THE BOMBAY CATHOLIC SABHA, MUMBAI V. ITO EXEMPTION WARD 2(4), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

ITA 3793/MUM/2023

• Counselvise Citation: [2024] 100 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 3305 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 5 month(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 19-03-2024
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 06-03-2024
• Assessment Year: 2016-2017
• Appeal Filed On: 19-10-2023
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Depreciation; Charitable institution; Question of law
• Section: 11; 139; 12A; 10B; 20

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI ABY T. VARKEY, JM AND SHRI S RIFAUR RAHMAN, AM आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.3793/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2016-17) The Bombay Catholic Sabha St. Michael’s Church Compound, Mahhim (W), Mumbai-400016. बिधम/ Vs. ITO (Exem)-2(4) Piramal Chamber, Lal Baug, Parel, Mumbai- 400012. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./PAN/GIR No. : AAATT3348L (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date of Hearing: 07/03/2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date of Pronouncement: 20/03/2024 आदेश / O R D E R PER ABY T. VARKEY, JM: This is an appeal preferred by the assessee against the order of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/NFAC, Delhi, dated 25.05.2023 for AY. 2016-17. 2. The grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are as under: - 1. “The Ld. CIT(A) erred in not appreciating that the appellant had specified the purposes for accumulation, in compliance with sub-section (2) of sec. 11 and hence there is no justification for declining the accumulation to the appellant. 2. The Ld. CIT(A) failed to appreciate that none of the objects specified in the resolution, were of non-charitable nature. 3. The Ld. CIT(A) fell in error in not appreciating that plurality of objects was not precluded in the purposes contemplated u/s 11(2) of the Act. Assessee by: Shri Mandar Vaidya Revenue by: Shri Ashok Kumar Ambastha (Sr. AR) ITA No.3793/Mum/2023 A.Y. 2016-17 The Bombay Catholic Sabha 2 4. The Ld. CIT(A) failed to not that even if specific objects are not specified, the accumulation would still be valid since charity cannot go beyond the overall objectives which are charitable in nature, as observed in CIT Vs. Hotel & Restaurant Association (2003) 261 ITR 190 (Del).” 3. Brief facts are that the assessee filed its return of income on 23.09.2016 along with the Income & Expenditure Account, Balance Sheet and Audit Report in Form No. 10B declaring total income at Rs. Nil. Later, the case was selected for scrutiny and pursuant to it, the AO issued questionnaire to the assessee. In response to the same, the AO acknowledges that assessee filed the details called for by him. According to the AO, the assessee had shown to have accumulated Rs.38,38,781/- u/s 11(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter “the Act”) by filing Form no. 10. According to the AO, the purpose for the accumulation of income as shown in Form no. 10 was “Acquiring, constructing, repairing building premises of sabha, purchase of furniture, fixture, equipment, computer system, educational and medical relief of poor and needy people, other charitable objects”. These purposes for accumulation according to AO was general in nature and not for specific purpose. Therefore, he issued show cause notice to the assessee as to why the same [deduction u/s 11(2) of the Act] should not be disallowed. Pursuant to which the assessee replied, which reply has been reproduced by the AO at page no. 2 & 3 of his order. The AO was not satisfied with the reply filed by the assessee and according to him sub-section (2) of section 11 of the Act, require assessee to state the specific purpose for accumulation. And since the assessee has given many purposes in general manner (including ITA No.3793/Mum/2023 A.Y. 2016-17 The Bombay Catholic Sabha 3 charitable activities) the very requirement of specification of purpose of accumulation has not been satisfied and therefore he denied deduction u/s 11(2) of the Act by relying on the decision of the Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in the case of DIT Vs. Trustees of Singhania Charitable (1993) (199 ITR 819) (Cal), and thus he disallowed Rs.38,38,781/-. Aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) who was pleased to dismiss the same. Aggrieved, the assessee is before us. 4. We have heard both the parties and perused the records. We note that the assessee filed its return of income on 23.09.2016 along with the Income & Expenditure Account, Balance Sheet and Audit Report in Form No. 10B declaring total income at Rs. Nil. According to the AO, the assessee had shown to have accumulated Rs.38,38,781/- u/s 11(2) of the Act. On query raised by the AO, regarding the accumulation for general purposes, the assessee brought to his notice that the amount accumulated in AY. 2016-17 i.e. Rs.38,38,781/- has already been applied towards expenditure in subsequent assessment year i.e. AY. 2017-18 and filed proof of the same [i.e, by filing the computation of income for AY. 2017-18]. However, the AO was of the opinion that since the assessee had shown the purpose for accumulation inter-alia as education, medical relief of poor etc., were for general charitable purpose and not specific in nature, he disallowed the accumulation of income u/s 11(2) of the Act to the tune of Rs.38,38,781/-. On appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) confirmed the action of the AO. Before us, the Ld. AR submitted that the assessee has been accumulating income from earlier years and applying the same as per ITA No.3793/Mum/2023 A.Y. 2016-17 The Bombay Catholic Sabha 4 law i.e. accumulated income u/s 11(1) of the Act within one year; and u/s 11(2) of the Act within five years; and drew our attention to the chart which will give a bird’s eye view of the accumulated income u/s 11(1) and 11(2) of the Act and its application in accordance to law. The chart is relevant and reproduced as under: - In the light of discussion, we note that the issue before us is whether section 11(2) of the Act r.w. Rule 17 of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 (hereinafter “the Rules”) makes it necessary for the assessee to make specific mention of any purpose or purposes to enable it to accumulate the income? We find that such an issue is no longer res-integra. This Tribunal in the case of Bal Jeevan Trust Vs. ITO (ITA. No. 1872/Mum/2023 for AY. 2016-17 decided on 12.12.2023) took notice of the decision relied upon by AO i.e. Hon’ble Calcutta High Court decision in the case of Trustees of Singhania Charitable Trust (supra) for disallowing the claim of assessee, and then the Tribunal has decided the very same issue by holding as under: - “4. We have heard both the parties and perused the records. The Ld. Sr. Counsel Shri J. D. Mistri appearing for the assessee ITA No.3793/Mum/2023 A.Y. 2016-17 The Bombay Catholic Sabha 5 Trust submitted that the assessee is entitled to accumulate income under sub-section (2) of section 11 of the Act, which permits the assessee trust to accumulate or set of apart, either in whole or in part, for application to such purposes in India, such income accumulated or set apart out of the 85% of its income then, the such income shall not be included in the total income of the previous year of the assessee, if assessee satisfy three (3) conditions: - a. such person furnishes a statement in the prescribed form (Form 10) and in the prescribed manner (Rule 17) to the Assessing Officer, stating the purpose for which the income is being accumulated or set apart and the period for which the income is to be accumulated or set apart, which shall in no case exceed five years; b. the money so accumulated or set apart is invested or deposited in the forms or modes specified in sub-section (5); c. the statement referred to in clause (a) is furnished the due date specified under sub-section (1) of section 139 for furnishing the return of income for the previous year.” 5. According to the Ld. Sr. Counsel, the assessee has fulfilled the condition as prescribed u/s 11(2) of the Act i.e conditions enumerated under clause (a), (b) & (c) (supra). According to the Ld. Counsel merely because assessee has stated the purpose for which the income is being accumulated as “Basic Education, Health Care and Nutrition to Underprivileged children”, the Ld. CIT(A) could not have upheld the action of the AO. To bolster his contention, the Ld. Sr. Counsel referred to the judgment of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Hotel and Restaurant Association (261 ITR 190) wherein the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in similar case framed the question of law as under: - ITA No.3793/Mum/2023 A.Y. 2016-17 The Bombay Catholic Sabha 6 A. Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is justified in holding that the accumulation of income by the assessed under Section 11(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), for all objects for which the trust was created and not for specific purpose was neither prejudicial nor erroneous to the interests of the Revenue ? B. Whether Section 11(2) of the Act makes it necessary for the assessed to make specific mention of any purpose or purposes to enable it to accumulate the income ?" 6. And answered the same by observing as under: - “2. Briefly stated the material facts, leading to the present appeal, are that the respondent-assessed is a company registered under Section 25 of the Companies Act, 1956. It had been granted registration under Section 12A(a) of the Act. For the relevant previous year ending March 31, 1992, by means of a resolution, the assessed decided to accumulate its income for a period of ten years for fulfillment of the objects for which it had been created. Notice to that effect was given by filing the requisite statutory form, giving particulars of the income sought to be accumulated and invested in the specified securities. However, while completing the assessment for the relevant assessment year the Assessing Officer declined to take into consideration the amounts so accumulated on the ground that in the statutory form the specific object for which the income was sought to be accumulated was not indicated. He, accordingly, brought the said amount to tax. 3. Aggrieved the assessed preferred an appeal to the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), who, by his order dated April 26, 1995, accepted the claim of the assessed. While holding that the notice to accumulate income by the assessed was in order, the Commissioner (Appeals) observed that the assessed had passed a resolution to accumulate its income so as to apply the same in India in the next ten years to achieve the object for which it had been incorporated ; notice of this fact had been given to the Assessing Officer in the prescribed format and further the said money had been invested in the specified securities. The Commissioner (Appeals), thus, held that the assessed was entitled to exemption under Section 11(1)(b) of the Act. ITA No.3793/Mum/2023 A.Y. 2016-17 The Bombay Catholic Sabha 7 4. Being dissatisfied, the Revenue carried the matter in appeal to the Tribunal. The Tribunal has affirmed the view taken by the Commissioner (Appeals). It has also noticed that the assessed had applied the accumulated income for achieving its object. Hence, the present appeal. 5. We have heard Mr. R.D. Jolly, learned senior standing counsel for the Revenue, Mr. Jolly submits that the appellate authorities have failed to appreciate that in the prescribed form the assessed had failed to indicate the specific purpose for which the income was sought to be accumulated and, therefore, the statutory requirement had not been strictly complied with, disentitling the assessed from relief under Section 11(2) of the Act. 6. We do not agree. It is true that specification of certain purpose or purposes is needed for accumulations 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 for accumulation is not precluded but it depends on the precise purpose for which the accumulation is intended. In the present case, both the appellate authorities below have recorded a concurrent finding that the income was sought to be accumulated by the assessed to achieve the object for which the assessed was incorporated. It is not the case of the Revenue that any of the objects of the asses-see-company were not for charitable purpose. The aforenoted finding by the Tribunal is essentially a finding of fact giving rise to no question of law. 7. We, accordingly, decline to entertain the appeal. The same is dismissed.” 7. The Ld. Sr. Counsel drew our attention to the decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of DIT(E) v Daulat Ram Education Society (2005) 278 ITR 260 (Del) wherein the Hon’ble High Court reiterated the judicial precedent laid down in Hotel and Restaurant Association (supra) and observed as under: - “4. The Tribunal has placed reliance upon the judgment of a Division Bench of this court in CIT v. Hotel & Restaurant Association [2003] 261 ITR 190. In that case also the assessee had accumulated the unspent amount for being spent on more than one purposes specified by it. The question for consideration was whether it was necessary for the assessee to make a specific mention of any purpose or purposes to enable it to accumulate the income. The court held that section 11(2) of the Act did not prohibit plurality of purposes. The court also held that the purposes which the assessee had ITA No.3793/Mum/2023 A.Y. 2016-17 The Bombay Catholic Sabha 8 specified formed part of its objects and were charitable in nature. The position is no different in the instant case. Here too, out of 29 purposes/objects stipulated in the memorandum of association, the assessee has specified eight purposes in Form No. 10 for which it was accumulating the unspent income while claiming benefit under section 11. It is not the case of the revenue that any of these eight purposes are not charitable or that the same do not figure in the memorandum of association. In the circumstances, just because more than one purpose have been specified and just because details about the plans which the assessee has for spending on such purposes are not given may not be sufficient to deny the exemption admissible to it under section 11. So long as one or more of the purposes specified by the assessee find place in the objects for which the society has been incorporated and so long as the said purpose are charitable in character, the benefit admissible under section 11 must flow to the assessee. 5. In the light of what is stated above, no substantial question of law arises for consideration. The appeal fails and is hereby dismissed.” 8. The Ld. Sr. Counsel also cited the decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of DIT(E) v Nbie Welfare Society (2015) 370 ITR 490 (Del) wherein the Hon’ble High Court has framed the question of law as under: - “Whether the ITAT was correct in holding that by mentioned (sic. mentioning) "Further utilization" in Form No. 10 read with Rule 17 of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 the Assessee has fulfilled its obligation as required under Section 11 (2) of the Act'.” 9. And the Hon’ble Delhi High Court while answering the question of law has also referred to the decision of the Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in the case of DIT(E) v Trustees of Singhania Charitable Trust (1993) 199 ITR 819 (Cal) which was cited by Ld. CIT(A) in the impugned order in order to uphold the action of the AO; and the Hon’ble High Court (supra) has distinguished on the facts the decision in Trustees of Singhania Charitable Trust (supra), wherein that charitable trust had as many as eighteen (18) objectives and there was no specific objective for which accumulation had been sought, and thus ITA No.3793/Mum/2023 A.Y. 2016-17 The Bombay Catholic Sabha 9 distinguished that case law; and the Hon’ble Delhi High Court followed the judicial precedent laid down in Hotel and Restaurant Association (supra), Bharat Kalyan Pratisthan v DIT(E) (2008) 299 ITR 406 (Del), Daulat Ram Education Society (supra), DIT(E) v Mamta Health Institute for Mother and Children (2007) 293 ITR 380 (Del) and the Hon’ble High Court held as under: - “9. In the present case, the assessing officer himself had noted in the assessment order that the aim and objective of the assessee was to work for the welfare of the employees of New Bank of India. This undoubtedly was the purpose and objective of the society. Therefore, during the course of assessment proceeding as is apparent from the appellate proceedings, the assessee has clarified and stated that the money in question would only be used for the purpose of making payments to the members or their legal representatives in case of their death, retirement or permanent disability. The Tribunal in the impugned order has also referred to the scheme floated by the respondent assessee under which the employees who were desirous of becoming members had to deposit Rs.10/- as admission fees and thereafter pay Rs.25/- per month for a period of 25 years. The scheme devised provided:— ' PRESENT SCHEME Membership : Membership of the society shall be open to the permanent employees of New Bank of India. Any employee desirous of becoming member may apply on the prescribed form on payment of Rs.10/- as admission fee, duly recommended by any of the office bearer or Managing Committee member of the society employees appointed on part-time basis and 1/3rd or 2/3rd salary are not eligible for membership. Subscription : Under the present scheme, every member shall subscribe a sum of Rs.25/- per month for a period of 25 years. Benefits: (a) in the case of death: (i) Members in the age group of below 50 years (as on 31-7-85) will be entitled to the following benefits:- (a) A sum of Rs.500/- p.m. shall be paid to the nominee of the deceased member for a period of 15 years. ITA No.3793/Mum/2023 A.Y. 2016-17 The Bombay Catholic Sabha 10 (b) Lump sum additional payment of Rs.15,000/- shall be made to the nominee of the deceased member in addition in the benefit referred above if the member dies during the period of service in the bank. (ii) Members in the age group of above 50 years (as on 31-07-1985) will be entitled to the following benefits:- (a) A sum of Rs.500/- p.m. shall be paid to the nominee of the deceased member till the age of retirement with a minimum period of 5 years. (b) A lumpsum payment of Rs.15,000/- shall be made to the nominee of the deceased member in addition to the benefit referred above (ii-a) if the member dies during the period of service in the bank. Other benefits are also there which are in case of retirement and these have been given in part "B" of this scheme to the extent that a sum of Rs.500/- per month shall be paid to the members as per calculation given in the same. Further, other benefits in the cases of death and permanent disability have also been given. Lastly, benefit have been given on resignation from bank prior to the retirement. The contention of the learned counsel is that this is the only object of the assessee and there are no plurality of the objects and as such if the assessee had mentioned in form no. 10 that the accumulation of the funds w0ere for "further utilization" the very purpose is to utilize the amount of accumulation for further benefits to be given to the members in the case of death, retirement, permanent disability ' 10. Other benefits which were specified in part (b) of the Scheme, which stipulated that a sum of Rs.500/- shall be paid to the members on the event specified therein. 11. The aforesaid contention has been accepted by the Tribunal. The findings recorded are in consonance with ratio of several decisions of this Court. 12. In view of the factual background, the substantial question of law in terms of the decisions of this court has to be answered in favour of respondent assessee and against the appellant. The appellant revenue, is not entitled to succeed. The appeal is disposed of. There will be no order as to costs.” 10. In the light of the aforesaid case laws, the Ld. Sr. Counsel wants us to allow the accumulation of income u/s 11(2) of the ITA No.3793/Mum/2023 A.Y. 2016-17 The Bombay Catholic Sabha 11 Act. For completeness, he also drew our attention to page no. 20 of PB, wherein the chart depicting the statement of income, expenses, and accumulation from AY. 2010-11 to AY. 2023-24 is given, which is reproduced as under:- BALJEEVAN TRUST STATEMENT OF INCOME EXPENSES AND ACCUMULATION Assessment years Income 15% Exemption Income after exemption Application and Expenses Excess of Income over Application Accumulation AY. 2010-11 1213535 182030 1031505 850614 180891 180891 AY. 2011-12 2304084 345613 1958471 981651 976820 975000 AY. 2012-13 1393294 208994 1184300 1112200 1039883 72100 AY. 2013-14 2802540 420381 2382159 1342276 1112127 850000 AY. 2014-15 3171909 475786 2696123 1583996 2255003 1100000 AY. 2015-16 4480209 672031 3808178 1553175 4002138 2010000 AY. 2016-17 6949289 1042393 5906896 1904758 774506 3000000 AY. 2017-18 3906695 586004 3320691 2546185 892033 775000 AY. 2018-19 4021910 603287 3418624 2526591 2562332 530000 AY. 2019-20 8915851 1337378 7578474 5016142 2562332 3000000 AY. 2020-21 4660578 699087 3961491 3482837 478654 500000 AY. 2021-22 5039796 755969 4283827 3413125 870702 900000 AY. 2022-23 3774910 566237 3208674 3864102 -655429 3000000 AY. 2023-24 3583555 537533 3046022 4370325 -1324303 2850000 11. Drawing our attention to the chart above, the Ld. Sr Counsel pointed out that assessee trust takes care of the street-children and takes care of the welfare/education of the children; and it can be seen that in AY. 2022-23 & AY. 2023-24, the assessee has been applying excess income for charitable purpose, which fact can be discerned from the negative figures reflecting therein, which fact shows the bonafides of the assessee trust to utilize the income for the benefit of the street-children. In the light of the above facts, the Ld. Sr. Counsel want us to allow the accumulation of Rs.30 Lakhs u/s 11(2) of the Act. Per contra, the Ld. DR supporting the action of the Ld. CIT(A) relied on the decision of the Hon’ble Calcutta High Court(supra) as well as the Hon’ble Punjab & Harayana High Court (supra) and wants us not to interfere with the impugned action of Ld CIT(A). In his rejoinder, the Ld. Sr. Counsel submitted that when there are two views possible; and when there is no decision of the jurisdictional High Court on the issue, then the view which is ITA No.3793/Mum/2023 A.Y. 2016-17 The Bombay Catholic Sabha 12 favorable to the tax payer should be adopted by Tribunal and cited the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. M/s. Vegetables Products Ltd. (1973) 88 ITR 192. 12. Having heard both the parties and after perusal of the records, we note that the assessee is a public charitable trust registered u/s 12A of the Act with the main objective to do philanthropic acts and to take care/education of street- children/under-privileged children. The objective for the Trust, which is discernable from perusal of the page no. 6 of PB, were to do philanthropic acts and to take care of street-children/under- privileged children and especially their (i) Health Care (ii) Nutrition (iii) Literacy and basic education (iv) Self-esteem (v) Group skill, support services and associated support services (vi) Income generating schemes and (vii) Advancement of any other, social welfare objective. In this case, the assessee filed its return of income declaring income at Rs.11,83,030/- which was e-filed on 17.10.2016. The assessee had shown gross receipts of Rs.69,49,289/- and had applied towards the object of the trust a sum of Rs.18,83,357/- [Excluding depreciation as per section 11(6) of the Act]. Thus, it was found that only a sum of Rs.15,99,351/- was applied for education activities out of Rs.18,83,357/-. According to AO, the assessee had not applied 85% of the income but has accumulated income of Rs.30 Lakhs u/s 11(2) of the Act for the purpose of “Basic Education, Health Care and Nutrition to Underprivileged children” which reason for accumulation, according to him, was not for a specific purpose, and instead was only a reiteration of the broad objectives of the trust. According to AO, this general purpose cannot satisfy the requirement of section 11(2) of the Act read with Rule 17 of the Rules. According to AO, accumulation of ITA No.3793/Mum/2023 A.Y. 2016-17 The Bombay Catholic Sabha 13 income u/s 11(2) of the Act must be for heavy outlay of expenses and therefore he disallowed the same. On appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) confirmed the action of AO after citing the decision of the Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in the case of Director of Income Tax v Trustees of Singhania Charitable Trust (1993) 199 ITR 819 (Cal) and the decision of the Hon’ble Punjab & Harayana High Court in the case of Maharaja Ranjit Singh War Museum v CIT order dated 20.03.2020 (ITA. No.259 of 2019). 13. We do not countenance the action of the Ld. CIT(A). We note that assessee Trust while making a claim for accumulating income to the tune of Rs.30 Lakhs as per sub-section (2) of section 11 of the Act, has fulfilled the conditions prescribed therein by filing the Form 10 wherein the assessee has spelled out the purpose for accumulation as “Basic Education, Health Care and Nutrition to Underprivileged children” which we find is in consonance with the purpose/object of the trust itself. Therefore, according to us, the claim for accumulation u/s 11(2) of the Act cannot be denied to assessee. The Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Hotel and Restaurant Association (supra), held that even though it is true that specification of certain purpose or purposes is needed for accumulation of trust’s income u/s 11(2) of the Act, but at the same time, the purpose or purposes to be specified cannot be beyond the objects of the Trust. Their Lordships observed “Plurality of the purposes for accumulation is not precluded, but it depends on the precise purpose for which the accumulation is intended”. Thus, we find that in the present case that income sought to be accumulated by the assessee was to achieve the object for which the assessee was incorporated. We find that it is not the case of AO/Ld. CIT(A) that any of the objects of the assessee trust were not for ITA No.3793/Mum/2023 A.Y. 2016-17 The Bombay Catholic Sabha 14 the purpose beyond the object of the trust or not charitable purpose. Further, we note from the statement of financials of the trust that assessee has applied its income for the education, feeding and clothing of the street children of Mumbai. We note that the income sought to accumulated by assessee was to achieve the three objects for which the assessee was formed. Before us, the Ld. DR could not point out that purpose shown in Form 10 for accumulating Rs.30 Lakhs was not for object of the trust. In such a scenario, since assessee has satisfied the conditions laid down in section 11(2) of the Act for accumulation of the income, the same has to be allowed. It is also noted that from chart (supra) (statement of income, expenses and accumulation) it shows that the assessee in AY. 2022-23 & AY. 2023-24 has offered excess amount which had been applied for achieving the objects of the trust. In the light of the judicial precedents as laid down by Hon’ble Delhi High Court as noted (supra), we are inclined to allow the prayer of the assessee to allow accumulation of income u/s 11(2) of the Act of Rs.30 Lakhs by following the ratio of the Hon’ble Supreme Court decision in the case of M/s. Vegetables Products Ltd. (supra) since other view is also possible. Therefore, the appeal of the assessee is allowed.” 5. Respectfully following decision of the Co-ordinate Bench of this Tribunal in the case of Bal Jeevan Trust (supra) and further taking note of the contemporaneous relevant evidence that the assessee had already applied the accumulated amount of relevant AY. 2016-17 for the objects for which it was formed which is evident from the computation of income for AY. 2017-18 (which fact was brought to the notice of the AO) and also from perusal of the financials of AY. ITA No.3793/Mum/2023 A.Y. 2016-17 The Bombay Catholic Sabha 15 2017-18 which is placed at page no. 39 to 57 of PB as well as and perusal of page no. 49, which would reveal that assessee had applied accumulated amount u/s 11(2) of the Act to the tune of Rs.38,38,781/- for AY. 2017-18. We also find that it is not the case of AO/Ld. CIT(A) that income sought to be accumulated by the assessee, was for any non-charitable activities, which are not for achieving the objects of the assessee. In other words, the purpose of accumulations were beyond the object of the trust or for not charitable purpose. Thus, we find that in the present case that income sought to be accumulated by the assessee was to achieve the object for which the assessee was formed. Before us, the Ld. DR could not point out that purpose shown in Form 10 for accumulating Rs.38,38,781/- was not for objects of the assessee. In such a scenario, since assessee has satisfied the conditions laid down in section 11(2) of the Act for accumulation of the income, the same has to be allowed. In the light of the aforesaid facts and in the light of the judicial precedents as laid down by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Hotel and Restaurant Association (261 ITR 190) and decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of DIT(E) v Daulat Ram Education Society (2005) 278 ITR 260 (Del) and the decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of DIT(E) v Nbie Welfare Society (2015) 370 ITR 490 (Del), we are inclined to allow the prayer of the assessee to allow accumulation of income u/s 11(2) of the Act of Rs.38,38,781/- by taking note of the facts and the ratio of the Hon’ble High Court decisions (supra) which were noted by the Co-ordinate Bench decision in the case of Bal Jeevan Trust (supra); and since AO’s view is also possible, in the facts ITA No.3793/Mum/2023 A.Y. 2016-17 The Bombay Catholic Sabha 16 and circumstances discussed (supra) we relying on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Vegetable Products Ltd. (88 ITR 192) (SC), allow the claim of assessee. Therefore, the appeal of the assessee is allowed. 6. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on this 20/03/2024. Sd/- Sd/- (S RIFAUR RAHMAN) (ABY T. VARKEY) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER मुंबई Mumbai; दिनांक Dated : 20/03/2024. Vijay Pal Singh, (Sr. PS) आदेश की प्रनिनलनि अग्रेनर्ि/Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलार्थी / The Appellant 2. प्रत्यर्थी / The Respondent. 3. आयकर आयुक्त / CIT 4. दवभागीय प्रदतदनदि, आयकर अपीलीय अदिकरण, मुंबई / DR, ITAT, Mumbai 5. गार्ड फाईल / Guard file. आदेशधिुसधर/ BY ORDER, सत्यादपत प्रदत //True Copy// उि/सहधयक िंजीकधर /(Dy./Asstt. Registrar) आयकर अिीलीय अनर्करण, मुंबई / ITAT, Mumbai