2025 (9) TMI 365 - AT - Income Tax

Trust allowed in principle to carry forward claimed deficit; dismissal for non-prosecution set aside, matter remitted for verification

G. Mallikarjunappa Halamma Trust Versus The Income Tax Officer (Exemptions), Exemption Ward-1, Bengaluru

G. Mallikarjunappa Halamma Trust Versus The Income Tax Officer (Exemptions), Exemption Ward-1, Bengaluru - TMI 1. ISSUES PRESENTED AND CONSIDERED 1. Whether a charitable trust is entitled to carry forward and set off a deficit arising from application of receipts where (a) receipts include voluntary contributions and (b) part of receipts has been applied towards acquisition of capital asset, and whether such deficit can be denied in absence of documentary proof of the source of funds. 2. Whether the appellate authority is empowered to dismiss an appeal for non-prosecution when the appellant has filed a statement of facts and the claim requires adjudication on merits. 2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS Issue 1 - Entitlement of charitable trust to carry forward deficit arising from application of receipts (revenue and capital application) Legal framework: The assessment of a charitable trust's total income includes consideration of receipts (voluntary contributions) and their application to charitable objects (revenue expenditure) or to capital application (purchase of land). Where application of receipts in the year results in a deficit, the law permits carry forward of deficits subject to proof and applicable judicial precedents interpreting charitable trust taxation principles. Precedent treatment: The Tribunal follows the binding guidance of the Supreme Court that, in principle, permits carry forward of deficits of an educational/charitable institution where the deficit arises from application of receipts to charitable objects and legitimate expenditure, subject to factual verification. Interpretation and reasoning: The facts show receipt of voluntary contribution and expenditure on charitable objects (revenue) and acquisition of land (capital). The AO in the assessment acknowledged in principle that the trust may be entitled to carry forward deficit but denied the claimed deficit due to lack of documentary proof of the source of certain deposits (alleged unsecured loan). The Tribunal reasons that if the capital expenditure (purchase of land) constitutes an application of income-i.e., properly recorded in books and supported by documentation-then a deficit arises which is allowable to be carried forward. The Tribunal therefore treats the trust as prima facie eligible for carry forward, subject to verification of source and genuineness of entries. Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - A charitable trust may be entitled to carry forward a deficit where receipts are applied to charitable objects and capital acquisition, provided the application is bona fide and supported by books and evidence; such entitlement is consistent with higher court authority. Obiter - Observations that the AO 'in principle' accepted entitlement but required proof are procedural remarks guiding remand rather than final adjudication. Conclusions: The assessee is prima facie eligible for carry forward of the deficit claimed, but the quantum and allowance are conditional on substantiation of the source of funds (e.g., documentary proof of unsecured loan) and verification by the assessing officer. The matter is remitted for examination of supporting evidence and computation in accordance with law. Issue 2 - Power of the appellate authority to dismiss appeal for non-prosecution where material facts/statements were on record Legal framework: An appellate authority is required to decide appeals on merits; while it may dismiss for non-prosecution in appropriate cases, it must ensure that dismissal does not preclude adjudication on substantive claims when material facts or statements have been filed that warrant consideration. Precedent treatment: The Tribunal treats as settled that dismissal solely for non-prosecution is inappropriate where an appellant has filed statements or documents that, if considered, could dispose of the appeal on merits; appellate authorities are duty-bound to decide contested issues rather than mechanically dismissing appeals. Interpretation and reasoning: The assessee had filed a statement of facts and the assessment order contained material admissions by the AO. The CIT(A) issued hearing notices and, on non-appearance, dismissed the appeal for non-response without adjudicating the substantive claim. The Tribunal finds this procedure improper because the appellate authority should still examine available material on record and decide on merits. The duty to adjudicate is emphasized even where the appellant fails to appear, particularly when the record contains documents necessitating a decision rather than mere dismissal. Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - An appellate authority is not empowered to dismiss an appeal for non-prosecution when material on record demands adjudication on merits; such dismissal is unsustainable in law. Obiter - The extent to which an adjudicating authority must call for further material when an appellant is non-responsive is fact-specific and requires balancing procedural fairness with judicial efficiency. Conclusions: The appellate order dismissing the appeal for non-prosecution is legally unsustainable where the assessee had filed a statement of facts and the record required consideration on merits. The matter must be remitted to the assessing officer for verification and fresh decision in accordance with law; the appellate authority ought to have considered the merits instead of mechanically dismissing the appeal. Cross-reference and remedial direction Given the interdependence of the issues, the Tribunal restores the matter to the file of the assessing officer to verify the computation of the deficit and the sources of funds (including alleged unsecured loans), applying the legal principle that bona fide application of receipts to charitable objects and capital can generate an allowable deficit to be carried forward, and ensuring compliance with the Supreme Court's guidance on such deficits; after verification, the AO must decide the allowance of deficit in accordance with law and the findings so made shall dictate the final tax consequence.