The Commissioner Of Income Tax(Exemptions v. Industrial Extension Bureau

C/TAXAP/660/2018 ORDER IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/TAX APPEAL NO. 660 of 2018 =========================================THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(EXEMPTIONS) Versus INDUSTRIAL EXTENSION BUREAU =============================================Appearance: MRS MAUNA M BHATT(174) for the PETITIONER(s) No. 1 for the RESPONDENT(s) No. 1 ============================================= CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.R. SHAHandHONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.Y. KOGJE Date : 27/06/2018ORAL ORDER (PER : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.R. SHAH) 1.0. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned Income Tax AppellateTribunaldated2.1.2018passedin ITA/1943/AHD/2015 for AY 2011-12, by which, the learned Tribunal has dismissed the said appeal preferred by the Revenue and has confirmed the order passed by the learned CIT(A) directing to allow the claim of the appellant of Rs.1,29,85,298/- the Revenue has preferred present Tax Appeal to consider the following substantial questions of law. "A. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Appellate Tribunal was justified in dismissing the revenue's appeal without adjudicating the ground raised before it and negating the findings of the AO in not treating the assessee trust as a trust eligible for exemption u/s. 11 and thereby in not granting deduction of 15% of income as accumulation of Rs.77,66,786/- u/s 11(1) of the Act and also not granting deduction of Rs.52,18,512/-under clause(2) to Explanation 11(1) amounting in all to Rs.1,29,85,298/-" B. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Appellate Tribunal is correct in relying on the decision of the Hon'ble High Court in the assessee's case for AY 2009-10 without appreciating that the issue involved in the instant case before the Appellate Tribunal is different from the issue raised in the earlier year's case (AY 2009-10) decided by the Hon'ble High Court?' 2.0.At the outset, it is required to be noted and as observed by the learned CIT(A) as well as learned Tribunal that in the case of very assessee for AY viz.2009-1, the similar benefit was granted and assessee trust was held to be eligible for exemption under Section 11 of the Act. At this stage, it is required to be noted that before the learned Tribunal as such representative of the department also clearly conceded as noted by the learned Tribunal in para 3 that the issue is covered in favour of assessee in the assessee's own case. 3.0.Consideringtheaforesaidfactsand circumstances, no substantial question of law arise. Hence, present appeal deserves to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed. (M.R. SHAH, J) KAUSHIK J. RATHOD (A.Y. KOGJE, J)