AYYAPPA SEVA SAMGHAM BOMBAY TRUST,MUMBAI vs. CIT (A)-53, MUMBAI

The facts relating to the case are discussed in brief. The assessee is registered as charitable organization u/s 12A of the Act. It is running a temple, besides doing certain types of charitable activities in the form of organizing medical camps and relief of poor. The assessee claimed exemption of its income u/s 11 of the Act.

The AO noticed that the assessee has claimed certain donations as “Corpus donations” and accordingly claimed the same as exempt. According to the AO, the receipts and application of income shown in the computation of income did not match. Further it is the case of the AO that the assessee did not furnish details of corpus donations nor furnished copies of direction letters. He also noticed that the depreciation has been claimed by the assessee as application of income in violation of provisions of sec.11(6) of the Act. Accordingly, he re-computed the total income of the assessee by assessing corpus donations as normal donations and also did not consider depreciation as an application of income. While computing the deduction for accumulation of income allowable u/s 11(1)(a) of the Act, the AO did not allow the correct amount. Accordingly, the total income of the assessee trust was determined by the AO at Rs.69,33,373/-.

The Ld CIT(A) confirmed the additions relating to corpus donation and depreciation. He directed the AO to allow correct amount of deduction u/s 11(1) of the Act towards accumulation of income. Aggrieved, the assessee has filed this appeal before the Tribunal.

The first issue relates to the assessment of Corpus donations received by the assessee as regular donations. It is the submission of the assessee that the donations have been received for specific projects for construction of buildings. Hence, in the donation receipts, it is mentioned as “CHF”, meaning ‘Community Hall Fund’. In support of this submission, the assessee furnished sample copies of certain receipts, which mentioned “CHF” in it. The Ld A.R submitted that there is no requirement of obtaining specific direction letter as opined by the AO. The mentioning of “CHF” in the donation receipt would mean that it has been received towards corpus donations. He submitted that these sample receipts have been furnished before Ld CIT(A), but the Ld CIT(A) has found fault with numbering, name of donors etc., and hence refused to accept these receipts. It is the submission

The Ld D.R, on the contrary, supported the order passed by Ld CIT(A) on this issue.

We heard rival contentions and perused the record. Though the assessing officer mentions in the initial part of assessment order that he has examined the details filed, yet he observes in the later part of the assessment order that the assessee did not furnish details of corpus donations. However, it is seen that the assessee has furnished sample copies of certain receipts. We notice that most of the receipts contain the wording “CHF”, which according to the assessee is “Community Hall Fund”. We agree with the submission of the assessee that the donation received for capital projects should be considered as Corpus donations. When the wording of “CHF” is stated in the receipt, it can safely be presumed that the said wording has been mentioned as per the direction of the donor. Accordingly, the said donations can be considered as “Corpus donations”. However, the Ld CIT(A) has extracted a copy of donation receipt, which is given towards “Annadhanam” and accordingly came to the conclusion that the name of specific fund was not mentioned, i.e., the ld CIT(A), either conveniently or otherwise did not look into other donation receipts.

We have held earlier that the donations given for capital projects should be considered as Corpus donations, which are not liable to be taxed. We notice that the copies of receipts/details of corpus donations have not been examined by the tax authorities. Accordingly, we restore this issue to the file

The next issue relates to the rejection of claim for depreciation as an application of income. It is the submission of the assessee that the depreciation has been claimed on those assets, which have not been earlier claimed as application of income. We notice that the tax authorities have rejected the claim of the assessee for want of details. Accordingly, in the interest of natural justice, we restore this issue also to the file of the AO for examining the above said claim of the assessee. We also direct the assessee to furnish relevant details in support of its submissions.

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes.