DCIT Vs CMR Jnanadhara Trust (ITAT Bangalore)
ITAT Bangalore held that revenue cannot deviate from its decisions taken in prior years without demonstrating a change in the factual matrix. Thus, exemption benefit u/s. 11 cannot be denied as similar payment made to specified persons were accepted by revenue in earlier years.
Facts- The present appeals are filed by the revenue. The primary issue raised by the Revenue pertains to the alleged error by the learned CIT(A) in granting the benefit of exemption under Section 11 of the Act, despite disregarding payments made to specified persons, which are claimed to be in violation of Section 13(1)(c) of the Act.
Conclusion- It is undisputed that scrutiny assessments were carried out under the provisions of Section 143(3) of the Act for the assessment years 2014-15 and 2016-17. This fact was also acknowledged by the learned CIT(A) in his order, which was not disputed by the Revenue. In each of these assessment years, the assessee made payments to specified persons as defined under Section 13(1)(c) of the Act, on a similar basis, which were accepted by the Revenue without any adverse remarks.
Held that, after conducting the necessary inquiries and applying due consideration, the Revenue had accepted the payments made to specified persons as fair and reasonable in the earlier assessment year. Considering this, we are of the view that the Revenue should not take a divergent position from the one adopted in the earlier assessment year. It is also noteworthy that the learned Departmental Representative (DR), during the hearing, did not point out any material differences between the facts of the present case and those of the earlier assessment years. Therefore, in view of the above, we find no infirmity in the order of the learned CIT(A) and, consequently, we decline to interfere with his findings. Accordingly, the ground of appeal raised by the Revenue is hereby dismissed.
