Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “C” BENCH : BANGALORE
Before: SHRI N.V. VASUDEVAN & SHRI ABRAHAM P.GEORGE
Per Bench These are appeals by the Assessee against common order dated 31.10.2014 of the CIT(Appeals), V, Bangalore relating to assessment years 2010-11 & 2011-12.
The first common issue that arises for consideration in these appeal is as to whether the CIT(Appeals) was right in directing the AO to allow depreciation on the capital assets, despite the fact that at the time when the capital assets were acquired, the same were treated as application of income in those years. The assessee is a charitable trust running educational institutions. In the course of assessment u/s. 143(3) of the Act for AY 2010-11 & 2011-12 the AO noticed from the details of depreciation claimed, that the depreciation was claimed on assets, the cost of acquisition of the said assets had been claimed by the assessee as capital expenditure towards application of funds towards the objects of the trust and allowed as such. According to the AO, allowing such a claim would amount to allowing double deduction. On the facts of the present case, he was of the view that the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Escorts Limited & another Vs. Union of India 199 ITR 43 is squarely applicable, wherein it has been categorically held that when deduction u/s 35(2)(iv) is allowed in respect of capital expenditure on scientific research, no depreciation is allowable u/s 32 on the same asset.
The assessee pointed out before CIT(A) that Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in the case of All Saints Church, 148 ITR 786 (Kar) and Society of Sisters of St. Ann, 146 ITR 28 (Kar) has taken the view that where capital expenditure on acquisition of depreciable asset is considered as application of income for charitable purpose, allowing depreciation on the very same capital asset would not amount to double allowance. The assessee also pointed out that the decision of Escorts Ltd. (supra) will not be applicable as it was rendered on a different set of facts.
The CIT(A) however, held that allowance of depreciation when the cost has already been recovered by way of exemption as application of income amounts to double deduction and double benefit on the same asset. The CIT(A) referred to the decision of the of Hon'ble High Court of Kerala in the case of DDIT(E) v. Lissie Medical Institutions, 348 ITR 344 (Ker) wherein it was held that allowing depreciation of a depreciable asset when the cost of acquisition of depreciable asset was allowed as application of income for charitable purpose amounts to double depreciation and therefore depreciation cannot be allowed. Aggrieved by the order of CIT(Appeals), the Assessee has preferred the present appeal before the Tribunal.
We have heard the rival submissions. We have heard the submissions of the ld. DR, who relied on the order of AO. He also placed reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of DIT(E) Vs. Charanjiv Charitable Trust (2014) Taxmann.com 300 (Delhi) wherein it was held that allowing depreciation on assets, the cost of acquisition of which was already considered as application of income is not permissible.
We have considered the order of the AO. Identical issue came up for consideration before ITAT Bangalore Bench in the case of DDIT(E) v.
Cutchi Memon Union (2013) 60 SOT 260 Bangalore ITAT, wherein similar issue has been dealt with by this Tribunal. In the aforesaid case, the assessee claimed depreciation and the AO denied depreciation on the ground that at the time of acquiring the relevant capital asset, cost of acquisition was considered as application of income in the year of its acquisition. The AO took the view that allowing depreciation would amount to allowing double deduction and placed reliance on the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Escorts Ltd. (supra). The CIT(A), however, allowed the claim of assessee. On further appeal by the Revenue, the Tribunal held as follows:-
“20. We have considered the rival submissions. If depreciation is not allowed as a necessary deduction for computing income of charitable institutions, then there is no way to preserve the corpus of the trust for deriving the income as it is nothing but a decrease in the value of property through wear, deterioration, or obsolescence. Since income for the purposes of section 11(1) has to be computed in normal commercial manner, the amount of depreciation debited in the books is deductible while computing such income. It was so held by the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Society of Sisters of St. Anne 146 ITR 28 (Kar). It was held in CIT vs. Tiny Tots Education Society (2011) 330 ITR 21 (P&H) , following CIT vs. Market Committee, Pipli (2011) 330 ITR 16 (P&H) : (2011) 238 CTR (P&H) 103 that depreciation can be claimed by a charitable institution in determining percentage of funds applied for the purpose of charitable objects. Claim for depreciation will not amount to double benefit. The decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Escorts Ltd. 199 ITR 43 (SC) have been referred to and distinguished by the Hon’ble Court in the aforesaid decisions. 21. The issue raised by the revenue in the ground of appeal is thus no longer res integra and has been decided by the Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of CIT v. Market Committee, Pipli, 330 ITR 16 (P&H). The Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court after considering several decisions on that issue and also the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Escorts Ltd. (supra), came to the conclusion that depreciation is allowable on capital assets on the income of the charitable trust for determining the quantum of funds which have to be applied for the purpose of trusts in terms of section 11 of the Act. The Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court made a reference to the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Escorts Ltd. (supra) and observed that the Hon’ble Supreme Court was dealing with a case of two deductions under different provisions of the Act, one u/s. 32 for depreciation and the other on account of expenditure of a capital nature incurred on scientific research u/s. 35(1)(iv) of the Act. The Hon’ble Court thereafter held that a trust claiming depreciation cannot be equated with a claim for double deduction. The Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court has also made a reference to the decision of the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the case of CIT v. Society of Sisters of Anne, 146 ITR 28 (Kar), wherein it was held that u/s. 11(1) of the Act, income has to be computed in normal commercial manner and the amount of depreciation debited in the books is deductible while computing such income. In view of the aforesaid decision on the issue, we are of the view that the order of the CIT(A) on the above issue does not call for any interference.
22. Consequently, ground No.5 raised by the revenue is dismissed.”
The decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Charanjiv Charitable Trust (supra) is contrary to the decision of the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of Society of Sisters of Anne (supra). We are bound to follow the view of the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court which is the jurisdictional High Court as far as the Bangalore Bench of ITAT is concerned. We therefore prefer to follow the decision of the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court.
We may also add that the legal position has since been amended by a prospective amendment by the Finance (No.2) Act, 2014 w.e.f. 1.4.2015 by insertion of sub-section (6) to section 11 of the Act, which reads as under:-
“(6) In this section where any income is required to be applied or accumulated or set apart for application, then, for such purposes the income shall be determined without any deduction or allowance by way of depreciation or otherwise in respect of any asset, acquisition of which has been claimed as an application of income under this section in the same or any other previous year.”
As already stated, the aforesaid amendment is prospective and will apply only from A.Y. 2015-16. In view of the above legal position, we are of the view that the order of the CIT(A) is not just and proper. The claim of the Assessee for deduction on account of depreciation is therefore directed to be allowed. Consequently the first issue is decided in favour of the Assessee.
The next issue raised by the Assessee in its grounds of appeal in the appeal relating to AY 2011-12 is with regard to disallowance of accumulation of income u/s 11(1)(a) of the Act. Sec.11(1)( a) of the Act provides as follows:
“11. (1) Subject to the provisions of sections 60 to 63, the following income shall not be included in the total income of the previous year of the person in receipt of the income — (a) income derived from property held under trust wholly for charitable or religious purposes, to the extent to which such income is applied to such purposes in India; and, where any such income is accumulated or set apart for application to such purposes in India, to the extent to which the income so accumulated or set apart is not in excess of fifteen per cent of the income from such property;”
The Assessee claimed accumulation of income for application for charitable purpose at 15% of the gross receipts amounting to Rs.47,19,039. The AO was of the view that accumulation will be allowed only to the extent of 15% of the income after revenue expenditure. In other words income to be set apart u/s.11(1)(a) of the Act has to be computed at 15% of the net income i.e., gross receipts minus revenue expenditure and not on the gross receipts as claimed by the Assessee. Since in the case of the Assessee, the gross receipts after revenue expenditure was nil, the AO denied the benefit of accumulation to the Assessee.
On appeal by the Assessee, the CIT(A) confirmed the order of the AO. Hence appeal by the Assessee before the Tribunal.
The issue to be decided is therefore as to whether for the purpose of computing accumulation of income of 15% under Sec.11(1)((a) of the Act, one has to take the gross receipts or gross receipts after expenditure for charitable purpose i.e., the net receipts. This is issue is no longer res integra and has been decided by the Special Bench Mumbai in the case of Bai Sonabai Hirji Agiary Trust Vs. ITO, 93 ITD 0070 (SB). The facts in the aforesaid case were that the assessee was a public charitable trust enjoying exemption under s. 11 of the IT Act. As per the requirement of s. 11(1) of the IT Act, as it prevailed at that point of time, the assessee had to apply 75 per cent of its income for the objects and purposes of the trust and the assessee was permitted to accumulate or set apart up to 25 per cent of its income, which was subject to fulfillment of other conditions. While calculating the aforesaid 25 per cent, the important question which arose was as to whether for this purpose, the gross income earned by the assessee is relevant or the income as computed in accordance with the provisions of IT Act. In other words, whether outgoings from out of gross income which are in the nature of application of income, should be first deducted from the gross income and 25 per cent of only the remaining amount should be allowed to be accumulated or set apart. The Special Bench of the ITAT on the issue held as follows:-
“9. Coming to the merits of the issue, we are of the view that the same is clearly covered by the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Programme for Community
Organization (supra). In the decision, their Lordships, after taking note of provisions of s. 11(1)(a), have held as under : "Having regard to the plain language of the above provision, it is clear that a charitable or religious trust is entitled to accumulate twenty-five per cent of its income derived from property held under trust. For the present purposes, the donations the assessee received, in the sum of Rs. 2,57,376, would constitute its property and it is entitled to accumulate twenty-five per cent thereout. It is unclear on what basis the Revenue contended that it was entitled to accumulate only twenty five per cent of Rs. 87,010.
For the aforesaid reasons, the civil appeal is dismissed."
It is clear from the above that deduction of twenty-five per cent was held to be allowable not on total income as computed under the IT Act. Any amount or expenditure, which was application of income, is not to be considered for determining twenty five per cent to be accumulated. Their Lordships, as noted earlier, affirmed the decision of Kerala High Court in (1997) 141 CTR (Ker) 502 : (1997) 228 ITR 620 (Ker) (supra) wherein it is held as under : "At the outset, the statutory language of s. 11(1)(a) of the IT Act, 1961, relates to the income derived by the trust from property. The trust is required to be wholly for charitable or religious purposes, and the income is expected to have relation to the extent to which such income is applied to such purposes in India. It is thereafter the statutory provision proceeds further that such income is not to be understood to be in excess of 25 per cent of the income from such properties. In other words, the very language of the statutory provision under consideration sets apart 25 per cent of the income from the source of property with reference to the extent to which such income is applied for such purposes, charitable or religious. In other words, for the purpose of s. 11(1)(a) of the Act, the income in terms of relevance would be the income of the trust from and out of which 25 per cent is set apart in accordance with the spirit of the statutory provision."
This means that, when it is established that trust is entitled to full benefit of exemption under s. 11(1), the said trust is to get the benefit of twenty-five per cent and this twenty-five per cent has to be understood as income of the trust under the relevant head of s. 11(1). In other words, income that is not to be included for the purpose of computing the total income would be the amount expended for purposes of trust in India. Their Lordships in the above case have emphasized on the clear and unambiguous language of s. 11(1)(a) and decided the matter on the basis of the same. It has been held that as per the statutory language of the above section the income which is to be taken for purpose of accumulation is the income derived by the trust from property. If both the decisions are carefully read, it becomes evident that any expenditure which is in the shape of application of income is not to be taken into account. Having found that trust is entitled to exemption under s. 11(1), we are to go to the stage of income before application thereof and take into account 25 per cent of such income. Their Lordships have pointed that the same has to be taken on "commercial" basis and not "total income" as computed under the IT Act. Their Lordships in the decided case rejected the contention of the Revenue that the sum of Rs 1,70,369 which was spent and applied by the assessee for charitable purposes was required to be excluded for purpose of taking amount to be accumulated. Having regard to the clear pronouncement of their Lordships of the Supreme Court, it is difficult to accept that outgoings which are in the nature of application of income are to be excluded. The income available to the assessee before it was applied is directed to be taken and the same in the present case is Rs. 3,42,174. Twenty five per cent of the above income is to be allowed as a deduction. Similar view has also been taken by the Hon’ble Madhya Pradesh High Court in Parsi Zorastrian Anjuman Trust vs. CIT (supra). No reason whatsoever has been given by the Revenue authorities for deducting Rs. 2,17,126 in this case for purposes of s. 11(1)(a). The decision cited on behalf of the Revenue did not take into account the decision of the Supreme Court referred to above. The circular of CBDT has also been considered by the Hon’ble Kerala High Court in its decision referred to above. Accordingly the question referred to is answered in the affirmative and in favour of the assessee.”
The aforesaid decision clearly supports the plea of the Assessee. Following the same, we hold that the accumulation u/s.11(1)(a) of the Act should be allowed as claimed by the Assessee.
In the result, the appeals by the Assessee are allowed.
Pronounced in the open court on this 23rd day of June, 2015.