SHRI VASUPUJYA SWAMI MAHARAJ TEMPLE TRUST,PUNE vs. ITO (EXEMPTION) WARD 1(2), PUNE

I further note that assessee is a charitable trust registered u/s.12A of the Act and is accumulating the funds as per the provisions of section 11(2) of the Act. Details for A.Y. 2017-18 to 2023-24 are as under : u/s.11(2) A.Y.2017-18 18,82,665 18,82,665 - A.Y. 2018-19 24,33,548 1,47,335 22,86,213 A.Y. 2019-20 24,50,201 - 24,50,201 A.Y. 2020-21 26,95,164 - 26,95,164 A.Y. 2021-22 13,85,953 - 13,85,953 A.Y. 2022-23 24,78,168 - 24,78,168 A.Y. 2023-24 25,69,983 - 25,69,983 Total 1,33,25,699 20,30,000 1,12,95,699

We find some force in the arguments of the Ld. Counsel for the assessee on this issue. The provisions of section 11(2) and 11(3) of the Act as stood at the relevant time read as under: “11(1)…..

A perusal of the above shows that the words “or in the year immediately following the expiry thereof” was omitted by the Finance Act, 2022 w.e.f. 01.04.2023 which is applicable for assessment year 2023-24 onwards. It is an admitted fact that when the trust accumulated an amount of Rs.90,70,20,511/- during the financial year 2016-17 it was required to utilize the same within a period of 5 years from the end of the relevant assessment year or in the year immediately following the expiry thereof. In other words, the assessee was required to utilize the same before the end of the 6th year i.e. financial year 2022-23. The assessee in the instant case undisputedly has utilized the amount before 31.03.2023.

We find the relevant provisions of Memorandum explaining provisions of the Finance Bill, 2022 read as under: “4. Bringing consistency in the provisions of two exemption regimes As mentioned earlier, there is a requirement for alignment of certain provisions of the two regimes as they both intend to grant similar benefit. 4.1 Accumulation provisions i) Under the existing provisions of the Act, a trust or institution is required to apply 85% of its income during any previous year. However, if it is not able to apply 85% of its income during the previous year, it is allowed to accumulate such income for a period not exceeding 5 years as per the following provisions, namely: (I) sub-section (2) of section 11 of the Act for the trusts or institution under the second regime; and (II) third proviso to clause (23C) of section 10 of the Act for trusts or institution under the first regime. ii) However, the accumulation of income, as per the provisions of sub-section (2) of section 11 of the Act is allowed subject to the fulfilment of certain conditions while there are no such conditions specifically provided under the third proviso to clause (23C) of section 10 of the Act; iii) Similarly, sub-section (3) of section 11 of the Act provides for the specific previous year in which the accumulated income will be subjected to tax in case of different types of violations. It, inter alia, provides that if the accumulated income is not applied within 5 years, it shall be taxed in the 6th year. While, on the other hand, there are no such specific provisions under clause (23C) of section 10 of the Act and therefore, if the accumulated income is not applied within 5 years, the same shall be taxed in the 5th year itself. iv) In order to bring consistency in the two regimes, the following are proposed:- A) It is proposed to amend the provisions of sub-section (3) of section 11 of the Act to provide that any income referred to in sub-section (2) which is not utilised for the purpose for which it is so accumulated or set apart shall be deemed to be the income of such person of the previous year being the last previous year of the period, for which the income is accumulated or set apart under clause (a) of subsection (2) of section 11, but not utilised for the purpose for which it is so accumulated or set apart. B) It is proposed to insert Explanation 3 to the third proviso to clause (23C) of section 10 of the Act to provide that for the purposes of determining the amount of application under this proviso, where eighty-five per cent of the income referred to in clause (a) of the third proviso, is not applied, wholly and exclusively to the objects for which the trust or institution under the first regime is established, during the previous year but is accumulated or set apart, either in whole or in part, for application to such objects, such income so accumulated or set apart shall not be included in the total income of the previous year of the person in receipt of the income, provided the following conditions are complied with, namely:— (a) such person furnishes a statement in the prescribed form and in the prescribed manner to the Assessing Officer, stating the purpose for which the income is being accumulated or set apart and the period for which the income is to be accumulated or set apart, which shall in no case exceed five years; (b) the money so accumulated or set apart is invested or deposited in the forms or modes specified in sub-section (5) of section 11; and (c) the statement referred to in clause (a) of Explanation 3 is furnished on or before the due date specified under sub-section (1) of section 139 for furnishing the return of income for the previous year; C) It is proposed to insert a proviso to the proposed Explanation 3 to the third proviso to clause (23C) of section 10 of the Act to provide that in computing the period of five years referred to in sub-clause (a), the period during which the income could not be applied for the purpose for which it is so accumulated or set apart, due to an order or injunction of any court, shall be excluded. D) It is also proposed to insert an Explanation (Explanation 4) to third proviso to clause (23C) of section 10 to provide that any income referred to in the proposed Explanation 3 shall be deemed to be the income of the previous year in which the following takes place— (a) the income is applied for purposes other than wholly and exclusively to the objects for which the trust or institution under the first regime is established or ceases to be accumulated or set apart for application thereto, or (b) the income ceases to remain invested or deposited in any of the forms or modes specified in sub- section (5) of section 11, or (c) the income is not utilised for the purpose for which it is so accumulated or set apart during the period referred to in clause (a) of the proposed Explanation 3, (d) the income is credited or paid to any trust or institution under the first or second regime. For the circumstances referred to in clause (c), it is proposed that the income shall be deemed to be the income of previous year which is the last previous year of the period, for which the income is accumulated or set apart under sub-clause (a) of clause (iii) of the proposed Explanation 3, but not utilised for the purpose for which it is so accumulated or set apart. E) It is proposed to insert an Explanation (Explanation 5) to third proviso to clause (23C) of section 10 of the Act to enable the Assessing Officer to allow trusts or institutions under the first regime in circumstances beyond their control to apply such accumulated income for such other purpose in India as is fulfilment of specified conditions. These other purposes are required to be in conformity with the objects for which the trust or institution under the first regime is established. If it is done, the provisions of Explanation 4 to third proviso to clause (23C) of section 10 shall apply as if the purpose specified by such person in the application under this Explanation were a purpose specified in the notice given to the Assessing Officer under clause (a) of the proposed Explanation 3 of the third proviso to clause (23C) of section 10. F) It is proposed to insert a proviso to proposed Explanation 5 to third proviso to clause (23C) of section 10 of the Act to provide that the Assessing Officer shall not allow the application of any accumulated income, as referred to in the proposed Explanation 3, to be credited or paid to any trust or institution under the first or second regime, as referred to in clause (d) of proposed Explanation 4 to the third proviso to clause (23C) of section 10 v) These amendments will take effect from 1st April, 2023 and will accordingly apply in relation to the assessment year 2023-24 and subsequent assessment years. [Clauses 4 and 5 ]”

We find the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Vatika Township Pvt. Ltd. (2014) 367 ITR 466 (SC) on the issue of interpretation of taxing statutues about retrospective amendment and prospective amendment, has held as under: “30. A legislation, be it a statutory Act or a statutory Rule or a statutory Notification, may physically consists of words printed on papers. However, conceptually it is a great deal more than an ordinary prose. There is a special peculiarity in the mode of verbal communication by a legislation. A legislation is not just a series of statements, such as one finds in a work of fiction/non fiction or even in a judgment of a court of law. There is a technique required to draft a legislation as well as to understand a legislation. Former technique is known as legislative drafting and latter one is to be found in the various principles of ‘Interpretation of Statutes’. Vis-à-vis ordinary prose, a legislation differs in its provenance, lay-out and features as also in the implication as to its meaning that arise by presumptions as to the intent of the maker thereof.

Of the various rules guiding how a legislation has to be interpreted, one established rule is that unless a contrary intention appears, a legislation is presumed not to be intended to have a retrospective operation. The idea behind the rule is that a current law should govern current activities. Law passed today cannot apply to the events of the past. If we do something today, we do it keeping in view the law of today and in force and not tomorrow’s backward adjustment of it. Our belief in the nature of the law is founded on the bed rock have been retrospectively upset. This principle of law is known as lex prospicit non respicit : law looks forward not backward. As was observed in Phillips vs. Eyre[3], a retrospective legislation is contrary to the general principle that legislation by which the conduct of mankind is to be regulated when introduced for the first time to deal with future acts ought not to change the character of past transactions carried on upon the faith of the then existing law.

The obvious basis of the principle against retrospectivity is the principle of 'fairness’, which must be the basis of every legal rule as was observed in the decision reported in L’Office Cherifien des Phosphates v. Yamashita-Shinnihon Steamship Co.Ltd[4]. Thus, legislations which modified accrued rights or which impose obligations or impose new duties or attach a new disability have to be treated as prospective unless the legislative intent is clearly to give the enactment a retrospective effect; unless the legislation is for purpose of supplying an obvious omission in a former legislation or to explain a former legislation. We need not note the cornucopia of case law available on the subject because aforesaid legal position clearly emerges from the various decisions and this legal position was conceded by the counsel for the parties. In any case, we shall refer to few judgments containing this dicta, a little later.

We would also like to point out, for the sake of completeness, that where a benefit is conferred by a legislation, the rule against a retrospective construction is different. If a legislation confers a benefit on some persons but without inflicting a corresponding detriment on some other person or on the public generally, and where to confer such benefit appears to have been the legislators object, then the presumption would be that such a legislation, giving it a purposive construction, would warrant it to be given a retrospective effect. This exactly is the justification to treat procedural provisions as retrospective. In Government of India & Ors. v. Indian Tobacco Association[5], the doctrine of fairness was held to be relevant factor to construe a statute conferring a benefit, in the context of it to be given a retrospective operation. The same doctrine of fairness, to hold that a statute was retrospective in nature, was applied in the case of Vijay v. State of Maharashtra & Ors.[6] It was held that where a law is enacted for the benefit of community as a whole, even in the absence of a provision the statute may be held to be retrospective in nature. However, we are confronted with any such situation here.

In such cases, retrospectively is attached to benefit the persons in contradistinction to the provision imposing some burden or liability where the presumption attaches towards prospectivity. In the instant case, the proviso added to Section 113 of the Act is not beneficial to the assessee. On the contrary, it is a provision which is onerous to the assessee. Therefore, in a case like this, we have to proceed with the normal rule of presumption against retrospective operation. Thus, the rule against retrospective operation is a fundamental rule of law that no statute shall be construed to have a retrospective operation unless such a construction appears very clearly in the terms of the Act, or arises by necessary and distinct implication. Dogmatically framed, the rule is no more than a presumption, and thus could be displaced by out weighing factors.”

We find the Bangalore ‘C' Bench of the Tribunal in the case of M/s. Phulchand Gulabchand Charitable Trust vs. ITO (supra) has observed as under: “3. The facts are that assessee had surplus income of Rs.1,93,64,000 in FY 2007-08 relevant to AY 2008-09 on account of sale of immovable property of the assessee trust. The objects of the trust, we may notice, was to run schools, colleges, dispensaries, Dharmashalas, etc. The assessee could not apply the aforesaid surplus for charitable purposes in AY 2008-09 and had applied for accumulation of such surplus in terms of section 11(2) of the Act. As per the provisions of section 11(2), accumulation is allowed for a period of 5 years. It is not in dispute that such accumulation was allowed by the AO for the AY 2008-09.

In AY 2013-14 which is the Assessment year in appeal, the AO held that since the five years period expires in AY 2013- 14, and since the assessee did not utilize the sum accumulated for charitable purpose in terms of section 11(3)(c) of the Act, the sum accumulated and which remains unspent for charitable purposes, shall be deemed to be income of the person, of the previous year, immediately following the expiry of the period aforesaid. The relevant provisions of Sec.11(3) read as follows: “(3) Any income referred to in sub-section (2) which— (a) is applied to purposes other than charitable or religious purposes as aforesaid or ceases to be accumulated or set apart for application thereto, or (b) ceases to remain invested or deposited in any of the forms or modes specified in sub-section (5), or (c) is not utilised for the purpose for which it is so accumulated or set apart during the period referred to in clause (a) of that subsection or in the year immediately following the expiry thereof, (d) is credited or paid to any trust or institution registered under section 12AA 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 or], as the case may be, of the previous year immediately following the expiry of the period aforesaid.”

A reading of Clause (c) of Sec.11(3) of the Act would show that the time allowed for applying accumulation for charitable purpose is 5 year and one year following the expiry of 5 years. This is clear from the expression used “or in the year immediately following the expiry thereof”. The previous year following the expiry of period of 5 years from AY 2008-09 will be AY 2014-15 and not AY 2013-14. This appeal relates to AY 2013-14 in which the AO sought to apply the provisions of section 11(3)(c). The Assessee did not raise such a plea regarding the applicability of the aforesaid provisions in AY 2014-15 only.

There is a reference to section 11(3)(d) in the order of AO, which in our opinion, is not the correct provision of law. Since the assessee did not give any explanation in not utilising the surplus funds accumulated, the AO brought to tax a sum of Rs.1,93,54,000.

Before the CIT(Appeals), the plea of assessee was that it had utilised the accumulated surplus for construction of a hostel building and products accounts evidencing income & expenditure towards the same. This plea of the assessee was rejected for the following reasons:- “5.0) I have gone through the facts of the case and the submissions of the appellant. The provisions of section 11(2)(a) is as under: "If the accumulated amount or any part thereof is not utilised for the specified purposes during the period of accumulation or during the year immediately following the expiry thereof, the amount which has not been so utilised will be liable to tax as income of the previous year immediately following the expiry of the accumulation period." In course of appellate proceedings the appellant has not furnished any details before me with regard to the said claim of expenditure pertaining to construction of hostel building and the advances given for the construction of building over the periods, which it claimed. A simple claim of maintenance of book of account is not sufficient. Further no details whatsoever were furnished before me regarding the claim that advance for purchase of property was made, with any corroborative evidence, that it incurred expenditure out of the above surplus amount. In absence of the above, I do not hesitate in concluding that the action of the AO was correct and the addition was made rightly. The grounds 1 to 4 and 6 are hereby dismissed.”

The Assessee did not raise plea regarding the applicability of the aforesaid provisions of Sec.11(3)(c ) of the Act only in AY 2014-15 only. Aggrieved by the order of CIT(Appeals), the assessee has preferred the present appeal before the Tribunal.

The ld. counsel for the assessee has also filed before us a copy of the order of assessment for AY 2014-15 wherein the AO has accepted the utilization of accumulated surplus in AY 2008-09 for charitable purpose in AY 2014-15. The ld. the assessee had spent a sum of Rs.1,67,47,400 and to this extent, the application of income for charitable purposes has been accepted by the AO in AY 2014-15 in the order of assessment dated 26.12.2016 passed u/s. 143(3) of the Act.

We have considered the rival submissions and are of the view that the issue raised now before the Tribunal in the form of grounds of appeal

In the result, appeals of the respective assessees are allowed as per terms indicated hereinabove.