Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

6. By means of an order sheet entry dated 15-11-1999, the assessed was asked to show-cause as to why accumulation not be disallowed, since no specific object had been indicated in Form No. 10. Attention was invited to the judgment of the Hon'ble Calcutta High Court in the case of Director of IT (Exemption) v. Trustees of Singhania Charitable Trust (supra). In response to the show-cause the assessed replied that its facts were quite different to those prevailing in the case cited and the emphasis was on the fact that whereas in the case of Singhania Charitable Trust (supra), all the objects of the trust had been enumerated in Form No. 10, whereas in the assessed's case it was not so.

"I have examined the rival contentions-and have also perused minutely the orders passed by the learned members constituting the Division Bench. Both the learned Members have set out at length the facts of the case as also the scheme of the Act vis-a-vis the point under consideration. There is definitely a distinction between the two relevant provisions of the Act-one allowing accumulation up to 25 per cent of the income where the objects do not have to be specific and the other allowing accumulation up to 75 per cent of the income and the period of accumulation being as long as 10 years but setting out specific objects. In the present case, the assessed while applying for accumulation in Form No. 10 mentioned six objects out of 19 and a minute perusal of these shows with reference to p. 7 of the order of the learned accountant member that the first three broadly pertained to education since they mention about setting up of schools, colleges, libraries, reading rooms and hostels for boys and girls studying in schools and colleges, etc. The next three objects, i.e., 4, 5 and 6 are in the field of medical education and medical aid since these pertain to the setting up of health centres, nursing homes, maternity centers as also construction of dharamshalas or sarais in or around hospitals in Delhi or New Delhi to accommodate poor patients and their attendants. The setting out of six objects in the application for accumulation indicates due application of mind on the part of the trustees since they decided to confine themselves to two important aspects of charitable activities, i.e., education and medical aid, whereas in the trust deed there were 19 objects, some quite unconnected with the two categories in which the six objects can be categorized. In the judgment of the Calcutta High Court of Trustees of Singhania Charitable Trust case (supra) heavily relied upon by the revenue an the objects of the trust were mentioned in the application in Form No. 10 and their Lordships considering this aspect of the matter took the view that there was no preciseness or definiteness or specifics about the objects and these were general and vague. Their Lordships, however, did not rule out the plurality of the purposes for which accumulation was intended. In the present case, the learned accountant member has rightly held after considering the provisions of law, facts of the case, the decisions cited, and lastly, the judgment of the Hon'ble Calcutta High Court itself in the case of Trustees of Singhania Charitable Trust (supra) that the assessed was entitled to accumulate the funds as provided under section 11(2) of the Act since the application in Form No. 10 did mention specific objects/purposes for which the accumulation had been requested for. The learned counsel for the appellant, in my opinion, has rightly contended that it is not possible to specify the type of educational institution or medical institution which would be set up during the period of 10 years following and the assessed would be quite justified in making up its mind during the said long period and deciding at whatever stage it was feasible or practicable to work out the modalities vis-a-vis the type of institution which it wanted to set up and the nature of charitable activities which it wanted to engaged itself in. It has been noted by both the learned members of the Division Bench and on which there is no difference that the concession was provided by Act :

37. In the case of Sir Sobha Singh Pubhc Charitable Trust (supra), six objects out of 19 were listed in Form No. 10 and the learned Third Member took the view that the objects were specific and there was an application of mind on the part of the assessed-trust and there was a further reference to the relevant provisions of law pertaining to accumulation and what would be the effect if the funds are not utilized for the purposes for which these had been accumulated. The learned Third Member further observed that in the application seeking accumulation it would not be possible to set out anything with certainty vis-a-vis the type of institution, which would be set up or for that matter to detail the other connected activities. In the present case, the Commissioner (Appeals) has mentioned at quite a few places in his order that the money is not being sent for the purposes of which accumulation had been sought, but in our opinion, we need to concern ourselves only with the facts prevailing in the year under appeal vis-a-vis the question of accumulation. As noted from the copy of Form No. 10 placed at p. 25, the assessed has sought accumulation till the previous year ending 31-3-2002, and even as per the relevant provision of the Income Tax Act, i.e., section 11 read with its various sub-sections the assessed is not expected to show immediately as to how the money has been utilized and we keep in mind the specific provision which seeks to penalize the assessed in case the money is not spent in the manner in which it should have been so done within the period laid down and in that eventuality how it would be brought to tax. The law is quite clear as to what has to be done if the amount is spent in a manner different to the one for which a request for accumulation has been made and there is also another condition, namely, the mode in which the funds shall remain invested. Any violation of this clause also leads to adverse action on the part of the revenue. In concluding this aspect of the matter, we really wonder as to whether the Commissioner (Appeals) was justified in referring to the manner in which the money was spent by the assessed. No doubt, in the present case, there is material on record, which would show that substantial money had been paid for acquisition of land at Mohali for setting up a center, which according to the assessed is an educational center with a lot of facilities including computer facilities.

40. In our opinion, the aforesaid objects are quite categorical and specific and once again, we go back to the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Sir Sobha Singh Public Charitable Trust (supra) where six out of 19 objects were mentioned in Form No. 10 and on the basis of the detailed discussion (already reproduced earlier), the Tribunal allowed the benefit of accumulation and decided not to apply the judgment of the Hon'ble Calcutta High Court in the case of Singhania Charitable Trust (supra) and which is fact has been applied by the assessing officer as also by the Commissioner (Appeals) in the case of the present assessed. We hold likewise in the present appeal, i.e., the judgment of the Hon'ble Calcutta High Court (supra) is not applicable and the point at issue vis-a-vis the facts of the present case being squarely covered by the Third Member decision in the case of Sir Sobha Singh Public Charitable Trust (supra).