Commissioner Of Income Tax,Coimbatore v. M/S. Coimbatore Masonic Charity Trust

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.DURAISWAMY AND THE HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE R.HEMALATHA Commissioner of Income Tax,Coimbatore. ...Appellant v. M/s. Coimbatore Masonic Charity Trust,232, Race Course Road,Coimbatore - 641 015. ...Respondent Appeal filed under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961,against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras,"A" Bench, dated 12.12.2014 passed in I.T.A.No.2225/Mds/2014against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-I,Chennai in ITA No.32/13-14 dated 04.06.2014 against theAssessment order of the Income Tax Officer, Company ward-I,Coimbatore for the Assessment Year 2010-2011 dated 15.03.2013. For Respondent : Notice served - No Appearance JUDGMENT (Judgment was delivered by M.DURAISWAMY, J.) Challenging the order passed in I.T.A.No.2225/Mds/2014 inrespect of the Assessment Year 2010-2011 on the file of theIncome Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai,"A" Bench (for brevity,the Tribunal), the Revenue has filed the above appeal. 2.1 The respondent-assessee is a Public Charitable Trustregistered under section 12A(a)of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Theassessee filed its return of income for the Assessment Year2010-2011 on 16.06.2010 admitting a gross receipts ofRs.4,31,86,105/- and declarign 'Nil' income. The case wasselected for scrutiny. During the assessment proceedings undersection 143(3),the Assessing Officer found that the assessee hadclaimed depreciation on assets contending that depreciation on https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ fixed assets has to be considered while working out theapplication of income. The Assessing Officer found that theassessee during the earlier years had claimed the entire cost ofthe assets as application of income and hence, he was of theview that since the assets have been claimed as deducton in theearlier years as application of income, claiming of depreciationon the same would amount to double deduction. The AssessingOfficer relying on the decision of the Apex Court in the caseof Lissie Medical Institutions v. CIT reported in 348 ITR 344(Ker) disallowed the claim of depreciation made by theassessee amounting to Rs.26,57,455/-. 2.2 Aggrieved over the order passed by the AssessingOfficer,the assessee preferred an appeal before the Commissionerof Income Tax(Appeals), who allowed the appeal directing theAssessing Officer to allow depreciation. The CIT (A) alsoobserved that it is not only the accounting principle but eventhe statue and judicial interpreation of the provisions providedthat in arriving at the amount of income available forapplication under section 11, depreciation should be deducted.Aggrieved by the order of CIT (Appeals), the Revenue filed anappeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal and theTribunal, dismissed the appeal. Challenging the order passed bythe Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, the Revenue has filed theabove appeal. 3. The above appeal was admitted on the followingsubstantial question of law: “ Whether on the facts and in thecircumstances of the case, the Tribunal wasright in holding that the assessee is entitledto claim depreciation on the assets even thoughthe cost of purchase of asset was already treatedas application of income under section 11 of theIncome Tax Act?" 3. The above appeal was admitted on the followingsubstantial question of law: “ Whether on the facts and in thecircumstances of the case, the Tribunal wasright in holding that the assessee is entitledto claim depreciation on the assets even thoughthe cost of purchase of asset was already treatedas application of income under section 11 of theIncome Tax Act?" 4. When the appeal is taken up for hearing,Mr.J.Narayanasamy, learned Senior Standing Counsel appearing forthe appellant-revenue fairly submitted that the substantialquestion of law that are raised in the above appeal werealready decided by the Division Bench of this court in theCommon Judgment in T.C.A.Nos.343 to 345 & 347 of 2014[Commissioner of Income Tax, Trichy Vs. M/s.National CollegeCouncil, Teppakulam, Tiruchirapalli – 620 002] wherein theDivision Bench held as follows:-" ................. 4.When the appeals were takenup for hearing, Mr.J.Narayanasamy, learned SeniorStanding Counsel appearing for the appellant – Revenuein all the appeals, fairly submitted that the substantial question of law, which has been framed inthese appeals, have been answered against the Revenueby the Hon'ble Supreme Court in CIT Vs. Rajasthan andGujarati Charitable Foundation reported in [2018] 402ITR 441 (SC). Further, the learned Senior StandingCounsel submitted that following the decision of theHon'ble Supreme Court, the Hon'ble Division Bench ofthis Court, by judgment dated 26.08.2019, made inT.C.A.Nos.680 & 681 of 2011 [Commissioner of Income Tax– I, Tiruchirapalli Vs. M/s.National College Council,P.B.No.369,ChatramBusStand,Teppakulam,Tiruchirapalli – 620 002] dismissed the appeals andanswered the substantial questions of law against theRevenue. The appeals in T.C.A.Nos.680 & 681 of 2011relates to the very same assessee. Hence, followingthe judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in[2018] 402 ITR 441 (SC) and the judgment of the Hon'bleDivision Bench of this Court made in T.C.A.Nos.680 &681 of 2011, the substantial question of law isanswered against the Revenue and the appeals aredismissed. No costs. 5. In view of the fair submission made by the learnedSenior Standing Counsel, following the Judgment dated 26.02.2021made in T.C.A.Nos.343 to 345 & 347 of 2014 [cited supra], thequestions of law are answered against the Revenue and the TaxCase Appeal is dismissed. No costs. Rj 1. The Registrar, The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai, "A" Bench. 2. The Commissioner of Income Tax (A)-I, Chennai. Chennai. 3. The Income Tax Officer, Company ward-I, Coimbatore. Company ward-I, Coimbatore. PPA(CO)RGA(20/07/2021) T.C.A.No.722 of 2015