ITO (E), New Delhi V. Sadhu Vaswani Mission, New Delhi

ITA 6356/DEL/2013

• Counselvise Citation: 635620114 RSA 2013
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 9 month(s) 12 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 11-09-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: G
• Next Hearing Date: 08-09-2015
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 29-11-2013
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: S C GOPAL
• Keywords: Depreciation; Rectification of order; Charitable institution
• Section: 143(3); 154

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCHES : G NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI J.SUDHAKAR REDDY ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA, JUD ICIAL MEMBER ITA NO: 6356/DEL/2013 AY : - 2008-09 INCOME TAX OFFICER (E) VS. SADHU VAS WANI MISSION TRUST WARD-1, 2 ND STREET SHANTI NIKETAN NEW DELHI. NEW DELHI 110 021. (PAN AAATSO888C) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI SUJIT KUMAR, SR. DR RESPONDENT BY : SHRI S.C. GOPAL, CA DATE OF HEARING : 8.9.2015 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 1 1.9.2015 O R D E R PER SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA, JUDICIAL MEMBER THIS IS AN APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE DIR ECTED AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 17.09.2013 PASSED BY THE LD. CIT(A)- XXI, NEW DELH I FOR AY 2008-09. THE ASSESSEE IS A REGISTERED SOCIETY CARRYING ON CHARITABLE ACTI VITY. ORDER U/S 143(3) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (HEREIN AFTER CALLED THE ACT) WAS PASSED ON 6.12.2010 BY THE INCOME TAX OFFICER (EXEMPTION ) TRUST WARD-1, NEW DELHI AT NIL INCOME AFTER ACCEPTING THE RETURN OF INCOME FILED BY THE TRUST. SUBSEQUENTLY O N 20.09.2012, A RECTIFICATION ORDER U/S 154 WAS PASSED WHEREIN AN AMOUNT OF RS. 30,45,7 32/- ON ACCOUNT OF DEPRECIATION DEBITED IN THE INCOME AND EXPENDITURE ACCOUNT WAS ADDED BACK ON THE GROUND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD CLAIMED DOUBLE DEDUCTI ON OF DEPRECIATION, ONCE AT THE ITA NO.6356/DEL/2013 ITO VS. SADHU VASWANI MISSION 2 TIME OF CLAIMING EXPENDITURE ON ACCOUNT OF FIXED AS SETS AND THEREAFTER AGAIN DEBITING DEPRECIATION IN THE INCOME AND EXPENDITURE ACCOUNT. IT WAS THE VIEW OF THE AO THAT IT WAS A MISTAKE APPARENT FROM THE FACE OF RECORDS AND WAS HENCE ELIGIBLE FOR RECTIFICATION U/S 154 OF THE ACT. 2. LD. CIT (A), HOWEVER DELETED THE ENTIRE ADDITI ON MADE BY THE AO IN THE RECTIFICATION ORDER ON THE FOOTING THAT THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE WAS COVERED IN ITS FAVOUR BY THE ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR AY 2006-07 BY THE ORDER OF THE ITAT IN ITA NO 1204/DEL/2010. 3. IN THE PRESENT APPEAL BEFORE US, LD. DR REITE RATED THAT THE VALUE OF ENTIRE ASSETS ON WHICH DEPRECIATION HAS BEEN CLAIMED BY TH E ASSESSEE WERE EARLIER ALLOWED BY THE DEPARTMENT AS APPLICATION OF THE INCOME AND IF THE DEPRECIATION IS ALLOWED ON THESE ASSETS, THEN IT WILL BE A CASE OF DOUBLE DEDU CTION AND THEREFORE THE AO WAS RIGHTLY MAKING THE DISALLOWANCE AND LD CIT (A) HAS WRONGLY DELETED THE SAME. 4. ON THE OTHER HAND IT WAS SUBMITTED BY THE LD. AR FOR THE ASSESSEE THAT ITS CASE IS COVERED BY THE ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR AY 2006-0 7 IN ITA NO. 1204/2010 ON IDENTICAL ISSUE. HE ALSO RELIED ON THE JUDGMENT OF THE HONBLE HIGH COURT OF DELHI IN DIT (EXEMPTION) VS. VISHWA JAGRITI MISSION (ITA 140 OF 2012). 5. WE HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISS IONS AND THE MATERIAL PLACED BEFORE US. IT IS SEEN THAT THE ASSESSEES CASE IS S QUARELY COVERED BY THE DECISION OF COORDINATE BENCH OF THIS TRIBUNAL IN ITA NO. 1204/2 010 WHEREIN THE COORDINATE BENCH RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWED THE HONBLE P & H HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. MARKET COMMITTEE, PIPLI 330 ITR 16 (P&H) WHEREIN T HE HONBLE P & H HIGH COURT HAS OBSERVED: ITA NO.6356/DEL/2013 ITO VS. SADHU VASWANI MISSION 3 IN THE PRESENT CASE, THE ASSESSEE IS NOT CLAIMIN G DOUBLE DEDUCTION ON ACCOUNT OF DEPRECIATION AS HAS BEEN SUGGESTED BY THE LD. COUNS EL FOR THE REVENUE. THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE BEING EXEMPT, THE ASSESSEE IS ONLY CLAIMING THAT DEPRECIATION SHOULD BE REDUCED FROM THE INCOME FOR DETERMINING THE PERC ENTAGE OF FUNDS WHICH HAVE TO BE APPLIED FOR THE PURPOSES OF THE TRUST. THERE IS NO DOUBLE DEDUCTION CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE AS CANVASSED BY THE REVENUE. IT CANNOT BE HELD THAT DOUBLE BENEFIT IS GIVEN IN ALLOWING THE CLAIM FOR DEPRECIATION FOR CO MPUTING INCOME FOR PURPOSES OF SECTION 11. THE QUESTIONS PROPOSED HAVE, THUS, TO B E ANSWERED AGAINST THE REVENUE AND IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE. THE APPEAL IS DISMIS SED. 6. REFERENCE MAY ALSO BE MADE HERE TO CIT VS. SO CIETY OF SISTERS OF ST. ANNE (1984) 146 ITR 28 (KARNATAKA) WHEREIN AN IDENTICAL QUESTION AROSE BEFORE THE HONBLE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT. A REFERENCE WAS MADE TO THE NATURE OF DEPRECIATION AND IT WAS POINTED OUT THAT DEPRECIATION WAS NOTHIN G BUT DECREASE IN THE VALUE OF PROPERTY THROUGH WEAR, DETERIORATION OR OBSOLESCENC E. THE HONBLE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OBSERVED THAT IF DEPRECIATION IS NOT ALLOWED AS NECESSARY DEDUCTION ON COMPUTING THE INCOME OF CHARITABLE INSTITUTIONS, TH EN THERE IS NO WAY TO PRESERVE THE PERFORMANCE OF THE TRUST FOR DERIVING THE INCOME. T HE HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN DIT (EXEMPTION) VS. VISHWA JAGRITI MISSION, (ITA NO . 140 OF 2012) HAS ALSO FOLLOWED THE AFORESAID PRINCIPLE. 7. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE DISCUSSION AND RESPECTF ULLY FOLLOWING THE JUDGMENT OF THE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN DIT VS. VISHWA JAGRITI MISSION (SUPRA), AS WELL AS THE JUDGMENT OF COORDINATE BENCH IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE IN ITA NO. 1204 OF 2010 WE FIND NO INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT (A) V IDE WHICH THE IMPUGNED ADDITION HAS BEEN DELETED AND WE DECLINE TO INTERFERE. 8. IN THE RESULT THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVEN UE IS DISMISSED. ITA NO.6356/DEL/2013 ITO VS. SADHU VASWANI MISSION 4 ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 1 1 TH SEPTEMBER, 2015. SD/- (J. SUDHAKAR REDDY) (S UDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA ) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED: THE 11. 9. 2015 VEENA COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR 6. GUARD FILE BY ORDER DY. REGISTRAR SL. NO. DESCRIPTION DATE 1. DATE OF DICTATION BY THE AUTHOR 8.9.2015 2. DRAFT PLACED BEFORE THE DICTATING MEMBER 9.9.20 15 3. DRAFT PLACED BEFORE THE SECOND MEMBER 4. DRAFT APPROVED BY THE SECOND MEMBER 5. DATE OF APPROVED ORDER COMES TO THE SR. PS 6. DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDER 7. DATE OF FILE SENT TO THE BENCH CLERK 8. DATE ON WHICH FILE GOES TO THE HEAD CLERK 9. DATE OF DISPATCH OF ORDER