Loading judgment…

DCIT vs Dawat Properties Trust, Ahmedabad | ITAT Ahmedabad 2019 | BharatTax

THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS), CIRCLE-1,, AHMEDABAD vs. DAWAT PROPERTIES TRUST,, AHMEDABAD

ITA 261/AHD/2018Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad23 July 2019AY 2014-154 pages

No AI summary yet for this case.

Cases cited in this judgment

Detected automatically from the text. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.

CIT v. Shri Plot Swetamber Murti Pujak Jain Mandal
211 ITR 293 · 1995 · HC
204 citing
CIT v. Maharana of Mewar Charitable Foundation
164 ITR 439 · 1987 · HC
153 citing
CIT v. Matriseva Trust
242 ITR 20 · 2000 · HC
91 citing
CIT(Exemption) v. Subros Education Society
303 CTR 1 · 2018 · SC
40 citing

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “B” BENCH, AHMEDABAD

Before: SHRI PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA & SHRI MAHAVIR PRASAD

आदेश/O R D E R

PER PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA - AM:

1.

The captioned appeal has been filed at the instance of the Revenue against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-7, Ahmedabad, (‘CIT(A)’ in short), dated 17.11.2017 [DCIT(Exemp.) vs. Dawat Properties Trust] A.Y. 2014-15 - 2 - arising in the assessment order dated 28.12.2016 passed by the Assessing Officer (AO) under s. 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) concerning AY 2014-15.

2.

The substantive ground of appeal raised by Revenue reads as under:

“1. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in allowing the benefit of the deficit of Rs.5,78,95,663/- for earlier years against the income of subsequent year in absence of any express provision in the Act regarding the same and also by overlooking the decisions in favour of revenue in this regard.”

3.

The assessee is a public charitable trust and has been granted registration under s.12A(a) of the Income Tax Act. During the year under consideration, the assessee trust has claimed allowability of deficit to be carried forward amounting to Rs.5,78,95,663/-. The AO while passing the order under s.143(3) of the Act disallowed the carry forward of deficit for being set off in the forthcoming year.

4.

In the first appeal against the aforesaid action of the AO, the CIT(A) allowed carry forward of excess expenses over next years.

5.

Aggrieved by the order of the CIT(A), the Revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal.

7.

We have carefully perused the orders of the authorities below. The solitary question that arises for adjudication whether the trust has incurred deficit due to excess spending on the object of the trust during the particular year and whether excess expenditure incurred in earlier years or in the current year by the trust could be allowed to be set off against the income of subsequent year by invoking Section 11 of the Act. The issue is no longer res integra. The Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in CIT vs. Shri Plot Shwetamber Murti Pujak Jain Mandal (1995) 211 ITR 0293 (Guj) has rendered decision favourable to the assessee on the very issue. The Hon’ble Gujarat High Court has held that there is nothing in the language of Section 11(1)(a) of the Act to indicate that the income from trust property should have been applied for charitable or religious trusts only in the year in which such income has arisen. The expenditure incurred in an earlier year can be met out of the income of the subsequent year and utilization of such income for meeting the expenditure of the earlier year would amount to such income being applied for charitable or religious trusts. The Hon’ble Gujarat High Court further held that income derived from Trust property has to be computed on commercial principles and consequently deficit arising out of expenditure over income for the previous year should, therefore, be set off against surplus of income over expenditure relating to the subsequent year. Similar view has been expressed in CIT vs. Maharana of Mewar Charitable Foundation (1987) 164 ITR 439 (Raj) and CIT vs. Matriseva Trust (2000) 242 ITR 20 (Mad). Whatever little controversy might be existing has been put to rest by the recent decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT(Exemption) vs. Subros [DCIT(Exemp.) vs. Dawat Properties Trust] A.Y. 2014-15 - 4 - Education Society (2018) 303 CTR 1 (SC). Hence, the CIT(A) in our view has correctly applied the law as evolved by the judicial precedents. In the absence of any infirmity in the order of the CIT(A), we decline to interfere therewith.