DCIT, Bangalore V. M/s Podar Education and Sport Trust, Bangalore

ITA 765/BANG/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 128 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 5300 (ITAT-BANGALORE)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 1 month(s) 23 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 31-05-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 31-05-2017
• Assessment Year: 2012-2013
• Appeal Filed On: 07-04-2016
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: R S SAMRIA
• Keywords: Depreciation; Charitable institution; Benefit of exemption; Revenue expenditure; Capital expenditure
• Section: 32; 6; 63

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL BANGALORE BENCH A BEFORE S HRI VIJAY PAL RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI JASON P BOAZ , ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T . A. NO S . 765 & 766 /BANG/20 16 (ASSESSMENT YEAR : 20 12 - 13 ) DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS), BANGALORE. . APPELLANT. VS. 1 . M/S. PODAR EDUCATION AND SPORT TRUST, 103/1, BASAVANAPURA, OFF BANNERGHATTA ROAD, BANGALORE. 2 . M/S. PODAR EDUCATION TRUST , 103/1, BASAVANAPURA, BANGALORE. .. RESPONDENT. APPELLANT BY : SMT. SWAPNA DAS, JCIT (DR) (ITAT) - 2, BENGALURU. R E SPONDENT BY : SHRI R.S. SAMRIA, C.A. DATE OF H EARING : 31.05.20 17. DATE OF P RONOUNCEMENT : 31.05 .201 7 . O R D E R PER SHRI VIJAY P AL RAO, J .M . : TH E S E TWO APPEAL S BY THE REVENUE ARE DIRECTED AGAINST TWO SEPARATE ORDERS OF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) - 14, LTU, BANGALORE BOTH DT.22.01.2016 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 20 12 - 13. 2. THE REVENUE HAS RAISED COMMON GROUNDS : 2 IT A NO S . 765 & 766 /BANG/201 6 3 IT A NO S . 765 & 766 /BANG/201 6 3. THE FIRST COMMON ISSUE RAISED IN THESE APPEALS IS REGARDING DISALLOWANCE OF DEPRECIATION BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER WHICH WAS ALLOWED BY THE CIT (APPEALS). 4 IT A NO S . 765 & 766 /BANG/201 6 4. WE HAVE HEARD THE LEARNED D.R. AS WELL AS LEARNED A.R. AND CONSIDERED THE RELEVANT MATERIAL ON RECORD. AT THE OUTSET, WE NOTE THAT AN IDENTICAL ISSUE HAS BEEN DEALT BY THE CO - ORDINATE BENCH OF THIS TRIBUNAL IN ASSESSEE'S OWN CASE FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010 - 11 VIDE ORDER DT.30.09.2015 IN ITA NOS.1022 & 1023/BANG/2014 HELD IN PARAS 8 & 9 AS UNDER : 8. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AS WELL AS THE RELEVANT M ATERIAL ON RECORD. AT THE OUTSET, WE NOTE THAT THIS ISSUE IS COVERED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE BY THE JUDGMENT OF THE HON'BLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF INSTITUTE OF BANKING PERSONNEL SELECTION (SUPRA) AS UNDER: 4. QUESTION NO. 2 HEREIN IS IDENTICA L TO THE QUESTION WHICH WAS RAISED BEFORE THE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION) V. FRAMJEE CAWASJEE INSTITUTE (1993) 109 CTR 463 (BOM). IN THAT CASE, THE FACTS WERE AS FOL LOWS: THE ASSESSEE WAS THE TRUST. IT DERIVED ITS INCOME FROM DEPRECIABLE ASSETS. THE ASSESSEE TOOK INTO ACCOUNT DEPRECIATION ON THOSE ASSETS IN COMPUTING THE INCOME OF THE TRUST. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER HELD THAT DEPRECIATION COULD NOT BE TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT BECAUSE, FULL CAPITAL EXPENDITURE HAD BEEN ALLOWED IN THE YEAR OF ACQUISITION OF THE ASSETS. THE ASSESSEE WENT IN APPEAL BEFORE THE ASSISTANT APPELLATE COMMISSIONER. THE APPEAL WAS REJECTED. THE TRIBUNAL, HOWEVER, TOOK THE VIEW THAT WHEN THE INCOME TAX OF FICER STATED THAT FULL EXPENDITURE HAD BEEN ALLOWED IN THE YEAR OF ACQUISITION OF THE ASSETS, WHAT HE REALLY MEANT WAS THAT THE AMOUNT SPENT ON ACQUIRING THOSE ASSETS HAD BEEN TREATED AS 'APPLICATION OF INCOME' OF THE TRUST IN THE YEAR IN WHICH THE INCOME WAS SPENT IN ACQUIRING THOSE ASSETS. THIS DID NOT MEAN THAT IN COMPUTING INCOME FROM THOSE ASSETS IN SUBSEQUENT YEARS, DEPRECIATION IN RESPECT OF THOSE ASSETS CANNOT BE TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT. THIS VIEW OF THE TRIBUNAL HAS BEEN CONFIRMED BY, THE BOMBAY HIGH CO URT IN THE ABOVE JUDGMENT. HENCE, QUESTION NO. 2 IS COVERED BY THE DECISION OF THE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN THE ABOVE JUDGMENT. CONSEQUENTLY, QUESTION NO. 2 IS ANSWERED IN THE AFFIRMATIVE I.E., IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE AND AGAINST, THE DEPARTMENT. WE FURTHE R NOTE THAT THIS VIEW HAS BEEN REITERATED BY THE HON BLE HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF LILAVATHI KIRTHILAL MEHTA MEDICAL TRUST & OTHERS (229 5 IT A NO S . 765 & 766 /BANG/201 6 TAXMAN 276) WHEREIN IT HAS BEEN HELD THAT PRIOR TO AMENDMENT VIDE FINANCE ACT,2014 W.E.F.1/4/2015 DEPRECIATION ON CAPIT AL ASSET WOULD BE ALLOWED AS DEDUCTION IN COMPUTING INCOME UNDER SECTION 11. 9. WE FURTHER NOTE THAT THE CO - ORDINATE BENCH OF THIS TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF ADICHUNCHANGIRI SIKSHANA TRUST (SUPRA) HAS HELD IN PARAGRAPHS 13 & 14 AS UNDER: 13. WE HAVE H EARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIALS ON RECORD. THE TRIBUNAL IN THE ASSESSEE'S OWN CASE FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006 - 07 AT PARAGRAPH 7 OF ITS ORDER HAS DECIDED THE ISSUE IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE. THE RELEVANT FINDING OF THE TRIBUNAL READS AS FOLLOWS: 7. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES. WE HAVE IN THE EARLIER PARA REFERRED TO THE FINDINGS OF THE HON BLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF INSTITUTE OF BANKING [2003] 264 ITR 110 (BOM). WE HAVE ALSO GONE THROUGH THE DECISION OF THE JURISDICTIONA L HIGH COURT. THE HON'BLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT HELD THAT THE AMOUNT OF DEPRECIATION DEBITED TO THE ACCOUNT OF CHARITABLE INSTITUTIONS IS TO BE DEDUCTED TO ARRIVE AT AN AVAILABLE INCOME FROM CHARITABLE OR RELIGIOUS PURPOSES. FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF T HE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT, WE THEREFORE, HOLD THAT THE DEPRECIATION IS TO BE DEDUCTED TO ARRIVE AT AN INCOME AVAILABLE TO CHARITABLE AND RELIGIOUS PURPOSES. 14. THE ABOVE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL HAS NOT BEEN REVERSED BY THE HON BLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT. THE FACTS FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007 - 08 AND 2008 - 09 BEING IDENTICAL TO THE FACTS CONSIDERED BY THE TRIBUNAL FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006 - 07, (I.T.A. NO. 775/BANG/2009 DATED JANUARY 29, 2010), WE FOLLOW THE CO - ORDINATE BENCH ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE ASSESSEE'S OWN CASE FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006 - 07 AND HOLD THAT THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME - TAX (APPEALS) IS JUSTIFIED IN DIRECTING THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO GRANT DEPRECIATION IN RESPECT OF THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2007 - 08 AND 2008 - 09. FOLLOWING THE JUDGMENT OF THE HON BLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT AS WELL AS THE DECISION OF THE CO - ORDINATE BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL (BANGALORE), WE HOLD THAT THE ASSESSEE IS ENTITLED FOR DEPRECIATION U/S 32 OF THE IT ACT ON THE ASSETS COST OF WHICH HAS ALREADY BEEN CLAIMED AS APP LICATION OF INCOME. FOLLOWING THE EARLIER ORDER OF THIS TRIBUNAL, WE DO NOT FIND ANY ERROR OR ILLEGALITY IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER OF CIT (APPEALS) QUA THIS ISSUE. 6 IT A NO S . 765 & 766 /BANG/201 6 5. THE NEXT ISSUE RAISED BY THE REVENUE IS REGARDING ALLOWABLE ACCUMULATION @ 15% OF GROSS R ECEIPT OR NET RECEIPT UNDER SECTION 11(1)(A) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (IN SHORT 'THE ACT'). 6. WE HAVE HEARD THE LEARNED D .R. AS WELL AS LEARNED A .R. AND CONSIDERED THE RELEVANT MATERIAL ON RECORD. AT THE OUTSET, WE NOTE 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 BY 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 BELO W. 17.4 WE FIND THAT THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF CAPUCHIN FRIAR SERVICES 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 REPRODUCED 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 N ET RECEIPTS AFTER DEDUCTION OF REVENUE EXPENDITURE. THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED 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 I NCOME AFTER REVENUE 7 IT A NO S . 765 & 766 /BANG/201 6 EXPENDITURE. IN OTHER WORDS INCOME TO BE SET APART 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 TH E 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 BEFO RE THE TRIBUNAL. 17. THE ISSUE TO BE DECIDED IS THEREFORE AS TO WHETHER 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 PUR POSE I.E., THE NET RECEIPTS. THIS IS ISSUE IS NO LONGER RES INTEGRA AND 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 PER 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 A SSESSEE 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 COMPUTED 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 FRO M THE GROSS INCOME AND 25 PER CENT OF ONLY THE REMAINING AMOUNT SHOULD 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 CLEARL Y 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 PLAI N LANGUAGE OF THE ABOVE PROVISION, IT IS CLEAR THAT A CHARITABLE OR RELIGIOUS 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 S UM 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. THEIR 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 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 SU CH 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 S TATUTORY 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, 8 IT A NO S . 765 & 766 /BANG/201 6 THE INCOME IN 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 B ENEFIT 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 TRUST UNDER THE RELEVANT HEAD OF S. 11(1). IN OTHER WORDS, INCOME THAT IS NOT TO BE INCLUDE D FOR THE PURPOSE OF COMPUTING THE TOTAL INCOME WOULD BE THE AMOUNT EXPENDED 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 S AME. 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 CEN T OF SUCH INCOME. THEIR LORDSHIPS HAVE POINTED THAT THE SAME HAS TO BE 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 W HICH WAS SPENT AND APPLIED BY THE ASSESSEE 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 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 CAS E FOR PURPOSES OF S. I 1(1)(A). THE DECISION CITED ON BEHALF OF THE REVENUE 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 KERAL A HIGH COURT IN ITS DECISION REFERRED TO ABOVE. ACCORDINGLY, THE QUESTION 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) . FO LLOWING THE DECISION OF THE CO - ORDINATE BENCH OF THIS TRIBUNAL, WE DECIDE 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. IN VIEW OF THE DECISIONS OF T HIS TRIBUNAL AS WELL AS THE DECISIONS OF HON'BLE SUPREME COURT AND HON'BLE HIGH COURT AS REFERRED IN THE SAID 9 IT A NO S . 765 & 766 /BANG/201 6 DECISION OF THE CO - ORDINATE BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL CITED SUPRA, WE ALLOW THE ACCUMULATION OF INCOME AT 15% OF THE GROSS RECEIPTS. 17. THE IS SUE TO BE DECIDED IS THEREFORE AS TO WHETHER 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 PURPOSE I.E., THE NET RECEIPTS. T HIS IS ISSUE IS NO LONGER RES INTEGRA AND 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 EX EMPTION UNDER S. 11 OF THE IT ACT. AS PER 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 ACCU MULATE 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 AS SESSEE IS RELEVANT OR THE INCOME AS COMPUTED 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 SHOULD 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 S. 11(1)(A), HAVE HELD AS UNDER : 'HAVING REGARD TO THE PLAIN LANGUAGE OF THE ABOVE PROVISI ON, IT IS CLEAR THAT A CHARITABLE OR RELIGIOUS 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 CONST ITUTE 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 I S 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, 10 IT A NO S . 765 & 766 /BANG/201 6 IS NOT TO BE CONSIDERED FOR DETERMINING T WENTY FIVE PER CENT TO BE ACCUMULATED. THEIR 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. 1 1(1)(A) OF THE IT 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 SUC H 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 CO NSIDERATION 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 IN T ERMS 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 TRUST UNDER THE RELEVANT HEAD OF S. 11(1). IN OTHER WORDS, INCOME THAT IS NOT TO BE INCLUDED FOR THE PURPOSE OF COMPUT ING THE TOTAL INCOME WOULD BE THE AMOUNT EXPENDED 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 T HE 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 LORDS HIPS HAVE POINTED THAT THE SAME HAS TO BE 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 11 IT A NO S . 765 & 766 /BANG/201 6 APPLIED BY THE ASSESSEE 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 NA TURE 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. 11(1)(A) . THE DECISION CITED ON BEHALF OF THE REVENUE DID NOT TAKE INTO ACCOUNT THE DECISION OF THE SUPREME 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 Q UESTION REFERRED TO IS ANSWERED IN THE AFFIRMATIVE AND IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE. 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. FOLLOWING THE EARLIER ORDER OF THIS TRIBUNAL, WE DO NOT FIND ANY ERROR OR ILLEGALITY IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER OF CIT (APPEALS) QUA THIS ISSUE. 7. IN THE RESULT, BOTH THE APPEALS OF REVENUE ARE DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THE 31 ST DAY OF MAY, 201 7 . SD/ - ( JASON P BOAZ ) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SD/ - ( VIJAY PAL RAO ) JUDICIAL MEMBER BANGALORE, DT. 31.05.2017. *REDDY GP