9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (9) TMI 306X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... identical for the earlier assessment years. Unless there are strong and compelling reasons to take a different view, the revenue should be bound by the decisions in the earlier as well as the subsequent assessment years so far as the said assessee is concerned. This in other words terms as the Rule of Consistency. In the instant case, for the assessment year 2010-2011, the Assessing Officer took a similar view as that of the view taken by the Assessing Officer for the assessment year under consideration AY 2011-2012. Against such decision, the assessee filed appeal before the CIT(A)-VII, Chennai. The CIT(A) after elaborately considering the factual matrix allowed the appeal filed by the assessee. In the said decision, the CIT(A) has examined the very same rental receipts received by the appellant/assessee and granted relief to the appellant/assessee. Aggrieved by the same, the revenue preferred an appeal before the Tribunal and the appeal was withdrawn by the revenue Tribunal has recorded the application filed by the revenue seeking leave to withdraw the appeal and nowhere in the said application it has been mentioned that the appeal has not been pursued on the ground of lo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in upholding denial of exemption on the ground that conducting lectures, workshops, seminars and earning rental income from multi-storeyed building and running of hostel are commercial in nature contrary to the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of ACIT vs. Thanthi Trust [247 ITR 785]? 3.We have heard M/s.Pushya Sitaraman, learned senior counsel for M/s.J.Sree Vidya, learned counsel for the appellant/assessee and Mr. J.Narayanasamy, learned senior standing counsel appearing for the respondent/revenue. 4.The assessee is an association which is in existence for more than 100 years established by the Gazetted Officers of State and Central Governments and Judges of High Court and District Courts. The object of starting the association was to render social service and it was a non-profit organization and was registered as Public Charitable Trust under Section 12AA of the Act by order dated 29.08.2001 with retrospective effect. For the assessment year under consideration, the assessee filed return of income dated 30.09.2011 declaring Nil income claiming exemption under Section 11 of t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eeded before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) in I.T.A.No.286/13-14 for assessment year 2010-11 and the said order having become final, applying the Rule of Consistency the revenue cannot take a different stand for the assessment year under consideration, AY 2011-12. Further, we note that the returns filed by the assessee claiming exemption under Section11 of the Act was accepted by the revenue for the assessment years 2012-13, 2013-14, 2014-15 and only for the assessment year 2016-17, the issue was once again waked up and the matter is now pending before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). 7.It is the submission of the learned senior standing counsel appearing for the respondent/revenue that each assessment year is a distinct unit and the Assessing Officer is entitled to consider the return of income filed for the concerned year independently and take a decision in the matter. 8.There can be no quarrel to the legal proposition as pointed out by the learned senior standing counsel for the respondent. Nevertheless there are decisions wherein it has been held that though the cardinal principle is that each assessment year is a distinct and separate unit, never ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... m the above decisions is that the Rule of Consistency needs to be adopted by the revenue even though each assessment year may be a distinct and a separate unit unless and until there are distinguishing features to take a different view, the revenue is bound to be consistent, more so, when they are interpreting the nature of transactions done by the assessee Trust which were identical in respect of the earlier assessment years as well as the assessment years post the assessment year under consideration. In the instant case, for the assessment year 2010-2011, the Assessing Officer took a similar view as that of the view taken by the Assessing Officer for the assessment year under consideration AY 2011-2012. Against such decision, the assessee filed appeal before the CIT(A)-VII, Chennai. The CIT(A) after elaborately considering the factual matrix allowed the appeal filed by the assessee. In the said decision, the CIT(A) has examined the very same rental receipts received by the appellant/assessee and granted relief to the appellant/assessee. Aggrieved by the same, the revenue preferred an appeal before the Tribunal in I.T.A.No.1600/Mds/2014 and the appeal was withdrawn by the revenue ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
