SANT SANGANERIA FOUNDATION FOR HEALTH AND EDUCATION vs. CIT, EXEMPTION NEW DELHI WARD EXEMPTION 2(1), DELHI
What did the High Court hold?
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(E)'s order, stating that donations from accumulated funds under Section 11(2) are not allowable as application of income and are deemed income of the assessee. The High Court admitted the appeal on substantial questions of law.
What were the facts?
The assessee foundation made donations of Rs. 65 lacs from its accumulated funds to other charitable organizations. The CIT(E) invoked Section 263, holding the assessment order erroneous due to lack of proper inquiry by the AO regarding these donations.
What were the issues?
Whether donations made from accumulated funds are allowable as application of income, and whether the Tribunal erred in deciding on merits when the primary issue was the invocation of revisional jurisdiction.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
$~64 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + ITA 352/2024 SANT SANGANERIA FOUNDATION FOR HEALTH AND EDUCATION
.....Appellant Through: Mr. Abhishek Garg, Mr. Yash Gaiha, Mr. Ranesh Singh Mankotia & Mr. Naman Mehta, Advs.
versus
CIT, EXEMPTION NEW DELHI WARD EXEMPTION 2(1), DELHI
.....Respondent Through: Mr. Abhishek Maratha, SSC with Mr. Apoorv Agarwal, Mr. Parth Semiwal, JSCs, Ms. Nupur Sharma, Mr. Gaurav Singh, Ms. Divya Verma & Mr. Bhanukaran Singh Jodha, Advs.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE YASHWANT VARMA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVINDER DUDEJA
O R D E R %
15.07.2024 CM APPL. 39026/2024 (Ex.)
Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.
Application stands disposed of. ITA 352/2024 & CM APPL. 39025/2024 (Stay) 1. Notice. Since the respondent is duly represented by Mr. Maratha, learned counsel, no further steps need be taken. 2. We take note of the following conclusions which have come to be recorded by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal [“Tribunal”] in the order impugned before us:- “4.3 It is transpired from records, that as per Explanation to Section 11(2) of the Act, any amount credit or paid, out of income referred This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 27/03/2026 at 12:34:16
to in clause (a) or clause (b) of sub-section (1), read with the Explanation that that sub-section, which is not applied, but is accumulated or set apart, to any trust or institution registered under section 12AA or to any fund or institution or trust of any university or other educational institution or any hospital or other medical institution or any hospital or other medical institution referred to in sub-clause (iv) or sub-clause (v) or sub-clause (vi) or sub-clause (via) of clause (23C) of section 10, shall not be treated as application of income for charitable or religious purposes, either during the period of accumulation or thereafter. It was also noted that section 11(3) of the Act states that any income referred to in sub-section (2) which is credited or paid to any trust or any trust or institution registered under section l2AA or to any fund or institution or trust or any university or other educational institution or any hospital or other medical institution referred to in sub-clause (iv) or sub-clause (V) or sub-clause (vi) or sub-clause (via) of clause (23C) of section 10 shall be deemed to be the income of such person of the previous year in which it is so applied or ceases to be so accumulated or set apart or ceases to remain so invested or deposited or credited or paid, as the case may be, or of the previous year immediately following the expiry of the period aforesaid. It is evident that amount of Rs. 65 lacs, has been paid as donation to other Trust/ Charitable organisations and such payment will be hit by Explanation to 1l(2) r.w.s. 11(3)(d) of the Act and in view thereof the amount of ₹ 65 lacs, donated by the assessee to other institutions i.e. Hindu College and Shree Raghunath Balika vidyalaya out of accumulated fund should have been brought to tax by the AO. Hence, Ld. CIT(E) correctly observed that that as per Explanation to section l1(2) of the Act read with section 11(3Xd) of the Act, donations given out of accumulated funds u/s. 11(2) of the Act of earlier previous years are not allowable as application of income for charitable or religious purposes and the same shall be deemed to be income of the assessee of the previous year 2016-17, therefore, AO failed to examine this issue, which should have been done during the assessment u/s. 143(3) of the Act and accordingly assessment u/s. 143(3) of the Act and accordingly assessment order exhibits lack of proper inquiry/ verification by the AO, which was required to be carried out in the instant case. As a result thereof, Ld. CIT(E) has rightly held that the assessment order to be erroneous in so far as it is prejudiced to the interest of the revenue as per provisions of section 263 of the Act and accordingly, the same was set aside u/s. 263 of the Act to the file of the AO for making a denovo assessment after proper examination of the issue involved and due verification wherever required by way of affording reasonable opportunity of being heard to the Assessee Trust and pass a speaking and well reasoned order. Hence, the order of Ld. CIT(Exemption) in our considered opinion, does not require any interference on our part, hence, we uphold the same This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 27/03/2026 at 12:34:16
and accordingly, the Ground Nos. 1 to 3 raised by the assessee stand dismissed.”
It is in the aforesaid backdrop that learned counsel submits that the appeal merits further consideration bearing in mind the judgment rendered by the Court in CIT (Exemptions) vs. Jamnalal Bajaj Foundation [2024 SCC Online Del 4216]. 4. We, consequently, admit the instant appeal on the following questions of law:- A. Whether the Tribunal has erred in law in deciding the appeal on merits when the only question before it was for examining whether the respondent could have invoked revisory jurisdiction as per Section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act”]? B. Whether the Tribunal has erred in law in by ignoring that the Explanation to sub-section (2) of Section 11 of the Act was added only to prevent the mischief of continuous accumulation without any actual application and will not apply where in substance the income has been utilized or applied for a charitable purpose? 5. List again on 14.10.2024.
YASHWANT VARMA, J.
RAVINDER DUDEJA, J. JULY 15, 2024/kk This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 27/03/2026 at 12:34:16
More judgments on Section 11(2)
- Kammavari Sangham (Regd), Bengaluru vs Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax…ITA 1181/BANG/2026[2015-16]Status: Disposed30 Sept 2026AY 2015-16
- Indian Roads Congress, New Delhi vs Income Tax Exemption, Ward 1(2), New DelhiITA 1516/DEL/2026[2012 - 2013]Status: Disposed29 Sept 2026
- Rkkr Foundation, Chandigarh vs DCIT, Exemption Circle 1, ChandigarhITA 477/CHANDI/2024[2018-19]Status: Disposed28 Sept 2026AY 2018-19
- Rkkr Foundation, Chandigarh vs DCIT, Exemption Circle 1, ChandigarhITA 477/CHANDI/2024[2018-19]Status: Disposed28 Sept 2026AY 2018-19
- Imc Society of Iti Govt Central Crafts… vs Income Tax Officer, Exemption Ward…ITA 1850/CHANDI/2025[2017-18]Status: Disposed24 Sept 2026AY 2017-18
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- M/S. Mehra Mac Industries Private Limited vs. The Deputy State Tax OfficerTelangana · 30 Oct 2026
- Santosh Das And Anr. vs. Union Of INDIACalcutta · 30 Oct 2026
- M/S Rama Krishna Industries vs. State Of Hp And OthersHimachal Pradesh · 30 Oct 2026
- Smt Usha W/O Shri Tarun vs. Union Of INDIARajasthan · 29 Oct 2026
- M/S Maruti Nandan Minetech Private Limited vs. The Joint CommissionerRajasthan · 29 Oct 2026