Jacobite Syrian Orthodox Society, Bangalore V. Income Tax Officer, Bangalore

ITA 398/BANG/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 128 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 5503 (ITAT-BANGALORE)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 month(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 21-04-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 12-04-2017
• Assessment Year: 2012-2013
• Appeal Filed On: 21-02-2017
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: H L SOUMYA ACHAR
• Assessee Lawyers: DR N SURESH
• Keywords: Charitable institution; Benefit of exemption; Revenue expenditure
• Section: 2; 15

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL BANGALORE BENCH - SMC A BEFORE SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO , JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. NO. 398 /BANG/201 7 (ASSESSMENT YEAR : 20 12 - 13 ) JACOBITE SYRIAN ORTHODOX SOCIETY, NO.13, QUEEN S ROAD, BANGALORE - 560 001 PAN AAATJ 0543 P VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER (EXEMPTIONS), WARD 1, BANGALORE. APPELLANT RESPONDENT. APPELLANT BY : DR.N. SURESH, C.A. RESPONDENT BY : MS. H.L. SOUMYA ACHAR, ADDL. CIT (D.R) DATE OF H EARING : 12.04.2017. DATE OF P RONOUNCEMENT : 21 .04. 201 7 . O R D E R PER SHRI VIJAY P AL RAO, J. M. : THIS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER DT. 24.11.2016 O F COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) - 14, LTU, BANGALORE FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2012 - 13 . 2. THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS : 1. THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT (APPEALS) IS CONTRARY TO THE LAW AND TAX OF THE CASE. THEREFORE, IT MAY SE T ASIDE. 2 ITA NO. 398 /BANG/ 2 017 2. THE LEARNED CIT (APPEALS) WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN NOT ALLOWING THE ACCUMULATION OR SET APART NOT EXCEEDING 15 % UNDER SECTION 11(1)(A) ON THE GROSS INCOME. 3. THE LEARNED CIT (APPEALS) WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN AS MUCH AS APPLYING 15% ON THE NET INCO ME WHERE THE LANGUAGE OF SECTION 11(1)(A) IS INCOME DERIVED FROM THE PROPERTY HELD UNDER TRUST. 3. GROUND NO.1 IS GENERAL IN NATURE AND DOES NOT REQUIRE ANY SPECIFIC ADJUDICATION. 4 . GROUND NO S .2 & 3 ARE REGARDING ALLOWABLE ACCUMULATION OF INCOM E AT 15% OF NET RECEIPTS OR GROSS RECEIPTS. 5 . HAVING CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AS WELL AS THE RELEVANT MATERIAL ON RECORD, A T THE OUTSET, IT IS NOTED THAT AN IDENTICAL ISSUE HAS BEEN CONSIDERED BY THE CO - ORDINATE BENCH OF THIS TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF MOOGAMBIGAI CHARITABLE AND EDUCATION TRUST VS. ADIT (EXEMPTIONS) (SUPRA) IN PARAS 17.1 TO 17.4 AS UNDER : 17.1 GROUND NOS.9 & 10 ARE REGARDING ALLOWING THE 15% ACCUMULATION ON NET INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE INSTEAD OF GROSS RECEIPTS AS CLAIMED B Y THE ASSESSEE. 17.2 WE HAVE HEARD THE LD. A.R. AS WELL AS THE LD. D.R. AND CONSIDERED THE RELEVANT MATERIAL ON RECORD. THE LD. A.R. OF THE ASSESSEE HAS SUBMITTED THAT THIS ISSUE IS COVERED BY THE DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF CAPUCHIN FRIAR SERVICES OF SOCIETY VS. DCIT DT.9.10.2015 IN ITA NO.367/BANG/2015. 17.3 ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE HAS RELIED UPON THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. 3 ITA NO. 398 /BANG/ 2 017 17.4 WE FIND THAT THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF CAPUCHIN FRIAR S ERVICES OF SOCIETY (SUPRA) HAS DEALT WITH AN IDENTICAL ISSUE IN PARAS 10 & 11 AS UNDER : 10. WE FIND THAT THE ISSUE IS COVERED BY THE CO - ORDINATE BENCH DECISION IN THE CASE OF JYOTHY CHARITABLE TRUST IN ITA NO.662/BANG/2015. THE RELEVANT EXTRACT IS RE PRODUCED BELOW: - 15. THE THIRD ISSUE THAT ARISES FOR CONSIDERATION IN THIS APPEAL IS AS TO WHETHER 15% ACCUMULATION FOR APPLICATION IN FUTURE HAS TO BE CALCULATED ON GROSS RECEIPTS OR NET RECEIPTS AFTER DEDUCTION OF REVENUE EXPENDITURE. THE ASSESSEE CLAI MED ACCUMULATION OF INCOME FOR APPLICATION FOR CHARITABLE PURPOSE AT 15% OF THE GROSS RECEIPTS. THE AO WAS OF THE VIEW THAT ACCUMULATION WILL BE ALLOWED ONLY TO THE EXTENT OF 15% OF THE INCOME AFTER REVENUE EXPENDITURE. IN OTHER WORDS INCOME TO BE SET APAR T U/S.1 1(1)(A) OF THE ACT HAS TO BE COMPUTED AT 15% OF THE NET INCOME I.E., GROSS RECEIPTS MINUS REVENUE EXPENDITURE AND NOT ON THE GROSS RECEIPTS AS CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE. SINCE IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE, THE GROSS RECEIPTS AFTER REVENUE EXPENDITURE WAS NIL, THE AO DENIED THE BENEFIT OF ACCUMULATION TO THE ASSESSEE. 16. ON APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE, THE CIT(A) CONFIRMED THE ORDER OF THE AO. HENCE GROUND NO - 4 RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. 17. THE ISSUE TO BE DECIDED IS THEREFORE AS TO WHET HER FOR THE PURPOSE OF COMPUTING ACCUMULATION OF INCOME OF 15% UNDER SECTION 11(1)(A) OF THE ACT, ONE HAS TO TAKE THE GROSS RECEIPTS OR GROSS RECEIPTS AFTER EXPENDITURE FOR CHARITABLE PURPOSE I.E., THE NET RECEIPTS. THIS IS ISSUE IS NO LONGER RES INTEGRA A ND HAS BEEN DECIDED BY THE SPECIAL BENCH MUMBAI IN THE CASE OF BAI SONABAI HIRJI AGIARY TRUST VS. ITO 93 LTD 0070 (SB). THE FACTS IN THE AFORESAID CASE WERE THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS A PUBLIC CHARITABLE TRUST ENJOYING EXEMPTION UNDER S. 11 OF THE IT ACT. AS PE R THE REQUIREMENT OF S. 11(1) OF THE IT ACT, AS IT PREVAILED AT THAT POINT OF TIME, THE ASSESSEE HAD TO APPLY 75 PER CENT OF ITS INCOME FOR THE OBJECTS AND PURPOSES OF THE TRUST AND THE ASSESSEE WAS PERMITTED TO ACCUMULATE OR SET APART UP TO 25 PER CENT OF ITS INCOME, WHICH WAS SUBJECT TO FULFILLMENT OF OTHER CONDITIONS. WHILE CALCULATING THE AFORESAID 25 PER CENT, THE IMPORTANT QUESTION WHICH AROSE WAS AS TO WHETHER FOR THIS PURPOSE, THE GROSS INCOME EARNED BY THE ASSESSEE IS RELEVANT OR THE INCOME AS COMP UTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF IT ACT. IN OTHER WORDS, WHETHER OUTGOINGS FROM OUT OF GROSS INCOME WHICH ARE IN THE NATURE OF APPLICATION OF INCOME, SHOULD BE FIRST DEDUCTED FROM THE GROSS INCOME AND 25 PER CENT OF ONLY THE REMAINING AMOUNT SHOUL D BE ALLOWED TO BE ACCUMULATED OR SET APART. THE SPECIAL BENCH OF THE ITAT ON THE ISSUE HELD AS FOLLOWS: - 9. COMING TO THE MERITS OF THE ISSUE, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE SAME IS CLEARLY COVERED BY THE DECISION OF THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. PROGRAMME FOR COMMUNITY ORGANIZATION (SUPRA). IN THE DECISION, THEIR LORDSHIPS, AFTER TAKING NOTE OF PROVISIONS OF SEC. 11(L)(A), HAVE HELD AS UNDER: 'HAVING REGARD TO THE PLAIN LANGUAGE OF THE ABOVE PROVISION, IT IS CLEAR THAT A CHARITABLE OR R ELIGIOUS TRUST IS ENTITLED TO ACCUMULATE TWENTY - FIVE PER CENT OF ITS INCOME DERIVED FROM PROPERTY HELD UNDER TRUST. FOR THE PRESENT PURPOSES, THE DONATIONS THE ASSESSEE RECEIVED, IN THE SUM OF RS. 2,57,376, WOULD CONSTITUTE ITS PROPERTY AND IT IS ENTITLED TO ACCUMULATE TWENTY - FIVE PER CENT THEREOUT. IT IS UNCLEAR ON WHAT BASIS THE REVENUE CONTENDED THAT IT WAS ENTITLED TO ACCUMULATE ONLY TWENTY FIVE PER CENT OF RS.87,010. FOR THE AFORESAID REASONS, THE CIVIL APPEAL IS DISMISSED.' IT IS CLEAR FROM THE ABOVE THAT DEDUCTION OF TWENTY - FIVE PER CENT WAS HELD TO BE ALLOWABLE NOT ON TOTAL INCOME AS COMPUTED UNDER THE IT ACT. ANY AMOUNT OR EXPENDITURE, WHICH WAS APPLICATION OF INCOME, IS NOT TO BE CONSIDERED FOR DETERMINING TWENTY FIVE PER CENT TO BE ACCUMULATED. TH EIR LORDSHIPS, AS NOTED EARLIER, AFFIRMED THE DECISION OF KERALA HIGH COURT IN (1997) 141 CTR (KER) 502 : (1997) 228 ITR 620 (KER) (SUPRA) WHEREIN IT IS HELD AS UNDER: 'AT THE OUTSET, THE STATUTORY LANGUAGE OF S. U(I)(A) OF THE IT 4 ITA NO. 398 /BANG/ 2 017 ACT, 1961, RELATES TO THE INCOME DERIVED BY THE TRUST FROM PROPERTY. THE TRUST IS REQUIRED TO BE WHOLLY FOR CHARITABLE OR RELIGIOUS PURPOSES, AND THE INCOME IS EXPECTED TO HAVE RELATION TO THE EXTENT TO WHICH SUCH INCOME IS APPLIED TO SUCH PURPOSES IN INDIA. IT IS THEREAFTER THE STATUTORY PROVISION PROCEEDS FURTHER THAT SUCH INCOME IS NOT TO BE UNDERSTOOD TO BE IN EXCESS OF 25 PER CENT OF THE INCOME FROM SUCH PROPERTIES. IN OTHER WORDS, THE VERY LANGUAGE OF THE STATUTORY PROVISION UNDER CONSIDERATION SETS APART 25 PER CENT OF THE INCOME FROM THE SOURCE OF PROPERTY WITH REFERENCE TO THE EXTENT TO WHICH SUCH INCOME IS APPLIED FOR SUCH PURPOSES, CHARITABLE OR RELIGIOUS. IN OTHER WORDS, FOR THE PURPOSE OF S. II(I)(A) OF THE ACT, THE INCOME IN TERMS OF RELEVANCE WOULD BE THE INCOME OF T HE TRUST FROM AND OUT OF WHICH 25 PER CENT IS SET APART IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE SPIRIT OF THE STATUTORY PROVISION.' THIS MEANS THAT, WHEN IT IS ESTABLISHED THAT TRUST IS ENTITLED TO FULL BENEFIT OF EXEMPTION UNDER S. 11(1), THE SAID TRUST IS TO GET THE BENE FIT OF TWENTY - FIVE PER CENT AND THIS TWENTY - FIVE PER CENT HAS TO BE UNDERSTOOD AS INCOME OF THE TRUST UNDER THE RELEVANT HEAD OF S. 11(1). IN OTHER WORDS, INCOME THAT IS NOT TO BE INCLUDED FOR THE PURPOSE OF COMPUTING THE TOTAL INCOME WOULD BE THE AMOUNT E XPENDED FOR PURPOSES OF TRUST IN INDIA. THEIR LORDSHIPS IN THE ABOVE CASE HAVE EMPHASIZED ON THE CLEAR AND UNAMBIGUOUS LANGUAGE OF S. 11(1)(A) AND DECIDED THE MATTER ON THE BASIS OF THE SAME. IT HAS BEEN HELD THAT AS PER THE STATUTORY LANGUAGE OF THE ABOVE SECTION THE INCOME WHICH IS TO BE TAKEN FOR PURPOSE OF ACCUMULATION IS THE INCOME DERIVED BY THE TRUST FROM PROPERTY. IF BOTH THE DECISIONS ARE CAREFULLY READ, IT BECOMES EVIDENT THAT ANY EXPENDITURE WHICH IS IN THE SHAPE OF APPLICATION OF INCOME IS NOT TO BE TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT. HAVING FOUND THAT TRUST IS ENTITLED TO EXEMPTION UNDER S. 11(1), WE ARE TO GO TO THE STAGE OF INCOME BEFORE APPLICATION THEREOF AND TAKE INTO ACCOUNT 25 PER CENT OF SUCH INCOME. THEIR LORDSHIPS HAVE POINTED THAT THE SAME HAS TO B E TAKEN ON 'COMMERCIAL' BASIS AND NOT 'TOTAL INCOME' AS COMPUTED UNDER THE IT ACT. THEIR LORDSHIPS IN THE DECIDED CASE REJECTED THE CONTENTION OF THE REVENUE THAT THE SUM OF RS 1,70,369 WHICH WAS SPENT AND APPLIED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR CHARITABLE PURPOSES WA S REQUIRED TO BE EXCLUDED FOR PURPOSE OF TAKING AMOUNT TO BE ACCUMULATED. HAVING REGARD TO THE CLEAR PRONOUNCEMENT OF THEIR LORDSHIPS OF THE SUPREME COURT, IT IS DIFFICULT TO ACCEPT THAT OUTGOINGS WHICH ARE IN THE NATURE OF APPLICATION OF INCOME ARE TO BE EXCLUDED. THE INCOME AVAILABLE TO THE ASSESSEE BEFORE IT WAS APPLIED IS DIRECTED TO BE TAKEN AND THE SAME IN THE PRESENT CASE IS RS. 3,42,174. TWENTY FIVE PER CENT OF THE ABOVE INCOME IS TO BE ALLOWED AS A DEDUCTION. SIMILAR VIEW HAS ALSO BEEN TAKEN BY THE HON'BLE MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT IN PARSI ZORASTRIAN ANJUMAN TRUST VS. CIT (SUPRA). NO REASON WHATSOEVER HAS BEEN GIVEN BY THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES FOR DEDUCTING RS. 2,17,126 IN THIS CASE FOR PURPOSES OF S. I 1(1)(A). THE DECISION CITED ON BEHALF OF THE R EVENUE DID NOT TAKE INTO ACCOUNT THE DECISION OF THE SUPREME ITA NO.367/BANG/2015 PAGE 10 OF 11 COURT REFERRED TO ABOVE. THE CIRCULAR OF CBDT HAS ALSO BEEN CONSIDERED BY THE HON'BLE KERALA HIGH COURT IN ITS DECISION REFERRED TO ABOVE. ACCORDINGLY, THE QUES TION REFERRED TO IS ANSWERED IN THE AFFIRMATIVE AND IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE.' 18. THE AFORESAID DECISION CLEARLY SUPPORTS THE PLEA OF THE ASSESSEE. FOLLOWING THE SAME, WE HOLD THAT THE ACCUMULATION U/S 11(1)(A) OF THE ACT SHOULD BE ALLOWED AS CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE. GROUND NO.4 RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IS ACCORDINGLY ALLOWED. 11. FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF THE CO - ORDINATE BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL, WE SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) . FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF THE CO - ORDINATE BENCH OF THIS TRIBUNAL, WE DE CIDE THIS ISSUE IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE AND DIRECT THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO CONSIDER THE ALLOWABLE ACCUMULATION OF INCOME AT 15% OF THE GROSS RECEIPTS. 5 ITA NO. 398 /BANG/ 2 017 IN VIEW OF THE DECISIONS OF THIS TRIBUNAL AS WELL AS THE DECISIONS OF HON'BLE SUPREME COURT AND HO N'BLE HIGH COURT AS REFERRED IN THE SAID DECISION OF THE CO - ORDINATE BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL CITED SUPRA, I ALLOW THE ACCUMULATION OF INCOME AT 15% OF THE GROSS RECEIPTS. 6. IN THE RESULT , THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 21ST APRIL, 201 7 . SD/ - (VIJAY PAL RAO) JUDICIAL MEMBER BANGALORE, DT. 21 .04 .2017. *REDDY GP COPY TO : 1 . APPELLANT 2 . RESPONDENT 3 . C.I.T. 4 . CIT(A) 5 . DR, ITAT, BANGALORE. 6 . GUARD FILE. ASSISTANT REGISTRAR IN COME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL BANGALORE.