DCIT (Exemption), New Delhi V. The Delhi Public School Society, New Delhi

ITA 6084/DEL/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2021] 109 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7052 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 year(s) 2 month(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 28-01-2021
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: G
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Appeal Filed On: 28-11-2016
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Capital asset; Business income; Depreciation; Charitable institution; Capital expenditure
• Section: 12A; 12AA; 13; 12; 2; 11

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH G: NEW DELHI (THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCING) BEFORE SHRI SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI ANADEE NATH MISSHRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO.6084/DEL/2016 (ASSESSMENT YEAR 2011-12) DY. CIT (EXEMPTIONS) CIRCLE-2(1), NEW DELHI. VS. THE DELHI PUBLIC SCHOOL SOCIETY, F-BLOCK, EAST OF KAILASH, NEW DELHI-110065. PAN AAATT 0740J (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) REVENUE BY SH. H.K.CHOUDHARY, (CIT-DR) ASSESSEE B Y SH. NIRBHAY MEHTA, ADV. ORDER PER ANADEE NATH MISSHRA, AM: THIS APPEAL IS PREFERRED BY THE REVENUE AGAINST ORDER DATED 28.09.2016 PASSED BY THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF IN COME TAX (APPEALS)-36, NEW DELHI {CIT(A)} FOR ASSESSMENT YEA R 2011-12. THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL ARE AS UNDER: 1. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW & FACT BY I GNORING THAT THE RECEIPTS ARE ON ACCOUNT OF FRANCHISEE FEE AND T HE SAME ARE IN THE NATURE OF BUSINESS INCOME WITHIN THE MEANING OF PROVISIONS OF SUB-SECTION 4A OF SECTION 11 OF THE A CT. THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO MAINTAIN SEPARATE BOOKS OF ACCOU NTS AS PER SUB SECTION 12A OF SECTION 2 OF THE I.T. ACT. ITA NO.6084/DEL/2016 DCIT VS. THE DELHI PUBLIC SCHOOL SOCIETY PAGE 2 OF 13 2. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF T HE CASE AND IN LAW, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW IN ALLOWING THE CLAIM OF CARRY FORWARD OF LOSSES DISREGARDING THE FACT THAT SET-OFF AND CARRY FORWARD OF LOSSES ARE DEALT WITH BY THE PROVI SIONS OF SECTION 70 TO 74 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT. 3. THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW & FACT THAT ALLOWING DEPRECIATION OF FIXED ASSETS IS TANTAMOUNT DOUBLE D EDUCTION AS THE EXPENDITURE ON FIXED ASSETS IS ALREADY ALLOW ED. 4. THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD, TO ALTER OR AMEND ANY GROUND OF APPEAL RAISED ABOVE AT THE TIME OF HEARIN G. (B) AT THE TIME OF HEARING BEFORE US, THE LD. COUNSE L FOR ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE DISPUTED ISSUES IN THIS CASE ARE COVERED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEES OWN CASE. THE LD. COUNSEL OF THE ASSESSEE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT, IN IDENTICAL FACTS, IN ASSE SSEES OWN CASE, THE CO-ORDINATE BENCH OF ITAT, DELHI HAS ALREADY TA KEN A VIEW, ON THE DISPUTED ISSUES, IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE VIDE ORDER DATED 08.08.2019 IN ITA NO. 2761/DEL/2017 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2013- 14. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (DEPART MENTAL REPRESENTATIVE) [LD. CIT(DR), FOR SHORT] APPEARING FOR REVENUE ACCEPTED THAT ALL THE ISSUES IN DISPUTED WERE COVER ED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE BY THE AFORESAID ORDER DATED 08.08.201 9 OF CO-ORDINATE BENCH OF INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (ITAT, FOR SHORT), DELHI, IN ITA NO.6084/DEL/2016 DCIT VS. THE DELHI PUBLIC SCHOOL SOCIETY PAGE 3 OF 13 WHICH, IN IDENTICAL FACTS, THE DISPUTED ISSUES WERE DECIDED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE. THE RELEVANT PORTION OF THE AFORE SAID ORDER DATED 08.08.2019 OF CO-ORDINATE BENCH OF THE ITAT, DELHI IN ASSESSEES OWN IS REPRODUCED BELOW: (A) THIS APPEAL BY REVENUE IS FILED AGAINST THE OR DER OF LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-40, DELHI, [LD. CIT(A), FOR SHORT], DATED 27.02.2017 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2013-14. THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL ARE AS UNDER: I. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW & FACT BY IGNORING THE FACT THAT THE R ECEIPT ARE ON ACCOUNT OF FRANCHISEE FEES AND SAME ARE IN THE NATURE OF BUSIN ESS INCOME WITHIN THE MEANING OF PROVISIONS OF SUB-SECTION 4A OF THE SECT ION 11 OF THE I.T. ACT. THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO MAINTAIN SEPARATE BOOKS OF A CCOUNTS AS PER SUB SECTION 12A OF THE SECTION 2 OF THE I.T. ACT. II. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES O F THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW ALLOWING THE CLAIM OF CARRY FORWAR D OF LOSSES DISREGARDING THE FACT THAT SET-OFF AND CARRY FORWARD OF LOSSES A RE DELETE WITH BY THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 70 TO 74 OF THE INCOME TAX AC T. III. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES O F THE CASE AND IN LAWS, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW & FACT THAT ALLOWING DEPREC IATION ON FIXED ASSETS IN TANTAMOUNT TO DOUBLE DEDUCTION AS THE EXPENDITURE O N FIXED ASSET IS ALREADY ALLOWED. IV. THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD, TO ALT ER OR AMEND ANY GROUND OF APPEAL RAISED ABOVE AT THE TIME OF HEARING. (B) DURING APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS IN INCOME TAX APPE LLATE TRIBUNAL (ITAT, FOR SHORT), COPIES OF THE FOLLOWING ORDERS WERE FILED FROM ASSE SSEES SIDE: I. ITAT ORDER DATED 20/04/2005 FOR AY 2001-02 IN THE CASE OF THE DELHI PUBLIC SCHOOL SOCIETY V. DCIT(E) ITA NO. 45 71/D/2004. II. ITAT ORDER DATED 23/05/2019 FOR AY 2012-13 IN THE C ASE OF DCIT(E) V. THE DELHI PUBLIC SCHOOL SOCIETY ITA NO . 4887/D/2016. III. DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX (E) V. DELHI PUBLIC SCHOOL S OCIETY HIGH COURT OF DELHI 92 TAXMANN.COM 132 IV. DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX (E) V. DELHI PUBLIC SCHOOL S OCIETY SUPREME COURT OF INDIA 100 TAXMANN.COM 80. V. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX III V. RAJASTHAN & GUJA RATI CHARITABLE FOUNDATION POONA SUPREME COURT OF INDIA 89 TAXMANN.COM 127 VI. DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX V. RAGHUVANSHI CHARITABLE TR UST HIGH COURT OF DELHI 197 TAXMAN 170 ITA NO.6084/DEL/2016 DCIT VS. THE DELHI PUBLIC SCHOOL SOCIETY PAGE 4 OF 13 (B.1) AT THE TIME OF HEARING BEFORE US, THE LD. AUT HORIZED REPRESENTATIVE (AR, FOR SHORT) OF THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT ALL THE DISPUTED ISS UES ARE COVERED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE BY THE AFORESAID JUDICIAL PRECEDENTS. THE LD. AR OF THE ASSESSEE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT, IN IDENTICAL FACTS, IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE, THE CO-ORD INATE BENCH OF ITAT, DELHI HAS ALREADY TAKEN A VIEW, ON THE DISPUTED ISSUES, IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE VIDE AFORESAID ORDER DATED 23.05.2019. THE LD. CIT(DR) APPEARING FOR REVENUE ACCEPTED THAT ALL THE ISSUES IN DISPUTE WERE COVERED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE BY THE AFORE SAID JUDICIAL PRECEDENTS, IN WHICH, IN IDENTICAL FACTS, THE DISPUTED ISSUES WERE DECIDED I N FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE. (B.1.1) RELEVANT PORTION OF THE AFORESAID ORDER DATED 20.04.2005 OF CO-ORDINATE BENCH OF ITAT, DELHI IN ITA NO. 4571/DEL/2004 IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE I.E. THE DELHI PUBLIC SCHOOL SOCIETY VS. DCIT(E) IS REPRODUCED AS UNDER: ITA NO.6084/DEL/2016 DCIT VS. THE DELHI PUBLIC SCHOOL SOCIETY PAGE 5 OF 13 ITA NO.6084/DEL/2016 DCIT VS. THE DELHI PUBLIC SCHOOL SOCIETY PAGE 6 OF 13 ITA NO.6084/DEL/2016 DCIT VS. THE DELHI PUBLIC SCHOOL SOCIETY PAGE 7 OF 13 ITA NO.6084/DEL/2016 DCIT VS. THE DELHI PUBLIC SCHOOL SOCIETY PAGE 8 OF 13 (B.1.2) THE RELEVANT PORTION OF THE AFORESAID ORD ER DATED 23.05.2019 OF CO-ORDINATE BENCH OF ITAT, DELHI IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE IN DCIT (E) VS. THE DELHI PUBLIC SCHOOL SOCIETY IN ITA NO. 4887/DEL/2016 IS REPRODUCED AS U NDER: THE AFORESAID APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED BY THE ASSESSE E AGAINST THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 01.06.2016, PASSED BY LD. COMMISSIONER OF INC OME TAX (APPEALS)-XL, NEW DELHI FOR THE QUANTUM OF ASSESSMENT PASSED U/S. 143 (3) FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2012-13 ON THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL. 1. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN ICTW, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW & FACT BY IGNORING THE FACT THAT THE RECEIPTS ARE O N ACCOUNT OF FRANCHISEE FEES AND SAME ARE IN THE NATURE OF BUSINESS INCOME WITHIN THE MEA NING OF PROVISIONS OF SUB-SECTION 4A OF THE SECTION 11 OF THE IT ACT. THE ASSESSEE FAIL ED TO MAINTAIN SEPARATE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS AS PER SUB-SECTION 12A OF THE SECTION 2 OF THE I.T. ACT. 2. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE LD CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN ALLOWING THE DEPRECIATION AMOUNTING OF RS. 11,52,34,406/- AS IN A CASE WHERE THE CAPITAL EXPENDITURE HAS BEEN TREATED TO H AVE BEEN APPLIED FOR THE OBJECT OF THE TRUST, ALLOWANCE OF DEDUCTION ON ACCOUNT OF DEPRECI ATION WILL AMOUNT TO DOUBLE DEDUCTION. 3. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE A ND IN LAW, THE LD CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN ALLOWING THE DEFICIT OF EARLIER ASSESSMENT, AS THER E IS NO PROVISION FOR SET OFF OF LOSSES U/S 11, 12 AND 13 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961. 4. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE A ND IN LAW, THE LD CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN ALLOWING THE CLAIM OF CARRY FORWARD OF LOS SES DISREGARDING THE FACTS THAT THE SETOFF AND CARRY FORWARD OF LOSSES ARE DEALT WITH BY THE P ROVISIONS OF SECTION 70,71,72,73 &74 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT. 2. AT THE OUTSET, THE LD. AR STATED THAT THE IMPUGNED ISSUES RAISED IN THIS APPEAL ARE SQUARELY COVERED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESS EE AND AGAINST THE REVENUE BY THE DECISION OF THE CO-ORDINATE BENCH IN ASSESSE E'S OWN CASE IN 6627/DEL/2015 FOR A.Y. 2010-11 VIDE ORDER DATED 29 TH NOVEMBER, 2017. ITA NO.6084/DEL/2016 DCIT VS. THE DELHI PUBLIC SCHOOL SOCIETY PAGE 9 OF 13 3. THE LD. DR, OTHER THAN SUPPORTING THE FINDINGS OF T HE ASSESSING OFFICER, COULD NOT BRING ANY DISTINGUISHING DECISION IN FAVOUR OF THE REVENUE 4. AFTER CONSIDERING THE IMPUGNED ORDERS AND THE IS SUES RAISED IN THE PRESENT APPEAL, WE FIND THAT SIMILAR ISSUES WERE INVOLVED I N THE EARLIER YEARS AND WERE CONSIDERED BY THE CO-ORDINATE BENCH. THE RELEVANT O BSERVATION READS AS UNDER: GROUND NO. 1 4. THIS GROUND HAS BEEN RAISED BY REVENUE AGAINST THE ADDITION THAT HAS BEEN DELETED IN RESPECT OF FRANCHISEE FEES RECEIVED BY A SSESSEE FROM DIFFERENT SATELLITE SCHOOLS WHICH ARE RUNNING UNDER THE NAME AND LOGO OF ASSESS EE, HAVING DIFFERENT MANAGEMENT THAN ASSESSEE SOCIETY. 4.1 IT IS SEEN FROM VARIOUS ORDERS PLACED IN THE PA PER BOOK FOR THE VARIOUS ASSESSMENT YEARS IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE PASSED BY THIS TRIBUNA L THAT THIS ISSUE NOW STANDS SETTLED IN FAVOUR OF ASSESSEE AND AGAINST REVENUE. IT IS ALSO OBSERVED THAT LD. CIT(A) FOLLOWED THE BINDING DECISION OF THIS TRIBUNAL IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR THE PREVIOUS ASSESSMENT YEARS. IN VIEW OF ABOVE, WE DO NOT FIND ANY INFIRMI TY IN THE ORDER PASSED BY ID. CIT(A) AND THE GROUND RAISED BY REVENUE STANDS DISMISSED. 5. RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE AFORESAID PRECEDENCE, WHICH IS ALSO APPLICABLE IN THIS GROUND OF THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED. 6. IN GROUND NO. 2 IN ITA NO. 6627/DEL/2015 (SUPRA) , THE RELEVANT FINDINGS GIVEN QUA GROUND NO. 2 & 3 OF APPEAL HAVE BEEN GIVEN IN P ARAGRAPH 5 WHICH READS AS UNDER: 5. THIS GROUND HAS BEEN RAISED BY REVENUE, AS LD. CIT (A) ALLOWED DEDUCTION ON ACCOUNT OF DEPRECIATION. THE LD. AO WAS OF THE OPIN ION THAT ASSESSEE WAS A TRUST AND IT WAS DERIVING INCOME FROM DEPRECIABLE ASSETS. AS ASS ESSEE TOOK INTO ACCOUNT DEPRECIATION ON THOSE ASSETS WHILE COMPUTING INCOME OF TRUST, LD .AO HELD THAT DEPRECIATION COULD NOT BE TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT BECAUSE FULL CAPITAL EXPENDIT URE HAS BEEN ALLOWED IN THE YEAR OF ACQUISITION OF THE ASSETS. THE LD. DR PLACED RELIAN CE UPON THE DECISION OF HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF DIT VS. CHIRANJIV CHARITA BLE TRUST REPORTED IN 223 TAXMANN.COM 71. 5.1. ON THE CONTRARY ASSESSEE PLACED RELIANCE UPON A SU BSEQUENT DECISION OF HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. IND RAPRASTHA CANCER SOCIETY REPORTED IN 53 TAXMANN.COM 463. 5.2. WE HAVE PERUSED THE SUBMISSIONS ADVANCED BY BOTH T HE SIDES IN THE LIGHT OF THE DECISIONS RELIED UPON BY THEM. 5.3. IT IS OBSERVED THAT ORDER PASSED BY THIS TRIBUNAL IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10 IN ITA NO. 4081/DEL/2012 PL ACED AT PAGE 68 OF THE PAPER BOOK DEALT WITH THIS ISSUE AS UNDER: 10. FURTHERMORE, WE NOTE THE HONBLE JURISDICTIONA L HIGH COURT DECISION IN THE CASE OF DIT VS. VISHWA JAGRITI MISSION IN ITA NO. 140/2012 VIDE ORDER DATED 29.3.2012. IN THIS CASE THE LD.CIT(A) ON THE BASIS OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE -. LD.DIT(E) ACCEPTED ASSESSEES CLAIM FOR EXEMPTION U/S 11. AS REGARDS T HE CLAIM OF DEPRECIATION ON FIXED ASSETS UTILIZED FOR CHARITABLE OBJECTS OF THE TRUST , HE ACCEPTED ASSESSEES CLAIM. THE TRIBUNAL CONFIRMED THE DECISION OF LD.CIT(A) ON APP EAL. ON APPEAL THE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT HAS HELD AS UNDER. THERE IS NO DISPUTE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN GRA NTED REGISTRATION U/S 12AA ITA NO.6084/DEL/2016 DCIT VS. THE DELHI PUBLIC SCHOOL SOCIETY PAGE 10 OF 13 AND, THEREFORE, IT WAS ENTITLED TO EXEMPTION OF ITS INCOME U/S 11. THE ONLY QUESTION IS WHETHER THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE SHOULD BE COMPUT ED ON COMMERCIAL PRINCIPLES AND IN DOING SO WHETHER DEPRECIATION ON FIXED ASSETS UTILI ZED FOR THE CHARITABLE PURPOSES SHOULD BE ALLOWED. ON THIS ISSUE, THERE SEEMS TO BE A CONS ENSUS OF JUDICIAL THINKING. HAVING REGARD, TO THE CONSENSUS OF JUDICIAL OPINION , WE ARE NOT INCLINED TO ADMIT THE APPEAL AND FRAME ANY SUBSTANTIAL QUESTION OF LA W. THERE DOES NOT APPEAR TO BE ANY CONTRARY VIEW PLAUSIBLE ON THE QUESTION RAISED BEFO RE US AND AT ANY RATE NO JUDGEMENT TAKING A CONTRARY VIEW HAS BEEN BROUGHT TO OUR NOTI CE. 7. THUS, RESPECTFULLY, FOLLOWING THE SAME, GROUND NO. 2 IS DISMISSED. 8. IN GROUNDS NO.3 & 4 IN ITA NO.6627/DEL/2015 (SUPRA ), THE RELEVANT FINDINGS GIVEN QUA GROUNDS NO.4 & 5 OF THAT APPEAL AT PARAGR APH 6.2 READ AS UNDER: 6.2.1 LD. AR A THE OUTSET SUBMITTED THAT THE ISSUE STANDS COVERED BY THIS TRIBUNAL IN ITA NO. 4081/DEL/2012 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10. THIS TR IBUNAL DEALT WITH THIS ISSUE AS UNDER: 16. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS IN LIGHT O F THE MATERIAL 'PRODUCED AND PRECEDENT RELIED UPON. LD. COUNSEL OF THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE ISSUE IS COVERED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE BY THE DECISION OF THE HON'B LE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF RAGHUVANSHI CHARITABLE TRUST (SUPRA). THE LD. DE PARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE COULD NOT PRODUCE ANY DECISION CONTRARY IN THIS REGARD. 17. HENCE, UPON CAREFUL CONSIDERATION, WE FIND THAT TH E HON'BLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF D.I.T. VS. RAGHUVANSHI CHARITABLE TRUST (SUPRA) HAS HELD AS UNDER (HEADS NOTES ONLY):- 'SECTION 11 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 - CHARITABL E OR RELIGIOUS TRUST - EXEMPTION OF INCOME FROM PROPERTY HELD UNDER - WHETHER A TRUST C AN BE ALLOWED TO CARRY FORWARD DEFICIT OF CURRENT YEAR AND TO SET OFF SAME AGAINST INCOME OF SUBSEQUENT YEARS - HELD, YES - WHETHER ADJUSTMENT OF DEFICIT OF CURRENT YEAR AGAINST INCOME OF SUBSEQUENT YEAR WOULD AMOUNT TO APPLICATION OF INCOME OF TRUST FOR CHARITABLE PURPOSES IN SUBSEQUENT YEAR WITHIN MEANING OF SECTION 11(1 )(A) - HELD, YE S.' 18. IN VIEW OF THE AFORESAID EXPOSITION BY THE HON'BLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT, WE FIND THAT THERE IS NO INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER OF THE LD. COMMI SSIONER OF INCOME TAX (A), ACCORDINGLY, WE UPHOLD THE SAME. IN THE RESULT, THE ISSUE RAISED BY THE REVENUE STANDS DISMISSED. 6.3 RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE SAME WE DO NOT FIND ANY INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A). 9. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE AND RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE SAME, GROUNDS NO. 3 & 4 ARE DISMISSED. (B.2) IN THE CASE OF AFORESAID PRECEDENT OF DIT(E) VS. DELHI PUBLIC SCHOOL SOCIETY [2018] 92 TAXMANN.COM 132 (DELHI), IT WAS HELD BY H ONBLE HIGH COURT OF DELHI IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE THAT THE ASSESSEE SOCIETY WAS M AINTAINING SCHOOLS IN FURTHERANCE OF EDUCATIONAL PURPOSE AND THAT ALSO QUALIFIED AS CHAR ITABLE PURPOSE UNDER SECTION 2(15) AND, THEREFORE, ASSESSEE SOCIETY FULFILLED REQUIREM ENTS TO QUALIFY FOR EXEMPTION UNDER SECTION 10(23C)(VI). IN THE CASE OF DIT(E) VS. DELH I PUBLIC SCHOOL SOCIETY[2018] 100 ITA NO.6084/DEL/2016 DCIT VS. THE DELHI PUBLIC SCHOOL SOCIETY PAGE 11 OF 13 TAXMANN.COM 80(SC), A SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION OF REV ENUE AGAINST THE AFORESAID ORDER OF HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT WAS DISMISSED BY HONBLE S UPREME COURT. (B.2.1) IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. RAJASTHAN & GUJAR ATI CHARITABLE FOUNDATION POONA [2018] 89 TAXMANN.COM 127 (SC), IT WAS HELD BY HONBLE SUP REME COURT THAT IN THE CASE OF CHARITABLE INSTITUTION REGISTERED UNDER SECTION 12A , EVEN THOUGH EXPENDITURE INCURRED FOR ACQUISITION OF CAPITAL ASSETS WAS TREATED AS APPLIC ATION OF INCOME FOR CHARITABLE PURPOSES UNDER SECTION 11(1)(A), YET DEPRECIATION WOULD BE A LLOWED ON ASSETS SO PURCHASED. (B.2.2) IN THE CASE OF DIT VS. RAGHUVANSHI CHAR ITABLE TRUST [2011] 197 TAXMAN 170 (DELHI), IT WAS HELD BY HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT TH AT A TRUST CAN BE ALLOWED TO CARRY FORWARD DEFICIT OF CURRENT YEAR AND TO SET OFF SAME AGAINST INCOME OF SUBSEQUENT YEARS. IT WAS FURTHER HELD BY HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THI S CASE THAT ADJUSTMENT OF DEFICIT OF CURRENT YEAR AGAINST INCOME OF SUBSEQUENT YEAR WOUL D AMOUNT TO APPLICATION OF INCOME OF TRUST FOR CHARITABLE PURPOSES IN SUBSEQUENT YEAR WITHIN MEANING OF SECTION 11(1)(A). (C) WE HAVE HEARD BOTH SIDES. WE HAVE PERUSED THE MATERIALS AVAILABLE ON RECORD. WE HAVE ALSO CONSIDERED THE JUDICIAL PRECEDENTS BROUGH T TO OUR NOTICE. AT THE TIME OF HEARING BEFORE US, BOTH SIDES HAVE AGREED THAT THE ISSUES I N DISPUTE ARE COVERED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE BY THE AFORESAID JUDICIAL PRECEDENTS MENTI ONED IN FOREGOING PARAGRAPHS (B) AND SUB PARAGRAPHS (B.1), (B.1.1), (B.1.2), (B.2), (B.2 .1) AND (B.2.2). THE FIRST GROUND OF APPEAL IS DISMISSED ACCORDINGLY AND THE ISSUE IS DE CIDED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE, RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE PRECEDENTS REFERRED TO I N THE FOREGOING PARAGRAPHS (B.1.1), (B.1.2), AND (B.2) OF THIS ORDER. FURTHER, RESPECTF ULLY FOLLOWING THE AFORESAID PRECEDENTS REFERRED TO IN FOREGOING PARAGRAPHS (B.1.2) AND (B. 2.2) OF THIS ORDER, THE SECOND GROUND OF APPEALS IS DISMISSED AND THE DISPUTED ISSUE IS D ECIDED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE. FURTHERMORE, RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE AFORESAID P RECEDENTS REFERRED TO IN FOREGOING PARAGRAPHS (B.1.2) AND (B.2.1) OF THIS ORDER, THIRD GROUND OF APPEAL IS DISMISSED, AND THE DISPUTED ISSUE IS DECIDED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSE SSEE. (C) WE HAVE HEARD BOTH SIDES. WE HAVE PERUSED THE MAT ERIALS AVAILABLE ON RECORD. WE HAVE ALSO CONSIDERED THE JU DICIAL PRECEDENT BROUGHT TO OUR NOTICE. AT THE TIME OF HEARING BEFOR E US, BOTH SIDES HAVE AGREED THAT THE ISSUES IN DISPUTE IN THIS APPE AL ARE COVERED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE BY THE AFORESAID ORDER DATED 08.08.2019 OF CO-ORDINATE BENCH OF ITAT IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE. NEITHER SIDE HAS BROUGHT ANY FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THIS YEAR ON ANY OF THE ITA NO.6084/DEL/2016 DCIT VS. THE DELHI PUBLIC SCHOOL SOCIETY PAGE 12 OF 13 ISSUES IN DISPUTE TO DISTINGUISH FROM THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF ASSESSMENT YEAR 2013-14 TO WHICH THE AFORESAID ORDE R DATED 08.08.2019 PERTAINS. IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, WE DECIDE ALL THE ISSUES IN DISPUTE IN THIS APPEAL; IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE AND AGAINST REVENUE. ALL THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL ARE DIS MISSED. (D) IN THE RESULT, THIS APPEAL IS DISMISSED. ORDER WAS ALREADY PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ORAL LY ON 25/01/2021 IN THE PRESENCE OF REPRESENTATIVES OF BO TH SIDES; AFTER CONCLUSION OF HEARING. WRITTEN ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON 28/01/2021. SD/- SD/- (SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA) (ANADEE NATHMISSHRA) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED: 28/01/2021 PK/PS COPY FORWARDED TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(APPEALS) 5. DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT NEW DELHI ITA NO.6084/DEL/2016 DCIT VS. THE DELHI PUBLIC SCHOOL SOCIETY PAGE 13 OF 13 DATE OF DICTATION DATE ON WHICH THE TYPED DRAFT IS PLACED BEFORE THE DICTATING MEMBER DATE ON WHICH THE TYPED DRAFT IS PLACED BEFORE THE OTHER MEMBER DATE ON WHICH THE APPROVED DRAFT COMES TO THE SR. PS/PS DATE ON WHICH THE FAIR ORDER IS PLACED BEFORE THE DICTATING MEMBER FOR PRONOUNCEMENT DATE ON WHICH THE FAIR ORDER COMES BACK TO THE SR. PS/PS DATE ON WHICH THE FINAL ORDER IS UPLOADED ON THE WEBSITE OF ITAT DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE BENCH CLERK DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE HEAD CLERK THE DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR FOR SIGNATURE ON THE ORDER DATE OF DISPATCH OF THE ORDER