Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

4. The Ld. Sr. Counsel appearing for the assessee relied upon the order passed by the Ld. CIT(A). He further referred the Provision of Sec. 25 of the Pandit Deendayal Petroleum University Act, 2007 whereby and whereunder the appellant was made liable to invest funds time to time for the development of the Pandit Deendayal Petroleum University. Further thathe relied upon the judgment passed by the jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT vs. Sarladevi Sarabhai Trust No. 2 reported in 1988 40 taxman 388 (Gujarat), where the Board's instruction dated 05.01.1978 has been taken case of. In terms of the said instruction though the assessee is spending amount to another charitable trust for utilization of the donee trust towards its charitable objects, the same is proper application of income for charitable purpose in the hands of the donee trust and the donor trust will not lose its explanation under section 11 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

5. We have heard the respective parties and also perused the relevant materials available on records. It appears that during the course of assessment proceeding it was found that the assessee claimed capital expenditure on an amount of Rs. 46,86,14,891/- in the statement of income as expenditure incurred for charitable purpose u/s. 11 of the Act. It is relevant to mention that the assessee is a society registered u/s. 12AA of the Act; has been promoted by Gujarat State Petroleum Corporation Ltd. and Pandit Deendayal Petroleum University (PDPU) has been established by the Gujarat Act No. 14 of 2007 which has been notified in the Official Gazette of 14.04.2007. It further appears that in respect of the query by and under the notice u/s. 142(1) dated 12.11.2012 as to how the capital expenditure was treated as applied for charitable purposes, the appellant furnished the DCIT vs.Gujarat Energy Research and Management Institute Asst.Year -2010-11 details of expenditure which was incurred on the universitie's assets. It was further clarified that both the appellant and the said university are two separate entities and are filing separate income tax returns and annual accounts accordingly. In terms of the provision of Pandit Deendayal Pandit University Act, 2007 the appellant has been authorized to appoint the president of the university, one of the member of Board of Governors of the university and one of the members of the Finance Committee of the said the university. In order to achieve the object of education, training and research requirement of energy section i.e. oil and gas sector both the organizations are having common agenda towards it having charitable cause for people at large. The appellant has made some payment directly for construction of U. G. Hostel building and upon completion of the construction the said building has been transferred to the appellant. In fact the appellant has set up the university on the plot of land at Gandhinagar which is recognised not only in India but also across the countries and the appellant has started its expansion activities at universitie's campus which is having a full-fledged university of international standards. Moreso, Sec. 25 of the Pandit Deendayal Petroleum University Act specifies that the appellant is to make payment to the university from time to time such sums of money and in such manner as may be considered necessary for the exercise of powers and discharge of its functions by the university by or under the said Act. We thus find no force in the submission made by the Ld. DR. When the appellant thus has incurred expenditure on the asset of another charitable trust having identical object that too in terms of a statutory provision how the question of violation of the provision of Sec. 11 of the Act can be raised. Withdrawal of exemption u/s. 11 on this ground, thus, is not sustainable.

13. The word "applicable" is not defined by the Act. The dictionary meaning of the term "apply" as given in Chambers' 20th Century Dictionary, amongst others is "to put to use". It cannot be gainsaid that the assessee had made use of is income for the purpose of making it available to another trust, objects of which were also of charitable or religious nature. Consequently, it cannot be said that the assessee-trust had not complied with the provisions of section 11 when it made a donation out of its income in favour of the donee trust which was also a religious and charitable trust. However, Mr. Soparkar, for the Revenue, submitted that the assessee-trust itself could not have earned exemption under section 11(1) if it had blocked its income and had not spent it for the purposes for which it was created. In that connection, he invited our attention to section 11(1)(a) itself and submitted that the maximum income which can be accumulated would be 25% of the income of such property and not more than that. This contention of the learned advocate for the Revenue is met by Mr. Patel, appearing for the assessee. He invited our attention to sub-

- 10 -

"A question has been raised regarding the availability of exemption in the hands of charitable trusts of amounts paid as donation to other charitable trusts.

The issue has been considered by the Board and it has been decided that as the law stands at present, the payment of a sum by one charitable trust to another for utilisation by the donee trust towards its charitable objects is proper application of income for charitable purpose in the hands of the donee trust; and the donor trust will not lose exemption under section 11 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, merely because the donee trust did not spend the donation during the year of receipt itself.