PRAKASH KRISHNA AND RAM SURAT RAM (MAURYA), JJ. - (1.) THE present appeal has been filed against the order dated 29th August, 2012 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench 'B', New Delhi in ITA No.1665/Del/2012 for the Assessment Year 2006 -07. In the memo of appeal the following substantial questions of law have been proposed. (I) Whether the ITAT was justified in allowing carried forward of loss when it would result a double benefit to the assessee one income being exempt and second being carried forward of loss? (II) Whether, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Hon'ble ITAT is justified in law in allowing the excess application of capital expenditure of the trust to be carried forward in subsequent years without appreciating the fact mentioned by the A.O. In the assessment order that excess application or expenditure over income cannot be treated as loss to the assessee? (III) Whether in the facts and circumstance of the case, the Hon'ble ITAT was justified in law in allowing the carry forward of loss ignoring the fact that the loss of Rs.5,83,85,975/ - was inclusive of exempted income u/s 11(1)(d) of I.T. Act 1961 of Rs.5,23,00,000/ - in the form of voluntary contributions towards corpus of the trust, which is already claimed and allowed as exempt? (IV) Whether the Hon'ble ITAT was justified in law in ignoring the fact and finding given by the CIT (A) in the appellate order that the revised return filed on 24.03.2008 claiming loss to be carried forward was not a valid return u/s 139(3) of I.T. Act, 1961 through which carry forward of loss could be claimed? (V) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Hon'ble ITAT was justified in law in following the ratio laid down by Hon'ble Delhi High Court in Vishwajagrithi Mission in which the decision of Bombay High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Institute of Banking[264 - ITR -110] was followed, ignoring the facts of the present case?"
(2.) HEARD Sri Dhananjay Awasthi, learned counsel for the Department. A bare perusal of the assessment order would show that the tax effect is nil. The assessment order has been set aside by the Tribunal. In view of the fact that the assessment was completed by Assessing Officer on nil income., we are of the view that the questions sought to be raised in the present appeal are of only academic interest. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed summarily.;