M/s Acharya Pathahala Educational Trust, Bangalore V. Dy.D.I.T., Bangalore

ITA 597/BANG/2015

• Counselvise Citation: 59721114 RSA 2015
• Duration Of Justice: 6 month(s) 27 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 06-11-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 04-11-2015
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Appeal Filed On: 09-04-2015
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: DR P K SRIHARI
• Assessee Lawyers: C P RAMASWAMY
• Keywords: Charitable institution; Benefit of exemption; Revenue expenditure
• Section: 11; 15

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL A BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SMT. ASHA VIJAYARAGHAVAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI JASON P. BOAZ, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO.597/BANG/2015 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2011-12 M/S. ACHARYA PATHASHALA EDUCATIONAL TRUST, NARASIMHARAJA COLONY, BASAVANGUDI, BANGALORE 560 019. PAN: AAATA 1253B VS. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS), CIRCLE 1, BANGALORE. APPELLANT RESPONDENT APPELLANT BY : SHRI C.P. RAMASWAMY, CA RESPONDENT BY : DR. P.K. SRIHARI, ADDL. ADDL.CIT (DR) DATE OF HEARING : 04.11.2015 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 06.11.2015 O R D E R PER ASHA VIJAYARAGHAVAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER THIS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST T HE ORDER DATED 27.01.2015 OF THE CIT(APPEALS)-14, LTU, BANGALORE R ELATING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2011-12. 2. THE ASSESSEE TRUST FILED ITS RETURN OF INCOME FO R AY 2011-12 ON 26.09.2011 DECLARING A TOTAL INCOME OF RS. NIL. T HE ASSESSEE IS ENGAGED ITA NO.597/B/2015 PAGE 2 OF 9 IN RUNNING EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTIONS WHICH CONSIST O F SCHOOLS FROM PRIMARY TO THE HIGH SCHOOL LEVELS, IN BOTH URBAN AND RURAL ARE AS, APART FROM POLYTECHNIC, ENGINEERING COLLEGES AND PRE-UNIVERSIT Y COLLEGES. 3. THE ONLY ISSUE DISPUTED IN THIS APPEAL IS THE CA LCULATION OF THE DEDUCTION OF 15% U/S. 11(1)(A) ON NET RECEIPTS BY T HE AO COMPARED TO THE CALCULATION ON GROSS RECEIPTS BY THE ASSESSEE. 4. THE ASSESSING OFFICER COMPUTED THE ACCUMULATION AT 15% OF THE NET INCOME OF THE TRUST HOLDING THAT THE GROSS RECEIPTS OF AN EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTION WILL NOT BE AVAILABLE FULLY FOR APPLICA TION TO CHARITABLE PURPOSES IN INDIA SINCE THE EXPENDITURE FOR RUNNING THE EDUCATI ONAL ACTIVITIES, WHICH ARE NECESSARY FOR EARNING SUCH INCOME, WOULD HAVE TO BE FACTORED IN. THE ASSESSEES CLAIM OF ACCUMULATION AT 15% OF GROSS RE CEIPT HAS NOT BEEN ACCEPTED SINCE THE AO HELD THAT THIS METHOD IS APPL ICABLE ONLY TO A TRUST WHICH IS RUNNING PURELY ON DONATIONS AND WHERE NO A MOUNT HAS BEEN SPENT FOR GETTING SUCH DONATIONS. 5. BEFORE THE CIT(APPEALS), THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE AO HAD NOT APPRECIATED THAT THE WORD INCOME IN SECTION 1 1 WHICH REFERS TO GROSS INCOME/RECEIPT AND NOT THE COMMERCIAL MEANING OF I NCOME I.E. NET OF EXPENSES USED FOR EARNING THE RECEIPTS. IT WAS POI NTED OUT THAT IN THE EARLIER YEAR THE 15% CALCULATION OF DEDUCTION HAS B EEN MADE ON THE GROSS RECEIPTS AND HENCE, THERE WAS NO REASON TO MAKE THE CHANGE IN CALCULATION AS HAS BEEN DONE BY THE AO. IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THE GROSS REVENUE OF ITA NO.597/B/2015 PAGE 3 OF 9 THE ASSESSEE WAS MAINLY FROM THE FEES COLLECTED FRO M STUDENTS, GOVERNMENT GRANTS FOR SALARIES AND A SMALL PORTION FROM INTEREST, RENT ETC. WHICH INCLUDED INTEREST ACCRUED AND RENT RECEIVABLE OF RS.42,79,856. IF THIS AMOUNT WAS REDUCED FROM THE GROSS INCOME OF RS.21,1 0,15,430, THE AMOUNT AVAILABLE FOR APPLICATION WAS RS.20,67,35,57 3. THE 85% REQUIREMENT UNDER THE IT ACT FOR APPLICATION TO CHA RITABLE PURPOSES, WHEN CALCULATED ON THIS NET AMOUNT WAS RS.17,57,26,220 A GAINST WHICH THE ASSESSEE HAD ACTUALLY APPLIED RS.17,77,26,220 I.E. , IN EXCESS OF 85%. 6. THE CIT(APPEALS) PARTLY ACCEPTED THE ASSESSEES CONTENTIONS AND HELD AS FOLLOWS:- 3.8 I FIND FROM THE APPELLANTS INCOME AND EXPEND ITURE ACCOUNT THAT DIFFERENT KINDS OF RECEIPTS ARE AVAILA BLE TO IT WHICH INCLUDE SOURCES DIRECTLY RELATED TO ITS EDUCATIONAL ACTIVITY SUCH AS FEES RECEIPT, HOSTEL FEES, GRANT RECEIPT WHILE OTHE R SOURCES FROM BANK INTEREST, RENT, VOLUNTARY CONTRIBUTION, MISCEL LANEOUS INCOME ETC. ARE ALSO REFLECTED THEREIN. THE PRINCIPLE OF 1 5% OF NET INCOME IS TO BE APPLIED ONLY TO RECEIPTS FROM ACTIVITIES F OR WHICH A CONSIDERATION HAS BEEN CHARGED AND NOT TO THE ENTIR E GROSS RECEIPTS OF THE APPELLANT. TO THE EXTENT THE APPELL ANT RECEIVES DONATIONS, THE ACCUMULATION FROM SUCH RECEIPTS ARE TO BE TREATED IN TERMS OF THE HONBLE SUPREME COURTS DECISION IN CASE OF PROGRAMME FOR COMMUNITY ORGANIZATION (SUPRA). THE R ECEIPTS FROM THE EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTIONS, EVEN IF FIXED AT NON COMMERCIAL RATES (SUBJECT TO VERIFICATION AND RECORDING CLEARL Y BY THE AO) COULD BE EARNED ONLY THROUGH THE INCURRING OF OPERA TIONAL EXPENSES RELATING TO SALARY, ACADEMIC MATERIAL, MAI NTENANCE ETC. FOR THESE ACTIVITIES. THEREFORE, THE APPLICATION OF INCOME AND ACCUMULATION ARE BOTH TO BE RECKONED FROM THE NET I NCOME AVAILABLE FOR THESE PURPOSES. THE AO IS, THEREFORE, DIRECTED TO BIFURCATE THE RECEIPTS FROM THE CONSIDERATION CHARG ING ACTIVITIES AND THOSE WITHOUT CONSIDERATION SUCH AS DONATION ET C., AND TREAT THE ACCUMULATION IN THE FORMER IN TERMS OF NET RECE IPT AND IN THE ITA NO.597/B/2015 PAGE 4 OF 9 LATTER IN TERMS OF GROSS RECEIPTS. IN VIEW OF THIS DISCUSSION, THE GROUNDS RAISED ARE PARTLY ACCEPTED. 7. AGGRIEVED, THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US O N THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS :- 1. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEA LS) ERRED IN SEGREGATING THE GROSS INCOME THAT OF INCOME FROM EDUCATIONAL ACTIVITIES AND INCOME FROM OTHER THAN EDUCATIONAL A CTIVITIES. 2. THE APPELLANT SUBMITS THAT THE INVESTMENT IN IM MOVABLE PROPERTY AS WELL AS FIXED DEPOSITS IS GENERATED OUT OF EDUCATION INCOME AND THE NET SURPLUS OF RENTAL INCOME AS WELL AS INTEREST IS BEING UTILIZED FOR EDUCATIONAL ACTIVITIES. THEREFOR E, THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX WAS WRONG IN STATING THA T THE APPELLANT WOULD BE ELIGIBLE FOR DEDUCTION OF 15% OF GROSS REVENUE GENERATED OUT OF OTHER THAN EDUCATIONAL ACT IVITIES. 3. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX FAILED T O UNDERSTAND THAT SINCE THE FUNDS GENERATED OUT OF IN COME FROM EDUCATIONAL ACTIVITIES AND THE INCOME FROM THESE AC TIVITIES ARE UTILIZED TOWARDS EDUCATIONAL ACTIVITIES AS HELD BY HONBLE APEX COURT IN THE CASE OF RADHA SOAMI SATSANG VS COMMISS IONER OF INCOME TAX (193 ITR 321), THE APPELLANT IS RIGHTLY ENTITLED FOR EXEMPTION OF SEC. 11(1)(A), OF ANY AMOUNT IF THE AP PELLANT HAS APPLIED MORE THAN 85% OF GROSS REVENUE. 8. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE REITERATED THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BEFORE THE CIT(APPEALS) AND RELIED ON THE FOLLOWING DECISIONS :- CIT V. TRUSTEE OF H.E.H. THE NIZAMS SUPPELMETNAL R ELIGIOUS ENDOWMENT TRUST, 127 ITR 378 (AP) CIT V. ESTATE OF V.L. ETHIRAJ, 136 ITR 12 (MAD) CIT V. JANAKI AMMAL AYYA NADAR TRUST, 153 ITR 159 ( MAD) CIT V. JAYASHREE CHARITY TRUST, 159 ITR 280 (CAL) ITA NO.597/B/2015 PAGE 5 OF 9 9. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE TOOK US THROUGH THE RELEVANT PORTION OF THE JUDGMENT IN THE CASE OF CIT V. JAYASHREE CHARITY TRUST, 159 ITR 280 (CAL) , WHEREIN IT WAS HELD AS UNDER:- THIS CIRCULAR MAKES IT CLEAR THAT THE WORD INCOME IN SECTION 11(1)(A) MUST BE UNDERSTOOD IN A COMMERCIAL SENSE. THE ENTIRE INCOME OF THE TRUST, IN THE COMMERCIAL SENSE, HAS B EEN SPENT FOR THE PURPOSE OF CHARITY. THERE IS NO REASON TO DENY THE BENEFIT OF EXEMPTION GRANTED BY SECTION 11 TO THAT PORTION OF THE INCOME WHICH HAS BEEN TAKEN AWAY BY DEDUCTION AT SOURCE ON THE GROUND THAT THE AMOUNT HAS NOT BEEN SPENT OR ACCUMULATED F OR THE PURPOSE OF CHARITY. 10. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE ALSO POINTED O UT THAT IN THE IMMEDIATELY PRECEDING YEAR, THE AO COMPUTED ACCUMUL ATION AT 15% OF THE GROSS RECEIPT. FURTHER, HE ALSO POINTED OUT TO PAG E 21 OF THE ASSESSEES PB, WHERE APPLICATION BY THE TRUST IS 100%. WE ARE, HOWEVER, BOUND TO FOLLOW THE DECISION OF TH E CO-ORDINATE BENCH DECISION IN THE CASE OF JYOTHY CHARITABLE TRUST IN ITA NO.662/BANG/2015 BY ORDER DATED 14.08.2015 . THE RELEVANT EXTRACT AT PARAS 15 TO 8 OF THE SA ID ORDER IS REPRODUCED BELOW:- 15. THE THIRD ISSUE THAT ARISES FOR CONSIDERATION IN THIS APPEAL IS AS TO WHETHER 15% ACCUMULATION FOR APPLICATION I N FUTURE HAS TO BE CALCULATED ON GROSS RECEIPTS OR NET RECEIPTS AFT ER DEDUCTION OF REVENUE EXPENDITURE. THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED ACCUMULA TION 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 AFT ER REVENUE EXPENDITURE. IN OTHER WORDS INCOME TO BE SET APART U/S.11(1)(A) OF THE ACT HAS TO BE COMPUTED AT 15% OF THE NET INCOME I.E., GROSS ITA NO.597/B/2015 PAGE 6 OF 9 RECEIPTS MINUS REVENUE EXPENDITURE AND NOT ON THE G ROSS RECEIPTS AS CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE. SINCE IN THE CASE OF T HE ASSESSEE, THE GROSS RECEIPTS AFTER REVENUE EXPENDITURE WAS NIL, T HE AO DENIED THE BENEFIT OF ACCUMULATION TO THE ASSESSEE. 16. ON APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE, THE CIT(A) CONFIRME D THE ORDER OF THE AO. HENCE GROUND NO.4 RAISED BY THE A SSESSEE BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. 17. THE ISSUE TO BE DECIDED IS THEREFORE AS TO WHE THER FOR THE PURPOSE OF COMPUTING ACCUMULATION OF INCOME OF 15% UNDER SEC.11(1)((A) OF THE ACT, ONE HAS TO TAKE THE GROSS RECEIPTS OR GROSS RECEIPTS AFTER EXPENDITURE FOR CHARITABLE PUR POSE 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 ITD 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 PREVAI LED AT THAT POINT OF TIME, THE ASSESSEE HAD TO APPLY 75 PER CENT OF I TS 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. WHI LE CALCULATING THE AFORESAID 25 PER CENT, THE IMPORTANT QUESTION W HICH AROSE WAS AS TO WHETHER FOR THIS PURPOSE, THE GROSS INCOME EA RNED BY THE ASSESSEE IS RELEVANT OR THE INCOME AS COMPUTED IN A CCORDANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF IT ACT. IN OTHER WORDS, WHET HER OUTGOINGS FROM OUT OF GROSS INCOME WHICH ARE IN THE NATURE OF APPLICATION OF INCOME, SHOULD BE FIRST DEDUCTED FROM THE GROSS INC OME AND 25 PER CENT OF ONLY THE REMAINING AMOUNT SHOULD BE ALL OWED 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 VI EW THAT THE SAME IS CLEARLY COVERED BY THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. PROGRA MME FOR COMMUNITY ORGANIZATION (SUPRA). IN THE DECISION , THEIR LORDSHIPS, AFTER TAKING NOTE OF PROVISIONS OF S. 11(1)(A), HAVE HELD AS UNDER : 'HAVING REGARD TO THE PLAIN LANGUAGE OF THE ABOVE PROVISION, IT IS CLEAR THAT A CHARITABLE OR RELIGIO US TRUST IS ENTITLED TO ACCUMULATE TWENTY-FIVE PER CENT OF I TS INCOME DERIVED FROM PROPERTY HELD UNDER TRUST. FOR ITA NO.597/B/2015 PAGE 7 OF 9 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 CEN T 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 A S COMPUTED UNDER THE IT ACT. ANY AMOUNT OR EXPENDITUR E, WHICH WAS APPLICATION OF INCOME, IS NOT TO BE CONSI DERED FOR DETERMINING TWENTY FIVE PER CENT TO BE ACCUMULA TED. THEIR LORDSHIPS, AS NOTED EARLIER, AFFIRMED THE DEC ISION OF KERALA HIGH COURT IN (1997) 141 CTR (KER) 502 : (19 97) 228 ITR 620 (KER) (SUPRA) WHEREIN IT IS HELD AS UND ER : 'AT THE OUTSET, THE STATUTORY LANGUAGE OF S. 11(1)( A) OF THE IT ACT, 1961, RELATES TO THE INCOME DERIVED BY THE TRUST FROM PROPERTY. THE TRUST IS REQUIRED TO B E WHOLLY FOR CHARITABLE OR RELIGIOUS PURPOSES, AND TH E INCOME IS EXPECTED TO HAVE RELATION TO THE EXTENT T O 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. 11(1)(A) OF THE ACT, THE INCOME I N TERMS OF RELEVANCE WOULD BE THE INCOME OF THE 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 BENEFIT OF TWENTY-FIVE PER CENT AND THIS TWENTY-FIVE PER CENT HAS TO BE UNDERSTOOD AS INCOME OF THE ITA NO.597/B/2015 PAGE 8 OF 9 TRUST UNDER THE RELEVANT HEAD OF S. 11(1). IN OTHER WORDS, INCOME THAT IS NOT TO BE INCLUDED FOR THE PURPOSE O F COMPUTING THE TOTAL INCOME WOULD BE THE AMOUNT EXPENDED FOR PURPOSES OF TRUST IN INDIA. THEIR LORD SHIPS 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 T HAT 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 BECOME S EVIDENT THAT ANY EXPENDITURE WHICH IS IN THE SHAPE OF APPLI CATION OF INCOME IS NOT TO BE TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT. HAVING F OUND THAT TRUST IS ENTITLED TO EXEMPTION UNDER S. 11(1), WE ARE TO GO TO THE STAGE OF INCOME BEFORE APPLICATION THEREO F AND TAKE INTO ACCOUNT 25 PER CENT OF SUCH INCOME. THEIR LORDSHIPS HAVE POINTED THAT THE SAME HAS TO BE TAKE N ON 'COMMERCIAL' BASIS AND NOT 'TOTAL INCOME' AS COMPUT ED UNDER THE IT ACT. THEIR LORDSHIPS IN THE DECIDED CA SE REJECTED THE CONTENTION OF THE REVENUE THAT THE SUM OF RS 1,70,369 WHICH WAS SPENT AND APPLIED BY THE ASSESSE E FOR CHARITABLE PURPOSES WAS 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 APPLICATI ON OF INCOME ARE TO BE EXCLUDED. THE INCOME AVAILABLE TO THE ASSESSEE BEFORE IT WAS APPLIED IS DIRECTED TO BE TA KEN AND THE SAME IN THE PRESENT CASE IS RS. 3,42,174. TWENT Y FIVE PER CENT OF THE ABOVE INCOME IS TO BE ALLOWED AS A DEDUCTION. SIMILAR VIEW HAS ALSO BEEN TAKEN BY THE HONBLE MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT IN PARSI ZORASTRI AN 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. 11(1)(A). THE DECISION CITED ON BEHALF OF THE REVENUE DID NOT TAK E INTO ACCOUNT THE DECISION OF THE SUPREME COURT REFERRED TO ABOVE. THE CIRCULAR OF CBDT HAS ALSO BEEN CONSIDERE D BY THE HONBLE KERALA HIGH COURT IN ITS DECISION REFER RED TO ABOVE. ACCORDINGLY THE QUESTION REFERRED TO IS ANSW ERED IN THE AFFIRMATIVE AND IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE. 18. THE AFORESAID DECISION CLEARLY SUPPORTS THE PLE A OF THE ASSESSEE. FOLLOWING THE SAME, WE HOLD THAT THE ACC UMULATION U/S.11(1)(A) OF THE ACT SHOULD BE ALLOWED AS CLAIME D BY THE ITA NO.597/B/2015 PAGE 9 OF 9 ASSESSEE. GROUND NO.4 RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IS AC CORDINGLY ALLOWED. 11. FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF THE CO-ORDINATE BENCH OF THIS TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF JYOTHY CHARITABLE TRUST (SUPRA) , WE SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) AND HOLD THAT THE ACCUMULATION U/S.11(1)(A) OF THE ACT SHOULD BE ALLOWED AS CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE. 12. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS AL LOWED. PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THIS 6 TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2015. SD/- SD/- ( JASON P. BOAZ ) (ASHA VIJAYARAGHAVAN ) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL M EMBER BANGALORE, DATED, THE 6 TH NOVEMBER, 2015. /D S/ COPY TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR, ITAT, BANGALORE. 6. GUARD FILE BY ORDER ASSISTANT REGISTRAR, ITAT, BANGALORE.