.T , (EXEMPTION) CIRCLE 1, AHMEDABAD. VS . M/S GUJARAT COUNCIL OF VOCATIONAL TRAINING , BLOCK NO.8 , 3 RD FLOOR, DR.JIVRAJ MEHTA BHAVAN , GANDHINAGAR - 382010. PAN: AABTG3148A (APPLICANT) (RESPONENT) REVENUE BY : SHRI SURENDRA KUMAR , CIT .D.R, ASSESSEE BY : SHRI TUSHAR HEMANI , & SHRI P.B. PARMAR, A.R S / DATE OF HEARING : 12 / 07 / 201 9 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 06 / 08 /201 9 / O R D E R PER MS MADHUMITA ROY, JUDICIAL MEMBER : THE INSTANT APPEA L PREFERRED BY THE REVENUE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 25 .09 .2017 , PASSED BY THE LEARNED COMMI SSIONER OF INCOME TAX(APPEALS) - 9 , AHMEDABAD ( IN SHORT LD.CIT(A) ) , A RISING OUT OF THE ORDER DATED 02 .03 .2016 PASSED BY THE D.C.I.T (EXEMPTION), CIRCLE - 1 , AHMEDABAD UNDER SECTION 143(3) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 ( HEREIN AFTER REFERRED TO AS THE ACT ) FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2013 - 14 , WHEREBY AND WHEREUNDER THE ''LD.CIT(A) ALLOWED THE ACCUMULATION OF RS.69,22,00,000/ - U/S.11(2) AND ACCUMULATION OF RS.1,77,71,034/ - U/S.11(1)(A) OF THE ACT. ITA NO. 2692 /AHD/2017 A.Y. 2013 - 2014 2 2. AT TH E VERY OUTSET OF THE PROCEEDING THE LD.AR, SUBMITTED BEFORE US THAT THE ''LD.CIT (A)'' RELIED UPON THE ORDER PASSED BY HIS PREDECESSOR FOR A.Y S . 2009 - 10, 2010 - 11 AND 2012 - 13 IN ASSESSEE S OWN CASE ALLOWING THE APPEAL PREFERRED BY THE ASSESSEE. FURTHER THAT THE ORDER PASSED BY THE ''LD.CIT (A)'' FOR A.Y S . 2009 - 10 AND 2012 - 13 WAS AFFIRMED BY THE CO - ORDINATE BENCH OF ITAT IN ITA NOS.3378 - 3379/AHD/2016 THE COPY WHEREOF HAS ALSO BEEN SUBMITTED BEFORE US. HE THUS PRAYED FOR CONFIRMATION OF T HE ORDER PASSED BY THE ''LD.CIT (A)''. 3. ON THE OTHER HAND THE LD. D .R FAILED TO CONTROVERT SUCH CONTENTIONS MADE BY THE LD.AR. 4. I T APPEARS FROM THE RECORDS T HAT WHILE ALLOWING THE APPEAL THE ''LD.CIT (A)'' RELIED UPON THE ORDER PASSED BY HIS PREDECESSOR WHEREUPON THE IDENTICAL ISSUE WAS ALLOWED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSES SEE. WE HAVE ALSO CAREFULLY C ONSIDERED THE JUDGMENT PASSED BY THE COORDINATE BENCH IN REVENUE S APPEAL IN ITA NOS.3378 - 3379/AHD/2016 FOR A.Y. 2009 - 10 & 2012 - 13 WHEREBY AND WHEREUNDER THE ORDER PASSED BY THE ''LD.CIT (A)'' WAS AFFIRMED . THE RELEVANT PORTIO N WHEREOF IS AS FOLLOWS: 9. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIALS AVAILABLE O N RECORD. IN THE INSTANT CASE, T HE DEDUCTION CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE U/S LL(L)(A )11 (2) OF T HE ACT WAS DENIED BY THE AO ON T HE GROUND THAT ME ACTIVITY OF THE ASSESSEE INVOLVES ADVANCEMENT OF ANY OTHER ABJECT OF GENERAL PUBLIC UTILITY AND ITS RECEIPTS EXCEEDS THE MANDATORY LIMIT AS SPECIFIED UNDER PROVISO TO SECTION 2( 15) OF THE ACT, FROM THE PRECEDING DISCUSSION, WE NOTE THAT THERE WAS NO APPEAL PREFERRE D BY THE REVENUE AGAINST THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A) PERTAINING TO THE A.Y. 2011 - 12 WHICH IMPLIES THAT THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A) REACHED TO IIS FINALITY. IN OUR CONSIDERED VIEW, ONCE, THE ORDER OF (HE LD CIT(A) HAS REACHED TO ITS FINALITY TO ANY OF THE ASSESSMEN T YEAR THEN ON THE SAME GROUND NO APPEAL BY THE REVENUE CAN BE PREFERRED TO IHE HON'BLE IT AT IN OTHER YEARS. IN IBIS REGARD, WE DRAW SUPPORT AND GUIDANCE FROM THE JUDGMENT OF ITA NO. 2692 /AHD/2017 A.Y. 2013 - 2014 3 HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. EXCEL INDUSTRIES LIMITED REPORTED I N 358ITR 295 WHEREIN IT WAS HELD AS UNDER: '31. IT APPEARS FROM THE RECORD THAT IN SEVERAL ASSESSMENT YEARS, THE REVENUE ACCEPTED THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE AND DID NOT PURSUE THE MATTER ANY FURTHER BUT IN RESPECT OF SOME ASSESSMENT YEARS THE MATTER WAS TAKEN UP IN APPEAL BEFORE THE BOMBAY HIGH CONN BAT WITHOUT ANY SUCCESS. THAI BEING SO, THE REVENUE CANNOT BE ALLOWED TO FLIP - FLOP ON THE ISSUE AND IT OUGHT LET THE MATTER REST RATHER THAN SPEND THE TAX PAYERS' MONEY IN PURSU ING LITIGATION FOR THE SAKE OF IT.' 9.1 WE ALSO OBSERVED THAT THERE IS NO CHANGE IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES IN THE IMPUGNED CASE IN COMPARISON TO THE PREVIOUS ASSESSMENT YEARS AND THE REVENUE IN EARLIER YEAR HAS ACCEPTED THE SAME. THEREFORE IN OUR CON SIDERED VIEW THE PRINCIPLES OF CONSISTENCY SHOULD BE APPLIED. IN THIS REGARD WE FIND PRINCIPLES LAID DOWN IN THE JUDGMENT OF HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF RADHASOAMI SATSANG VS. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (1992) 193 ITR 0321 (SC) ARE DIRECTLY ATTRAC TED TO THE INSTANT CASE WHEREIN IT WAS OBSERVED THAT IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY MATERIAL CHANGE IN THE FACTS, THE REVENUE SHOULD NOT TAKE A DIFFERENT VIEW IN THE OMER YEAR - IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, IT IS CLEAR THAT THE ASSESSEE IS ELIGIBLE FOR DEDUCTION U/S LL(L)(A )/LL(2) OF THE ACT. ACCORDINGLY, WE DO NOT FIND ANY INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A). HENCE, THE GROUND OF APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED 5. SINCE WE FIND THAT THE ISSUE IS IDENTICAL TO THAT OF THE ISSUE DECIDED BY THE HON BLE TRIBUNAL IN ASSESS EE S OWN CASE, WE FIND NO INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER PASSED BY THE ''LD.CIT (A)'' AND HENCE REVENUE S APPEAL IS FOUND TO BE DEVOID OF ANY MERIT, THUS DISMISSED. 6 . IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE COURT ON 06 /08 /2019 AT AHMEDABAD. - SD - - SD - ( WASEEM AHMED ) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ( MS MADHUMITA ROY ) JUDICIAL MEMBER (TRUE COPY) AHMEDABAD; DATED 06 / 0 8 /201 9 MANISH