9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (10) TMI 1915X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d by the Revenue against the order of Ld. CIT(A) pertaining to the A.Y. 2011-12 which implies that the order of Ld. CIT(A) reached to its finality. In our considered view, once, the order of the Ld CIT(A) has reached to its finality to any of the assessment year then on the same ground no appeal by the Revenue can be preferred to the Hon ble ITAT in other years. In this regard, we draw support and guidance from the judgment of Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Excel Industries Limited[ 2013 (10) TMI 324 - SUPREME COURT] . As no change in the facts and circumstances in the impugned case in comparison to the previous assessment years and the Revenue in earlier year has accepted the same. Therefore in our considered view the prin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... -Tax (Appeals) ought to have upheld the order of the Assessing Officer. IV. It is, therefore, prayed that the order of the Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) may be set aside and that of the Assessing Officer be restored. 3. The solitary issue raised by the Revenue is that the Ld. CIT(A) erred in allowing the benefit of Section 11(1)(a) 11(2) of the Act which is contrary to the provisions of section 2(15) r.w.s. 13(8) of the Act. 4. Briefly stated facts are that the assessee is an AOP trust and engaged in providing vocational training. The AO during the assessment proceedings observed that the assessee has charging fee/consideration from the activity of vocational training. As per the AO, the activity of the assessee falls ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f appeal order has also been submitted to your goodself. However, the AO disagreed with the contentions of the assessee and held that the activities of the Trust are covered under the proviso of Section 2(15) of the Act. Accordingly, the AO disallowed the claim of the assessee u/s 11(1)(a) and 11(2) of the Act amounting to ₹ 66,06,046/- and 2 crores respectively, which was added back to the total income of the assessee. 6. Aggrieved, assessee preferred an appeal to Ld. CIT(A). The assessee before the Ld. CIT(A) submitted that the identical issue was decided by the Ld. CIT(A) vide his order dated 30.07.2014 pertaining to the A.Y. 2011-12. Therefore, the assessee claimed that it is eligible for exemption u/s 11(1)(a)/11(2) of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the appellant has complied with the requirements of the Section 11(2) of the Act. Further, the Trust has been granted Registration u/s 12AA which not withdrawn by the CIT. Considering these facts, the AO is not justified in holding that activities of the appellant are not for charitable purposes, as defined in section 2(15) of the Act. The AO is also not justified in holding that the deduction u/s 11 is not allowable to the appellant on the ground that there is excess of Income over Expenditure. Here it is noticed that total receipts for the year under consideration are ₹ 5,61,84,537/- (3122325 + 24961312] against which the appellant has incurred expenditure for its activities during the year totaling to ₹ 1,50,85,285/- (7373762 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r of Ld. CIT(A) pertaining to the A.Y. 2011-12. The Ld. AR vehemently supported the order of Ld. CIT(A). 9. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the materials available on record. In the instant case, the deduction claimed by the assessee u/s 11(1)(a)/11(2) of the Act was denied by the AO on the ground that the activity of the assessee involves advancement of any other abject of general public utility and its receipts exceeds the mandatory limit as specified under proviso to section 2(15) of the Act. From the preceding discussion, we note that there was no appeal preferred by the Revenue against the order of Ld. CIT(A) pertaining to the A.Y. 2011-12 which implies that the order of Ld. CIT(A) reached to its finality. In our ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hould not take a different view in the other year. In view of the above, it is clear that the assessee is eligible for deduction u/s 11(1)(a)/11(2) of the Act. Accordingly, we do not find any infirmity in the order of Ld. CIT(A). Hence, the ground of appeal of the revenue is dismissed. Now we take up the appeal of the revenue in ITA No.3379/Ahd/2016 pertaining to the A.Y. 2012-13: 10. At the outset we note that the issues raised by the Revenue in ITA No. 3379/Ahd/2016 are exactly identical to the issues raised in ITA No. 3378/Ahd/2016 which have already decided in the aforesaid Paragraphs. Both the Ld. DR AR agreed before us that whatever would be taken in ITA 3378/Ahd/2016 will be applied for the appeal on hand. Accordingly ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
