ITO (EXEMPTION) -1 (3), MUMBAI V. HARVARD BUSINESS SCHOOL (INDIA) RESEARCH CENTRE, MUMBAI

ITA 3099/MUM/2018

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 116 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 8988 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 1 month(s) 17 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 28-06-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: H
• Assessment Year: 2012-2013
• Appeal Filed On: 11-05-2018
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: AND CROSS OBJECTION
• Assessee Lawyers: ARE DIRECTED A GAINST
• Keywords: Depreciation; Charitable institution; Tax effect; Set aside
• Section: 143(3); 12AA; 11

Judgement Text

, , , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCHES H , MUMBAI . , , , BEFORE SHRI G. MANJUNATHA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI RAVISH SOOD, JUDICIAL MEMBER, ITA NO.3099/MUM/2018 ASSESSMENT YEAR:-2012-13 ITO(EXEMPTION)-1(3), ROOM NO.511, 5TH FLOOR, PIRAMAL CHAMBER, LALBAUG, MUMBAI-400012 / VS. M/S HARVARD BUSINESS SCHOOL (INDIA) RESEARCH CENTRE, 5TH FLOOR, B-WING, MAHINDRA TOWER, DR. G M BHOSLE MARG, WORLI, MUMBAI-400018 ( / REVENUE) ( ! /ASSESSEE) P.A. NO.AAATH5643L CO NO.135/MUM/2019 (ARISING OUT OF ITA NO.3099/MUM/2018) ASSESSMENT YEAR:-2012-13 M/S HARVARD BUSINESS SCHOOL (INDIA) RESEARCH CENTRE, 5TH FLOOR, B-WING, MAHINDRA TOWER, DR. G M BHOSLE MARG, WORLI, MUMBAI-400018 / VS. ITO(EXEMPTION)-1(3), ROOM NO.511, 5TH FLOOR, PIRAMAL CHAMBER, LALBAUG, MUMBAI-400012 ( ! /ASSESSEE) ( / REVENUE) P.A. NO.AAATH5643L 2 M/S HARVARD BUSINESS SCHOOL (INDIA) RESEARCH CENTRE , ' #$! % / DATE OF HEARING : 13/06/2019 $! % / DATE OF ORDER: 28/06/2019 / O R D E R PER G. MANJUNATHA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER THIS APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE AND CROSS OBJECTIO N BY THE ASSESSEE ARE DIRECTED AGAINST ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A)-1, MUMBAI, DATED 19/02/2018, AND THEY PERTAINS TO AY 2012-13. SINCE, FACTS ARE IDENTICAL AND ISSUES ARE COMMON, FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE, THESE APPEALS WERE HEARD TOGET HER AND ARE DISPOSED OF BY THIS CONSOLIDATED ORDER. 2. THE REVENUE HAS RAISED FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPE AL;- 1. WHETHER ON THE FACTS OF THE CASE AND IN LAW THE ID. CIT(A) WAS ERRED TO ALLOWING THE CARRY FORWARD OF DEFICIT OF R S. 1,42,16,863/- AND DIRECTING THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO ALLOW CARRY FORW ARD OF DEFICIT ON ACCOUNT OF EXCESS EXPENDITURE WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE FACT THAT THIS WOULD HAVE THE EFFECT OF GRANTING DOUBLE BENEFIT TO THE ASSESSES, FIRST AS 'ACCUMULATION' OF INCOME U/S.11(1)(A) OR AS CORP US DONATION U/S. 11(1)(D) IN EARLIER YEARS / CURRENT YEAR AND THEN A S 'APPLICATION' OF INCOME U/S 11(1)(A) IN THE SUBSEQUENT YEARS WHICH W AS LEGALLY NOT PERMISSIBLE. ? 2. WHETHER, ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE LD CIT(A)\ WAS ERRED IN ALLOWING THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE FOR CARRY FORWARD OF THE SAID DEFICIT BY RELYING UP ON THE JUDGEMENT OF HON'BLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF INSTITUTE OF BANKING PERSONNEL SELECTION, IGNORING THE FACT THAT THE DEP ARTMENT HAS NOT ACCEPTED THE SAID DECISION OF THE JURISDICTIONAL HI GH COURT ON MERIT OF THE CASE, BUT DUE TO SMALLNESS OF TAX EFFECT APPEAL WAS NOT FILED BEFORE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT. HOWEVER, ON THIS ISSU E THE DEPARTMENT HAS FILED SLP BEFORE THE APEX COURT IN T HE CASE OF MIDC (SLP (CIVIL) 9891 OF 2014) IN WHICH LEAVE HAS BEEN GRANTED BY THE HON'BLE APEX COURT AND THE CASE HAS NOT REACHED FIN ALITY. !' / REVENUE BY SHIR MANOJ KUMAR SINGH - DR ! !' / ASSESSEE BY SHRI KETAN VED & SHRI NIHAD PATADE 3 M/S HARVARD BUSINESS SCHOOL (INDIA) RESEARCH CENTRE , 3. WHETHER, ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE LD. CIT(A) WAS RIGHT IN ALLOWING THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE FOR CARRY FORWARD OF THE SAID DEFICIT, IGNORING THE FAC T THAT THERE WAS NO EXPRESS PROVISION IN THE I T ACT, 1961 PERMITTING A LLOWANCE OF SUCH CLAIM . 4. THE APPELLANT PRAYS THAT THE ORDER OF THE COMM ISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-1, MUMBAI BE SET ASIDE AND THA T OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER BE RESTORED. 3. THE BRIEF, FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESS EE IS NON-PROFIT MAKING SOCIETY INCORPORATED UNDER THE SOCIETY REGISTRATION ACT, 18 60 AND IS ALSO REGISTERED WITH CHARITY COMMISSIONER OF MUMBAI UNDER THE BOMBAY PUB LIC TRUST ACT, 1950. THE OBJECTS OF THE ASSESSEE ARE TO MAINLY PROMOTE EDUCA TION. IT HAS OBTAINED REGISTRATION U/S 12AA OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961(HEREINAFTER TH E ACT) AND CLAIMED EXEMPTION IN RESPECT OF INCOME U/S 11 OF THE ACT. THE ASSESSEE H AS FILED ITS RETURN OF INCOME FOR THE AY 2012-13 ON 28/09/2012, DECLARING TOTAL DEFICIT O F RS.1,42,16,863/- AND CARRIED FORWARD THE SAME TO BE SET OFF AGAINST INCOME EARNE D IN SUBSEQUENT YEARS. THE CASE WAS SELECTED FOR SCRUTINY AND DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, VIDE LETTER DATED 05/12/2015, THE ASSESSEE FILED REVISED COMPUTATION OF INCOME TO RESTRICT THE 15% ACCUMULATION U/S 11(1)(A) OF THE ACT TO THE EXTENT OF INCOME AVAILABLE AFTER DEDUCTION OF EXPENDITURE INCURRED FOR THE CHARITABL E PURPOSE. AS PER THE REVISED COMPUTATION, THE DEFICIT REDUCED TO RS.5,13,709/- A S AGAINST RS.1,42,16,863/- CLAIMED IN THE RETURN OF INCOME. THE ASSESSMENT HAS BEEN CO MPLETED U/S 143(3) OF THE ACT, ON 26/02/2015, WHERE THE AO HAD REJECTED DEFICIT/EXCES S APPLICATION OF INCOME FOR CHARITABLE PURPOSE CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE IN STATE MENT OF TOTAL INCOME TO BE CARRIED FORWARD TO THE SUBSEQUENT YEARS AND SET OFF AGAINST INCOME ON THE GROUND THAT THERE 4 M/S HARVARD BUSINESS SCHOOL (INDIA) RESEARCH CENTRE , IS NO PROVISION WHICH ALLOWS DETERMINATION OF LOSS/ DEFICIT WHILE COMPUTING TAXABLE INCOME U/S 11 OF THE ACT. 4. AGGRIEVED BY THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, THE ASSESSEE PREFERRED APPEAL BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A). BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A), THE ASSESSEE SUB MITTED THAT EXCESS APPLICATION OF INCOME FOR CHARITABLE PURPOSE CAN BE CARRIED FORWAR D TO SUBSEQUENT YEARS AND CAN BE SET OFF AGAINST INCOME OF THE TRUST BECAUSE THE INC OME OF THE TRUST CLAIMING EXEMPTION U/S 11 SHALL BE COMPUTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH COMMERC IAL PRINCIPLES, THEREFORE, LIKE ANY OTHER BUSINESS ACTIVITY, DEFICIT OF INCOME SHALL BE ALLOWED TO CARRY FORWARD TO SUBSEQUENT YEARS AND TO SET OFF AGAINST INCOME OF T HE TRUST. IN THIS REGARD, IT HAS RELIED UPON THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS INSTITUTE OF BANKING PERSONNEL (264 ITR 110)(BOM.). 5. THE LD. CIT(A) AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE AND ALSO RELIED UPON BY THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE BOMBAY H IGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS INSTITUTE OF BANKING PERSONNEL(SUPRA) HELD THAT EXC ESS APPLICATION OF INCOME FOR CHARITABLE PURPOSE CAN BE CARRIED FORWARD TO SUBSEQ UENT YEAR AND SET OFF AGAINST INCOME DERIVED FROM PROPERTY HELD UNDER TRUST. HOWE VER, FOR WORKING OUT THE DEFICIT FOR THE YEAR, THE BENEFIT FOR ACCUMULATION OF 15% OF TH E INCOME SHALL NOT BE ALLOWED TO THE ASSESSEE, ACCORDINGLY, DIRECTED THE AO TO ALLOW DEF ICIT WITHOUT ALLOWING THE BENEFIT OF ACCUMULATION OF 15% OF THE INCOME. THE RELEVANT FIN DINGS OF THE LD. CIT(A) ARE AS UNDER:- 5 M/S HARVARD BUSINESS SCHOOL (INDIA) RESEARCH CENTRE , 5.4.1 IN VIEW OF THE AFORESAID REASONS, AND IN VIEW OF THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE ITAT IN THE CASE OF LAKSHMI AND USHA M ITTAL FOUNDATION AND IN THE CASE OF DAWAT INSTITUTE OF DAWOODI BHOR A COMMUNITY, THROUGH HIS HOLINESS DR. SYEDNA MOHAMMED BURHANUDDI N SAHEB, ITA NO.4309/MUM/2005 DATED 30.04.2013, AND THE DECI SION OF THE HONBLE ITAT MUMBAI BENCH IN 116 TTJ MUM 673, I AM OF THE VIEW THAT THE ACCUMULATION OF 15%, IF CLAIMED BY THE ASS ESSEE FOR WORKING OUT THE DEFICIT IS NOT ALLOWABLE TO IT. THE AO SHAL L COMPUTE THE DEFICIT FOR THE YEAR WITHOUT GIVING BENEFIT OF 15% ACCUMULA TION. 6. IN SO FAR GROUND NO.3 TAKEN BY THE ASSESSEE CHAL LENGING DISALLOWANCE OF OTHER ITEMS OF WRITTEN OFF RS.1,21,837/-, THE LD. CIT(A) REJECTED THE ARGUMENTS OF THE ASSESSEE ON THE GROUND THAT THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESS EE IS NOT SUPPORTED BY ANY CREDIBLE EVIDENCE. 7. AGGRIEVED BY THE LD. CIT(A)S ORDER, THE REVENUE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US AND THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED CROSS OBJECTION. 8. THE LD. AR FOR THE ASSESSEE, AT THE TIME OF HEAR ING, SUBMITTED THAT THE ISSUE INVOLVED IN THE PRESENT APPEAL IS SQUARELY COVERED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE BY THE DECISION OF ITAT, MUMBAI BENCH IN ASSESSEES OWN CA SE FOR AY 2010-11 IN ITA NO.5695/MUM/2016, WHERE UNDER IDENTICAL SET OF FACT S, THE TRIBUNAL BY FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN THE CA SE OF CIT VS INSTITUTE OF BANKING PERSONNEL (SUPRA) HELD THAT EXCESS APPLICATION OF I NCOME FOR OBJECT OF THE TRUST CAN BE CARRIED FORWARD TO SUBSEQUENT YEAR TO BE SET OFF AG AINST INCOME OF THE TRUST. THE LD. AR FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT EVEN OTHERWISE THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE IS NOT MAINTAINABLE BECAUSE, THE TAX EFFECT INVOLVED IN TH E APPEAL IS BELOW PRESCRIBED LIMIT FIXED BY CBDT FOR FILING APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL , WHICH IS EVIDENT FROM THE FACT THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ALLOWED RELIEF OF RS.5,13,709/- AS AGAINST RS.1,42,16,836/- CLAIMED 6 M/S HARVARD BUSINESS SCHOOL (INDIA) RESEARCH CENTRE , BY THE ASSESSEE, THEREFORE, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE MAY BE DISMISSED AS NOT MAINTAINABLE IN VIEW OF CIRCULAR OF CBDT VIDE CIRCU LAR NO.03 OF 2018 DATED 11/07/2018. 9. THE LD. DR ON THE OTHER HAND, FAIRLY ACCEPTED TH AT THE TAX EFFECT INVOLVED IN THIS APPEAL IS LESS THAN THE PRESCRIBED LIMIT FOR FILING APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. HOWEVER, FACTS ARE NOT CLEAR WHETHER THE ISSUE INVOLVED IS C OMES WITHIN THE EXCEPTION AS PROVIDED IN THE CIRCULAR OR NOT THEREFORE, LIBERTY MAY BE GIVEN TO THE REVENUE TO FILE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION, IN CASE, THE ISSUE COMES IN ANY OF EXCEPTION PROVIDED IN THE SAID CIRCULAR. 10. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH PARTIES, PERUSED THE MATERIA L AVAILABLE ON RECORD AND GONE THROUGH THE ORDERS OF AUTHORITIES BELOW. WE FI ND THAT THE TRIBUNAL HAS CONSIDERED IDENTICAL ISSUE IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR ASSESSME NT YEAR 2010-11 AND BY FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN TH E CASE OF CIT VS INSTITUTE OF BANKING PERSONNEL SELECTION (SUPRA) HELD THAT DEFIC IT/EXCESS APPLICATION OF INCOME FOR THE OBJECTS OF THE TRUST CAN BE CARRIED FORWARD TO BE SET OFF AGAINST INCOME OF SUBSEQUENT YEARS. THE RELEVANT FINDINGS OF THE TRIB UNAL ARE AS UNDER:- 5. BEFORE US, THE PLEA OF THE DEPARTMENT IS THAT T HE DECISION OF THE HON'BLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF INSTITUTE OF BANKING PERSONNEL SELECTION (SUPRA) HAS NOT BEEN ACCEPTED B Y THE DEPARTMENT ON MERITS AND ON A SIMILAR ISSUE, SLP (C IVIL) NO. 9891 OF 2014 HAS BEEN FILED BEFORE THE HON'BLE SUPREME COUR T IN THE CASE OF MAHARASHTRA INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION (MID C). SO, HOWEVER THERE IS NO CONTROVERSION BY THE REVENUE TO THE FACT THAT THE DECISION OF THE CIT(A) IS IN LINE WITH THE JUDGMENT OF THE HON'BLE 7 M/S HARVARD BUSINESS SCHOOL (INDIA) RESEARCH CENTRE , BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF INSTITUTE OF BANKI NG PERSONNEL SELECTION (SUPRA). 6. WE FIND THAT THE HON'BLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT SUBSE QUENT TO THE DECISION IN THE CASE OF INSTITUTE OF BANKING PERSON NEL SELECTION (SUPRA) CONSIDERED A SIMILAR ARGUMENT OF THE REVENU E IN THE CASE OF M/S. MUMBAI EDUCATION TRUST, ITA NO. 11/2014 DATED 3.5.2016 AND ALLOWED THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE. IN FACT, THE GRO UNDS OF APPEAL URGED BY THE REVENUE BEFORE THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT, WHICH READ AS UNDER :- (A) WHETHER ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCE O F THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE TRIBUNAL WAS JUSTIFIED IN CONFIRMIN G THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) TO ALLOW THE CLAIM OF DEPRECIATION RELYI NG ON THE DECISION OF THIS COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT V/S. INST ITUTE OF BANKING PERSONNEL SERVICES REPORTED IN 264 ITR 110 (BOM) IG NORING THE RATIO OF HON'BLE SUPREME COURT JUDGMENT IN THE CASE OF ESCORTS LTD. V/S. UNION OF INDIA (199 ITR 43) WHEREIN HON'B LE SUPREME COURT HAS HELD THAT DOUBLE DEDUCTION CANNOT BE PRES UMED IF THE SAME IS NOT SPECIFICALLY PROVIDED BY LAW, IN ADDITI ON TO NORMAL DEDUCTION? (B) WHETHER ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRC UMSTANCE OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE TRIBUNAL WAS JUSTIFIED IN CONFIRMING THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) TO ALLOW TO CARRY FORWARD OF DE FICIT OF EARLIER YEARS RELYING ON THE DECISION OF THIS COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT V/S. INSTITUTE OF BANKING PERSONNEL SERVICES REPORTED IN 264 ITR 110 (BOM) WHILE THE REVENUE DID NOT FILE SLP AGAINST TH E CASE OF CIT V/S. INSTITUTE OF BANKING PERSONNEL SERVICES RE PORTED IN 264 ITR110 (BOM) DUE TO LOW TAX EFFECT?. STAND ON THE SAME FOOTING AS ARE BEING CANVASSED BE FORE US IN THE INSTANT CASE. THUS, THERE IS NO ERROR ON THE PART O F THE CIT(A) IN FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF THE HON'BLE BOMBAY HIGH C OURT IN THE CASE OF INSTITUTE OF BANKING PERSONNEL SELECTION (SUPRA) AN D ALLOWING THE STAND OF THE ASSESSEE. THE OTHER ARGUMENT TAKEN BY THE RE VENUE THAT ITS SLP FILED BEFORE THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IS PENDING O N A SIMILAR ISSUE IS OF NO CONSEQUENCE INASMUCH AS THE BINDING JUDGMENTS OF THE HON'BLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF INSTITUTE OF BANKI NG PERSONNEL SELECTION (SUPRA) AS WELL AS IN THE CASE OF M/S. MU MBAI EDUCATION TRUST (SUPRA) CONTINUE TO SUBSIST. THEREFORE, IN THIS BAC KGROUND, WE FIND NO MERIT IN THE GROUND RAISED BY THE REVENUE AND THE S AME IS ACCORDINGLY DISMISSED. 8 M/S HARVARD BUSINESS SCHOOL (INDIA) RESEARCH CENTRE , 11. WE FURTHER NOTED THAT EVEN OTHERWISE, TAX EFFEC T INVOLVED IN THE PRESENT APPEAL IS LESS THAN PRESCRIBED LIMIT FIXED FOR FILING APPE AL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL BY THE REVENUE AS PER LATEST CIRCULAR NO.03 OF 2018 DATED 11/07/20 18 ISSUED BY THE CBDT, THEREFORE, CONSIDERING THE CBDT CIRCULAR NO.03 OF 2018 DATED 1 1/07/2018 AND ALSO FACT THAT THE ADDITIONS SUSTAINED BY THE LD. CIT(A) IS ONLY AT RS . 5,13,709/- AND TAX EFFECT ON SAID ADDITION IS LESS THAN THE PRESCRIBED LIMIT OF RS.20 LAKHS, WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED VIEW THAT APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE IS NOT MAINTAINABL E ON THIS COUNT ALSO. HENCE, THE SAME IS DISMISSED AS NOT MAINTAINABLE. HOWEVER, WE KEEP OPEN OPTION TO THE REVENUE TO FILE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION IF NECESS ARY IN CASE, THE ISSUE INVOLVED IN THE PRESENT APPEAL COMES WITHIN THE THREE EXCEPTION AS PROVIDED IN PARA-10 OF SAID CIRCULAR AND CLAUSE (E) OF SUBSEQUENT CIRCULAR ISSU ED BY THE CBDT. 12. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE IS D ISMISSED. CROSS OBJECTION NO.135/MUM/2018 13. THE FIRST ISSUE THAT CAME FOR OUR CONSIDERATIO N FROM CROSS OBJECTION OF THE ASSESSEE IS ACCUMULATION OF 15% OF INCOME UNDER SEC TION 11(1)(A) OF THE ACT. WE FIND THAT THE ISSUE CHALLENGED BY THE ASSESSEE IS WITH R EGARD TO ACCUMULATION OF 15% INCOME OF THE TRUST U/S 11(1)(A) OF THE ACT, BEFORE ARRIVING AT DEFICIT/EXCESS INCOME FOR THE YEAR. THE LD. CIT(A) HAS GIVEN CATEGORICAL FIND ING IN THE LIGHT OF ITAT DECISION IN THE CASE OF DR. SYEDNA MOHAMMED BURHANUDDIN SAHEB, ITA NO.4309/MUM/2005 DATED 30/04/2013, AND HELD THAT ACCUMULATION OF 15% INCOME CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR WORKING OUT DEFICIT IS NOT ALLOWABLE. WE FIND THAT THE THIS ISSUE HAS BEEN 9 M/S HARVARD BUSINESS SCHOOL (INDIA) RESEARCH CENTRE , SETTLED BY THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF ACIT VS A.L.N. CHARITABLE TRUST (1995) 216 ITR 697, WHERE THE LEGAL POSITION OF CO MPUTATION OF INCOME AND ACCUMULATION INCOME U/S 11 HAS BEEN EXPLAINED, AS P ER WHICH THE QUESTION OF ACCUMULATION OF INCOME ARISES ONLY WHEN THE TRUST H AD SURPLUS INCOME IN THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. IN CASE, THE TRUST HAS DEFICIT INCOME FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION, THEN ONLY DEFICIT CAN BE ALLOWED TO CARRY FORWARD TO SUBSEQUENT YEAR TO BE SET OFF AGAINST INCOME, BUT WHEN THE ASSESSEE IS ALREADY HAVING DEFICIT, FURTHER ACCUMULATION OF 15% OF INCOME U/S 11(1)(A) OF THE A CT CANNOT BE ALLOWED. THEREFORE, WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED VIEW THAT THERE IS NO MERI T IN THE GROUND NO.1 OF CROSS OBJECTION FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AND HENCE, THE SAME IS DISMISSED. 14. THE NEXT ISSUE THAT CAME UP FOR OUR CONSIDERATI ON FROM GROUND NO.2 OF CROSS OBJECTION IS DISALLOWANCE OF RS.1,21,837/- BEING OT HER ITEMS WRITTEN OFF CLAIMED AS APPLICATION OF INCOME. THE CIT(A) AFTER CONSIDERING MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD AND ALSO ON THE BASIS OF SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE CA ME TO THE CONCLUSION THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO FILE NECESSARY EVIDENCE TO P ROVE THAT ADVANCED WRITTEN OFF, IN FACT IS APPLICATION OF INCOME FOR CHARITABLE PURPOS E. FACTS REMAINED UNCHANGED. THE ASSESSEE EXCEPT STATED THAT INCOME OF TRUST CLAIMIN G EXEMPTION U/S 11 OF THE ACT SHALL BE COMPUTED UNDER COMMERCIAL PRINCIPLES, FAIL TO FU RNISH ANY EVIDENCE TO CONTROVERT THE FINDINGS OF THE FACT RECORDED BY THE AO/LD. CIT (A), HENCE, WE ARE INCLINED TO UPHOLD THE FINDINGS OF THE LD. CIT(A) AND REJECT GR OUND TAKEN BY THE ASSESSEE. 15. IN THE RESULT, CROSS OBJECTION FILED BY THE ASS ESSEE IS DISMISSED. 10 M/S HARVARD BUSINESS SCHOOL (INDIA) RESEARCH CENTRE , 16. AS A RESULT, APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE AS WEL L AS CROSS OBJECTION FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 28/06/2019 /2019. SD/- SD/- ( RAVISH SOOD ) (G. MANJUNATHA) #'$ /JUDICIAL MEMBER %'$ / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ' # MUMBAI; ( DATED :.28/06/2019 F{X~{T? FA P.S &#'()*)+' / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. )* +, / THE APPELLANT (RESPECTIVE ASSESSEE) 2. -.+, / THE RESPONDENT. 3. // ' 0! ( )* ) / THE CIT, MUMBAI. 4. // ' 0! / CIT(A)- , MUMBAI, 5. 2 3-!4 , /)*%)45 , ' # / DR, ITAT, MUMBAI 6. 3 67 # / GUARD FILE. ' / BY ORDER, /' (DY./ASSTT. REGISTRAR) , ' # / ITAT, MUMBAI