ACIT (Exemption), Ghaziabad V. M/s. City Educational Trust, Noida

ITA 899/DEL/2015

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 126 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 3220 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 14 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 27-02-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 13-02-2015
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: ASHIMA NEB
• Keywords: Depreciation

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCHES : B : NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI R.S. SYAL, VICE PRESIDENT AND MS SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO.899/DEL/2015 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2010-11 ACIT (EXEMPTION), ROOM NO.208, 2 ND FLOOR, CGO-1, HAPUR ROAD, GHAZIABAD. VS. CITY EDUCATIONAL TRUST, PLOT NO.1, SECTOR-62, NOIDA. PAN: AAATC3605P (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : NONE DEPARTMENT BY : MS ASHIMA NEB, SR. DR DATE OF HEARING : 26.02.2018 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 27.02.2018 ORDER PER R.S. SYAL, VP: THIS APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE IS DIRECTED AGAIN ST THE ORDER PASSED BY THE CIT(A) ON 31.10.2014 IN RELATION TO T HE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010-11. ITA NO.899/DEL/2015 2 2. THE ONLY GROUND TAKEN IN THIS APPEAL IS AGAINST THE DELETION OF RS.98,30,447/- ON ACCOUNT OF DISALLOWANCE OF DEPREC IATION. 3. BRIEFLY STATED, THE FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT T HE ASSESSEE DEBITED RS.98.30 LAC IN ITS INCOME & EXPENDITURE ACCOUNT UN DER THE HEAD DEPRECIATION. THE ASSESSING OFFICER DID NOT ALLO W SUCH CLAIM ON THE GROUND THAT INVESTMENT IN FIXED ASSETS WAS CLAIMED AS APPLICATION OF INCOME IN THE YEAR OF PURCHASE OF ASSET AND HENCE CLAIMING DEPRECIATION ON THE SAME AMOUNTS TO DOUBLE DISALLOWANCE. THE LD . CIT(A) OVERTURNED THE ASSESSMENT ORDER ON THIS ISSUE, AGAINST WHICH T HE REVENUE HAS COME UP IN APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. 4. WE HAVE HEARD THE LD. DR AND PERUSED THE RELEVAN T MATERIAL ON RECORD. THERE IS NO APPEARANCE FROM THE SIDE OF THE ASSESSEE DESPITE NOTICE. WE ARE, THEREFORE, PROCEEDING TO DISPOSE O F THE APPEAL EX PARTE QUA THE ASSESSEE. IT IS OBSERVED THAT THE ONLY DISPUTE IN THIS APPEAL IS AGAINST NON-ALLOWING OF DEPRECIATION ON THE GROUND THAT THE ASSESSEE- TRUST CLAIMED APPLICATION OF INCOME AND HENCE THE A LLOWING OF DEPRECIATION WOULD AMOUNT TO DOUBLE DEDUCTION. WE FIND THAT THIS ISSUE ITA NO.899/DEL/2015 3 IS NO MORE RES INTEGRA IN VIEW OF THE FACT THAT SECTION 11(6) HAS BEEN INSERTED BY THE FINANCE (NO.2) ACT, 2014 W.E.F. 01. 04.2015 PROVIDING THAT : `WHERE ANY INCOME IS REQUIRED TO BE APPLIED OR ACCUMULATED OR SET APART FOR APPLICATION, THEN, FOR SUCH PURPOSES THE INCOME SHALL BE DETERMINED WITHOUT ANY DEDUCTION OR ALLOWANCE BY WA Y OF DEPRECIATION OR OTHERWISE IN RESPECT OF ANY ASSET, ACQUISITION O F WHICH HAS BEEN CLAIMED AS AN APPLICATION OF INCOME UNDER THIS SECT ION IN THE SAME OR ANY OTHER PREVIOUS YEAR. SINCE THIS PROVISION FOR NOT ALLOWING DEPRECIATION IN RESPECT OF ASSETS WHICH WAS CLAIMED AS APPLICATI ON OF INCOME AT THE TIME OF THE ACQUISITION/PURCHASE OF ASSETS HAS BEEN INSERTED W.E.F. 01.04.2015, THE SAME DOES NOT APPLY TO THE ASSESSME NT YEAR 2010-11. THE HON'BLE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT IN CIT VS. KARNATAKA REDDY JANSANGHA (2016) 389 ITR 22 (KAR), HAS HELD SUCH INSERTION OF SECTION 11(6) AS PROSPECTIVE. UNDER THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, W E UPHOLD THE IMPUGNED ORDER IN DELETING THE DISALLOWANCE OF DEPR ECIATION. ITA NO.899/DEL/2015 4 5. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DISM ISSED. THE ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 27.02.201 8. SD/- SD/- [SUCHITRA KAMBLE] [R.S. SYAL] JUDICIAL MEMBER VICE PRESIDENT DATED, 27 TH FEBRUARY, 2018. DK COPY FORWARDED TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT (A) 5. DR, ITAT AR, ITAT, NEW DELHI.