Commissioner Of Income Tax,Coimbatore v. M/S.ramananda Adigalar Foundationkumaraguru College Of Tech Campus,Chinnavedampatticoimbatore - 641 006

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATE: 21.06.2021 CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.DURAISWAMYAND THE HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE R.HEMALATHA T.C.A.No.188 of 2014 Commissioner of Income Tax,Coimbatore. ... Appellant vs. M/s.Ramananda Adigalar FoundationKumaraguru College of Tech Campus,ChinnavedampattiCoimbatore - 641 006. ... Respondent Tax Case Appeal preferred under Section 260A of theIncome Tax Act, 1961, against the order of the Income TaxAppellate Tribunal, Madras, "A" Bench, dated 14.02.2013 inI.T.A.No.1790/Mds/2012 for the Assessment Year 2009-2010. Against the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)I,Coimbatore and made in P.A.No/GIR.No.AAATR3640M, dated27.07.2012 for the Assessment Year 2009-10, preferred againstthe Income Tax Officer, Company Ward – I, Coimbatore and madein PAN.No. , dated 27.12.2011 for the AssessmentYear 2009-10. For Appellant : Mr.J. Narayanaswamy Senior Standing Counsel For Respondent : Mr.R.Venkatanarayanan JUDGMENT Challenging the order passed in I.T.A.No.1790/Mds/2012 inrespect of the Assessment Year 2009-2010 on the file of theIncome Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai,"A" Bench (for brevity,the Tribunal), the Revenue has filed the above appeal. 2. The respondent-assessee is a Charitable Trustregistered under section 12A of the Income Tax Act. Theassessee filed its return of income for the Assessment Year2009-2010 on 06.11.2009. The Assessing Officer issued anotice under section 143(2) of the Act on 31.08.2010 andthe order under section 143(3) of the Act was passed onhttps://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/01.12.2011. In concluding the assessment, the Assessing Officer inter alia held that the depreciation claimed by theassessee would not be allowable as a deduction in thecomputation of the funds available for application by theasessee on the premise that the entire cost of the assets wereallowed as an application of the funds in the year when thesame were purchased. The Assessing Officer, held that theprovisions of section 11 is distinct from that of section 14and that the deductions and the allowances that are providedin chapter V cannot be applied in determining the income forthe purpose of section 11 of the Act. Aggrieved over theorder passed by the Assessing Officer, the assessee filed anappeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) andthe Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) allowed the appeal.Challenging the order passed by the CIT (Appeals), theRevenue filed an appeal before the Income Tax AppellateTribunal, which confirmed the order of the CIT (Appeals) anddismissed the appeal. Aggrieved over the order passed by theIncome Tax Appellate Tribunal, the Revenue has filed the aboveappeal. 3. The above appeal was admitted on the followingsubstantial questions of law:- “ (i) Whether In law and in the factsand circumstances of the case, the Tribunal Isright, holding that depreciation is allowableas application of income on charitableobjects? (ii) Whether on the facts and in thecircumstances of the case, the Tribunal wasright In holding ¢hat the assessee is entitledto claim depreciation on the assets jn theform of application of income, even though costof purchase of asset was treated as applicationof income under Section 11? (iii) Whether in law and in the facts andcircumstances of thé case, the Tribunal isright in holding that allowing the depreciationclaim of the assessee would not result indouble deduction, though the entire cost of thedepreciable assets has already been allowed asapplication of income towards object of thetrust?” (ii) Whether on the facts and in thecircumstances of the case, the Tribunal wasright In holding ¢hat the assessee is entitledto claim depreciation on the assets jn theform of application of income, even though costof purchase of asset was treated as applicationof income under Section 11? (iii) Whether in law and in the facts andcircumstances of thé case, the Tribunal isright in holding that allowing the depreciationclaim of the assessee would not result indouble deduction, though the entire cost of thedepreciable assets has already been allowed asapplication of income towards object of thetrust?” 4. When the appeal is taken up for hearing,Mr.J.Narayanasamy, learned Senior Standing Counsel appearingfor the appellant-revenue fairly submitted that thesubstantial questions of law that are raised in the aboveappeal were already decided by the Division Bench of thiscourt in the Common Judgment in T.C.A.Nos.343 to 345 & 347 of2014 [Commissioner of Income Tax, Trichy Vs. M/s.NationalCollege Council, Teppakulam, Tiruchirapalli – 620 002]https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/wherein the Division Bench held as follows:- " ................. 4.When the appeals weretaken up for hearing, Mr.J.Narayanasamy, learnedSenior Standing Counsel appearing for theappellant – Revenue in all the appeals, fairlysubmitted that the substantial question of law,which has been framed in these appeals, have beenanswered against the Revenue by the Hon'bleSupreme Court in CIT Vs. Rajasthan and GujaratiCharitable Foundation reported in [2018] 402 ITR441 (SC). Further, the learned Senior StandingCounsel submitted that following the decision ofthe Hon'ble Supreme Court, the Hon'ble DivisionBench of this Court, by judgment dated 26.08.2019,made in T.C.A.Nos.680 & 681 of 2011 [Commissionerof Income Tax – I, Tiruchirapalli Vs. M/s.NationalCollege Council, P.B.No.369, Chatram Bus Stand,Teppakulam, Tiruchirapalli – 620 002] dismissedthe appeals and answered the substantial questionsof law against the Revenue. The appeals inT.C.A.Nos.680 & 681 of 2011 relates to the verysame assessee. Hence, following the judgment ofthe Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in [2018] 402ITR 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. The learned Senior Standing Counsel appearing for theappellant submitted that following the Judgment dated26.02.2021 made in T.C.A.Nos.343 to 345 & 347 of 2014 [citedsupra], this Bench already decided the questions of lawagainst the Revenue by its Judgement dated 08.04.2021 madein T.C.A.No.407 of 2014 [The Commissioner of IncomeTax,Coimbatore. v. M/s. Kovai Medical Centre and EducationalTrust, Coimbatore] and dismissed the appeal. 6. In view of the fair submission made by the learnedSenior Standing Counsel, following the Judgment dated26.02.2021 made in T.C.A.Nos.343 to 345 & 347 of 2014 [citedsupra] and the Judgement dated 08.04.2021 made inT.C.A.No.407 of 2014 [cited supra], the questions of law areanswered against the Revenue and the Tax Case Appeal isdismissed. No costs. Sd/- Assistant Registrar (CS-V) //True Copy// Sub Assistant Registrar To 1.The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai, "A" Bench. Chennai, "A" Bench. 2.The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-I, Coimbatore. Coimbatore. 3.The Income Tax Officer, Company Ward I, Coimbatore. Company Ward I, Coimbatore. 4.The Additional Commissioner of Income Tax, Range – I, Race Course Road, Coimbatore – 18. Range – I, Race Course Road, Coimbatore – 18. +1cc to Mr.Subbaraya Aiyar, Advocate, S.R.No. 28501 T.C.A.No.188 of 2014 JP(CO)GN(23/07/2021)