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

ITA 5965/MUM/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 127 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 0002 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 10 month(s) 23 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 30-08-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: Not Allotted
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 07-10-2016
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SAURABH DESHPANDE
• Assessee Lawyers: K K VED
• Keywords: Depreciation; Charitable institution; Tax effect
• Section: 143(3); 12A

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH A, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI G.S. PANNU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI AMARJIT SINGH , JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO. 5965/MUM/2016 : A.Y : 2010 - 11 DCIT (EXEMPTIONS) - 1(1), MUMBAI (APPELLANT) VS. M/S. HARVARD BUSINESS SCHOOL (INDIA) RESEARCH CENTER 5 TH FLOOR, B - WING, MAHINDRA TOWERS, DR. G.M. BHONSLE MARG, WORLI, MUMBAI 400 018 PAN : AAATH5643L (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI SAURABH DESHPANDE RESPONDENT BY : SHRI K.K. VED DATE OF HEARING : 17/08/2017 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 30 /08/2017 O R D E R PER G.S. PANNU , AM : THE CAPTIONED APPEAL BY THE REVENUE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF CIT(A) - 1, MUMBAI DATED 15.07.2016 PERTAINING TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010 - 11 , WHICH IN TURN HAS ARISEN FROM THE ORDER PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER DATED 31.03.2013 UNDER SECTION 143(3) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (IN SHORT THE ACT). 2 ITA NO. 59 6 5/MUM/2016 M/S. HARVARD BUSINESS SCHOOL (I) RESEARCH CENTER 2. IN ITS APPEAL, REVENUE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL: - 1. WHETHER ON THE FA CTS OF THE CASE AND IN LAW THE LD.CIT(A) ERRED IN ALLOWING THE CARRY FORWARD OF DEFICIT OF RS. 2,43,02,892/ - AND ALLOWING SET OFF AGAINST THE INCOME OF THE SUBSEQUENT YEARS. 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 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. 3. WHETHER, ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF T HE CASE AND IN LAW, THE LD CIT(A) ERRED IN ALLOWING THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE FOR CARRY FORWARD OF THE SAID DEFICIT BY RELYING UPON THE JUDGMENT OF HON'BLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF INSTITUTE OF BANKING PERSONNEL SELECTION, IGNORING THE FACT THAT TH E DEPARTMENT HAS NOT ACCEPTED THE SAID DECISION OF THE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH 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 ISSUE THE DEPARTMENT HAS FILED SLP BEFORE THE APEX COURT IN THE CASE OF MIDC (SPL (CIVIL) 9891 OF 2014) AND THE MATTER IS PENDING BEFORE THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT. 4. THE APPELLANT PRAYS THAT THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) - 1, MUMBAI BE SET ASIDE AND THAT OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER BE RESTORED. 3. ALTHOUGH THE REVENUE HAS RAISED MULTIPLE GROUNDS OF APPEAL, BUT THE SOLITARY DISPUTE INVOLVED IN THIS APPEAL IS AGAINST THE ACTION OF THE CIT(A) IN ALLOWING THE ASSESSEE THE BENEFIT OF CARRY FORWARD OF THE DEFICIT FOR FUTURE SET - OFF. 4. IN THIS BACKGROUND, NOW WE MAY REFER TO THE RELEVANT FACTS. THE RESPONDENT - ASSESSEE IS A CHARITABLE ORGANISATION REGISTERED U/S 12A OF 3 ITA NO. 59 6 5/MUM/2016 M/S. HARVARD BUSINESS SCHOOL (I) RESEARCH CENTER THE ACT AND IS ENGAGED IN CARRYING ON ACTIVITIES OF CHARITABLE NATURE. THE ASSESSING OFFICER NOTICED THAT ASSESSEE HAD SH OWN RS.2,43,02,892/ - AS DEFICIT AND CLAIMED BENEFIT OF CARRY FORWARD FOR FUTURE SET - OFF. THE ASSESSING OFFICER DENIED THE BENEFIT BY OBSERVING THAT LOSS/DEFICIT CANNOT BE DETERMINED WHILE COMPUTING INCOME U/S 11 OF THE ACT. THE CIT(A) HAS SINCE ALLOWED T HE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE FOLLOWING THE JUDGMENT OF THE HON'BLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF INSTITUTE OF BANKING PERSONNEL SELECTION, 264 ITR 110 (BOM) . 5. BEFORE US, THE PLEA OF THE DEPARTMENT IS THAT THE DECISION OF THE HON'BLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF INSTITUTE OF BANKING PERSONNEL SELECTION (SUPRA) HAS NOT BEEN ACCEPTED BY THE DEPARTMENT ON MERITS AND ON A SIMILAR ISSUE, SLP (CIVIL) NO. 9891 OF 2014 HAS BEEN FILED BEFORE THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF MAHARASHTRA INDUSTRIAL DEVELO PMENT CORPORATION (MIDC) . 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 BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF INSTITUTE OF BANKING PERSONNEL SELECTION (SUPRA) . 6. W E FIND THAT THE HON'BLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT SUBSEQUENT TO THE DECISION IN THE CASE OF INSTITUTE OF BANKING PERSONNEL SELECTION (SUPRA) CONSIDERED A SIMILAR ARGUMENT OF THE REVENUE 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 GROUNDS OF APPEAL URGED BY THE REVENUE BEFORE THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT, WHICH READ AS UNDER : - 4 ITA NO. 59 6 5/MUM/2016 M/S. HARVARD BUSINESS SCHOOL (I) RESEARCH CENTER (A) WHETHER ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCE OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE TRIBUNAL WAS JUSTIFIED IN CONFIRMING THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) TO ALLOW THE CLAIM OF DEPRECIATION 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) IGNORING THE RATIO OF HON'BLE SUPREME COURT JUDGMENT I N THE CASE OF ESCORTS LTD. V/S. UNION OF INDIA (199 ITR 43) WHEREIN HON'BLE SUPREME COURT HAS HELD THAT DOUBLE DEDUCTION CANNOT BE PRESUMED IF THE SAME IS NOT SPECIFICALLY PROVIDED BY LAW, IN ADDITION TO NORMAL DEDUCTION? (B) WHETHER ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCE OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE TRIBUNAL WAS JUSTIFIED IN CONFIRMING THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) TO ALLOW TO CARRY FORWARD OF DEFICIT OF EARLIER YEARS RELYING ON THE DECISION OF THIS COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT V/S. INSTITUTE OF BANKING PERSONNEL SER VICES REPORTED IN 264 ITR 110 (BOM) WHILE THE REVENUE DID NOT FILE SLP AGAINST THE CASE OF CIT V/S. INSTITUTE OF BANKING PERSONNEL SERVICES REPORTED IN 264 ITR110 (BOM) DUE TO LOW TAX EFFECT?. STAND ON THE SAME FOOTING AS ARE BEING CANVASSED BEFORE US IN THE INSTANT CASE. THUS, THERE IS NO ERROR ON THE PART OF THE CIT(A) IN FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF THE HON'BLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF INSTITUTE OF BANKING PERSONNEL SELECTION (SUPRA) AND ALLOWING THE STAND OF THE ASSESSEE. THE OTHER ARGUMENT TAK EN BY THE REVENUE THAT ITS SLP FILED BEFORE THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IS PENDING ON 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 BANKING PERSONNEL SELECTION (SUPRA) AS W ELL AS IN THE CASE OF M/S. MUMBAI EDUCATION TRUST (SUPRA) CONTINUE TO SUBSIST. THEREFORE, IN THIS BACKGROUND, WE FIND NO MERIT IN THE GROUND RAISED BY THE REVENUE AND THE SAME IS ACCORDINGLY DISMISSED. 5 ITA NO. 59 6 5/MUM/2016 M/S. HARVARD BUSINESS SCHOOL (I) RESEARCH CENTER 7. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 3 0 T H AUGUST, 2017 SD/ - SD/ - ( AMARJIT SINGH ) JUDICIAL MEMBER (G.S. PANNU) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER MUMBAI, DATE : 3 0 T H AUGUST , 201 7 *SSL* COPY TO : 1) THE APPELLANT 2) THE RESPONDENT 3) THE CIT(A) CONCERNED 4) THE CIT CONCERNED 5) THE D.R, A BENCH, MUMBAI 6) GUARD FILE BY ORDER DY./ASSTT. REGISTRAR I.T.A.T, MUMBAI