ORIENTAL CHARITABLE FOUNDATION,KOLKATA vs. CIT(EXEMPTIONS), KOLKATA

1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH KOLKATA BEFORE SHRI RAJPAL YADAV, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI RAKESH MISHRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.257/KOL/2022 Assessment Year: 2017-18

Oriental Charitable Foundation ACIT Circle-1(1)(Exempt), P-46A, Radha Bazar Lane, Vs Kolkata. Kolkata-700001. (PAN: AAATO0629B) (Appellant) (Respondent)

Present for: Appellant by : Shri Siddarth Agrwal, Advocate Respondent by : Shri Subhendu Datta, CIT, DR Date of Hearing : 08.05.2024 Date of Pronouncement : 04.07.2024 O R D E R PER RAKESH MISHRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: This appeal filed by the assessee is against the revision order of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions), Kolkata, (hereinafter referred to as “the Ld. CIT(E)” passed u/s 263 of the Income tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”) vide M. No.CIT(E)/Kol/263/2021-22/193-195 dated 16.03.2022.

“1. That in the facts and circumstances of the case, the order passed by Assessing Officer under section 143(3) of the Act dated 06.09.2019 was neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue and hence the Ld. Pr. CIT has erred in initiating proceedings u/s 263 of the Act and subsequently setting aside the order under section 143(3) of the Act passed by A.C.I.T Circle (l), Exemption, Kolkata . 2. That in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT (Exemption), Kolkata has erred coming to conclusion that utilisation of corpus fund of Rs.8,71,03,846/- represent claim of application of income, when the aforesaid

2 ITA No. 257/Kol/2022 Oriental Charitable foundation, AY 2017-18

sum was not claimed as application of income since the same was utilized out of corpus fund of the Trust. 3. That in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT (Exemption), Kolkata has erred in disallowing application of income of Rs.66,67,929/- which was made out of income of the trust for the instant year on the ground that said income represent Capital gains and hence cannot be utilised for the purpose of charitable activities. The Ld. CIT (Exemption), Kolkata has erred in coming to conclusion that in terms of Section 11 (1A) of the Act, utilization of capital gains should be made to acquire another capital asset. 4. That in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT (Exemption), Kolkata has erred in coming to conclusion that utilization of corpus fund of Rs.8,71,03,846/- towards charitable activities is in contravention of section 11(1)(d) of the Act although the corpus fund was utilized in terms of Para 5(i) of the Trust Deed dated 14.01.1978. As a matter of fact, the said Trust deed was approved at the time of granting registration under section 12AA and 80G of the Act. 5. That the appellant craves leave to add, alter, and delete all or any grounds of appeal at the time of hearing.” 3. Briefly stated, the facts as observed by the Ld. CIT(E) are that the assessment u/s. 143(3) of the Act was completed on 06.09.2019 determining total income of Rs. Nil. The assessee is registered u/s. 12AA on 27.03.1978 w.e.f. 14.01.1978. The assessee submitted Form No. 10B on 26.10.2017 and claimed exemption u/s. 11 of the Act. The Ld. CIT(E) observed that a perusal of the Income & Expenditure Account for the F. Y. 2016-17 revealed that Rs.9,37,84,046/- was claimed as application of income against income of Rs. 68,41,927/-. From the Balance Sheet, it was found that there was a Trust Fund of Rs. 500/- along with corpus fund balance of Rs.54,81,90,652/-. In Revenue Account, Rs. 34,70,77,095/- was declared as 'Excess Expenditure over Income' including this year's loss of Rs.8,69,42,119/-. The source of fund towards the apparent revenue account loss could not be explained from the Balance Sheet since neither there was any Trust Fund nor any Loan liability. Hence, in view of the Ld. CIT(E), the loss was attributable to the corpus fund, i.e., the only source of fund available.

3 ITA No. 257/Kol/2022 Oriental Charitable foundation, AY 2017-18

3.1. There is investment in Mutual Funds to the tune of Rs. 20,06,27,832/-, the source of fund of the investment also remained unexplained due to paucity of the regular fund, only the corpus fund could explain the source of fund towards investment in mutual fund. It is pertinent to mention here that the corpus fund has been created by accumulation of money claimed as exempt u/s. 11(1)(d) in the year of receipt. The utilization of the fund is restricted as per direction of the corpus donor(s). 3.2. In view of the above, according to Ld. CIT(E), it was clear that the sources of fund towards revenue account loss and investment towards mutual fund had not been verified by the Assessing Officer in the assessment u/s. 143(3) of the Act. Only Rs.1,73,998/- is the income of the year, which has been utilized towards application of income for the year. The balance application of income of Rs.66,67,929/- had been allowed wrongly as exemption u/s. 11, whereas the same was met out of the corpus fund leading to double deduction of Rs.66,67,929/-. Also, the utilization of the corpus fund had not been verified by the Assessing Officer leading to excess allowance of fresh investments made during the financial year 2016-17. 3.3. In view of the above facts and circumstances, according to the Ld. CIT(E), the assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer was found to be erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. As such, the assessment order was proposed to be revised in exercise of the power conferred under section 263 and a notice u/s, 263 was issued on 10.01.2022 and the assessment order was revised vide order dated 16.03.2022 wherein certain directions were given to the AO for compliance. 3.4. Aggrieved against the said order passed by the Ld. CIT(E) u/s. 263 of the Act, the assessee has preferred this appeal before the Tribunal. 4. We have heard rival submissions and carefully perused the material available on record and have also gone through the written submissions filed during the course of the hearing and also subsequently on 10.05.2024 after

4 ITA No. 257/Kol/2022 Oriental Charitable foundation, AY 2017-18

the hearing was concluded. The Ld. CIT(E), vide order dated 16.03.2022, examined the issue of non-utilisation of the corpus fund as per the provisions of section 11(1)(d) of the Act for which the assessee was specifically asked to furnish documentary evidence that the corpus fund received by the assessee had been applied only for the purpose for which the corpus fund was received. The assessee referred to para 5(i) of the Trust Deed dated 14.01.1978 which trust deed was duly approved by the department before granting registration u/s. 12AA of the Act, which stipulates as under: “The Trustee shall have power to apply the whole or part of the income or accumulation thereof or whole or part of the corpus of the trust properties for one or more of the objects of the trust as the Trustees may from time to time determine.” 5. The assessee responded that as per the above clause of the Trust Deed, the trustees were within their powers to utilise the corpus fund for charitable purpose and by necessary implication, the fund is deemed to have been utilised as per the desires of the respective donors. The reply was considered but the Ld. CIT(E) noted that inspite of the repeated opportunities afforded to the assessee Trust, the assessee failed to come out explicitly regarding the purpose for which the corpus fund was received by it from various donors from time to time. Thus, he was of the view that the absence of any clear explanation of the assessee implied contravention of section 11(1)(d) of the Act and utilisation of the corpus fund for non-specified purposes could not be treated as application of income. He further concluded as under: “Thus, It is evident from the perusal of the Balance Sheet ended on 31st March, 2017 that the donation was made out of the Accumulated Corpus fund of Rs. 54,81,90,652 received by assessee. Since, this Corpus fund of Rs. 54,81,90,652 received by assessee for specific purpose is exempted u/s 11(1)(d) of the I.T. Act, 1961 and not included in the gross receipts of assessee, the assesse’s claim of donation of Rs. 9,37,71,775/- towards application of fund is irregular. 7.2 The assessee has reported capital gains out of sale of investments in mutual funds to the tune of Rs. 66,67,929/-. The computation of capital gains exemption has to be made in accordance with the provisions of section 11(lA). However, the assessee has not computed income in this manner. In the case of institutions covered by Section 11, the amount kept under corpus fund has been exempted in the year of receipt. Since investment in mutual fund is a valid mode of investment u/s.11(5), there is always the possibility to incur gain or loss. In case of the investments, the corpus fund is reduced. On the other hand, the profit out of the

5 ITA No. 257/Kol/2022 Oriental Charitable foundation, AY 2017-18

investment enriches the fund. The gain or loss out of the corpus fund would not have any impact on revenue account that is why in the exemption cases profit out of the investment is computed u/s. 11(1A). In spite of the requisition for producing directions from the donors to the effect of forming corpus, the assessee failed to produce the same. In view of the above, the corpus fund equivalent to Rs. 9,37,71,775/- (Rs. 8,71,03,846/-+ Rs.66,67,929/-) required to be credited to the revenue as income. Accordingly, the application of income to the tune of Rs.8,71,03,846/- and the application made out of the corpus fund growth to the tune of Rs. 66,67,929/- are disallowed as revenue applications. The issue is therefore, set aside and restored back to the assessing officer to compute income in the light of the above discussions and pass necessary order accordingly.” 6. Before us in the appeal as well, the assessee has stated that it had made donations to the tune of Rs.9,37,71,775/- for charitable purposes in keeping with the objects of the assessee trust. However, during the year, as is evident from the perusal of the income and expenditure account for the relevant period, the trust had an excess of expenditure over income of Rs.8,69,42,118.91, thereby implying that the donations made by the assessee were done out of the accumulated corpus fund of Rs.54,81,90,652/-, as has been pointed out by the Ld. CIT(E) at para 7.1, page 14 of his order. The assessee further states that it has restricted its claim of application of income to the gross income for the relevant period in its computation of taxable income relating to the previous year ended at 31.03.2017 and not taken benefit of carry forward of loss in relation to the total application of Rs.9,37,84,046/- and the taxable income has been shown as NIL and no carry forward loss has been shown for the relevant period. It is stated that Explanation 5 to section 11(1) of the Act has been inserted by the Finance Act, 2021 with prospective effect from 01.04.2022. However, this explanation is clarificatory in nature as the set off of loss is allowed as per the provisions of Chapter VI, which relates to computation of loss under various heads e.g. house property, business loss, capital gains etc. while the income of the trust is to be computed as per the normal commercial principles by considering the receipt and expenditure for the relevant period. It is also stated that out of total receipts received in the relevant year at Rs.68,41,927/-, only Rs. 80,000/- was on account of donations received and a substantial sum of Rs.66,67,929/- was on account of the profit on sale of

6 ITA No. 257/Kol/2022 Oriental Charitable foundation, AY 2017-18

Mutual Funds. The voluntary contribution that formed part of corpus and thereby claimed as exempt u/s. 11(1)(d) in the years of receipt, was received earlier and accordingly treated as part of corpus fund of the trust in the preceding years. It is further stated that corpus funds were received by the assessee in the preceding years with the direction that such contributions formed part of the corpus funds of the assessee trust and no other direction towards specific project/activities were received. Thus, the utilisation of the corpus funds was made in subsequent years as per the objects of the Trust as per para 5(i) of the Trust Deed dated 14.01.1978. The AO had made proper enquiries and verification in the original assessment order framed u/s. 143(3) dated 06.09.2019. It is further stated that where a corpus donation has been made with the direction by the donor that such contribution shall form part of corpus but without a specific direction towards a project/activity, the scheme of section 11(1)(d) stands unviolated in so far as if such corpus contribution has been utilised subsequently towards the objects of the assessee Trust, as is discernible through its Trust Deed and such corpus donation shall not form part of the total income of the previous year of the trust in receipt of such income in so far as such corpus contributions shall be exempt to tax as per the provisions of sec. 11(1)(d) in the year of its receipt and shall form part of the corpus fund of the assessee trust. The assessee has raised a question as to whether such corpus fund, which is claimed as exempt in a preceding year being the year of its receipt and thus not includible as per the provisions of sec. 11(1)(d), can be treated as income of the assessee trust in the year of its application, which is a subsequent year and not the year of receipt but which is the year of its utilisation. It has been stated that wherever it has been desired to withdraw the benefit of any provision availed in a preceding year, specific provisions to tax the benefit in the subsequent year have been enacted when the conditions stipulated for availing the benefit have been violated and a reference has been made to the provisions of section 47A(2) of the Act in this regard as an illustration. It is stated that if the conditions stipulated in sub-

7 ITA No. 257/Kol/2022 Oriental Charitable foundation, AY 2017-18

clauses (a) to (d) are not met, such income shall be included in the total income of the person in the year of its receipt. It is stated that there was no violation of the provisions of section 11(1)(d) of the Act and the order u/s. 263 of the Ld. PCIT is requested to be quashed and the appeal be allowed in full. Reliance has been placed on the following decisions: (a) JCIT (Exemptions)(OSD) Circle-2, Ahmedabad Vs. Divya Jyoti Trust Tejas Eye Hospital, ITA No. 1224/Ahd/2019, AY 2015-16. (b) DCIT (Exemptions), Circle-1, Benglore Vs. M/s. St. Joseph’s Monastery, ITA No. 2893/Bang/2017, AY 2013-14. (c) M/s. St. Joseph’s Monastery, ITA No. 840.2018 AY 2013-14

8 ITA No. 257/Kol/2022 Oriental Charitable foundation, AY 2017-18

to be treated as the application of the income in the year under consideration. Although there is an amendment by insertion of Explanation (4) w.e.f. 01.04.2021 which treats the application from corpus also as income applied for charitable or religious purposes but the same would be treated as application in the year in which such corpus is invested or deposited in to bank in one or more of the forms or modes specified in sub-section (5) mentioned specifically for such purpose, thereby implying that even under the amended provisions, the assessee is required to maintain the corpus and the same cannot be reduced by making any irretrievable expenditure like donations made by the assessee. Therefore, the donations out of the corpus fund, not being in accordance with the direction of the donors and withdrawn in the year, to this extent the corpus fund lost its character as capital receipt and thereby not only became subject to inclusion in the income by virtue of section 12(1) in the year in which such conversion has taken place but also the application out of such withdrawal being donation to other trust/institution does not qualify as application for charitable or religious purposes and, therefore, the income was liable to be subjected to tax and the order of the AO was erroneous to such an extent as has been rightly held by the Ld. CIT(E). 9. Thus, a bare reading of the provisions show that if the trust receives any income which is computed as per the commercial principle [(CIT Vs. PSG & Sons Charity (1197) 223 ITR 831 (Mad)] the same shall not be included in the total income of the previous year of the person in receipt of the income subject to the provisions of sections 60 to 63, if the conditions in clauses (a) and (d) are fulfilled. Clause (a) refers to income derived from property held under trust wholly for charitable or religious purposes to the extent to which such income is applied to such purpose in India and in case the same is accumulated or set apart for application to such purpose in India, it is not in excess of 15% of the income from such property. Thus, clause (a) refers to the income derived from property held under trust and application of such

9 ITA No. 257/Kol/2022 Oriental Charitable foundation, AY 2017-18

income to the extent specified being 85% in order to avail the exemption. Clause (d) refers to income in the form of voluntary contributions made under the specific direction that they shall form part of the corpus of the trust or institution. There is an amendment requiring investment or deposit in one or more of the forms in sub-section (5) to be maintained specifically for such corpus. However, we are not concerned with the amendment as the same is inserted w.e.f 01.04.2022 and is not relevant for the year under consideration. Explanation (1) to sub-section (1) of section 11 mentions that in computing the 15% of the income which may be accumulated or set apart, any such voluntary contributions as are referred to section 12 shall be deemed to be part of the income. Section 12(1) relating to voluntary contributions is reproduced as under: “12. Income of trusts or institutions from contributions.—5 [(1)] Any voluntary contributions received by a trust created wholly for charitable or religious purposes or by an institution established wholly for such purposes (not being contributions made with a specific direction that they shall form part of the corpus of the trust or institution) shall for the purposes of section 11 be deemed to be income derived from property held under trust wholly for charitable or religious purposes and the provisions of that section and section 13 shall apply accordingly.]”

10 ITA No. 257/Kol/2022 Oriental Charitable foundation, AY 2017-18

achieving the objects of the trust with the tree being kept intact. Thus, the corpus can be utilised for creation of income yielding assets e.g. investment in capital assets, investment in funds yielding income in future so that the working of the trust is not affected and it has a regular source of income for meeting its requirement. If the corpus is utilised for revenue purposes, it not only violates the condition of the donors by virtue of which it was to be treated as a capital receipt and, therefore, exempt from tax, but it also dwindles the resources of the trust. It is in this context that while clause (a) to sub-section (1) of section 11 requires 85% of the income derived from property held under trust wholly for charitable or religious purposes to be applied to such purpose in India and limiting the accumulation thereof not in excess of 15% of the income from such property as exempt, being the current income, which also includes voluntary contributions except those for corpus fund, clause (d) thereof treats the corpus donation as capital receipt if the income is in the form of voluntary contributions made with a specific direction that they shall form part of the corpus of the trust and such corpus receipt is not subjected to the requirement of application of 85% unlike in clause (a) and is also not treated as income of the trust or the institution from contributions as per sub-section (1) of section 12. This is so because the specific direction of the donor may relate to acquisition of certain assets or forming part of the capital requirement of the trust so as to achieve its objective and meet its day to day requirement out of the income generated from such corpus. It is also judicially settled that exemption provisions are to be construed strictly as has been held in the case of the Hon’ble Supreme court by the decision of Chekmate Services Private Limited, Civil Appeal No. 2833 of 2016 which are as under: “10. One of the rules of interpretation of a tax statute is that if a deduction or exemption is available on compliance with certain conditions, the conditions are to be strictly complied with Eagle Flask Industries Ltd. v. CCE 2004 taxmann.com 350 (SC)/2004 Supp. (4) SCR 35. This rule is in line with the general principle that taxing statutes are

11 ITA No. 257/Kol/2022 Oriental Charitable foundation, AY 2017-18

to be construed strictly, and that there is no room for equitable considerations. 11. That deductions are to be granted only when the conditions which govern them are strictly complied with. This has been laid down in State of Jharkhand v. Ambay Cement 2005 taxmann.com 1352 (SC)/[2005] 1 SCC 368 as follows: "23…. In our view, the provisions of exemption clause should be strictly construed and if the condition under which the exemption was granted stood changed on account of any subsequent event the exemption would not operate. 24. In our view, an exception or an exempting provision in a taxing statute should be construed strictly and it is not open to the court to ignore the conditions prescribed in the industrial policy and the exemption notifications. 25. In our view, the failure to comply with the requirements renders the writ petition filed by the respondent liable to be dismissed. While mandatory rule must be strictly observed, substantial compliance might suffice in the case of a directory rule. 26. Whenever the statute prescribes that a particular act is to be done in a particular manner and also lays down that failure to comply with the said requirement leads to severe consequences, such requirement would be mandatory. It is the cardinal rule of interpretation that where a statute provides that a particular thing should be done, it should be done in the manner prescribed and not in any other way. It is also settled rule of interpretation that where a statute is penal in character, it must be strictly construed and followed. Since the requirement, in the instant case, of obtaining prior permission is mandatory, therefore, non-compliance with the same must result in cancelling the concession made in favour of the grantee, the respondent herein." 12. This was also reaffirmed in a number of judgments, such as CIT v. Ace Multi Axes Systems Ltd. [2017] 88 taxmann.com 69/ [2018] 252 Taxman 274/400 ITR 141 (SC)/[2018] 2 SCC 158. The Constitution Bench, in Commissioner of Customs v. Dilip Kumar & Co. [2018] 95 taxmann.com 327/69 GST 239 (SC)/[2018] 9 SCC 1 endorsed as following: "24. In construing penal statutes and taxation statutes, the Court has to apply strict rule of interpretation. The penal statute which tends to deprive a person of right to life and liberty has to be given strict interpretation or else many innocents might become victims of discretionary decision-making. Insofar as taxation statutes are concerned, Article 265 of the Constitution [ "265. Taxes not to be imposed save by authority of law.—No tax shall be levied or collected except by authority of law."] prohibits the State from extracting tax from the citizens without authority of law. It is axiomatic that taxation statute has to be interpreted strictly because the State cannot at their whims and fancies burden the citizens without authority of law. In other words, when the competent legislature mandates taxing certain persons/certain objects in certain circumstances, it cannot be expanded/interpreted to include those, which were not intended by the legislature. ** ** ** 34. The passages extracted above, were quoted with approval by this Court in at least two decisions being CIT v. Kasturi & Sons Ltd. [CIT v. Kasturi & Sons Ltd., (1999) 3 SCC 346] and State of W.B. v. Kesoram Industries Ltd. [State of W.B. v. Kesoram

12 ITA No. 257/Kol/2022 Oriental Charitable foundation, AY 2017-18

Industries Ltd., (2004) 10 SCC 201] (hereinafter referred to as "Kesoram Industries case [State of W.B. v. Kesoram Industries Ltd., (2004) 10 SCC 201]", for brevity). In the later decision, a Bench of five Judges, after citing the above passage from Justice G.P. Singh's treatise, summed up the following principles applicable to the interpretation of a taxing statute: '(i) In interpreting a taxing statute, equitable considerations are entirely out of place. A taxing statute cannot be interpreted on any presumption or assumption. A taxing statute has to be interpreted in the light of what is clearly expressed; it cannot imply anything which is not expressed; it cannot import provisions in the statute so as to supply any deficiency; (emphasis supplied) (ii) Before taxing any person, it must be shown that he falls within the ambit of the charging section by clear words used in the section; and (iii) If the words are ambiguous and open to two interpretations, the benefit of interpretation is given to the subject and there is nothing unjust in a taxpayer escaping if the letter of the law fails to catch him on account of the legislature's failure to express itself clearly.'" 11. The assessee contends that there is no such mention of treatment of voluntary contribution as income, however, clause (d) of sub-section (1) of section 11 excludes such voluntary contribution only if they are made with the specific direction that they shall form part of the corpus of the trust thereby implying that if no such directions are given then they shall be included as income of the trust as per the provisions of section 12(1) and subject to the requirement of clause (a) to sub-section (1) of section 11. Thus, section 11 treats revenue and capital receipts differently. Since the computation of income of the trust is to be done as per the commercial principles, therefore, applying the commercial principles, if the capital receipt is no longer continuing as capital receipt because of the violation of the conditions, then it is liable to be included as a revenue receipt. 12. The Ld. CIT(E) examined the accounts of the assessee and found that the order of the AO was erroneous in so far as it was prejudicial to the interest of the revenue as the assessee had failed to give details of the corpus donation even in the course of the proceeding u/s. 263 and the AO had failed to examine the same by conducting the required enquiries. Further, he was

13 ITA No. 257/Kol/2022 Oriental Charitable foundation, AY 2017-18

of the view that the capital gains was to be computed as per the provisions of sub-section (1A) of section 11. While agreeing with the proposition that the corpus donation could not be utilised for making donation to other trust/institution in the absence of any direction from the donors as corpus funds was subjected to and governed by the wishes and desires of the donor, he was of the view that they could not be utilised for expenditure of revenue nature which could dwindle the capital of the trust. The assessee has placed reliance on clause 5(i) of the trust deed, which is reproduced as under: “(i) To apply the whole or part of the income or accumulation thereof or whole or part of the corpus of the trust properties for one or more of the objects of the Trust as the Trustees may from time to time determined.”

However, as regards clause 1(A) of section 11, the same is a deeming provision and is reproduced as under: “[(1A) For the purposes of sub-section (1),— (a) where a capital asset, being property held under trust wholly for charitable or religious purposes, is transferred and the whole or any part of the net consideration is

14 ITA No. 257/Kol/2022 Oriental Charitable foundation, AY 2017-18

utilised for acquiring another capital asset to be so held, then, the capital gain arising from the transfer shall be deemed to have been applied to charitable or religious purposes to the extent specified hereunder, namely:— (i) where the whole of the net consideration is utilised in acquiring the new capital asset, the whole of such capital gain; (ii) where only a part of the net consideration is utilised for acquiring the new capital asset, so much of such capital gain as is equal to the amount, if any, by which the amount so utilised exceeds the cost of the transferred asset; (b) where a capital asset, being property held under trust in part only for such purposes, is transferred and the whole or any part of the net consideration is utilised for acquiring another capital asset to be so held, then, the appropriate fraction of the capital gain arising from the transfer shall be deemed to have been applied to charitable or religious purposes to the extent specified hereunder, namely:— (i) where the whole of the net consideration is utilised in acquiring the new capital asset, the whole of the appropriate fraction of such capital gain; (ii) in any other case, so much of the appropriate fraction of the capital gain as is equal to the amount, if any, by which the appropriate fraction of the amount utilised for acquiring the new asset exceeds the appropriate fraction of the cost of the transferred asset” 14. This sub-section refers to the transfer of capital assets and utilisation of the net consideration for acquiring another capital asset and deems the same as application of income for the purpose of sub-section (1) of section 11. If the assessee utilises the net consideration for acquiring another capital asset, then the capital asset acquired from the sale consideration shall be deemed to have been applied to charitable or religious purpose to the extent specified therein for the purpose of sub-section (1) of section 11 of the Act. It implies that even though the net consideration being the income from capital account is not applied for the charitable purpose in terms of the object of the trust, however, if the same is utilised for acquiring capital assets to be held by the assessee, then investment in such capital assets acquired shall be deemed to be application of the income for charitable purposes, the calculation being made as per the provisions of section (1A) of section 11 of the Act. Hence, to this extent the assessee’s

15 ITA No. 257/Kol/2022 Oriental Charitable foundation, AY 2017-18

contention that the income from sale of mutual funds being capital gains can be utilised for charitable purposes, being donation, made to other charitable trust, is found to be acceptable subject to the verification to be made in this regard that the donees are charitable trust/institution and are complying with the requirement of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and the same is in accordance with law and the trust deed. In such a situation, income from such capital gains is to be treated as application of income for charitable purpose as the application is out of the current income only. Hence, in view of the discussion made above, ground nos. 1, 2 and 4 of the appeal are dismissed, more so, when para 5.(i) of the trust deed dated 14.01.1978 only empowers the trustees to utilise the corpus fund for the specified purpose and does not grant any latitude to utilise the same for any outgo which would result in reduction of the capital of the trust.

16 ITA No. 257/Kol/2022 Oriental Charitable foundation, AY 2017-18

accordance with the objects pof the trust, the assessee’s claim is justified and the ground is allowed in favour of the assessee.

Order is pronounced in the open court on 4th July, 2024.

Sd/- Sd/- (Rajpal Yadav) (Rakesh Mishra) Vice President Accountant Member

Dated:4th July, 2024 JD, Sr. P.S. Copy to: 1. The Appellant: 2. The Respondent. 3. The CIT(E),Kolkata 4. CIT, 5. DR, ITAT, Kolkata Bench, Kolkata //True Copy// By Order

Assistant Registrar ITAT, Kolkata Benches, Kolkata