M/s Rogi Kalyan Samiti, Kangra V. ACIT, Palampur

ITA 1117/CHANDI/2014

• Counselvise Citation: 111721514 RSA 2014
• Duration Of Justice: 10 month(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 15-10-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 21-09-2015
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 15-12-2014
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: MANJIT SINGH
• Assessee Lawyers: ASHWANI KUMAR
• Keywords: Charitable institution
• Section: 11; 12A; 12AA

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DIVISION BENCH, CHANDIGARH BEFORE SHRI H.L.KARWA, VICE PRESIDENT AND MS. RANO JAIN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO.1117/CHD/2014 (ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2010-11) M/S ROGI KALYAN SAMITI, VS. THE A.C.I.T., DR.RAJINDER PRASAD GOVT. CIRCLE PALAMPUR, MEDICAL COLLEGE HOSPITAL, (H.P.). TANDA, DISTT. KANGRA, (H.P.) PAN: AAAAR8787J (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI ASHWANI KUMAR RESPONDENT BY : SHRI MANJIT SINGH, DR DATE OF HEARING : 21.09.2015 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : .10.2015 O R D E R PER RANO JAIN, A.M . : THIS APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAIN ST THE ORDER OF LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), SHIMLA DATED 29.10.2014 FOR ASSESSMENT Y EAR 2010-11. 2. BRIEFLY, THE FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASS ESSEE SOCIETY IS REGISTERED WITH DISTRICT MAGISTRATE-CUM- REGISTRAR, DHARAMSHALA VIDE LETTER NO.1540/C/HRC DATED 24.11.2 008. IT WAS ALSO GRANTED REGISTRATION UNDER SECTION 12A OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (IN SHORT THE ACT) BY THE CO MMISSIONER 2 OF INCOME TAX, SHIMLA VIDE LETTER NO.CIT/SML/TECH.- II/I/IOA/12-A/2005-06/4281 DATED 14.6.2005. DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION, THE ASSESSEE FILED ITS RE TURN OF INCOME DECLARING NIL INCOME AS ON 15.10.2010 CLAIMI NG DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 11 OF THE ACT. THE ASSESS EE HAS SET ASIDE AN AMOUNT OF RS.6,76,48,808/- FOR ACCUMULATIO N AS PROVIDED UNDER SECTION 11(2) OF THE ACT. THE ASS ESSEE HAD RECEIVED RS.11,23,70,948/-, HOWEVER, DURING THE YEA R, IT HAD SPENT ONLY RS.3,84,70,751/-. THE ASSESSEE SUBMIT TED FORM 10 FOR ACCUMULATION OF RS.6,76,48,808/- UNDER SECTI ON 11(2) OF THE ACT FOR THE PURPOSE OF SALARY AND WELFARE O F PATIENTS. THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOUND THE SAID ACCUMULATION N OT MADE AS PER LAW AND ASSESSED IT AS AOP AT RS.6,76,48,808 /-. THE REASONS FOR SUCH CONCLUSION ARRIVED AT BY THE ASSES SING OFFICER WERE THAT THE OBJECTS SPECIFIED IN FORM NO. 10 FOR ACCUMULATION OF INCOME WERE TOO VAGUE AND FURTHER T HERE WAS NO NEED FOR ASSESSEE TO ACCUMULATE FUNDS FOR THE PU RPOSE OF SALARY AS IT HAS ENOUGH FUNDS INCLUDING GRANTS RECE IVED FROM STATE GOVERNMENT FOR THIS PURPOSE. 3. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER THE ASSESSEE WENT IN APPEAL BEFORE THE LEARNED CIT (APP EALS). IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE IS A CHARITABLE TRU ST HAVING 12A REGISTRATION CERTIFICATE FROM COMMISSIONER OF I NCOME TAX, SHIMLA. IT IS CARRYING ON ITS ACTIVITIES WITH HUND RED PERCENT FINANCIAL AID FROM GOVERNMENT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH. THE TRUST HAS BEEN CREATED BY THE STATE GOVERNMENT FOR THE WELFARE OF PATIENTS. IT WAS SUBMITTED BEFORE THE LEARNED CIT 3 (APPEALS) THAT THE ACCUMULATION OF SURPLUS INCOME F OR THE PURPOSE OF SALARY AND WELFARE OF PATIENTS AS DESCRI BED IN FORM NO.10 IS DULY IN ACCORDANCE WITH OBJECTS OF THE TRU ST FOR WHICH IT HAS BEEN GRANTED REGISTRATION UNDER SECTION 12A OF THE ACT. IT WAS ALSO BROUGHT TO THE NOTICE OF THE LEARNED CI T (APPEALS) THAT THE ISSUE RAISED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS MADE AN EXCESS PROVISION OF RS.4,85,00 ,000/- FOR THE PAYMENT OF SALARY IN THE NEXT YEAR IS NOT R ELEVANT IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE PRESENT CASE. I T WAS CLARIFIED THAT IN THE NEXT YEAR THE ASSESSEE HAD PR OPOSED TO START A SUPER SPECIALTY SERVICES IN THE MEDICAL COL LEGE AND APPOINTMENTS OF HIGHLY PAID DOCTORS WERE ALSO TO BE MADE. THEREFORE, THE REQUIREMENT OF MORE FUNDS WERE ANTIC IPATED. FURTHER, IT WAS ALSO SUBMITTED THAT IN SUBSEQUENT A SSESSMENT YEARS 2011-12 AND 2012-13, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HA S ALLOWED DEDUCTION AND ALSO ACCEPTED SURPLUS AMOUNT SET APAR T FOR THE NEXT FINANCIAL YEAR OF SAME NATURE AS IS DISPUTED I N THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. 4. THE LEARNED CIT (APPEALS) DID NOT FIND HERSELF IN AGREEMENT WITH THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE . SHE OBSERVED THAT THOUGH THE ASSESSEE HAS DULY SUBMITTE D FORM NO.10 AND HAS NOT SPENT 85% OF THE RECEIPTS AND IS ALSO REGISTERED SOCIETY UNDER SECTION 12AA OF THE ACT, S TILL THE SUBMISSION OF FORM NO.10 IS NOT ONLY A TECHNICAL RE QUIREMENT BUT IN A WAY FORM NO.10 IS IN THE NATURE OF SEEKING PERMISSION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO ACCUMULATE T HE SUM SO MENTIONED AND THE SPECIFIC OBJECTIVE FOR WHICH THE ASSESSEE 4 PROPOSED TO ACCUMULATE SUCH FUNDS. HOWEVER, IN TH E PRESENT CASE, THE ASSESSEE HAS STATED THE NON-SPECIFIC OBJE CTIVE FOR ACCUMULATION AND THESE OBJECTIVES ARE GENERAL IN NA TURE. THOUGH THE SUM HAS BEEN DEPOSITED IN AN ACCOUNT MAI NTAINED WITH SBP AS MENTIONED IN THE AUDITED BALANCE SHEET OF THE ASSESSEE BUT THE STATED OBJECTIVES ARE NON-SPECIFIC . SHE DISTINGUISHED THE CASES RELIED UPON BY THE ASSESSEE AND HELD THAT THE CASE LAWS RELIED UPON BY THE ASSESSING OFF ICER I.E.COTTON TEXTILE EXPORTS VS. ITO, 4 ITD 642 (MUM TRIB.) AND CIT VS. MUTHIAH CHETTIAR FAMILY TRUST, 245 ITR 400 (MAD) ARE APPLICABLE TO THE FACTS OF THE CASE. IN THIS VIEW , SHE HELD HAT THERE IS NO INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN DISALLOWING EXEMPTION UNDER SECTION 11(2) OF THE AC T ON REALIZING THAT THE STATED OBJECTIVES IN FORM NO.10 ARE VAGUE AND HISTORICALLY THE SURPLUS MONEY GENERATED HAS AL SO NOT BEEN USED FOR CHARITABLE PURPOSES. 5. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT (APPE ALS) THE ASSESSEE HAS COME UP IN APPEAL BEFORE US. THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE WHILE ARGUING BEFORE US ST ATED THAT THE ASSESSEE IS A SOCIETY REGISTERED UNDER SECTION 12A OF THE ACT SINCE 2005. THE AIMS AND OBJECTS OF THE SOCIE TY ARE DULY COVERED UNDER THE DEFINITION OF SECTION 2(15) OF TH E ACT. THERE IS A PROVISION IN SECTION 11(2) OF THE ACT TH AT IN CASE THE ASSESSEE IS NOT ABLE TO SPENT 85% OF ITS RECEIP TS FOR THE STATED OBJECTIVES, IT CAN ACCUMULATE THE SAME, THE ONLY REQUIREMENT IS TO FILE FORM NO.10 BEFORE THE ASSESS ING OFFICER. DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION, THE ASSESSEE H AS NOT 5 BEEN ABLE TO SPENT 85% OF ITS RECEIPTS AND FORM NO. 10 WAS DULY FILED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THE CONT ENTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS THAT THE OBJECTIVES FOR WHICH THE RECEIPTS HAD BEEN ACCUMULATED AS DESCRIBED IN FORM NO.10 ARE VAGUE. HE DREW OUR ATTENTION TO THE COPY OF FORM NO.10, WH EREBY THE OBJECTIVES FOR WHICH ACCUMULATION WAS SOUGHT FOR IS STATED TO BE SALARY OF STAFF AND WELFARE OF PATIENTS. FUR THER, OUR ATTENTION WAS INVITED TO THE OBJECTIVES OF THE TRUS T AS STATED IN THE BYE LAWS OF THE ASSESSEE SOCIETY. THE RELEV ANT PORTION OF THE OBJECTIVES READS AS UNDER : I) 'TO HIRE STAFF FOR ENABLING M/S ROGI KALYAN SAM ITI, DR. R. P. MEDICAL COLLEGE, AT TANDA TO MEET ITS OBLIGATIONS BESIDES STRE NGTHENING THE STAFF POSITIONS IN ALL CATEGORIES. II) THIS WILL BE A CHARITABLE SAMITI AND ALL THE INC OME GENERATED BY THE SAMITI WILL BE UTILIZED FOR THE WELFARE OF THE PATIENTS' THESE OBJECTIVES HAVE ALSO BEEN REPRODUCED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN HIS ORDER AT PARA 6. SINCE F IRST OBJECTIVE AS STATED HEREINABOVE IS TO HIRE THE STAFF AND SECO ND OBJECTIVES IS THAT OF WELFARE OF THE PATIENTS. IN VIEW OF THE SAME IT WAS ARGUED THAT THERE IS NO VAGUENESS IN TH E OBJECTIVES STATED IN FORM NO.10. THE MAIN OBJECT O F THE ASSESSEE SOCIETY IS TO HIRE STAFF FOR ENABLING IT T O APPLY ITS INCOME FOR THE WELFARE OF THE PATIENTS. THERE CAN BE NO VAGUENESS IN THE OBJECTIVES STATED AS SALARY OF ST AFF AND WELFARE OF PATIENTS. IT WAS FURTHER STATED THAT THE HIRING OF ADDITIONAL STAFF ALONGWITH THEIR MAINTENANCE I.E. P AYMENT OF SALARY AND WELFARE OF PATIENTS IS ONE OF THE GENERA L OBJECTIVES 6 OF THE ASSESSEE SOCIETY. THE PURPOSE OF ACCUMULATI ON STATED AS ABOVE CANNOT BE SAID TO BE NON-SPECIFIC. RELIAN CE WAS PLACED ON A NUMBER OF JUDGMENTS, PARTICULARLY THE F OLLOWING JUDGMENTS : I) CIT VS. HOTEL AND RESTAURANT ASSOCIATION, 261 IT R 190 (DEL) II) DIRECTOR OF INCOME-TAX (EXEMPTION) VS. DAULAT R AM EDUCATION SOCIETY, 278 ITR 260(DEL) III) BHARAT KRISHAK SAMAJ VS. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF INCOME-TAX (EXEMPTION), 306 ITR 153 (DEL) IV) DIRECTOR OF INCOME-TAX VS. MITSUI AND CO. ENVIRONMENTAL TRUST, 303 ITR 111 (DEL) V) BHARAT KALYAN PRATISTHAN VS. DIRECTOR OF INCOME-TAX (EXEMPTION), 299 ITR 406 (DEL) THESE CASES WERE CITED TO EMPHASIZE THE FACT THAT EVEN IF NO SPECIFIC PURPOSE FOR ACCUMULATION IS SPE CIFIED IN FORM NO.10 IF THE OBJECTIVES ARE SAME AS THE OBJECT IVES OF THE ASSESSEE SOCIETY ARE AS PER BYE LAWS ON THE BASIS O F WHICH REGISTRATION UNDER SECTION 12A OF THE ACT HAS BEEN GRANTED TO THE ASSESSEE, THE ACCUMULATION SO SOUGHT FOR CANNOT BE DENIED. ON THE ISSUE OF EXCESS PROVISION OF RS.4, 85,00,000/- MADE FOR THE PAYMENT OF SALARY IN THE NEXT YEAR AS RAISED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER, IT WAS CLARIFIED THAT IN THE NEXT YEAR THE SOCIETY HAS PROPOSED TO START A SUPER SPECIALTY SER VICES IN THE MEDICAL COLLEGE AND APPOINTMENTS OF HIGHER PAID DOC TORS WERE ALSO TO BE MADE, THEREFORE, IN ANTICIPATION MORE FU NDS WERE REQUIRED IN THE NEXT YEAR. THE ACCUMULATION OF UNSP ENT PORTION OF THE RECEIPTS WAS EARMARKED FOR THE SAID PURPOSE. IN VIEW OF THESE SUBMISSIONS, IT WAS PRAYED THAT TH E ACTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER MAY BE HELD TO BE INVALID. 7 7. THE LEARNED D.R. RELIED UPON THE ORDERS OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER AS WELL AS OF THE LEARNED CIT (AP PEALS). HE ALSO PLACED RELIANCE ON THE JUDGMENT OF HON'BLE CAL CUTTA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX (EXEMP TION) VS. TRUSTEES OF SINGHANIA CHARITABLE TRUST, 199 ITR 819 TO THE EFFECT THAT FOR A CHARITABLE TRUST TO BE ELIGIBLE F OR ACCUMULATION OF INCOME BEYOND THE PREVIOUS YEAR UND ER SECTION 11(2) OF THE ACT, THE PURPOSE OF SUCH ACCUM ULATION MUST BE SPECIFIC. IN THIS VIEW, IT WAS PRAYED THA T THE ORDERS OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND THE LEARNED CIT (APPEA LS) BE HELD AS PER LAW. 8. WE HAVE HEARD THE LEARNED REPRESENTATIVES OF BOTH THE PARTIES, PERUSED THE FINDINGS OF THE AUTHO RITIES BELOW AND CONSIDERED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECO RD. THE ONLY ISSUE TO BE DECIDED BY US IS THAT WHETHER IN THE GIVEN FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES, THE ASSESSEE HAS ACCUMULATED THE FUNDS AS PER LAW. THE UNDISPUTED F ACTS OF THE ASSESSEE ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE SOCIETY IS RE GISTERED UNDER SECTION 12A OF THE ACT, HENCE IS ELIGIBLE TO GET EXEMPTION UNDER SECTION 11 OF THE ACT. HOWEVER, DURING THE YEAR, THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT UTILIZE FUNDS TO T HE EXTENT OF 85% AND TO COMPLY WITH THE REQUIREMENTS O F SECTION 11(2) OF THE ACT, IT FILED FORM NO.10 BEFOR E THE ASSESSING OFFICER, STATING THE OBJECT FOR ACCUMULAT ION OF FUNDS AS SALARY AND WELFARE OF PATIENTS. ON PER USAL OF THE BYE LAWS OF THE ASSESSEE SOCIETY, WE SEE THAT H IRING OF STAFF AND UTILIZATION OF FUNDS FOR WELFARE OF PATIE NTS 8 ARE TWO OBJECTS OF THE SOCIETY. THEREFORE, IT CAN NOT BE SAID THAT THE OBJECTS WHICH ARE STATED FOR THE PURPOSE O F ACCUMULATION OF FUNDS UNDER FORM NO.10 ARE OUTSIDE THE OBJECTS AS PROVIDED IN THE BYE LAWS OF THE SOCIETY. THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS THAT THESE O BJECTS ARE TOO VAGUE AND ARE NOT SPECIFIC. WE DO NOT SEE ANY REASON FOR NOT GRANTING ASSESSEE THE BENEFIT OF SUCH ACCUMULAT ION GIVEN THE FACT THAT THE ACCUMULATION IS SOUGHT FOR THE P URPOSE OF ITS OBJECTS ON THE BASIS OF WHICH IT WAS GRANTED RE GISTRATION UNDER SECTION 12A OF THE ACT. WE DO NOT EVEN FIND THE OBJECTS STATED IN THE FORM NO.10 TOO VAGUE EITHER, AS THESE ARE THE OBJECTS AS PER THE BYE LAWS. ADMITTEDLY, THE OBJE CTS STATED IN FORM NO.10 ARE NOT ELABORATELY STATED, BUT THAT CAN NOT BE THE REASON TO DENY THE SAID BENEFIT. OUR VIEW GETS STR ENGTHENED BY THE JUDGMENT OF HON'BLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. HOTEL & RESTAURANT ASSOCIATION (SUPRA), ON WHICH THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE PLACED RELIANCE. IN THAT CASE, THE OBJECT STATED FOR ACCUMULATION WAS TO APP LY THE FUNDS IN NEXT YEARS TO ACHIEVE THE OBJECT, FOR WHIC H IT HAD BEEN INCORPORATED. THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT HELD AS UNDER : HELD, DISMISSING THE APPEAL, THAT IT IS TRUE THAT SPECIFICATION OF A CERTAIN PURPOSE OR PURPOSES WAS NEEDED FOR ACCUMU LATION OF THE TRUST'S INCOME UNDER SECTION 11(2) OF THE ACT. AT THE SAME TIME THE PURPOSE OR PURPOSES TO BE SPECIFIED CANNOT BE BEYOND THE OBJECTS OF THE TRUST. PLURALITY OF THE PURPOSES OF ACCUMULATION IS NOT PRECLUDED BUT IT DEPENDS ON THE PRECISE PURPOSE FOR WHICH THE ACCUMULATION IS INTENDED. IN THE PRESENT CASE, BOTH THE COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) AND THE APPEL LATE TRIBUNAL HAD RECORDED A CONCURRENT FINDING THAT THE INCOME WAS SOUGHT TO BE ACCUMULATED BY THE ASSESSEE TO ACHIEVE THE OBJECT 9 FOR WHICH THE ASSESSEE WAS INCORPORATED. IT WAS NOT T HE CASE OF THE REVENUE THAT ANY OF THE OBJECTS OF THE ASSESSEE -COMPANY WERE NOT FOR CHARITABLE PURPOSE. THE FINDING BY THE TRIBUNAL WAS ESSENTIALLY A FINDING OF FACT GIVING RISE TO NO QUES TION OF LAW. IN ANOTHER CASE OF DELHI HIGH COURT IN DIT (EXEMPTI ON) VS. DAULAT EDUCATION SOCIETY REPORTED IN (2006) 278 ITR 260 (DEL), IT IS HELD THAT DETAILS OF PLAN TO BE GIVEN IS NOT NECESSARY, IF THE PURPOSE SPECIFIED IS IN CONSONANC E WITH THE OBJECTS. THE JUDGMENT OF HON'BLE CALCUTTA HIGH COU RT IN THE CASE OF TRUSTEES OF SINGHANIA CHARITABLE TRUST (SUP RA) AS RELIED UPON BY THE LEARNED D.R. IS DISTINGUISHABLE ON FACTS AS IN THAT CASE ALL THE OBJECTS AS PER LAW OF THE ASSE SSEE WERE SPECIFIED AS THE PURPOSE OF ACCUMULATION, WHICH IS NOT THE CASE OF THE PRESENT ASSESSEE. 9. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, WE FIND THAT THERE IS NO VAGUENESS IN THE PURPOSES SPECIFIED BY THE ASSESSEE IN FORM NO.10. 10. THE OTHER ISSUE RAISED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICE R TO DENY THE BENEFIT OF ACCUMULATION IS THAT THE ASSESS EE HAS ENOUGH FUNDS FOR THE PURPOSES OF SALARY TO BE PAID IN THE FORM OF GRANTS RECEIVED FROM THE STATE GOVERNMENT AS WEL L AS THE UNUTILIZED AMOUNT OF GRANT SO RECEIVED BY THE ASSES SEE. THE ASSESSEE HAS DULY GIVEN ITS EXPLANATION FOR NEED OF SUCH HUGE AMOUNT IN FUTURE YEARS AS IT HAS PLANS TO HAVE SAME SUPER SPECIALTY FACILITIES IN COMING YEAR. HOWEVER, WE FIND THAT THE ISSUE OF SUCH AVAILABILITY OF FUNDS OR NEED FOR SUC H HUGE FUNDS IN FUTURE ARE NOT RELEVANT FOR THE PURPOSES OF GRAN TING BENEFIT 10 OF ACCUMULATION OF INCOME. THE PROVISION OF SECT ION 11(2) OF THE ACT PROVIDES TO GIVE ASSESSEE THE BENEFIT OF SU CH ACCUMULATION ON THE COMPLIANCE OF TWO CONDITIONS ST ATED THERE IN CLAUSE (A) AND CLAUSE (B). CLAUSE (A) PROVIDES TO GIVE THE NOTICE TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN THE PRESCRIBED M ANNER STATING THE PURPOSE. THAT MANNER HAS BEEN PRESCRIB ED IN RULE 17 OF THE INCOME TAX RULES. CLAUSE (B) PROVID ES TO INVEST THE SAID FUNDS IN MODES PRESCRIBED. FURTHE R RULE 17 PROVIDES THE NOTICE TO BE GIVEN TO THE ASSESSING OF FICER IN FORM NO.10 BEFORE THE EXPIRY OF TIME ALLOWED FOR FU RNISHING THE RETURN OF INCOME UNDER SECTION 139(1) OF THE AC T. IT IS NOT THE ASSESSING OFFICERS CASE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT COMPLIED WITH ANY OF THESE CONDITIONS. HIS ONLY C ONCERN IS THE AVAILABILITY OF A HUGE AMOUNT OF FUNDS FOR THE SAID PURPOSE. THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN THIS REGARD HAS TO CONFINE HIMSELF TO THE PROVISION OF THE INCOME TAX ACT READ WITH THE INCOME TAX RULES ONLY. THE ASSESSING OFFICER DOES NOT HAVE ANY PREROGATIVE TO COMMENT ON THE WAY THE ACTIVITIE S ARE TO BE CARRIED ON BY THE ASSESSEE. HOW MUCH FUNDS ARE NE EDED FOR WHICH PURPOSE AND HOW FUNDS ARE TO BE USED FOR DIFF ERENT PURPOSES IS NONE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICERS CONCERN . IT IS ONLY ASSESSEES OWN WAY OF FUNCTIONING. THE ASSES SING OFFICER CANNOT SIT ON THE ARMCHAIR OF THE ASSESSEE TO DECIDE ALL THESE THINGS, GIVEN THE FACT THAT THE INCOME T AX ACT DOES NOT GIVE HIM ANY SUCH POWER. WHETHER THE ASSESSEE IS RECEIVING EXCESS GRANT OR WHETHER IT IS IN NEED OF SUCH GRANTS MAY BE THE CONCERN OF THE GRANTING AUTHORITY OR THA T THE ASSESSEE, BUT CERTAINLY NOT OF THE ASSESSING OFFICE R. 11 11. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, WE FIND THAT THIS ISSUE RAISED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO BE NOT RELEVANT FOR GIV ING BENEFIT OF ACCUMULATION. WE HEREBY DIRECT THE ASSESSING OFFI CER TO GIVE ASSESSEE THE BENEFIT OF ACCUMULATION OF FUNDS AS PR OVIDED UNDER SECTION 11(2) OF THE ACT. 12. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS A LLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THIS 15 TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2015. SD/- SD/- (H.L.KARWA) (RANO JAIN) VICE PRESIDENT ACOUNTANT MEMBER DATED : 15 TH OCTOBER, 2015 *RATI* COPY TO: THE APPELLANT/THE RESPONDENT/THE CIT(A)/TH E CIT/THE DR. ASSISTANT REGISTRAR, ITAT, CHANDIGARH