Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 12, Cited by 1]

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Delhi

Sh. Roop Kishore Madan, New Delhi vs Dcit, New Delhi on 11 August, 2017

            IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
                  DELHI BENCH: 'B' NEW DELHI

      BEFORE SHRI R.S. SYAL, HON'BLE VICE PRESIDENT
                             &
          SHRI K.N. CHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER

                       ITA No.-4774/Del/2013
                     (Assessment Year: 2008-09)
ACIT                    vs Dev Charitable Educational Trust
Circle 1                    Shambhu Nagar
Meerut                      Baghpat Road
                            Meerut
                            AABTD1912B

           Assessee by          Sh. V. Raja Kumar, Adv.
           Revenue by           Sh. Anshu Prakash, Sr. DR

                    Date of Hearing         07.08.2017
                 Date of Pronouncement      11.08.2017

                                    ORDER

PER SHRI K.N. CHARY, J.M.

This is an appeal challenging the order dated 28.05.2013 in appeal no. 670/255/2010-11/Noida passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Noida, U.P. (for short hereinafter called "Ld. CIT(A)").

2. Briefly stated facts are that the assessee is a Trust, registered under the Registration Act, 1908. The main object of the trust is educational and other charitable activities of general public utility. 2 ITA No. 4774/Del/2013 For the AY 2008-09 they have filed their return of income on 10.11.2008 showing a loss of Rs. 1,40,65,747/- but during the 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short hereinafter called "the Act") proceedings AO disallowed the same on the ground that the loss claimed by the assessee was in fact on account of the capital expenditure in purchase of land at Village Panchli Khurd, Meerut and the commercial principle of accounting provide for deduction of the expenses of Revenue nature only. Appeal preferred by the assessee was allowed by the Ld. CIT (A) by following a catena of decisions to say while applying the receipts of the Trust for its objects if any deficit occurs on account of capital expenditure, the same can be allowed to be carried forward to subsequent years to be set off against the receipts of the years.

3. Aggrieved by the said findings of the Ld. CIT (A) the Revenue is in appeal before us on the following grounds:

1. "Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT (A) has erred in law in allowing the loss of Rs. 1,40,65,747/- claimed by the assessee trust on account of capital expenditure incurred during the year, ignoring the commercial principles according to which capital expenditure account at all and hence, capital loss cannot be allowed to be carried forward for set off against future income.
2. Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT (A) has erred in law in allowing the loss of Rs. 1,40,65,747/- claimed 3 ITA No. 4774/Del/2013 by the assessee trust relying upon the various decisions as mentioned in the appellant order whereas the said decision relate to some other distinguishable points i.e. allowability of brought forward business losses worked out according to commercial principles and not with the carry forward of losses on account of capital expenditure.
3. Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT (A) has erred in law in allowing the loss of Rs. 1,40,65,747/- claimed by the assessee trust without rebutting the AO's finding that the loss claimed by the assessee was due to capital expenditure as admitted and mentioned by the assessee itself in computation of income enclosed with the return.
4. That the appellant craves leave to add, modify and/or delete any grounds of appeal.
5. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) may be set aside and that of the AO restored."

4. Insofar as the facts are concerned, absolutely there is no dispute. As a matter of fact Ld. AO, in his order, observed that the objects of the trust as revealed by the copy of the trust deed are mainly educational and other charitable activities of general public utility, and the activities of the trust were found to be within its bye-laws, genuine and charitable in nature. Only ground on which the AO rejected the computation of income as furnished by the assessee is that the computation of any loss on account of expenditure of capital nature and deduction claimed u/s 11 of the Act cannot be allowed as per the provisions of the Income Tax Act.

5. Before us the assessee relied upon a catena of decisions including (i) ACIT vs. Devendra Kumar Garg Charitable Trust in 4 ITA No. 4774/Del/2013 ITA No. 4118/Del/13 for AY 2008-09 dated 29.03.2015, (ii) Devendra Kuamr Garg Charitable Trust & Ors. Vs. ACIT in ITa No. 3030, 3032, 3031 & 3028/Del/15 dated 27.07.2015, (iii) Addl. CIT vs. City Educational & Social Welfare Society ITA No. 5627/Del/10 for AY 2005-06 dated 26.08.2011, (iv) ACIT vs. City Educational & Social Welfare Society in ITA No. 4119/D/13 for AY 08-09 dated 20.03.2015, (v) Addl. CIT vs. Subharti KKB Charitable Trust in ITA No. 1553/Del/11 for AY 06-07 dated 11.05.2012, (vi) DIT vs. Raghuvanshi Charitable Trust (2011) 197 Taxman 170 (Del), (vii) City Educational and Social Welfare Society & Ors. Vs. Addl. CIT in ITA No. 4056 & 4326/Del/14 for AY 09-10 dated 10.08.2015,

(viii) M.J. Charitable Trust vs. Addl. CIT in ITA No. 5549/Del/14 for AY 09-10 dated 29.02.2016, (ix) M.J. Charitable Trust vs. ACIT, Meerut in ITA No. 3526/Del/15 for AY 2010-11 dated 16.12.2016 and (x) Fateh Chand Charitable Trust vs. ACIT, Meerut in ITA No. 1665/Del/12 for AY 2006-07. On a careful perusal of the decisions, we find that in these matters the issue involved was that whether any loss occasioned due to the deficit occurred on account of application of the receipts of the trust for 5 ITA No. 4774/Del/2013 acquiring capital asset to further the objects of the trust could be allowed to be carried forward.

6. We found that the issue involved in this appeal is very similar to the grounds raised in ACIT, Circle-1 Vs M/s Devendra Kumar Garg Charitable Trust, ITA No. 4118/Del/2013 (Assessment Year 2008-09) reads as follows:-

"1. Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT (Appeals) has erred in law in allowing the loss of Rs.4,75,54,136/- claimed by the assessee trust on a/c of capital expenditure incurred during the year, ignoring the commercial principles according to which capital expenditure does not relate to income & expenditure account at all and hence, capital loss cannot be allowed to be carried forward for set off against future income.
2. Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT (Appeals) has erred in law in allowing the loss of Rs. 4,75,54,136/- claimed by the assessee trust relying upon the various decisions as mentioned in the appellate order whereas the said decisions relate to some other distinguishable points i.e. allowability of brought forward business losses worked out according to commercial principles and not with the carry forward of losses on a/c of capital expenditure.
3. Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT (Appeals) has erred in law in allowing the loss of Rs.4,75,54,136/- claimed by the assessee trust without rebutting the AO's finding that the loss claimed by the assessee was due to capital expenditure as admitted and mentioned by the assessee itself in computation of income enclosed with the return.
4. That the appellant craves leave to add, modify and/or delete any ground(s) of appeal.
6 ITA No. 4774/Del/2013

7. While answering the issue involved in the above grounds, the Tribunal in the course of the order observed as follows:

6. We have heard rival submissions and perused the material on record.

The solitary issue that arises for our consideration is whether the CIT(A) is justified in allowing the benefit of carried forward of loss. The Assessing Officer held that the loss suffered was on account of capital expenditure and as such same cannot be allowed to be carried forward to subsequent years. This issue according to us is no longer res integra. The Delhi Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Addl. CIT Vs. M/s City Educational & Social Welfare Society (supra) had held that the assessee is entitled to carry forward the losses against the subsequent year's surplus. The relevant findings of the coordinate Bench order reads as follows:-

"5.......The CIT(A) has made a reference in those assessment years to section 11(4) of the Income-tax Act. In the case of CIT Vs. Institute of Banking reported in 264 ITR page 110 an argument was raised before the Hon'ble Mumbai High Court by the revenue that in the case of a charitable trust, their income was assessable under self contained code mentioned in section 11 to 13 of Income- tax Act and that the income of the charitable trust was not assessable under the head "profit and gains of business" u/s 28 in which the provision for carry forward of losses was relevant. According to the revenue, there was no provision for carry forward of the excess of expenditure of earlier years to be adjusted against the income of subsequent years. This argument was rejected by the Bombay High Court and it has been held that 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 religious purpose in the earlier years against the income earned by the trust in the subsequent year will have to be regarded as application of the income of the trust for charitable and religious purpose. The learned CIT(A) has followed this decision apart from others referred above......"

6. In result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed."

7. In view of the above order of the Tribunal, we hold the CIT(A) is justified in allowing the claim of the assessee to carry forward the losses 7 ITA No. 4774/Del/2013 of the current year against surplus of the subsequent year. It is ordered accordingly.

8. In view of this established position of law as we delineate from the decisions referred to above, we are of the considered opinion that there is nothing illegal or irregular in the Ld. CIT(A) finding that the income of the trust is to be computed on commercial principles and in case excess expenditure over and above the income received by the Society has been incurred in earlier year(s) on charitable purpose, such excess (loss) has to be carried forward and set off against the subsequent year's surplus, if any, and such adjustment of deficit/loss of current year against income/surplus of subsequent year would amount to application of income of the trust for charitable purpose in subsequent year within the meaning of section 11(i)(a) of the Act. We accordingly confirm the impugned order and dismiss the grounds of appeal.

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on 11.08.2017 Sd/- Sd/-

       (R.S. SYAL)                           (K. NARSIMHA CHARY)
   VICE PRESIDENT                              JUDICIAL MEMBER
Dated: 11.08.2017
*Kavita Arora
                                     8
                                               ITA No. 4774/Del/2013



Copy forwarded to:
1.  Appellant
2.  Respondent
3.  CIT
4.  CIT(Appeals)
5.  DR: ITAT
                     TRUE COPY

                                            ASSISTANT REGISTRAR
                                                 ITAT NEW DELHI

                     Draft dictated on                09.08.2017
                     Draft placed before author       10.08.2017
                     Draft proposed & placed before
                     the second member
                     Draft discussed/approved by      11.08.2017
                     Second Member.
                     Approved Draft comes to the      11.08.17
                     Sr.PS/PS
                     Kept for pronouncement on        11.08.17
                     File sent to the Bench Clerk     11.08.17
                     Date on which file goes to the
                     AR
                     Date on which file goes to the
                     Head Clerk.
                     Date of dispatch of Order.