DCIT(E), NEW DELHI vs. DR. R.L. KHERA CHARITABLE TRUST, NEW DELHI

PER N.K. BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER,

This appeal by the assessee is preferred against the order of the CIT(Exemptions) - 40, New Delhi dated 22.04.2015 pertaining to A.Y 2011-12.

Society in ITA Nos. 240, 348, 406, 463 & 464/2014 vide order dated 18.11.2014, allowed the claim of deprecation.

“From the judgments of the High Courts, it can be discerned that the High Courts have primarily followed the judgment of the Bombay High Court in ‘Commissioner of Income Tax v. Institute of Banking Personnel Selection (IBPS)’ [(2003) 131 Taxman 386 (Bombay)]. In the said judgment, the contention of the Department predicated on double benefit was turned down in the following manner:

4 “3. As stated above, the first question which requires consideration by this Court is: whether depreciation was allowable on the assets, the cost of which has been fully allowed as application of income under section 11 in the past years? In the case of CIT v. Munisuvrat Jain 1994 Tax Law Reporter, 1084 the facts were as follows. The assessee was a Charitable Trust. It was registered as a Public Charitable Trust. It was also registered with the Commissioner of Income Tax, Pune. The assessee derived income from the temple property which was a Trust property. During the course of assessment proceedings for assessment years 1977-78, 1978-79 and 1979-80, the assessee claimed depreciation on the value of the building @2½% and they also claimed depreciation on furniture @ 5%. The question which arose before the Court for determination was : whether depreciation could be denied to the assessee, as expenditure on acquisition of the assets had been treated as application of income in the year of acquisition? It was held by the Bombay High Court that section 11 of the Income Tax Act makes provision in respect of computation of income of the Trust from the property held for charitable or religious purposes and it also provides for application and accumulation of income. On the other hand, section 28 of the Income Tax Act deals with chargeability of income from profits and gains of business and section 29 provides that income from profits and gains of business ahll be computed in accordance with section 30 to section 43C. That, section 32(1) of the Act provides for depreciation in respect of building, plant and machinery owned

by the assessee and used for business purposes. It further provides for deduction subject to section 34. In that matter also, a similar argument, as in the present case, was advanced on behalf of the revenue, namely, that depreciation can be allowed as deduction only under section 32 of the Income Tax Act and not under general principles. The Court rejected this argument. It was held that normal depreciation can be considered as a legitimate deduction in computing the real income of the assessee on general principles or under section 11(1)(a) of the Income Tax Act The Court rejected the argument on behalf of the revenue that section 32 of the Income Tax Act was the only section granting benefit of deduction on account of depreciation. It was held that income of a Charitable Trust derived form building, plant and machinery and furniture was liable to be computed in normal commercial manner although the Trust may not be carrying on any business and the assets in respect whereof depreciation is claimed may not be business assets. In all such cases, section 32 of the Income Tax Act providing for depreciation for computation of income derived from business or profession is not applicable. However, the income of the Trust is required to be computed under section 11 on commercial principles after providing for allowance for normal depreciation and deduction thereof from gross income of the Trust. In view of the aforesatated judgment of the Bombay High Curt, we answer question No. 1 in the affirmative i.e., in favour of the assessee and against the Department.”

“a) Whether the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was correct in law in allowing the assessee to carry forward deficit of the current year and to set off the same against the income of subsequent years?

b) Whether the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was correct in law in allowing the assessee to carry forward and set off the losses against the income of subsequent year ignoring that the determination of income under Sections 11 to 13 is a separate

code and does not contain such provisions as contained in Chapter-VI of the Act?

c) Whether adjustment of deficit (excess of expenditure over income) of current year against the income of subsequent year would amount to application of income of the Trust for charitable purposes in the subsequent year within the meaning of Section 11(1)(a) of the Act?”

“6. We find from the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as “the Tribunal‟) that the Tribunal has decided the issue in favour of the assessee by placing reliance on the aforesaid judgment of the Gujarat High Court. We have gone through the judgment of Gujarat High Court in Shri Plot Swetamber Murti Pujak Jain Mandal (supra). It could not be disputed by the learned counsel for the Revenue that the question of law raised and answered in the said case was identical to the one raised in the present appeals. This question was decided in favour of the assessee interpreting the provisions of Section 11 of the Act. The relevant discussion contained in the said judgment is in the following terms:

"3. The learned DR sought to rely upon the finding of AO. None was present on behalf of the assessee. We find that the issue is answered by Hon‟ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT vs. Shri Plot Swetamber Murti Pujak Jain Mandal (1995) 211 ITR 293 (Guj), wherein the High Court observed as under:

"We are, therefore, of the opinion that the adjustment of he (sic. the) expenses incurred by the trust for charitable and religious purposes in the earlier year against the income earned by the trust in the subsequent year would amount to applying the income of the trust for charitable and religious purposes in the subsequent year in which such adjustment has been made and will have to be excluded from the income of the trust u/s 11(1)(a) of the Act." No contrary decision has been cited. From the aforesaid judgment, it is clear that there is no bar in computing income of subsequent year after allowing set off of excess amount spent on object of trust, as this also amounts to application of income. Thus, there is no infirmity in the order of the learned CIT(A)."

charitable or religious purposes „only‟ in the year in which the income has arisen. This, according to the learned counsel, was a wrong premise and contrary to the expression of provision contained inSection 11(1)(c) read with explanation and Section 11(1)(c) categorically suggests to the contrary, viz., the income has to be applied for charitable or religious purposes „only‟ in the year in which it has arisen. However, we find that the Gujarat High Court has discussed this issue in greater detail and relying upon the Circular No. 100 dated 24.01.1973 issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes and the judgment of the Rajasthan High Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Maharana of Mewar Charitable Foundation [164 ITR 439 (Raj.)]. We may also point out at this state that the aforesaid view of Rajasthan High Court and Gujarat High Court has been consistently followed by other High Courts in the following judgments:

(i) Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Institute of Banking [264 ITR 110 (Bom.)]; (ii) Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Siddaramanna Charities Trust [96 ITR 275 (Mys); and (iii) Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Matriseva Trust [242 ITR 20 (Mad.)].

10 8. It would be fruitful to refer to the discussions contained in Institute of Banking (supra), Per. Hon'ble Mr. Justice S.H. Kapadia, which is advanced before us by the learned counsel for the Revenue to repel the same in the following words:

"Now coming to question No.3, the point which arises for consideration is: whether excess of expenditure in the earlier years can be adjusted against the income of the subsequent year and whether such adjustment should be treated as application of income in the subsequent year for charitable purposes? It was argued on behalf of the Department that expenditure incurred in the earlier years cannot be met out of the income of the subsequent year and that utilization of such income for meeting the expenditure of earlier years would not amount to application of income for charitable or religious purposes. In the present case, the Assessing Officer did not allow carry forward of the excess of expenditure to be set off against the surplus of the subsequent years on the ground that tin the case of a charitable trust, their income was assessable under self-contained code mentioned insection 11 to section 13 of the Income-tax Act and that the income of the charitable trust was not assessable under the head "Profits and gains of business" under section 28 in which the provision for carry forward of losses was relevant. That, in the case of a charitable trust, there was no provision for carry forward of the excess of expenditure of earlier years to be adjusted against income of the subsequent years. We do not find any merit in this argument of the

Department. Income derived from the trust property has also got to be computed on commercial principles and if commercial principles are applied then adjustment of expenses incurred by the trust for charitable and religious purposes in the earlier years against the income earned by the trust in the subsequent year will have to be regarded as application of income of the trust for charitable and religious purposes in the subsequent year in which adjustment has been made having regard to the benevolent provisions contained in the section 11 of the Act and that such adjustment will have to be excluded from the income of the trust under section 11(1)(a) of the Act. Our view is also supported by the judgment of the Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT v. Shri Plot Swetamber Murti Pujak Jain Mandal [1995] 211 ITR 293. Accordingly, we answer question No.3 in the affirmative, i.e., in favour of the assessee and against the Department."

The order is pronounced in the open court on 20.09.2018.

Sd/- Sd/- [N.K. CHOUDHARY] [N.K. BILLAIYA] JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

Dated: 20th September, 2018 VL/ Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR Asst. Registrar, ITAT, New Delhi

Date of dictation Date on which the typed draft is placed before the dictating Member Date on which the typed draft is placed before the Other Member Date on which the approved draft comes to the Sr.PS/PS Date on which the fair order is placed before the Dictating Member for pronouncement Date on which the fair order comes back to the Sr.PS/PS Date on which the final order is uploaded on the website of ITAT Date on which the file goes to the Bench Clerk Date on which the file goes to the Head Clerk The date on which the file goes to the Assistant Registrar for signature on the order Date of dispatch of the Order