MAHAKALP AROGYA PRATHISTHAN ,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 17(2)(1), MUMBAI

Per Amarjit Singh (AM): The present appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order passed by the NFAC, Delhi dated 04.08.2022 for A.Y. 2018-19. The assessee has raised the following grounds before us:

“1. DENIAL OF DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 57(iii) OF THE ACT OF RS.79,68,873/- On the facts and in the circumstance of the case and in law, the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) ICIT(Appeals)] erred in upholding the denial of the deduction by the learned Assessing Officer for a sum of Rs.79,68,873/- under Section 57(iii) of the Act for the donations of Rs.85,00,000/- paid by the appellant to the eligible trusts and Institutions as "Expenditure on the objects of Trust.

P a g e | 2 ITA No.2368/Mum/2022 A.Y.2018-19 Mahakalp Arogya Pratisthan Vs. ITO, Ward-17(2)(1) The learned CIT(Appeals) erred in not considering the claims and contentions of the Appellant as contained in the written submissions furnished by the appellant in justification of the claim for the deduction for donations paid and also considering the various case laws cited and referred to in the said submissions. The Appellant prays that the learned Assessing Officer be directed to grant deduction under Section 57 (iii) of the Act for a sum of Rs.79,68,873/- and reduce the total income of the Appellant accordingly. The appellant hereby craves the leave to add to, alter or amplify the aforesaid grounds of appeal, as and when the need arises/ at the time of hearing.”

P a g e | 3 ITA No.2368/Mum/2022 A.Y.2018-19 Mahakalp Arogya Pratisthan Vs. ITO, Ward-17(2)(1)

“7. The learned standing counsel for the Revenue submitted that the order of the Tribunal is untenable since it indirectly confers the benefit of s. 11 upon the assessee. We are, however, not inclined to accept the contention. The CIT(A) has actually not held so. He never examined the question whether the assessee was eligible for the exemption under s. 11 since there was no ground before him, taken by the assessee, to that effect All that the assessee claimed before the CIT(A) was that the entire expenditure should be allowed as a deduction since it was incurred for the very objects for which the assessee was established in 1979 1.c. promotion of sports and. therefore, the AO was not justified in restricting the allowance of expenditure to Rs.1,20,000 only for all the three years. It was this claim that was accepted by the CIT(A). The objection of the learned standing counsel for the Revenue that since the grants were assessed under the residual head. there was no scope for allowing the expenditure incurred on the promotion of the sports activities is not acceptable since even under s. 57(iii), any expenditure incurred for the purpose of making or earning the income is allowable as a deduction. It is open to the IT authorities to deny the exemption under s. 11 of the Act in the absence of registration under s. 12A and if they do so, then the assessment has to be completed in accordance with the provisions of the IT Act; if the income is assessed under the residual head full play must be allowed to s. 57(1). Though prima facie it would appear that the phraseology employed in s. 57(1) is different from s. 37(1). It has been held by the Supreme Court in CIT us. Rajendra Prasad Moody 1978 CTR (SC) 141: (1978) 115 ITR 519 (SC) that s. 57(1) must be construed broadly and the somewhat wider language of s. 37(1) should not affect the interpretation of s. 57(111). The assessee in the present case was created in 1979 with the object of promoting sports; there was no other object and all its constituents were giving grants/funds only for that purpose. In truth and reality the assessee was merely acting as a custodian or conduit to the constituents for the purpose of P a g e | 5 ITA No.2368/Mum/2022 A.Y.2018-19 Mahakalp Arogya Pratisthan Vs. ITO, Ward-17(2)(1) promoting sports activity inside and outside the country. The expenditure incurred by the assessec is only for the purpose of promoting the sports events and activities and in this respect there is no challenge to the finding of fact recorded by the Tribunal. If such expenditure is not allowed, it may amount to taxing the gross receipts of the assessee and not the income, which is not permissible under the income-tax law. Moreover, upto the asst. yr. 2002-03 the assessee was exempt from tax under s. 10(23); from the asst. yr. 2006-07 It has been granted registration as a charitable institution under s. 12A making it eligible for the exemption under s. 11.” We observe that as per the decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court as supra all expenses incurred by the assesse for charitable object for which it was established are allowable as deduction u/s 57(iii) of the Act. The ld. D.R relied on the decision of ITAT, Pune in the case of Poona Club Ltd. Vs. ACIT (2018) 90 taxman.com 422 (Pune). We find that the fact of that case is distinguishable from the fact of the case of the assesse as in the case of the assesse they have not claimed any benefit u/s 11 and 12 of the Act and the expenses were incurred by the assesse for the charitable object for which it was established. The Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Petroleum Sport Promotion Board as supra has also considered the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Rajendra Prasad Modi 115 ITR 519 (SC) wherein held that Sec. 57(iii) must be construed broadly and the some what wider language of Sec. 37(1) do not affect the interpretation of Sec.57(iii) of the Act. We have also considered the decision of ITAT, Indore in the case of DCIT (Exemption) Bhopal Vs. Shri Vaishnav Polytechnic College Govn by VSK Market Tech Educational Society (2020) 122 taxman.com 287 (Indore Tribunal) and the case of Shri Sanatan Dharm Mandir Sabha Vs. ITO, Ward 41(2) vide ITA No. 5791/Del/2019 wherein the decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court as discussed supra was followed. We have also perused the paper book wherein the assesse has enclosed supporting evidences i.e donation receipts and evidences of payment made by cheques etc. were placed to demonstrate that expenditure were incurred for the object of the assesse. Looking to the above facts and P a g e | 6 ITA No.2368/Mum/2022 A.Y.2018-19 Mahakalp Arogya Pratisthan Vs. ITO, Ward-17(2)(1) circumstances and after following the decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Petroleum Sport Promotion Board we consider that decision of ld. CIT(A) is not justified, therefore, we direct the A.O to allow the claim of deduction made by the assesse. Therefore, ground of appeal of the assesse is allowed.

आदेश की प्रतितिति अग्रेतिि/Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथी / The Appellant प्रत्यथी / The Respondent. 2. 3. आयकर आयुक्त(अपील) / The CIT(A)- 4. आयकर आयुक्त / CIT 5. विभागीय प्रविविवि, आयकर अपीलीय अविकरण DR, ITAT, Mumbai गार्ड फाईल / Guard file. 6. सत्यावपि प्रवि //// आदेशानुसार/ BY ORDER,

उि/सहायक िंजीकार (Dy./Asstt.