2025 (7) TMI 740 - AT - Income Tax

Trust wins appeal after wrongly including prior year charitable spending in current year calculations under section 11

Umakant Gajanan Foundation, Maharashtra. Versus The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1 (1), Pune.

The ITAT Pune allowed the assessee trust's appeal against disallowance under section 143(1) regarding exemption under section 11. The trust had shown Rs. ... Assessment of trust - exemption u/s 11 - disallowance made u/s.143(1) - Addition of expenditure in the audit report filed in Form 10BB but was not taken into account in computing the total income of the assessee - HELD THAT:- In the Return of Income in column number 6(i) the Assessee has categorically shown Rs. 10,37,511/- as amount applied during the previous year excluding deemed application, application out of previous years accumulation. Inspite of this clear fact mentioned in the Return of Income the CIT(A) observed that Rs. 2,64,260/- is included in the amount of Rs. 10,37,511/-. The Assessee had submitted before the CIT(A) that Rs. 2,64,260/- was the amount applied for charitable purpose out of the earlier year’s accumulation. The said fact is evident from the Audit Report of the Assessee,Column Number 27. The Audit report was filed by the assessee before filling the return of Income. Thus, the fact that Rs. 2,64,260/- was applied for charitable purpose out of the earlier years Accumulation is evident from the Return of Income and the Audit report. Therefore, the observation and finding of the Ld.CIT(A) is incorrect and factually wrong. Therefore, CIT(A) has erred in confirming the disallowance made u/s.143(1) of the Act. Therefore, the order of ld.CIT(A) is quashed. CPC had rectified the mistake and accepted the Return of Income showing NIL income. Thus, even the CPC has accepted that the adjustment made by the CPC vide order u/s.143(1) was incorrect and factually wrong. Grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed. The core legal questions considered in this appeal pertain to the correctness of the addition of Rs. 2,64,260/- to the total income of a charitable trust by the Assessing Officer via the Centralized Processing Center (CPC) under section 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The issues revolve around whether this amount was rightly disallowed as expenditure under section 11, whether it formed part of the current year's expenditure or was applied out of income accumulated in earlier years, and whether the appellate authorities properly appreciated the documentary evidence and audit report submitted by the assessee.Issue-wise detailed analysis:Issue 1: Whether the addition of Rs. 2,64,260/- by the CPC under section 143(1) was justifiedThe relevant legal framework involves section 11 of the Income Tax Act, which grants exemption to charitable trusts on income applied for charitable purposes during the previous year. The issue concerns the application of income accumulated in earlier years versus income of the current year. The CPC initially disallowed Rs. 2,64,260/- on the ground that this amount was indicated as a disallowance of expenditure in the audit report (Form 10BB) but was not accounted for in computing total income.The assessee contended that the amount was applied for charitable purposes out of income accumulated in the financial year 2019-20 and was not part of the current year's expenditure of Rs. 10,37,511/-. The audit report and the return of income clearly distinguished between current year expenditure and application of accumulated income. The CPC subsequently rectified its order under section 154, accepting the claim and restoring the total income to NIL.The appellate authority (Addl. CIT(A)) disagreed, holding that the amount of Rs. 2,64,260/- formed part of the total expenditure of Rs. 10,37,511/- and thus was not separately applied from accumulated income. The CIT(A) found the assessee's claim misleading and confirmed the disallowance.The Tribunal examined the return of income and audit report, noting that the amount of Rs. 2,64,260/- was reflected in the audit report under column 27A, which relates specifically to application of income out of accumulated income under section 11(2). The balance sheet showed a reduction of Rs. 2,64,260/- from the earmarked fund of Rs. 3,50,000/-, confirming the amount was applied from earlier years' accumulation, not current year income.The Tribunal concluded that the CIT(A) erred in treating the amount as part of the current year's expenditure. The CPC's initial disallowance was a mistake, subsequently rectified under section 154. The Tribunal held that the addition was unjustified and quashed the CIT(A)'s order confirming the addition.Issue 2: Whether the CIT(A) correctly interpreted the audit report and return of income regarding the expenditure and application of accumulated incomeThe audit report and return of income are critical evidence in determining the source of funds for the expenditure claimed. The assessee submitted that the amount of Rs. 2,64,260/- was separately reported as application from accumulated income, not included in the current year's expenditure figure of Rs. 10,37,511/-. The CIT(A) found otherwise, relying on the information furnished in the return and audit report to conclude that the amount was included in the total expenditure and thus disallowable.The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) failed to appreciate the clear demarcation in the audit report and return of income. The audit report's column 27A explicitly indicated the amount as application out of income accumulated under section 11(2). The balance sheet corroborated this by showing a corresponding reduction in the earmarked fund. The Tribunal emphasized that the CIT(A)'s interpretation was factually incorrect and not supported by documentary evidence.Therefore, the Tribunal held that the CIT(A)'s conclusion that the claim was misleading and that the amount was part of the current year's expenditure was erroneous.Issue 3: Whether the addition made under section 143(1) can be sustained in light of the rectification order passed by the CPC under section 154The CPC, after the assessee filed an application under section 154, rectified its earlier order by allowing the exemption claimed and restoring the total income to NIL. This rectification acknowledged the error in the initial disallowance of Rs. 2,64,260/-. The Tribunal noted that the rectification order was a binding correction of the mistake apparent from the record.The CIT(A) did not take this rectification into account fully, maintaining the disallowance. The Tribunal observed that the rectification by the CPC effectively nullified the addition and that the CIT(A)'s confirmation of the addition was therefore unsustainable.Issue 4: Whether the assessee is entitled to any cost against the Addl. CIT(A)The assessee sought appropriate costs against the Addl. CIT(A) for erroneous confirmation of the addition. However, during the hearing, the assessee's representative did not press this ground. The Tribunal accordingly dismissed this ground.Significant holdings include the following verbatim excerpts from the order:'It is clear that the amount of Rs. 2,64,260/- incurred out of the accumulated amount is not part of the total expenditure incurred out of the current year's income of Rs. 10,37,375/-. The learned CIT(A) has not appreciated that the amount of Rs. 2,64,260/- is not part of the amount of Rs. 10,37,511/- and hence, the finding arrived by him in para 5.11 is totally incorrect.''The fact that Rs. 2,64,260/- was applied for charitable purpose out of the earlier year's accumulation is evident from the Return of Income and the Audit report. Therefore, the observation and finding of the Ld.CIT(A) is incorrect and factually wrong.''The CPC vide its order dated 04/02/2025 had rectified the mistake and accepted the Return of Income showing NIL income. Thus, even the CPC has accepted that the adjustment made by the CPC vide order u/s.143(1) was incorrect and factually wrong.''Therefore, Ld.CIT(A) has erred in confirming the disallowance made u/s.143(1) of the Act. Therefore, the order of ld.CIT(A) is quashed.'Core principles established include:The application of income accumulated in earlier years for charitable purposes is distinct from the application of current year's income and must be separately identified and accounted for in the return and audit report.An addition under section 143(1) based on a mistaken interpretation of audit reports and returns can be rectified under section 154, and such rectification must be respected by appellate authorities.Appellate authorities must carefully scrutinize documentary evidence, including audit reports and balance sheets, before confirming additions or disallowances.Final determinations:The addition of Rs. 2,64,260/- made by the CPC under section 143(1) was unjustified and was correctly rectified by the CPC under section 154.The CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition, failing to appreciate the distinct treatment of income applied from accumulated funds versus current year's income.The appeal on grounds 1 to 6 is allowed, quashing the addition.The ground seeking costs is dismissed as not pressed.The appeal is partly allowed accordingly.