Ita/139/2022 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax v. M/S Childrens Education Society

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF FEBRUARY 207) PRESENT| THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE AND| THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL| ILT.A. NO.139 OF 2022 BETWEEN: 1.THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAXEXEMPTIONS, 61TH FLOOR EXEMPTIONS, 61TH FLOOR UNITY BUILDING ANNEXE.MISSION ROAD, BENGALURU-56002/7.MISSION ROAD, BENGALURU-56002/7. D2 |THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAXEXEMPTIONS, CIRCLE-1, PRESENT ADDRESSADDL. CIT, EXEMPTIONS RANGE6TH FLOOR, UNITY BUILDING ANNEXEMISSION ROAD, BENGALURU-56002/7.EXEMPTIONS, CIRCLE-1, PRESENT ADDRESSADDL. CIT, EXEMPTIONS RANGE6TH FLOOR, UNITY BUILDING ANNEXEMISSION ROAD, BENGALURU-56002/7. (BY MR. ARAVIND K.V. ADV.,) .... APPELLANTS AND" M/S. CHILDRENS EDUCATION SOCIETYNO.40, 1ST PHASE, J.P.NAGARBANGALORE-5600 7/PAN- . .., RESPONDENT THIS I.T.A. IS FILED UNDER SEC. 260-A OF INCOME TAX|ACT 1961, ARISING OUT OF ORDER DATED 01.09.2021 PASSEDIN ITA NO.698/BANG/2020 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2016-17,PRAYING TO: | (i) FORMULATE THE SUBSTANTIAL QUESTIONS OF LAW,STATED THEREIN. | (ii) ALLOW THE APPEAL AND SET ASIDE THE ORDER.PASSED BY THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, BENGALURUIN ITA NO.698/BANG/2020 DATED 01/09/2021 FOR ASSESSMENTYEAR JO1L6-L/7 ANNEXURE-C CONFIRMING THE ORDER OF THAPPELLATE COMMISSIONER AND CONFIRM THE ORDER PASSED|BY THE ADDL. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, EXEMPTIONSRANGE, BENGALURU & ETC,, THIS I.T.A. COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, |ALOK ARADHE J.,DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: | JUDGMENT Mr.K.V.Aravind, learned counsel for the revenue. This appeal under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (nereinafter referred to as the Act, for snort) nas|been filed against the order dated 01.09.2021 passed by theIncome Tax Appellate Tribunal. The following substantialquestions of law have been proposed in the memorandum ofappeal: a7WhetherOf)thefactsandInthecircumstances of the case, the Tribunal order|can be said as perverse in nature in allowing|claim of assessee for carry forward of excess|application and claim of application of income|for subsequent year ignoring the fact that| there is no express provision in Act allowing|such claim and this will result in granting|double deduction, first as accumulation of'income under section 11(1)(a) or corpus|donationunder.section11(1)(d)Intheearlier/current years or exempt income under|section 10(34) and then as application of|income under section 11(1)(a) in subsequent|years whicn is not permissible under said|provisions of the Act? 2. WhetherOP)thefactsandInthecircumstances of the case, the Tribunal Isright in law tn allowing claim of assessee for|carry forward of deficit ignoring that none of|the provisions as contained in section 11 do|not permit such a claim of assessee-Trust asSection 11 is a self-code by itself and no other|provisions of setting off are available to'assessee?” 2. The aforesaid substantial questions of law havealready been answered by a Bench of this Court videjudgment dated 20.01.2021 passed in ITA No.80/2016.. 3. For the reasons assigned in the aforesaid judgment,we find that no substantial question of law arise for ourconsideration in this appeal. In the result, the appeal fails and is nereby dismissed. Sd/-JUDGE Sd/-JUDGE RY|