2025 (10) TMI 1052 - AT - Income Tax

Revenue appeal dismissed; trust's exemption under Sections 11 and 12 upheld, 12A/12AB re-registration directed, res judicata applies

ITAT PUNE - AT dismissed the Revenue's appeal, upholding the CIT(A)'s allowance of the trust's exemption claim under sections 11 and 12 and overturning ... Denial of benefit of exemption u/s 11 and 12 - violation of provisions of section 13 - show cause notice seeking an explanation from the assessee as to why the benefit of exemption may not be disallowed and income may not be assessed as an AOP if violation of the provisions of section 13(1)(c)(ii) and section 13(2)(b) of the Act exists in AY 2017-18 under consideration - HELD THAT:- Undisputedly, the assessee is a charitable trust duly registered u/s 12A of the Act. AO completed the assessment u/s 143(3) denying the exemption claimed u/s 11 and 12 of the Act by invoking the provisions of section 13(1)(c) of the Act and treated the assessee as an AOP. On appeal, the CIT(A) allowed the claim of the assessee for the reasons reproduced in the preceding paragraphs. It has been brought to our attention that the Ld. CIT(Exemption) vide his order dated 30.06.2024 passed u/s 12AB(4) of the Act cancelled the registration u/s 12A against which the assessee filed an appeal before Pune Tribunal in [2025 (5) TMI 200 - ITAT PUNE] It is on account of this order of cancellation of registration that the Revenue has preferred the present appeal. We find that the Co-ordinate Bench of the Pune Tribunal vide order [SUPRA] decided the impugned issue pertaining to the cancellation of the registration by the Ld. CIT(Exemption) in favour of the assessee. The Tribunal in the said decision has held that the Ld. CIT(Exemption) was not justified in cancelling the registration u/s 12A and 12AB(1)(ac)(i) of the Act and has set aside the cancellation order and directed the Ld. CIT(Exemption) to grant registration to the assessee. Whether CIT(A) has erred in holding that the terms of the trust deed permit leasing of the property of the trust to specified persons as part of a municipal restructured arrangement? - Ground No. 2 is covered by the decision of the Co-ordinate Bench the Pune Tribunal in assessee’s own case for AY 2010-11 [2017 (6) TMI 1369 - ITAT PUNE] which has been duly considered by the Ld. CIT(A) in his appellate order, the relevant portion of which is extracted above in para 3 of this order. On further appeal, the Hon'ble Bombay High Court has dismissed the appeal of the Revenue in [2022 (8) TMI 1598 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] holding that no substantial question of law arises as the issue is covered by the judgement of Audyogik Shikshan Mandal [2018 (12) TMI 1344 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] CIT(A) has given cogent reasons with facts available on the records and legal backing to negate the observations and findings of the Ld. AO. The issue involved in the present appeal is no longer re-integra. Identical facts were examined in the past year as well and the judicial consensus is that the assessee is eligible to be assessed as trust and consequently claim of exemption u/s 11 and 12 of the Act. Appeal of the Revenue is dismissed. 1. ISSUES PRESENTED AND CONSIDERED 1. Whether the trust is disqualified from exemption under sections 11 and 12 of the Income-tax Act by reason of breach of section 13(1)(c)(ii) and section 13(2)(b) on account of leasing trust property to persons referred to in section 13(3) (trustees) or restricting benefits to specific communities. 2. Whether the proviso to section 13(1)(c)(ii) (relief for trusts created before commencement of the Act for use of trust property by trustees/legal heirs) applies where the trust deed purportedly authorises such use and the identified property has undergone municipal re-structuring / re-surveying. 3. Whether municipal re-structuring or change in survey/plan numbers affects identification of property covered by the original trust deed for purposes of the proviso to section 13(1)(c)(ii). 4. Whether cancellation of registration under section 12AB(4) / 12A by the tax authorities (CIT Exemptions) estops the trust from claim to exemption for the assessment years under consideration, in view of prior consistent assessments and appellate decisions. 5. Whether prior coordinate-bench and higher-court treatment of identical facts (including directions to verify which portions of property were in possession of settlor/author at time of execution) binds determination in the present assessment years (principles of consistency / law of the case). 2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS Issue 1: Disqualification under section 13(1)(c)(ii) and section 13(2)(b) for leasing to trustees / restricting benefits to particular community Legal framework: Section 13(1)(c)(ii) excludes exemption under sections 11-12 where income or property of a trust is used for benefit of persons referred to in section 13(3); section 13(2)(b) deems income applied for benefit of such persons where trust property is made available without adequate rent/compensation. Section 13(1)(b) addresses trusts created for benefit of particular religious community or caste. Precedent treatment: The Tribunal relied on earlier coordinate-bench decisions in the assessee's own case and higher-court treatment where, on substantially identical facts, relief was granted. The coordinate bench and High Court rulings were followed by the Tribunal here. Interpretation and reasoning: The Tribunal examined the trust deed (date 1930) and prior factual findings; it found no material change in facts for the years in issue. Applying the legal provisions, the Tribunal accepted that where the trust deed, operative before the Act, authorises certain use by trustees/legal heirs, mere leasing consistent with that deed does not ipso facto amount to benefit in contravention of section 13. The record showed the trustees were entitled to occupancy/use under the deed and that any payments made (or the manner of occupation) did not result in benefit flowing in breach of section 13. Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - on the facts, leasing to trustees that is in accordance with mandatory terms of a pre-Act trust deed does not attract disqualification under section 13(1)(c)(ii) and section 13(2)(b). Obiter - general observations on adequacy of rent or administrative practices not necessary to decide the specific factual entitlement. Conclusions: The Tribunal concluded the trust did not violate section 13(1)(c)(ii) / 13(2)(b) for the assessment years under consideration and therefore remained eligible for exemption under sections 11 and 12. Issue 2: Applicability of proviso to section 13(1)(c)(ii) for trusts created before commencement of the Act and identification of property Legal framework: The second proviso to section 13(1)(c) protects trusts created or established before commencement of the Act where use/application of property for benefit of persons referred in section 13(3) relates to any period before 1-6-1970; the proviso requires that the use/application be in conformity with the trust deed. Precedent treatment: The Tribunal applied its earlier findings in the assessee's own appeals and relied on judicial guidance that where a pre-Act trust deed manifests entitlement of trustees/author's heirs to occupy/use specific parts of property, the proviso must be applied to preserve exemption if the trust acts within those deed-mandated terms. Interpretation and reasoning: The Tribunal analysed the trust deed clauses and municipal records (old and new building plans, resolutions regarding re-building/restructuring). It found that the shops in dispute were part of the same trust property in substance despite re-surveying; the trustees' entitlement to use those parts (as per trust deed and subsequent rebuilding documents) brought the situation within the proviso. Further, the Tribunal found the Assessing Officer's reliance on the literal absence of shop descriptions in the 1930 deed was insufficient where restructuring/rebuilding evidence established continuity of substantive property rights. Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - in cases of pre-Act trusts, re-structuring/renumbering of property will not defeat the proviso where contemporaneous documentary evidence (rebuilding resolutions, municipal tax records, plans) establishes that the disputed parts are in substance the property envisaged by the trust deed. Obiter - procedural criticisms of the Assessing Officer's fact-finding practices. Conclusions: The proviso to section 13(1)(c)(ii) was held applicable; the disputed shops formed part of the trust property substantively and their use by trustees was within deed-mandated rights, negating the alleged breach. Issue 3: Effect of municipal re-structuring / change of survey numbers on property identification Legal framework: The substantive test is whether the property in current form corresponds to the property and rights created by the trust deed; change of survey/plan numbers or rebuilding does not automatically alter substantive title or the application of deed terms. Precedent treatment: The Tribunal followed its prior directions that the Assessing Officer must ascertain which parts of property were in possession of the author at the time of the trust and examine municipal/structural documents to map old to new configurations. Interpretation and reasoning: The Tribunal found that evidence of rebuilding, reallocation of areas, and municipal tax receipts in the trust's name established that the shops were part of the property in substance. The Assessing Officer's narrow reliance on the literal absence of shop descriptions in the old deed was rejected as inconsistent with prior Tribunal directions and documentary evidence. Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - property re-numbering/restructuring does not preclude treating restructured portions as the same trust property if documentary evidence demonstrates continuity; Assessing Officer must follow directed factual verification. Obiter - admonition that mere academic adjudication in disregard of evidence is improper. Conclusions: Municipal re-structuring did not sever the trust's claim; the shops constituted part of the trust property in substance and were covered by the trust deed entitlements. Issue 4: Effect of cancellation of registration under section 12AB(4) / 12A on entitlement where prior consistent assessments and appellate decisions exist Legal framework: Registration under section 12A/12AB and its cancellation are separate administrative actions; judicial principles of consistency, law-of-the-case, and the prohibition on revenue 'flip-flop' were applied. Precedent treatment: The Tribunal relied on coordinate-bench rulings in the assessee's own case and on higher judicial principles that where a fundamental aspect persists across assessment years and prior decisions were accepted or not successfully contested, the Revenue cannot adopt a contradictory stance without material change. Interpretation and reasoning: The Tribunal noted the cancellation by CIT (Exemptions) had itself been the subject of a separate Tribunal hearing (coordinate bench) which set aside the cancellation and directed restoration of registration. Given that finding and the absence of any material change in facts for the years under appeal, the Tribunal invoked principles of consistency and prior binding treatment to reject the Revenue's renewed contention. The Tribunal cited authority that revenue should not be permitted to change positions across years where no change in fact or law justifies it. Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - in presence of prior favourable and unchallenged (or unsuccessfully challenged) determinations on the same fundamental facts, cancellation of registration cannot be used to reopen and nullify long-standing treatment absent material change; the Tribunal must follow its coordinate-bench decision on the cancellation. Obiter - broader commentary on litigation conduct by Revenue. Conclusions: The cancellation did not justify denial of exemption for the assessment years; the coordinate-bench setting aside of cancellation and the absence of fresh material led to dismissal of Revenue's challenge. Issue 5: Binding effect of prior coordinate-bench and higher court decisions; application of consistency / law of the case Legal framework: Principles that each assessment year is distinct but where a fundamental fact permeates years and parties have acquiesced, successive inconsistent positions are impermissible; doctrine of consistency and related authorities were applied. Precedent treatment: The Tribunal followed its own coordinate-bench decisions in the assessee's favour and noted the High Court's dismissal of Revenue's appeal challenging earlier Tribunal findings, treating those authorities as controlling on the identical factual matrix. Interpretation and reasoning: The Tribunal observed that the factual matrix remained unchanged across years; reliance on earlier orders and settled treatment of the trust's activities meant Revenue's renewed contrary stance amounted to impermissible change of opinion absent new material. The Tribunal therefore gave weight to prior decisions and held the issue not re-openable on identical facts. Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - where identical facts recur and prior Tribunal/High Court findings exist, those findings will govern subsequent assessment years unless there is material change; this principle was decisive here. Obiter - observations on broader policy against multiplicity of litigation. Conclusions: Prior decisions bind the present appeals; Revenue's grounds were dismissed and the Tribunal affirmed entitlement to be assessed as a trust (not as an AOP) with exemption under sections 11 and 12. Disposition: The appeals by Revenue for the two assessment years were dismissed and the CIT(A)'s allowance of exemption was upheld, the Tribunal following coordinate-bench findings and the absence of any contrary material warranting departure from prior determinations.