ITAT - BANGALORE
SRI
JNANAKSHI EDUCATIONAL ... VS INCOME TAX OFFICER (EXEMPTION)... ON 27 JUNE, 2018
ITA.751
& 552/BANG/2017
Summarised
Judgement (Scroll for Complete Judgement)
These are two appeals
filed by the Revenue and the assessee respectively against the order of the CIT
(A) -14, dt.27.12.2016, for the assessment year 2012-13.
Facts
of the Case:
The facts of the case
are, the assessee is a recognised and registered charitable trust entitled to
exemption u/s.11 of the Act. While completing the assessment the AO, for the
purpose of allowing statutory deduction of 15% reduced the amount applied for
the objects of the trust from the gross receipts. Feeling aggrieved by this the
assessee filed an appeal before the CIT (A).
Observation
of AO:
The AO, in case of the
appellant, has applied the principles of commercial accounting and identified
the expenses such as salary, rent, establishment charges etc. as expenses
incurred for earning the gross receipts. The AO has nowhere stated that these outgoings
are expenditures for charitable purpose as mentioned in the ITAT order in
ITA.751 & 552/Bang/2017 Page - 4 case of Jyothy Charitable Trust.
The AO's insistence on
"book profit"/ "net income" simultaneously implies that the
85% expenses representing items debited to the I&E account as charitable
application by the appellant, has, not been considered by the Hon'ble ITAT
which has proceeded as if the application to charitable purpose is undisputed
and the only dispute is whether the gross prior to such application or the net
after reducing such application is to form the base for 15% surplus
calculation.
Judgement:
It may be pertinent to mention here
that the Hon'ble Supreme Court upheld the view of the Bombay High Court and has
disagreed with the view taken by the Kerala High Court in the matter of Lissie
Medical Institutions (supra). In view of the above, we do not find any merit in
the appeal of the Revenue and accordingly the same is dismissed.
In the result, appeal of the
assessee is allowed and the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed.
-------------------------------------------------
Complete
Judgement
Income
Tax Appellate Tribunal - Bangalore
SRI
JNANAKSHI EDUCATIONAL ... VS INCOME TAX OFFICER (EXEMPTION)... ON 27 JUNE, 2018
ITA.751
& 552/BANG/2017
IN
THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
BENGALURU
BENCH 'C', BENGALURU
BEFORE
SHRI. INTURI RAMA RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
AND
SHRI.
LALIET KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER
I.T.A
No.751/Bang/2017
(Assessment
Year : 2012-13)
Income-tax
Officer (Ex),
Ward
- 3, Bengaluru ..........................Appellant
vs.
Shri.
Jnanakshi Educational Institution Trust,
Sri
Rajarajeshwarinagar, Bengaluru.............Respondent
PAN
: AAATJ3472H
I.T.A
No.552/Bang/2017
(In
I.T.A.No.751/Bang/2017)
(Assessment
Year : 2012-13)
(By
the Assessee)
Assessee
by : Shri. Ashok Kulkarni, Advocate
Revenue
by : Dr. P. V. Pradeep Kumar, Addl. CIT
Heard
on : 11.06.2018
Pronounced
on : 27.06.2018
ORDER
PER
LALIET KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER :
These are two appeals
filed by the Revenue and the assessee respectively against the order of the CIT
(A) -14, dt.27.12.2016, for the assessment year 2012-13.
Grounds of the Revenue
are as under :
Assessee's appeal :
02. The facts of the
case are, the assessee is a recognised and registered charitable trust entitled
to exemption u/s.11 of the Act. While completing the assessment the AO, for the
purpose of allowing statutory deduction of 15% reduced the amount applied for
the objects of the trust from the gross receipts. Feeling aggrieved by this the
assessee filed an appeal before the CIT (A).
03. The CIT (A( has not
granted any relief to the assessee. For the purpose of record, we may reproduce
para 10.1 to 10.8 of the CIT (A), as under :
10.1 This question is
not involved in the appellant's present matter since the AO has clearly held
that he is not computing the income as per provisions of the IT Act, which
would be operational in Chapter IV's head-wise consideration of income.
Instead, the AO held that sec 11 and 13, coming as they do under Chapter III of
the IT Act (which deals with income not forming part of total income), required
a commercial determination of the income available for application to
charitable purpose. For the ITAT "the issue to be decided as to whether
for the purpose of computing accumulation of income of 15% u/s 11(1)(a) of the
Act, one has to take the gross receipts or the gross receipts after expenditure
for charitable purpose i.e net receipts." In the appellant's case the
issue is different. It is of identifying the income as per commercial
principles which would then be available for application to charitable purpose.
10.2 The AO, in case of
the appellant, has applied the principles of commercial accounting and
identified the expenses such as salary, rent, establishment charges etc. as
expenses incurred for earning the gross receipts. The AO has nowhere stated
that these outgoings are expenditures for charitable purpose as mentioned in
the ITAT order in ITA.751 & 552/Bang/2017 Page - 4 case of Jyothy
Charitable Trust. The AO's insistence on "book profit"/ "net
income" simultaneously implies that the 85% expenses representing items
debited to the I&E account as charitable application by the appellant, has,
not been considered by the Hon'ble ITAT which has proceeded as if the application
to charitable purpose is undisputed and the only dispute is whether the gross
prior to such application or the net after reducing such application is to form
the base for 15% surplus calculation.
10.3 As per the AO's
understanding, the application as required u/s 11(1)(a) would also have to be
determined with reference to the same income on which the 15% accumulation was
calculated (for him the book profit represented this base). Contrary to the
Hon'ble ITAT's understanding in Jyothy Charitable Trust the AO has not accepted
the assessee's claim of accumulation at 15% out of gross income, but he has
also not proceeded towards 15% of "income as computed in accordance with
the provisions of the IT Act". He has only proceeded to "commercially
determined income" which is the understanding underlying all the orders of
the Hon'ble Apex Court discussed above. From this fundamental rupture of
understanding the conclusion of the Hon'ble ITAT that has followed, therefore,
does not address the facts and issues in the appellant's matter. Hence,
respectfully not followed.
10.4 In fact, there is
no contradiction between the AO's position and the major observations of the
Hon'ble ITAT in Jyothy Charitable Trust as evident from the following:
"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 taken into account 25 per cent 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."
10.5 Since the issues
are clearly distinguishable this case law is considered inapplicable in the
present case. Since the Hon'ble ITAT considered the fact before it as being
covered by the Apex Court's ITA.751 & 552/Bang/2017 Page - 5 decision in
case of Programme for Community Organization the differentiation from the
appellant's case is further sharpened.
10.6 An analysis of the
statutory position, the judicial decision the arguments of the AO and the
appellant point to the undisputed conclusion that three concepts are at the
heart of this dispute-"Income" as used in section 11 and 12 without a
specific definition; "total income as per IT Act" which is defined in
section 2(45) and which, as per all judicial decisions discussed above is
different from "income" of Section 11 and 12; "Income determined
as per commercial principles" is the attribute given by the Courts, the
departmental circular and the AO for understanding "income" as per section
11 and 12. It clearly emerges from the judicial decisions cited above that only
this last income is the one available for application to charitable purposes.
10.7 If income is to be
determined commercially the computation of income in terms of book profit by
following normal commercial principle of prudence, matching concept etc. would
be relevant. Following this approach we cannot support the assessee's view that
expenses laid out/applied for earning income are to be considered as
application of income. This issue has not been covered in any of the judicial
decisions discussed above. The property held under Trust in the appellant case
is the operational school and the net income available from the running of the
institution would be available for application to charitable purpose.
10.8 In the light of
the above discussion, I respectfully differ from the decision in the case laws
cited above as well as the decision taken by my predecessor on this matter in
many cases. I, accordingly, find no reason to interfere with the AO's order.
04. The Ld. AR has
submitted that the issue is no more res integra and has been settled by the
decision of the Tribunal in the case of Sri Rajarajeshwari Devasthana Trust v,
ITO (Ex) -1 ITA.751 & 552/Bang/2017 Page - 6 [ITA.116/Bang/2015,
dt.11.06.2015] and Public Education Society v. DDIT (Ex) [ITA.664/Bang/2015,
dt.25.08.2015], wherein the Tribunal in both the decisions has relied upon the
decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in CIT v. Programme for Community
Organisation [248 ITR 1] and decided in favour of the assessee.
05. Per contra the Ld.
DR relies upon the order passed by the lower authorities.
06. We have heard the
rival contentions and gone through the record as also the decisions cited
before us. In our view the issue is covered in favour of the assessee by virtue
of the decisions of the Tribunal referred hereinabove and more particularly the
judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Programme for Community
Organisation (supra), wherein it is held as under :
3. The question that
really requires consideration is whether, for the purposes of section 11(1)(a)
of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('the Act'), the amount for the grant of exemption
of twenty-five per cent should be the income of the trust or it should be its
total income determined for the purposes of assessment to income-tax. This
question has to be answered in the light of these facts: the assessee-trust
received donations in the aggregate sum of Rs. 2,57,376. It applied thereout
for its charitable purposes the aggregate sum of Rs. 1,70,369 leaving a balance
of Rs. 87,010. The question is whether the assessee is entitled to accumulate
twenty-five per cent of Rs. 2,57,376, as it contends, or twenty-five per cent
of Rs. 87,010, as the revenue appeared to contend. Section 11(1)(a) reads thus
:
"11. Income from
property held for charitable or religious purposes.--(1)(a ) Income derived
from property held under trust wholly for charitable or religious purposes, to
the extent to which such income is applied to such purposes in India; and,
where any such income is accumulated or set apart for application to such
purposes in India, to the extent to which the income so ITA.751 &
552/Bang/2017 Page - 7 accumulated or set apart is not in excess of twenty-five
per cent of the income from such property;"
4. Having regard to the
plain 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 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.
5. For the aforesaid
reasons, the civil appeal is dismissed.
In view of the above,
we find force in the contention raised by the Ld. AR. Therefore following the
decisions of the coordinate bench as well as the binding judgment of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court as above, we allow the ground raised by the assessee.
07. Assessee's appeal
is allowed.
Revenue's appeal :
08. The first ground is
in respect of carry forward of losses to the extent of Rs.2,95,64,190/-.
09. The Ld. DR has
submitted before us that the assessee did not allow the carry forward of
expenditure for adjustment against income of assessment years where surplus
income was available and held that the exemption in terms of Section 11, 12 and
13 / 10(23C) would be allowable only for application against current year's
income. For that purpose, the Ld. DR relies upon Section 11 to 13 of the Act
which does not expressly allow the carry forward of losses in respect of a
particular year/ ITA.751 & 552/Bang/2017 Page - 8
10. Per contra, the Ld.
AR relies upon the decision of the Tribunal in the matter of ACIT v. City
Hospital Charitable Trust [(2013) 42 ITR (Trib) 583], DCIT v. Manipal Academy
of Higher Education [(2015) 44 ITR (Trib) 18], TMA Pai Foundation v. DIT
[ITA.486 to 491/Bang/2009, dt.16.02.2009]. In the matter of Manipal Academy
(supra) in paras 11 to 12.1 has held as under :
11. We have heard the
rival submissions as well as relevant material on record. So far as the facts
relating to this issue of claim of depreciation are concerned, there is no
dispute that the assessee incurred an expenditure for acquisition of the asset
to the tune of Rs.411,14,20,599/- and claimed the same as application of
income. There is no dispute before us on the said claim of application of
income. Since the assessee also claimed depreciation of Rs.70,40,56,376/-on
such capital asset the AO disallowed the claim of depreciation on the ground
that it would amount to double deduction. We find that the Hon'ble Kerala High
Court in case of Lissie Medical Institute (supra) held that the claim of
depreciation on capital expenditure for acquiring of the asset would amount to
double deduction when the assessee has already claimed the said capital
expenditure as application of income. We find that in a series of other
judgments including the judgments of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court and Hon'ble
Punjab & Haryana High Court as well as the other decisions as relied upon
by the learned AR, a contrary view has been taken by holding that the claim of
depreciation on the capital expenditure would not amount to double deduction
even if the said capital expenditure was claimed as deduction on account of
application of income. Thus, it is clear that there are divergent views by
different High Courts on this issue however, the judgment and rulings of the
jurisdictional High Court is binding on this Tribunal. In case of Society of
the Sisters of St. Anne (supra) the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court while dealing
with the issue of allowability of claim of depreciation has held as under;
'13. It is clear from
the above provisions that the income derived from property held under trust
cannot be the total income because s. 11(1) says that the former shall not be
included in the latter, of the perosn in receipt of the income. The expression
"total income" has been defined under s. 2(45) of the Act to mean
"the total amount of income ITA.751 & 552/Bang/2017 Page - 9 referred
to in s. 5 computed in the manner laid down in this Act". The word
"income" is defined under s. 2(24) of the Act to include profits and
gains, dividends, voluntary payment received by trust, etc. It may be noted
that profits and gains are generally used in terms of business or profession as
provided u/s. 28. The word "income", therefore, is a much wider term
than the expression "profits and gains of business or profession".
Net receipt after deducting all the necessary expenditure of the trust (sic).
14. There is a broad
agreement on this proposition. But still the contention for the Revenue is that
the depreciation allowance being a notional income (expenditure ?) cannot be
allowed to be debited to the expenditure account of the trust. This contention
appears to proceed on the assumption that the expenditure should necessarily
involve actual delivery of or parting with the money. It seems to us that it
need not necessarily be so. The expenditure should be understood as necessary
outgoings. The depreciation is nothing but decrease in value of property
through wear, deterioration or obsolescence and allowance is made for this purpose
in book keeping, accountancy, etc. In Spicer & Pegler's Book-keeping and
Accounts, 17th Edn., pp. 44, 45 & 46, it has been noted as follows :
"Depreciation is
the exhaustion of the effective life of a fixed asset owing to 'use' or
obsolescence. It may be computed as that part of the cost of the asset which
will not be recovered when the asset is finally put out of use. The object of
providing for depreciation is to spread the expenditure, incurred in acquiring
the asset, over its effective lifetime; the amount of the provision, made in
respect of an accounting period, is intended to represent the proportion of
such expenditure, which has expired during that period."
"At the end of its
effective life, the assets ceases to earn revenue, i.e., the capital value has
expired and the asset will have to be replaced or a substitute found. Provision
for depreciation is the setting aside, out of the revenue of an accounting
period, the estimated amount by which the capital invested in the asset has
expired during that period. It is the provision made for the loss or expense
incurred ITA.751 & 552/Bang/2017 Page - 10 through using the asset for
earning profits, and should, therefore, be charged against those profits as
they are earned."
"If depreciation
is not provided for, the books will not contain a true record of revenue or
capital. If the asset were hired instead of purchased, the hiring fee would be
charged against the profits; having been purchased, the asset is, in effect,
then hired by capital to revenue, and the true profit cannot be ascertained
until a suitable charge for the use of the asset has been made. Moreover,
unless provision is made for depreciation, the balance sheet will not present a
true and fair view of the state of affairs; assets should be shown at a figure
which represents that part of their value on acquisition, which has not yet
expired."
15. In CIT v. Indian
Jute Mills Association [1982] 134 ITR 68, the Calcutta High Court, while
construing the expression "expenditure incurred" in s. 44A of the
Act, observed : "depreciation claimed shall include the expenditure
incurred."
16. There are only two
recognised methods of accounting : (i) cash basis, and (ii) merecantile basis.
Under the cash basis only cash transactions are recorded. It is only cash
receipts and cash payments which find entries in the books of account.
Mercantile system of accounting was explained by the Supreme Court in Keshav
Mills Ltd. v. CIT [1953] 23 ITR 230 at 230 in the following words :
"The mercantile
system of accounting or what is otherwise known as the double entry system is
opposed to the cash system of book keeping under which a record is kept of
actual cash receipts and actual cash payments, entries being made only when
money is actually collected or disbursed. That system brings into credit what
is due, immediately it becomes legally due and before it is actually received
and it brings into debit expenditure the amount for which a legal liability has
been incurred before it is actually disbursed."
17. It is not in
dispute that if the mercantile system is followed, the depreciation allowance
in respect of the trust property ITA.751 & 552/Bang/2017 Page - 11 should
be allowed.
18. Mr. Srinivasan,
however, urged that there are enough indications in s. 11 to exclude the
mercantile system of accounting. The learned counsel relied upon s. 11(1)(a)
and s. 11(4) in support of his contention. We do not think that there is
anything in these sub-sections to support the contention of Mr. Srinivasan.
Explanation to s. 11(1)(a), on the contrary, takes note of the income not
received in a particular year. It lends support to the contention of the
assessee that accounting need not be on cash basis only. Section 11(4) is not
intended to explain how the accounts of the business undertaking should be
maintained. It is intended only to bring to tax the excess income computed
under the provisions of the I.T.Act in respect of business undertaking.
19. The depreciation if
it is not allowed as a necessary deduction for computing the income from the
charitable institutions, then there is no way to preserve the corpus of the
trust for deriving the income. The Board also appears to have understood the
"income" u/s. 11(1) in its commercial sense. The relevant portion of
the Circular No. 5-P (LXX-6) of 1968, dated July 19, 1968, reads : "Where
the trust derives income from house property, interest on securities, capital
gains, or other sources, the word 'income' should be understood in its
commercial sense, i.e., book income, after adding back any appropriations or
applications thereof towards the purpose of the trust or otherwise, and also
after adding back any debits made for capital expenditure incurred for the
purposes of the trust or otherwise. It should be noted, in this connection, that
the amounts so added back will become chargeable to tax u/s. 11(3) to the
extent that they represent outgoings for purposes other than those of the
trust. The amounts spent or applied for the purposes of the trust from out of
the income computed in the aforesaid manner, should be not less than 75 per
cent. of the latter, if the trust is to get the full benefit of the exemption
u/s. 11(1)."
20. In CIT v. Trustee
of H. E. H. The Nizam's Supplemental Religious Endowment Trust [1981] 127 ITR
378, the ITA.751 & 552/Bang/2017 Page - 12 Andhra Pradesh High Court has
accepted the accounts maintained in respect of the trust in conformity with the
principles of accountancy for the purpose of determining the income derived
from the property held in trust.
21. In CIT v. Rao
Bahadur Calavala Cunnan Chetty Charities [1982] 135 ITR 485 at 495, the Madras
High Court observed :
"The income from
the properties held under trust would have to be arrived at in the normal
commercial manner without reference to the provisions which are attracted by s.
14."
22. In the result, we
answer the question in the affirmative and against the Revenue'.
12. A similar view has
been taken by the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Institute of Banking
(supra) as well as by the Hon'ble P&H High Court and in case of Manav
Mangal Society (supra). The view taken in the case of Institute of Banking
(Supra) has been re- affirmed by the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the recent
decision dated 23-03-015 in case of DIT(Exemption) v. Ville Parle Kelavani
Mandal [2015] 378 ITR 593/232 Taxman 499/58 taxmann.com 288 Mumbai by observing
inpara-6 as under;
"6. As far as
question no.4 is concerned, this Court has repeatedly held that there is
nothing like double deduction. When the assessee has acquired an asset from the
income of the trust and thereafter the amount that is claimed is the
depreciation on the use of the assets, such depreciation claim does not mean
double deduction. The deduction earlier claimed is towards application of funds
of the trust for acquiring assets. The latter is depreciation and it is
permissible deduction considering the use of the assets. This has been
clarified repeatedly by this Court. If any reference is required then the case
of CIT v. Institution of Banking Personnel Selection (IBPS) [2003] 264 ITR
110/131 Taxman 386(Bom.) is enough". 12.1 Therefore, in view of the
judgment of the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in case of Society of the
Sisters of St. Anne (supra) as well as various decisions as relied upon by the
learned AR, we have no reason to take a divergent view from the view taken by
the co- ordinate bench of this Tribunal in case of Shri Adichunchunagiri
Shikshana Trust (supra) as well as in case of City Hospital Charitable ITA.751
& 552/Bang/2017 Page - 13 Trust (supra), wherein the co-ordinate bench of
this Tribunal has decided an identical issue in para-7 to 9 as under;
'7. We have heard the
submissions of the ld. DR, who relied on the order of AO. We have considered
the order of the AO. Identical issue ITA No.676/Bang/2014 Page 4 of 11 came up
for consideration before ITAT Bangalore Bench in the case of DDIT(E) v. Cutchi
Memon Union [2013] 60 SOT 260 Bangalore ITAT, wherein similar issue has been
dealt with by this Tribunal. In the aforesaid case, the assessee claimed
depreciation and the AO denied depreciation on the ground that at the time of
acquiring the relevant capital asset, cost of acquisition was considered as
application of income in the year of its acquisition. The AO took the view that
allowing depreciation would amount to allowing double deduction and placed
reliance on the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Escorts Ltd. (supra). The
CIT(A), however, allowed the claim of assessee. On further appeal by the
Revenue, the Tribunal held as follows:- "20. We have considered the rival
submissions. If depreciation is not allowed as a necessary deduction for
computing income of charitable institutions, then there is no way to preserve
the corpus of the trust for deriving the income as it is nothing but a decrease
in the value of property through wear, deterioration, or obsolescence. Since
income for the purposes of section 11(1) has to be computed in normal
commercial manner, the amount of depreciation debited in the books is
deductible while computing such income. It was so held by the Hon'ble Karnataka
High Court in the case of CIT v. Society of Sisters of St. Anne 146 ITR 28
(Kar). It was held in CIT v. Tiny Tots Education Society [2011] 330 ITR 21
(P&H), following CIT v. Market Committee, Pipli [2011] 330 ITR 16 (P&H)
: (2011) 238 CTR (P&H) 103 that depreciation can be claimed by a charitable
institution in determining percentage of funds applied for the purpose of
charitable objects. Claim for depreciation will not amount to double benefit.
The decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Escorts Ltd. 199 ITR
43 (SC) have been referred to and distinguished by the Hon'ble Court in the
aforesaid decisions.
21. The issue raised by
the revenue in the ground of appeal ITA.751 & 552/Bang/2017 Page - 14 is
thus no longer res integra and has been decided by the Hon'ble Punjab &
Haryana High Court in the case of CIT v. Market Committee, Pipli, 330 ITR 16
(P&H). The Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court after considering
several decisions on that issue and also the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in the case of Escorts Ltd. (supra), came to the conclusion that
depreciation is allowable on capital assets on the income of the charitable
trust for determining the quantum of funds which have to be applied for the
purpose of trusts in terms of section 11 of the Act. The Hon'ble Punjab &
Haryana High Court made a reference to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in the case of Escorts Ltd. (supra) and observed that the Hon'ble Supreme
Court was dealing with a case of two deductions under different provisions of
the Act, one u/s. 32 for depreciation and the other on account of expenditure
of a capital nature incurred on scientific research u/s. 35(1)(iv) of the Act.
The Hon'ble Court thereafter held that a trust claiming depreciation cannot be
equated with a claim for double deduction. The Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana
High Court has also made a reference to the decision of the Hon'ble Karnataka
High Court in the case of CIT v. Society of Sisters of Anne, 146 ITR 28 (Kar),
wherein it was held that u/s. 11(1) of the Act, income has to be computed in
normal commercial manner and the amount of depreciation debited in the books is
deductible while computing such income. In view of the aforesaid decision on the
issue, we are of the view that the order of the CIT(A) on the above issue does
not call for any interference.
22. Consequently,
ground No.5 raised by the revenue is dismissed."
8. We may also add that
the legal position has since been amended by a prospective amendment by the
Finance (No.2) Act, 2014 w.e.f. 1.4.2015 by insertion of sub-section (6) to
section 11 of the Act, which reads as under:- "(6) In this section where
any income is required to be applied or accumulated or set apart for application,
then, for such purposes the income shall be determined without any deduction or
allowance by way of depreciation or otherwise in respect of any asset,
acquisition of which has ITA.751 & 552/Bang/2017 Page - 15 been claimed as
an application of income under this section in the same or any other previous
year."
9. As already stated,
the aforesaid amendment is prospective and will apply only from A.Y. 2015-16.
In view of the above legal position, we are of the view that the order of the
CIT(A) does not call for any interference. Consequently grounds No.2 to 2.5
raised by the Revenue are dismissed'. Following the judgment of the Hon'ble
jurisdictional High Court in case of Society of the Sisters of St. Anne (supra)
as well as the decision of the co- ordinate bench of this Tribunal, we do not
find any error or any illegality in the order of the CIT(A), qua this issue.
It was submitted by the
Ld. AR that the decision of the coordinate bench is squarely applicable to the
facts of the present case and hence this ground of the Revenue is required to
be dismissed.
11. We have heard the
rival contentions and perused the record. In our view the decision rendered by
the Tribunal in the matter of Manipal Academy (supra) is squarely applicable to
the facts of the case and we have no reason to deviate from the settled
position of law. We dismiss this ground of the Revenue.
12. Ground.1 (b) and
(c) pertains to disallowance of depreciation.
13. In this regard the
Ld. DR submitted that the assessee has debited the depreciation of
Rs.9,25,699/- to the Income and Expenditure account for AY 2011-12. AO was of
the opinion that since the capital expenditure on the asset on which
depreciation was claimed had already been allowed as application of income in
the earlier years and therefore allowing the depreciation would amount to
double benefit. The AO relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
the matter of Escorts Ltd [199 ITR 43] and also ITA.751 & 552/Bang/2017
Page - 16 on the Hon'ble Kerala High Court judgment in the matter of Lissie
Medical Institutions v. CIT [(2012) 348 ITR 344].
14. Per contra, the Ld.
AR relies upon the following decisions : Karnataka High Court :
• DIT (Ex) & Other
v. Al Ameen Charitable Fund Trust [(2016) 383 ITR 517]
• CIT Vs. Society of Sisters
of St. Anne (1984) 146 ITR 28. ITAT, Bangalore in the case of
• Jyothy
Charitable Trust (2015)60 taxman.com 165 dt. 11.06.2015. ACIT vs. Adi
Chinchunagiri Shikshana Trust 775 Bang 2009
• DDIT(Exemptiosn) Vs. Cutchi Memon
Union (2013) 38 taxman.com 276 dt. 14.08.2013 Other High Courts:
• CIT Vs. Market
Committee Pipli (2012) 330 ITR 16 (P & H)
• CIT Vs. Tiny Tots Education
Society (2011) 330 ITR 21 (P & H)
• CIT Vs. Munisuvrat Jam (1994) TLR 1084
(Bombay HC)
• CIT Vs. Framjee Cawasjee Instititue 109 CTR 463 (Bombay)
• CIT
Vs. Raipur Pallottine Society (1989) 180 ITR 571 (MP)
- No way to preserve
corpus of trust.
• CIT Vs. Seth Manual
Ranchoddas Vishram Bhavan Trust (1992) 198 ITR 598 (Guj)
• CIT Vs. Bheruka
Public Welfare Trust (1999) 240 ITR 513 (Cal.) - followed Rao Calavala (Mad.)
•
CIT Vs. Rao Bahadur Calavala Cunnan Chetty Charities 135 ITR 485 (Mad.) It was
submitted by the Ld. AR that the issue is covered in favour of the assessee by
virtue of the decision of the coordinate bench in Jyothy Charitable Trust
(supra) and also by the recent judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the
matter of CIT v. Rajasthan and Gujarati Charitable Foundation [(2018) 402 ITR
441].
15. We have heard the
rival submissions and perused the record.
In our view after the
categorical and authoritative pronouncement by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
Rajasthan and Gujarati Charitable Foundation (supra), wherein the Hon'ble
Supreme Court while answering the question no.2 has held as under :
4. Question No. 2
herein is identical 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. In that case, the facts were as follows: 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 ITO 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 ITO 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 Court 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."
2. After hearing
learned counsel for the parties, we are of the opinion that the aforesaid view
taken by the Bombay High Court correctly states the principles of law and there
is no need to interfere with the same.
3. It may be mentioned
that most of the High Courts have taken the aforesaid view with only exception
thereto by the High Court of Kerala which has taken a contrary view in 'Lissie
Medical Institutions v. CIT [2012] 24 taxmann.com 9/209 Taxman 19 (Mag.)/348
ITR 344 (Ker.)'.
4. It may also be
mentioned at this stage that the legislature, realising that there was no
specific provision in this behalf in the Income Tax Act, has made amendment in
Section 11(6) of the Act vide Finance Act No. 2/2014 which became effective
from the Assessment Year 2015-2016. The Delhi High Court has taken the view and
rightly so, that the said amendment is prospective in nature.
5. It also follows that
once assessee is allowed depreciation, he shall be entitled to carry forward
the depreciation as well.
It may be pertinent to
mention here that the Hon'ble Supreme Court upheld the view of the Bombay High
Court and has disagreed with the view taken by the Kerala High Court in the
matter of Lissie Medical Institutions (supra). In view of the above, we do not
find any merit in the appeal of the Revenue and accordingly the same is
dismissed.
16. In the result,
appeal of the assessee is allowed and the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed.
Order pronounced in the
open court on 27th day of June, 2018.
Sd/- Sd/-
(INTURI RAMA RAO) (LALIET KUMAR)
ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER
Bengaluru
Dated : 27.06.2018
Copy to:
1. The assessee
2. The Assessing Officer
3. The Commissioner of Income-tax
4. Commissioner of Income-tax(A)
5. DR
6. GF, ITAT, Bangalore
By order
Senior Private Secretary,
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal,
Bangalore.
No comments:
Post a Comment