ITO (E) 2(3), MUMBAI V. SUMAN RAMESH TULSIANI CHARITABLE TRUST, MUMBAI

ITA 3309/MUM/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 126 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 9940 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 month(s) 27 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 01-09-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2013-2014
• Appeal Filed On: 05-05-2017
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: V JANARDHANAN
• Keywords: Charitable institution; Question of law; Tax effect
• Section: 143(3); 12A; 10B; 28; 10

Judgement Text

, SMC , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCHES SMC, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO.3309/MUM/2017 : ASST.YEAR 2013-2014 THE INCOME TAX OFFICER (EXEMPTION) 2(3) MUMBAI. / VS. SUMAN RAMESH TULSIANI CHARITABLE TRUST, 1103/1104 TULSIANI CHAMBERS 11 TH FLOOR, FREE PRESS JOURNAL ROAD NO.212, NARIMAN POINT MUMBAI 400 021. PAN : AACTS1565J. ( / APPELLANT) ( / RESPONDENT) /APPELLANT BY : SHRI V.JANARDHANAN /RESPONDENT BY : SHRI SANKET SHAH / DATE OF HEARING : 27.06.2017 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 01.09.2017 / O R D E R THIS APPEAL BY THE REVENUE IS DIRECTED AGAINST ORDER OF LEARNED CIT(A) DATED 28.02.2017 AND PERTAINS TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2013-2014. 2. THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL READ AS UNDER:- 1. WHETHER, ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE LD CIT(A) ERRED IN ALLOWING THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSES OF EXEMPTION U/S. 10(34) BY RELYING UPON THE DECISION OF HON'BLE HIGH COURT WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE FACT THE DEPARTMENT HAS NOT ACCEPTED THE SAID DECISION ON MERIT BUT NOT FILED SLP DUE TO LOW TAX EFFECT.' 2. WHETHER, ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE LD CIT(A) ERRED IN ALLOWING THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE OF EXEMPTION U/S. 10(34} IGNORING THE FACT THAT, IN THE CASE OF JAMSETJI TATA TRUST AN APPEAL IS PENDING FOR ADJUDICATION BEFORE HON'BLE HIGH COURT ON THE SAME ISSUE.' ITA NO.3309/MUM/2017. SUMAN RAMESH TULSIANI CHARITABLE TRUST. 2 3. 'WHETHER, ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE LD CIT(A} ERRED IN ALLOWING THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE OF EXEMPTION U/S. 10(34) IGNORING THE FACT THAT ASSESSEE CANNOT CLAIM EXEMPTIONS U/S. 10, BECAUSE THIS SECTION DO NOT DEAL WITH INCOME DERIVED FROM THE PROPERTY HELD UNDER THE TRUST AND ONCE THE INCOME IS EXEMPT U/S. 10, IT WILL NOT BE REQUIRED TO BE QUALIFIED U/S. 11 OF THE ACT AS PER CBDT CIRCULAR NO. 5-P(LXX-6) OF 1968 DATED 19/06/1968 AND JUDICIAL PRONOUNCEMENT OF THE HON'BLE HIGH COURTS DECISIONS IN THE CASE OFCIT VS. V.L. ETHIRAJ(1982) 136ITR 12 (MADRAS), CIT VS. JAYSHREE CHARITY TRUST(1986) 159 ITR 280 (CAL) CIT VS. RAO BAHADUR CALAVALA CUNNAN CHETTY CHARITIES 135 ITR 845 (MAD.) AND CIT VS. PROGRAMME FOR COMMUNITY ORGANISATION 248 ITR 1 (SC).' 4. 'WHETHER ON THE FACTS OF THE CASE AND IN LAW THE LD.CIT(A) ERRED IN ALLOWING THE CARRY FORWARD OF DEFICIT OF RS. 1,54,06,5821- AND ALLOWING SET OFF AGAINST THE INCOME OF THE SUBSEQUENT YEARS,' 5. 'WHETHER, ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE LD CIT(A) ERRED IN ALLOWING THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE FOR CARRY FORWARD OF THE SAID DEFICIT, IGNORING THE FACT THAT THERE WAS NO EXPRESS PROVISION IN THE I. T. ACT, 1961, PERMITTING ALLOWANCE OF SUCH CLAIM.' 6. 'WHETHER, ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE LD CIT(A) ERRED IN ALLOWING THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE FOR CARRYFORWARD OF THE SAID DEFICIT BY RELYING UPON THE DECISION OF HON'BLE HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. INSTITUTE OF BANKING PERSONNEL SELECTION, BUT DUE TO SMALLNESS OF TAX EFFECT APPEAL WAS NOT FILED BEFORE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT. HOWEVER, ON THIS ISSUE THE DEPARTMENT HAS FILED SLPS BEFORE THE APEX COURT IN OTHER CASES INCLUSIVE OF THE CASE OF MIDC(SPL (CIVIL) 9891 OF 2014) IN WHICH LEAVE HAS BEEN GRANTED AND THE ISSUE IS PENDING FOR ADJUDICATION IN ALL CASES BEFORE THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT.' ITA NO.3309/MUM/2017. SUMAN RAMESH TULSIANI CHARITABLE TRUST. 3 7. THE APPELLANT PRAYS THAT THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-I, MUMBAI BE SET ASIDE AND THAT OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER BE RESTORED. 8. THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO AMEND OR ALTER ANY GROUND OF ADD A NEW GROUND WHICH MAY BE NECESSARY. 3. BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE IS A TRUST REGISTERED WITH DIT (E), MUMBAI U/S 12A OF THE I.T.ACT AND ALSO REGISTERED WITH THE CHARITY COMMISSIONER, MUMBAI. THE ASSESSEE FILED ITS RETURN OF INCOME ON 27.09.2013 ALONG WITH THE INCOME & EXPENDITURE ACCOUNT, BALANCE SHEET AND AUDIT REPORT IN FORM 10B DECLARING DEFICIT OF RS.1,54,06,581. HOWEVER, THE A.O. COMPLETED THE ASSESSMENT VIDE ORDER DATED 23.02.2016 U/S 143(3) OF THE I.T.ACT, 1961 AT TAXABLE INCOME AT RS.NIL. THE ASSESSING OFFICER INTER ALIA DID NOT ALLOW EXEMPTION ON DIVIDEND INCOME AND CARRY FORWARD OF DEFICIT TO BE ADJUSTED AGAINST SUBSEQUENT INCOME. 4. UPON ASSESSEES APPEAL LEARNED CIT(A) DECIDED THE ISSUE IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE BY FOLLOWING HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT DECISION ON BOTH THE ISSUES. 5. THERE ARE TWO ISSUES ARISING OUT OF THE ABOVE GROUNDS OF APPEAL. FIRST ISSUE RELATES TO DISALLOWANCE OF THE PROCESS ON FIXED ASSETS. THE SECOND ISSUE IS THE ALLOWANCE OF CREDIT FOR ORDER OF DEFICIT TO BE SET OF AGAINST THE INCOME OF THE SUBSEQUENT YEARS. 6. I HAVE HEARD BOTH THE COUNSEL AND PERUSED THE RECORDS. IT TRANSPIRES THAT UPON ASSESSING OFFICERS DISALLOWANCE ON THE ABOVE SAID TWO ISSUES, LEARNED CIT(A) HAS ALLOWED THE ASSESSEES APPEAL BY FOLLOWING HONBLE ITA NO.3309/MUM/2017. SUMAN RAMESH TULSIANI CHARITABLE TRUST. 4 JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURTS DIRECT DECISION ON THE ISSUES. BOTH THE COUNSEL FAIRLY AGREED THAT THE ISSUES ARE COVERED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE BY THE DECISION OF HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT RELIED UPON BY THE LEARNED CIT(A). THE REVENUE HAS ALSO AGREED TO THIS IN THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL RAISED HEREINABOVE AS IT IS MENTIONED THAT DEPARTMENT HAS NOT ACCEPTED THE HONBLE HIGH COURTS DECISION ON THIS ISSUES. BE AS IT MAY THAT JURISDICTIONAL HIGH |COURT DECISION IS BINDING. IN THIS REGARD I MAY GAINFULLY REFER TO THE ORDER OF LEARNED CIT(A) ON BOTH THE ISSUES AS UNDER:- 6.1 FIRST ISSUE 5.2 I HAVE CONSIDERED THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, GONE THROUGH THE ASSESSMENT ORDER OF THE A.O AND THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE APPELLANT AND ALSO DISCUSSED THE CASE WITH THE AR OF THE APPELLANT. THE CONTENTIONS AND SUBMISSIONS OF THE APPELLANT ARE BEING DISCUSSED AND DECIDED HERE IN UNDER: I. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT ALLOWED EXEMPTION ON DIVIDEND INCOME OF RS. 8,67,413/- WHICH WAS CLAIMED AS EXEMPT BY APPELLANT U/S. 10(34) OF INCOME TAX ACT 1961. DURING THE COURSE OF APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT DIVIDEND INCOME CAN BE CLAIMED EXEMPT U/S. 10 IRRESPECTIVE OF THE FACT AS TO WHETHER DEDUCTION U/S. 11 HAS BEEN ALLOWED OR NOT. IN THIS REGARD APPELLANT HAS RELIED UPON THE JUDGEMENT OF HON. ITAT, MUMBAI DT. 26.03.2014 IN THE CASE OF JJAMSETJI TATA TRUST VS. JDIT (E) RANGE-II 148 ITD 388. ON PERUSAL OF THIS JUDGEMENT IT IS NOTED THAT THE HON. ITAT WHILE DEALING WITH THE SAME ISSUE HAVE OBSERVED AS UNDER ;- 'IN OUR VIEW THE EXEMPTION U/S 11 IS AVAILABLE ON THE INCOME OF THE PUBLIC CHARITABLE /RELIGIOUS TRUST OR INSTITUTION WHICH IS OTHERWISE TAXABLE IN THE HANDS OF OTHER PERSONS. THUS THE INCOME WHICH IS EXEMPT U/S 10 CANNOT BE BROUGHT TO TAX BY VIRTUE OF SECTIONS 11 AND 13 OF THE ACT BECAUSE NO SUCH PRE ITA NO.3309/MUM/2017. SUMAN RAMESH TULSIANI CHARITABLE TRUST. 5 CONDITION IS PROVIDED EITHER U/S 10 OR 11 TO 13 OF INCOME-TAX ACT. THEREFORE, SECTION 11 TO 13 WOULD NOT OPERATE AS OVERRIDING AFFECT TO THE SECTION 10 OF THE ACT. THE LANGUAGE OF THESE PROVISIONS DOES NOT SUGGEST THAT EITHER SECTION 10 IS SUBJECTED TO THE PROVISIONS OF SECTIONS 11 TO 13 OR SECTIONS 11 TO 13 HAS ANY OVERRIDING AFFECT OVER SECTION 10. THEREFORE, THE BENEFIT OF SECTION 10 CANNOT BE DENIED BY INVOKING THE PROVISIONS OF SECTIONS 11 TO 13 OF THE ACT. ONCE THE CONDITIONS OF SECTION 10 ARE SATISFIED THEN NO OTHER CONDITION CAN BE FASTENED FOR DENYING THE CLAIM UNDER SECTION 10 OF THE ACT.' 9.8 IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE DISCUSSION AND FOLLOWING THE VARIOUS DECISIONS (SUPRA) WE HOLD THAT THE DIVIDEND INCOME ON SHARES AND MUTUAL FUNDS AND LONG TERM CAPITA! GAIN ON SALE OF SHARES AN EXEMPT U/S 10(34) 10(35) AND 10(38) RESPECTIVELY AND CANNOT BE BROUGHT TO TAX BY APPLYING SECTIONS 11 AND 13 OF THE ACT.' FURTHER IN SUPPORT OF ITS CONTENTION THE APPELLANT HAS ALSO RELIED UPON THE JUDGEMENT OF HON. BOMBAY HIGH COURT DATED 01.04.2015 IN THE CASE OF DIT(E) VS. JASUBHAI FOUNDATION 374 ITR 215. ON PERUSAL OF THIS JUDGEMENT IT IS NOTED THAT THE HON'BLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT WHILE DECIDING SAME ISSUE HAS OBSERVED AS UNDER :- '8. UPON A PERUSAL OF THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND THAT OF THE COMMISSIONER UPHOLDING IT, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE TRIBUNAL WAS CORRECT IN SETTING ASIDE THESE CONCURRENT ORDERS. THE LANGUAGE OF THE TWO SECTIONS IS PLAIN AND CLEAR. THE PROVISIONS, NAMELY, SECTIONS 10 AND 11 FALL UNDER A CHAPTER WHICH IS TITLED 'INCOMES WHICH DO NOT FORM PART OF TOTAL EXPENDITURE' (CHAPTER III). SECTION 10 DEALS WITH INCOMES NOT INCLUDED IN TOTAL INCOME WHEREAS SECTION 11 DEALS WITH INCOME FROM PROPERTY HELD FOR CHARITABLE OR RELIGIOUS PURPOSES, WE HAVE NOT FOUND ANYTHING IN THE LANGUAGE OF THE TWO PROVISIONS NOR WAS MR. MALHOTRA ABLE TO POINT OUT AS TO HOW WHEN CERTAIN INCOME IS NOT TO BE INCLUDED IN COMPUTING TOTAL INCOME OF A PREVIOUS YEAR OF ANY PERSON, THEN, THAT WHICH IS EXCLUDED FROM SECTION 10 COULD BE INCLUDED IN THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE PREVIOUS YEAR OF THE PERSON/ASSESSEE. THAT MAY BE A PERSON WHO ITA NO.3309/MUM/2017. SUMAN RAMESH TULSIANI CHARITABLE TRUST. 6 RECEIVES OR DERIVES INCOME FROM PROPERTY HELD UNDER TRUST WHOLLY FOR CHARITABLE OR RELIGIOUS PURPOSES. THUS, THE INCOME WHICH IS NOT TO BE INCLUDED IN COMPUTATION OF THE TOTAL INCOME IS A MATTER DEALT WITH BY SECTION 10 AND BY SECTION 11 THE CASE OF AN ASSESSES WHO HAS RECEIVED INCOME DERIVED FROM PROPERTY HELD UNDER TRUST ONLY FOR CHARITABLE OR RELIGIOUS PURPOSES TO THE EXTENT TO WHICH SUCH INCOME IS APPLIED TO SUCH PROPERTY IN INDIA AND THAT ANY SUCH INCOME IS ACCUMULATED OR SET APART FOR APPLICATION FOR SUCH PURPOSES IN INDIA TO THE EXTENT OF WHICH THE INCOME SO ACCUMULATED OR SET APART IN COMPUTING 15% OF THE INCOME OF SUCH PROPERTY, IS DEALT WITH. THEREFORE, IT IS A PARTICULAR ASSESSEE AND WHO IS IN RECEIPT OF SUCH INCOME AS IS FALLING UNDER CLAUSE (A) OF SUB-SECTION (1) OF SECTION 11 WHO WOULD BE CLAIMING THE EXEMPTION OR BENEFIT. THAT IS A INCOME DERIVED BY A PERSON FROM PROPERTY. IT IS THAT WHICH IS DEALT WITH AND IF THE PROPERTY IS HELD IN TRUST FOR THE SPECIFIED PURPOSE, THE INCOME DERIVED THERE FROM IS EXEMPT AND TO THE EXTENT INDICATED IN SECTION LL(L)(A) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961. THERE IS NOTHING IN THE LANGUAGE OF SECTIONS 10 OR 11 WHICH SAYS THAT WHAT IS PROVIDED BY SECTION 10 OR DEALT WITH IS NOT TO BE TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION OR OMITTED FROM THE PURVIEW OF SECTION 11. IF WE ACCEPT THE ARGUMENT OF MR. MALHOTRA AND THE REVENUE, THE SAME WOULD AMOUNT TO READING INTO THE PROVISIONS SOMETHING WHICH IS EXPRESSLY NOT THERE. IN SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES, THE TRIBUNAL WAS RIGHT IN ITS CONCLUSION THAT THE INCOME WHICH IN THIS CASE THE ASSESSEE TRUST HAS NOT INCLUDED BY VIRTUE OF SECTION 10, THEN, THAT CANNOT BE CONSIDERED UNDER SECTION 11. 9. IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES AND WHEN THE INCOME FROM PROPERTY HELD FOR CHARITABLE OR RELIGIOUS PURPOSE IS NOT A MATTER COVERED OR DEALT WITH BY SECTION 10 THAT THE TRIBUNAL'S VIEW CANNOT BE TERMED AS PERVERSE OR VITIATED BY ANY ERROR OR LAW APPARENT ON THE FACE OF THE RECORD. THE CLEAR LANGUAGE OF THESE PROVISIONS ENABLES US TO UPHOLD THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL. IT IS, ACCORDINGLY, UPHELD. THE REVENUE'S APPEAL DOES NOT RAISE ANY SUBSTANTIAL QUESTION OF LAW.' ITA NO.3309/MUM/2017. SUMAN RAMESH TULSIANI CHARITABLE TRUST. 7 II. IN VIEW OF ABOVE, ASSESSING OFFICER IS DIRECTED TO FOLLOW THE FINDINGS OF HON'BIE COURTS AS ABOVE AND ALLOW THE APPELLANT'S CLAIM OF EXEMPTION UNDER SECTION 10 ON DIVIDEND INCOME RECEIVED DURING THE YEAR AFTER DUE VERIFICATION. 6.2 SECOND ISSUE - I HAVE CONSIDERED THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, GONE THROUGH THE ASSESSMENT ORDER OF THE A.O AND THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE APPELLANT AND ALSO DISCUSSED THE CASE WITH THE AR OF THE APPELLANT. THE CONTENTIONS AND SUBMISSIONS OF THE APPELLANT ARE BEING DISCUSSED AND DECIDED HERE IN UNDER: I. RELYING UPON SEVERAL CASE LAWS THE APPELLANT STATED THAT DEFICIT OF THE CURRENT YEAR IS REQUIRED TO BE CARRIED FORWARD TO THE SUBSEQUENT YEARS. ON PERUSAL OF THE FACTS I FIND THAT THE CASE OF APPELLANT IS SQUARELY COVERED BY THE JUDGEMENT OF HON'BLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF INSTITUTE OF BANKING PERSONNEL 264 ITR 110 WHEREIN THE HON. JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT HAS OBSERVED AS UNDER - ............'5. WOW COMING TO QUESTION NO. 3, THE POINT WHICH ARISES FOR CONSIDERATION IS: WHETHER EXCESS OF EXPENDITURE IN THE EARLIER YEARS CAN BE ADJUSTED AGAINST THE INCOME OF THE SUBSEQUENT YEAR AND WHETHER SUCH ADJUSTMENT SHOULD BE TREATED AS APPLICATION OF INCOME IN SUBSEQUENT YEAR FOR CHARITABLE PURPOSES? IT WAS ARGUED ON BEHALF OF THE DEPARTMENT THAT EXPENDITURE INCURRED IN THE EARLIER YEARS CANNOT BE MET OUT OF THE INCOME OF THE SUBSEQUENT YEAR AND THAT UTILIZATION OF SUCH INCOME FOR MEETING THE EXPENDITURE OF EARLIER YEARS WOULD NOT AMOUNT TO APPLICATION OF INCOME FOR CHARITABLE OR RELIGIOUS PURPOSES. IN THE PRESENT CASE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER DID NOT ALLOW CARRY FORWARD OF THE EXCESS OF EXPENDITURE TO BE SET OFF AGAINST THE SURPLUS OF THE SUBSEQUENT YEARS ON THE GROUND THAT IN THE CASE OF A CHARITABLE TRUST, THEIR INCOME WAS ASSESSABLE UNDER SELF-CONTAINED CODE MENTIONED IN SECTION 11 TO SECTION 13 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT AND THAT THE INCOME OF THE CHARITABLE TRUST WAS NOT ASSESSABLE UNDER THE HEAD 'PROFITS AND GAINS OF BUSINESS' UNDER SECTION 28 IN WHICH THE PROVISION FOR CARRY ITA NO.3309/MUM/2017. SUMAN RAMESH TULSIANI CHARITABLE TRUST. 8 FORWARD OF LOSSES WAS RELEVANT. THAT, IN THE CASE OF A CHARITABLE TRUST, THERE WAS NO PROVISION FOR CARRY FORWARD OF THE EXCESS OF EXPENDITURE OF EARLIER YEARS TO BE ADJUSTED AGAINST INCOME OF SUBSEQUENT YEARS. WE DO NOT FIND ANY MERIT IN THIS ARGUMENT OF THE DEPARTMENT. INCOME DERIVED FROM THE TRUST PROPERTY HAS ALSO GOT TO BE COMPUTED ON COMMERCIAL PRINCIPLES AND IF COMMERCIAL PRINCIPLES ARE APPLIED THEN ADJUSTMENT OF EXPENSES INCURRED BY THE TRUST FOR CHARITABLE AND RELIGIOUS PURPOSES IN THE EARLIER YEARS AGAINST THE INCOME EARNED BY THE TRUST IN THE SUBSEQUENT YEAR WILL HAVE TO BE REGARDED AS APPLICATION OF INCOME OF THE TRUST FOR CHARITABLE AND RELIGIOUS PURPOSES IN THE SUBSEQUENT YEAR IN WHICH ADJUSTMENT HAS BEEN MADE HAVING REGARD TO THE BENEVOLENT PROVISIONS CONTAINED IN SECTION 11 OF THE ACT AND THAT SUCH ADJUSTMENT WILL HAVE TO BE EXCLUDED FROM THE INCOME OF THE TRUST UNDER SECTION LL(L)(A) OF THE ACT. OUR VIEW IS ALSO SUPPORTED BY THE JUDGMENT OF THE GUJARAT HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT V. SHRI PLOT SWETAMBER MURTI PUJAK JAIN MANDAL (1995) 211 ITR 293 (GUJ), ACCORDINGLY, WE ANSWER QUESTION NO. 3 IN THE AFFIRMATIVE I.E., IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE AND AGAINST THE DEPARTMENT. II. RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE RATIO LAID DOWN BY THE HON. HIGH COURT AS ABOVE, THE A.O. IS DIRECTED TO ALLOW THE CARRY FORWARD OF DEFICIT IN THE SUCCEEDING YEARS AFTER DUE VERIFICATION OF FACTS. 7. SINCE THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS FOLLOWED THE HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT DECISION AS MENTIONED ABOVE, I DO NOT FIND ANY INFIRMITY IN THE SAME. HENCE, I UPHOLD THE SAME. 8. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE STANDS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON THIS 01 ST DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2017. SD/- ( SHAMIM YAHYA ) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER MUMBAI; DATED : 01 ST SEPTEMBER, 2017. DEVDAS* ITA NO.3309/MUM/2017. SUMAN RAMESH TULSIANI CHARITABLE TRUST. 9 / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : / BY ORDER, //TRUE COPY// / (DY./ASSTT. REGISTRAR) , / ITAT, MUMBAI 1. / THE APPELLANT 2. / THE RESPONDENT. 3. ( ) / THE CIT, MUMBAI. 4. / CIT(A), MUMBAI 5. , , / DR, ITAT, MUMBAI 6. [ / GUARD FILE.