Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

In view of the above, the only decision of High Court available on section 13 (2)(a) was of PT. Kanahyalal Punj Charitable Trust- 297 ITR 66 (Del) which is on the facts exactly similar to that of assessee, as in that case also advance of Rs. 75 lac was given to M/s Punj Lloyed Ltd. as earnest money for purchase of land for a school project and the amount was subsequently fully returned but the Hon'ble High Court held that the trust should use their funds only for the charitable object and they cannot be permitted to loan or deposit funds available with them without interest and without any adequate security. Thus there is clear violation of section 13(1)(c) and 13 (2)(a) of the I.T. Act. Therefore exemption u/s 11 & 12 is denied.

36. With regard to the allegation of the Assessing Officer that the President of the society was paid the amount for his personal benefit, we find from the copy of minutes of the meeting of the assessee society from 1994-95 onwards wherein as per resolution no. 4 advance was given for purchase of land and as per resolution no. 2 there was mention of cancellation of earlier land deal. We also find that copies of members register as well as the minutes of the meeting of the assessee society have been filed and reported before the Registrar of Firms and Societies, Government of Madhya Pradesh, wherefrom it is clear that the amount of advance to the President was for purchase of land for the society and not for his personal benefit as alleged by the Assessing Officer. However, without appreciating the material placed before him, the Assessing Officer has held that no land for purchase was arranged by the President though the above socalled land advance was given. The Assessing Officer also alleged that the then President was benefited by the advance amount of Rs. 41.75 lacs for his personal use. The Assessing Officer also stated that the then President not only retained the amount and socalled land advance for long time with him for his personal use but also did not pay any interest thereon. The learned Commissioner of Incometax (Appeals) in his order at pages 31, 33 and 33 has dealt with each and every objection and allegation of the Assessing Officer in his order and after giving detailed finding held that no advance was given to the President for his personal benefit but for the purpose of the society and that also for purchase of land. We also found that nothing positive was brought on record by the Assessing Officer to allege that any personal benefit was enjoyed by the President out of such advance. Since it was established that there was no personal advance to the President of the Society, there was no infringement of sections 13(1)©, 13(2)(a) and 13(3) of the Act. Accordingly, the case laws cited by the ld. CIT DR are not applicable to the facts of the instant case, wherein it was held that in case of any personal benefit to the trustees out of assets of the trust will attract the provisions of section 13(1)(c)/13(2)(a)/13(3) and the benefit of exemption will be withdrawn. Finding recorded by the learned Commissioner of Incometax (Appeals) was as per material placed on record, therefore, does not warrant any interference. Reliance was also placed by the learned Commissioner of Incometax (Appeals) on the decision of the Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court in the case of Cosmopolitan Education Society (supra) wherein it was held that if there was any mis-application of funds, action could lie against the person responsible but the charitable institution cannot be denied exemption which depends upon objects of the trust. This view of the Hon'ble High Court was upheld as the SLP filed by the department against the judgment was dismissed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court as reported in 241 ITR (St) 132. In view of this judgment, where there is misconduct on the part of the trustee, the charitable institution is certainly expected to take appropriate action against such trustee for recovery of the amount but that does not mean that the exemption granted to institution should be forfeited. Accordingly, the Assessing Officer was not justified in declining the claim of exemption u/s 11 to the assessee society.

39. The Assessing Officer has also disallowed various expenses on the allegation that these personal expenses of Shri J.K. Choksi and his family members in the assessment years 1998- 99, 1999-00, 2000-01 and 2001-02. In the assessment year 1998-99 the Assessing Officer has discussed the issue at pages 5 and 6 of the assessment order and the learned Commissioner of Incometax (Appeals) has discussed the same at pages 40 and 41 of his appellate order. The learned Commissioner of Incometax (Appeals) after discussing in detail Assessing Officer's observation vis-à-vis Inspector's report and the documents placed on record by the assessee to controvert the Assessing Officer's findings, which were also placed before the Assessing Officer, reached to the conclusion that the Assessing Officer was not justified in making the addition of Rs.1,23,217/- out of the expenses in the nature of salary, vehicle maintenance and depreciation, electricity and telephone on estimate. The learned Commissioner of Incometax (Appeals) also observed that reliance on the finding in the assessment order of H.K. Kalchuri trust for the assessment years 2002-03 and 2003-04 and the Inspector's report in that case, cannot be co- related with that of different facts and circumstances in the case of the assessee society. It was also observed that the Assessing Officer has made the addition on estimate basis and not by his specific findings in respect of particular item of expenses/purchases as not genuine in the assessee society's case. It was also observed that there is no adverse remark in the audited financial statement by the auditors of the assessee society for the current assessment year. Only due to the fact that the trust office was running from the premises of its Secretary, the Assessing Officer concluded that the expenses of Rs.1,23,217/- were personal in nature and for the benefit of the secretary/trustees. Since the Assessing Officer has made the addition on co- relation and estimate without bringing any specific finding of any particular expense nor any evidence to substantiate such finding to the effect that the expenses were incurred for the benefit of the trustee of the assessee society, the learned Commissioner of Incometax (Appeals) has deleted the same by relying upon the decision of the jurisdictional High Court in the case of Dev Radha Madhavlal ji Genda Trust; 251 ITR 531 wherein it was held that maintenance of trust property, payment to employees and other expenses are incidental and connected with the objects of the charitable trust. The same, therefore, cannot be disallowed. The learned Commissioner of Incometax (Appeals) has correctly applied the proposition of law as laid down by jurisdictional High Court to the facts of the instant case. No interference is, therefore, warranted in the findings and conclusion of the learned Commissioner of Incometax (Appeals). The facts and circumstances in the subsequent assessment years 1999-00, 2000-01 and 2001- 02 are the same, therefore, following the same reasoning and the findings recorded by the learned Commissioner of Incometax (Appeals), we confirm the action of the learned Commissioner of Incometax (Appeals) for deleting the disallowance of expenses.