DCIT(E),CIRCLE-2, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S WEST BENGAL TRADE PROMOTION ORG., KOLKATA

Brief facts of the case are that the assessee company is a consortium of the Central Government [Ministry of Commerce & Industry - through the Indian Trade Promotion Organisation], the State Government [through the West Bengal Industrial Development Corporation, Department of Commerce & Industries], and the Kolkata Municipal Corporation - the objects being to foster the promotion of trade and 'Commerce. For implementation purpose - it is incorporated as a company under section 25 of the Companies Act, 1956, i.e., the objects of the company are to promote the objects of the nature specified in the Section 25 sub-section (1), clause (a) of the said Act, and that it will

We have heard rival submissions and gone through the facts and circumstances of the case. We note that the Ld. CIT(A) has held that the 1st proviso to sec. 12A(2) is retrospective in operation by relying on the coordinate bench decision of this Tribunal in Sree Sree Ramkrishna Samity Vs. DCIT (2015) 44 ITR (Trib) 678 (ITAT, Kol). Since the Ld. CIT(A) has relied on this Tribunal’s decision we would reproduce the operative portion of the order which is as under: “13. It is relevant at this juncture to get into the amendment brought in section 12A by Finance Act 2014 with effect from 1.10.2014 by way of insertion of first proviso to section 12A(2) of the Act which is reproduced below for the sake of convenience :- “12 A (2) Where an application has been made on or after the 1st day of June 2007, the provisions of section 11 and 12 shall apply in relation to the income of such trust or institution from the assessment year immediately following the financial year in which such application is made: Provided that where registration has been granted to the trust or institution under section 12AA, then, the provisions of sections 11 and 12 shall apply in respect of any income derived from property held under trust of any assessment year preceding the aforesaid assessment year, for which assessment proceedings are pending before the Assessing Officer as on date of such registration and the objects and activities of such trust or institution remain the same for such preceding assessment year: Provided further that no action under section 147 shall be taken by the Assessing Officer in case of such trust or institution for any assessment year preceding the aforesaid assessment year only for non-registration of such trust or institution for the said assessment year: Provided also that provisions contained in the first and second proviso shall not apply in case of any trust or institution which was refused registration or the registration granted to it was cancelled at any time under section 12AA.”

The third proviso to section 12A(2) of the Act also provides that the first and second proviso shall not be applicable if the trust or institution had been refused registration earlier or the registration granted earlier is cancelled by the Commissioner u/s 12AA of the Act. This also goes to prove that the first and second proviso shall be made applicable for the trusts for earlier assessment years also who had not applied for registration u/s 12AA of the Act at all.

We hold that the registration of trust under section 12A of the Act once done is a fait accompli and the AO cannot thereafter make further probe into the objects of the trust. Reliance in this regard is placed on the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court rendered in the case of ACIT vs Surat City Gymkhana reported in (2008) 300 ITR 214 (SC). Drawing analogy from this judgement, the logical inference could be that as long as the objects were charitable in nature in the earlier years and in the year in which registration u/s 12AA was granted, the existence of trust for charitable purposes in the earlier years cannot be doubted with. Even otherwise, no adverse findings were given by the revenue with regard to the existence of the assessee society for charitable purposes in the assessment years under appeal.

It will be relevant to get into the Explanatory Notes to the Provisions of the Finance (No. 2), 2014 as given in CBDT Circular No. 01 / 2015 dated 21.1.2015 in reference F.No. 142 / 13 /2014-TPL which is reproduced hereinbelow for the sake of convenience (Page 38) :-

This clearly goes to prove that the first proviso to section 12A(2) was brought in the statute only as a retrospective effect with a view not to affect genuine charitable trusts and societies carrying on genuine charitable objects in the earlier years and substantive conditions stipulated in section 11 to 13 have been duly fulfilled by the said trust. The benefit of retrospective 3

Apparently the statute provides that registration once granted in subsequent year, the benefit of the same has to be applied in the earlier assessment years for which assessment proceedings are pending before the Learned AO, unless the registration granted earlier is cancelled or refused for specific reasons. The statute also goes on to provide that no action u/s 147 could be taken by the AO merely for non-registration of trust for earlier years.

With regard to the arguments of the Learned DR that donations received by assessee falls under the definition of income u/s 2(24)(iia) of the Act, we would like to state that income definition is an inclusive definition. An inclusive definition extends the specific meaning given in the stated items by the general meaning as commonly understood by the said expression which is defined in a statute. The word income as is commonly understood does not include any donation specifically meant for utilization for acquiring, constructing a capital asset, as is the case here. Further section 2(24) had undergone amendment by way of insertion of clause (iia) by Finance Act, 1972 with effect from 1.4.1973. In this connection, it will be relevant to get into the Memorandum explaining the provisions in Finance Act 1972 reported in 83 ITR (St.) 173, wherein Paragraphs 24 and 25 clearly define the scope of the amendment wherein in paragraph 25(i) , the concluding sentence is as under:-

Thus the relevant clause defining income in section 2(24)(iia) as introduced with effect from 1.4.1973 was clearly not intended to cover contributions / donations received with a specific direction that they will form part of the corpus of the trust for utilization in acquisition / construction of a capital asset. Thus what is not income as per the definition of the word income in the Act cannot be brought to tax under any other provision of the Act. We find that the order of the Learned CITA failed to distinguish between a case where a receipt is not an income at the stage of its receipt and a case where it is not so but is claimed to be exempt because of any exemption provision granting exemption from taxation to receipts which are liable to taxation but for the provision granting exemption.

We hold that it is an established position in law that a proviso which is inserted to remedy unintended consequences and to make the provision workable, a proviso which supplies an obvious omission in the section and is required to be read into the section to give the section a reasonable interpretation, requires to be treated as retrospective in operation, so that a reasonable interpretation can be given to the section as a whole and accordingly the said insertion of first proviso to section 12A(2) of the Act with effect from 1.10.2014 should be read as retrospective in operation with effect from the date when the condition of eligibility for exemption under section 11 & 12 as mentioned in section 12A provided for registration u/s 12AA as a pre-condition for applicability of section 12A. Reliance in this regard is placed on the following decisions :-

We also hold that though equity and taxation are often strangers , attempts should be made that these do not remain always so and if a construction results in equity rather than in injustice, then such construction should be preferred to the literal construction. It is only elementary that a statutory provision is to be interpreted ut res magis valeat quam pereat, i.e to make it workable rather than redundant. Applying this legal maxim, it would be just and fair to hold that the amendment in section 12A is brought in the statute to confer benefit of exemption u/s 11 of the Act on the genuine trusts which had not changed its objectives and had carried on the same charitable objects in the past as well as in the current year based on which the registration u/s 12AA is granted by the DIT(Exemptions).

We hold that the arguments of the Learned AR that, even assuming without conceding, in the worst scenario, the assessee society could only be taxed in the status of an AOP does not require any adjudication as we hold that the assessee society to be construed as a public charitable trust and eligible to claim exemption u/s 11 of the Act for the earlier assessment years, more especially, Asst Years 2003-04 to 2008-09 , the donations received from various donors for construction of an old age home would take the character of corpus donations as they are meant for specific purposes and accordingly would be exempt u/s 11(1)(d) of the Act. Even otherwise, the said donation receipts are only capital in nature as it is received for construction of an old age home on which fact there is absolutely no dispute. The Learned AO also had duly accepted the nature of donations, genuinity of the donors and its utilization in the remand proceedings. Hence in any case, a receipt which is by birth, capital in nature, cannot change its character merely for want of registration of society u/s 12AA of the Act. It is not the case of the revenue that the donations received are meant for general functioning of the charitable objects of the society, in which event, the donations received thereon would take the character of revenue receipts requiring to be credited in the income and expenditure account for utilization towards charitable objects thereon. Hence we hold that in any case, the donations received by the assessee society cannot be brought to tax in the assessment.

We hold that since the only reason for denial of exemption u/s 11 was absence of registration u/s 12AA (which was granted to assessee society on 29.10.2010 with effect from 1.4.2010) for the relevant assessment years and on no other ground, the benefit of change in law as above by Finance Act 2014 should be available and for all the years, the benefit of exemption should be available on the date of registration as all the assessments were pending as shown above. In this connection, it requires mention specifically that all the receipts of the donation were proved on enquiry to have been received from the claimed donors and utilized for the specific purpose (construction of old age home) for which they were received. 6

In conclusion, we hold that the insertion of the proviso to section 12A(2) of the Act has to be construed as retrospective in operation.”

We note that the assessee before us has got registration from Ld. CIT(E) u/s. 12AA of the Act vide order dated 03.05.2013 w.e.f. 01.04.2012. The question of retrospective operation of 1st proviso to sub-section (2) of section 12A of the Act has been answered as “retrospective in operation” by the Ld. CIT(A) after taking note of the order of coordinate bench’s decision of this Tribunal in Sree Sree Ramkrishna Samity (supra) wherein the Tribunal had held at para 27 that the “insertion of the proviso to sec. 12A(2) of the Act has to be construed retrospective in operation”. We also note that the assessee has also been accorded approval u/s. 10(23)(c)(iv) by order of Ld. CCIT-3, Kolkata dated 09.01.2014. It is well settled that the Ld. CIT(A) has co-terminus power as enjoyed by the AO while deciding the appeal against an assessment order. Therefore, even though the assessment order has been passed on 28.03.2014, for the ends of justice and fair play and taking into consideration the fact that the assessee is basically a consortium of State Govt., Central Govt and Municipal Corporation which was incorporated as a company u/s. 25 of the Companies Act, 1956 with the purpose to promote the objectives of the nature specified in section 25(1), clause (a) of the State Act and it is pertinent to note that that it will apply its profit if any or other income in promoting its objects and it prohibits the payment of any dividend to its members. Thus, the Ld. CIT(A) has rightly noted that the assessee’s activities are for charitable purposes. Therefore, we do not find any infirmity in the order of the Ld. CIT(A) in this regard and we dismiss the appeal of the revenue. Thus we find that the Ld. CIT(A) has rightly held that the benefit of grant of registration u/s. 12AA of the Act also need to be extended to AY 2011-12 and, therefore, we confirm the order of Ld. CIT(A) on this issue.

Ground nos. 2 and 3 are regarding the deletion of addition of Rs. 4 lacs in respect of disallowance of expenditure made on account of amortized lease rent payment and disallowance made of Rs.19,40,000/- on account of depreciation on leasehold land. Since

In the result, appeal of revenue is dismissed.

CIT , Kolkata 5. DR, ITAT, Kolkata. (sent through e-mail) /True Copy, By order,