Reassessment quashed as trust's Form 10 and resolution satisfy section 11(2); AO cannot deny exemption

HC quashed the reassessment proceedings, holding that the assessee-trust had duly complied with section 11(2) of the Income-tax Act. The trust had specified the particular purposes of accumulation in Form 10 by expressly referring to a resolution, and had also electronically filed a copy of that resolution, which formed part of the assessment record. HC held that the limited space in Form 10 and the statutory format justified referring to the resolution instead of reproducing all purposes. Once section 11(2) conditions are fulfilled, the AO has no discretion to deny the exemption. The reasons recorded for reopening, alleging non-compliance, were found erroneous and invalid.

---

---

1. ISSUES PRESENTED AND CONSIDERED

(1) Whether the assessee-trust had complied with the mandatory conditions of section 11(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 read with Rule 17 of the Income-tax Rules, 1962 for valid accumulation of income for assessment year 2018-19.

(2) Whether, in the facts of this case, any income could be said to have "escaped assessment" on account of alleged non-compliance with section 11(2), so as to justify initiation and continuation of reassessment proceedings under sections 148A(b), 148A(d) and 148 of the Act.

2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS

Issue (1): Compliance with section 11(2) read with Rule 17 and Form No. 10

Legal framework (as discussed by the Court)

(a) Section 11(2), as applicable for A.Y. 2018-19, permits accumulation/set apart of income not applied in the previous year, subject to the following conditions:

    (i) Furnishing a statement in the prescribed form and manner to the Assessing Officer stating (A) the purpose for which the income is being accumulated or set apart, and (B) the period of accumulation (not exceeding five years).

    (ii) Investment/deposit of such accumulated income in the modes specified in section 11(5).

    (iii) Furnishing the prescribed statement on or before the due date under section 139(1).

(b) Rule 17 (pre-amendment, applicable for the year in question) provides:

    (i) The statement under section 11(2) shall be in Form No. 10.

    (ii) Form No. 10 shall be furnished before expiry of the time allowed under section 139(1) for filing the return.

    (iii) Form No. 10 is to be furnished electronically under digital signature or electronic verification code; the format, data structure and constraints of the e-form are prescribed by the Systems Directorate.

Interpretation and reasoning

(c) The Court noted it was undisputed that:

    (i) The assessee filed Form No. 10 electronically on or before the section 139(1) due date for A.Y. 2018-19.

    (ii) The income accumulated/set apart was for charitable purposes in India within the trust's objects.

(d) The assessee's Form No. 10, filed electronically, stated the purpose of accumulation as "AS PER THE OBJECTS OF THE TRUST" and, in the body of the form, expressly referred to a trustees' resolution dated 20 September 2018, reciting that out of the income for the relevant previous year Rs. 1,00,00,000 would be accumulated or set apart for the purposes of the trust/institution/association.

(e) The referenced resolution dated 20 September 2018, which was uploaded on the income-tax portal along with Form No. 10, specified three distinct purposes of accumulation, namely: (i) education, (ii) provision of housing facilities to Parsi Zoroastrians, and (iii) financial assistance to needy Parsi Zoroastrians to enable them to pay rents/charges, etc., for occupied premises. These were found to be specific, multiple, charitable purposes falling within the trust's objects.

(f) The Court emphasised that the statutory Form No. 10 itself contemplates the assessee referring to a resolution of the trustees as the basis for accumulation and expressly requires disclosure of the date of such resolution. Given that the form is a prescribed e-form with limited space (about 400 characters) in the field meant to state the "purpose for which the amount is being accumulated or set apart", the assessee cannot enlarge that field and must utilise the structure of the form, including reference to an external resolution, to fully specify the purpose.

(g) On this basis, the Court held that stating "AS PER THE OBJECTS OF THE TRUST" in the purpose-box of Form No. 10, coupled with an express reference in the form to the specific resolution and the fact that such resolution (setting out the three concrete purposes) was available on the portal and on the assessment record, satisfied the statutory requirement of "stating the purpose" under section 11(2)(a) read with Rule 17.

(h) The Court found the assertion in the reassessment notice and in the section 148A(d) order-that the assessee had merely repeated the objects of the trust and had not specified any particular purpose-to be factually incorrect, because:

    (i) The purposes were specifically set out in the trustees' resolution referred to in, and filed with, Form No. 10.

    (ii) The format of Form No. 10 itself envisages such reference to a resolution, and the assessee had complied with that format.

(i) The Court also rejected as irrelevant and contrary to the record the averment in the Revenue's affidavit that the assessee had never produced the resolution during the original assessment or along with Form No. 10, because it was undisputed that the resolution was on the departmental electronic record and explicitly referred to in Form No. 10.

(j) On the objection that the trustees' resolution was not passed before the end of the previous year, the Court accepted the assessee's submission that:

    (i) There is no requirement under the Act or Rules that the resolution be passed before 31 March of the relevant year.

    (ii) Section 11(2)(c), read with Rule 17 (pre-2023), only requires that Form No. 10 be furnished on or before the section 139(1) due date and that the resolution be in place before filing Form No. 10. This requirement was fulfilled: the resolution is dated 20 September 2018 and Form No. 10 was e-filed on 29 September 2018 within the due date.

(k) The Court held that the assessee had therefore complied with all identified statutory conditions under section 11(2) and Rule 17 for valid accumulation.

Conclusions on Issue (1)

(l) Form No. 10, read with and by express reference to the trustees' resolution, constituted a valid and complete statement of the purposes of accumulation and the relevant period within the meaning of section 11(2)(a) read with Rule 17.

(m) The alleged defect in not specifying "exact purpose" in Form No. 10 is illusory and contrary to the record; the assessee's multiple specific purposes, all within its charitable objects, satisfied the mandate of section 11(2).

(n) The statutory conditions for accumulation under section 11(2) having been fulfilled, the corresponding income "shall not be included in the total income" of the assessee, and the assessee had a right to the benefit of section 11(2); the Assessing Officer had no discretion to deny accumulation once statutory compliance was established.

Issue (2): Existence of "income escaping assessment" and validity of reassessment notices and order under sections 148A(b), 148A(d) and 148

Interpretation and reasoning

(a) The entire foundation for reopening was the internal audit objection alleging non-compliance with section 11(2), specifically that the assessee had not stated any particular purpose of accumulation and had merely reproduced the trust objects in Form No. 10.

(b) The Court found this foundational assumption, reproduced in the section 148A(b) notice and in the section 148A(d) order, to be factually wrong because:

    (i) Form No. 10 clearly referred to the trustees' resolution dated 20 September 2018.

    (ii) The said resolution, which was on record, specified three concrete charitable purposes for accumulation.

    (iii) The Assessing Officer had accepted the accumulation in the original assessment under section 143(3), after issuing specific notices and calling for and receiving detailed particulars regarding accumulation under section 11(2).

(c) Since the Court held that the assessee had validly complied with section 11(2), it concluded that income could not be said to have escaped assessment "by reason of" any failure to specify purposes of accumulation; the supposed escapement was founded on an erroneous appreciation of facts and law.

(d) The Court further observed that:

    (i) The statement in the Revenue's affidavit that the resolution was not produced during the original assessment was either erroneous or, in any event, immaterial, because the Revenue did not dispute that the resolution formed part of the electronic record and was explicitly referred to in Form No. 10.

    (ii) Despite the assessee having pointed out in its reply to the section 148A(b) notice that the resolution existed and had been uploaded, and that it contained the specific purposes, this material fact was not addressed in the section 148A(d) order.

(e) The Court also reiterated that the clear and mandatory language of section 11(2)-that income so accumulated in compliance with its conditions "shall not be included" in total income-left no scope for an Assessing Officer to treat such income as having escaped assessment when the statutory conditions stood fulfilled.

Conclusions on Issue (2)

(f) As the assessee had complied with section 11(2) and Rule 17, there was no legally sustainable basis to allege escapement of income on the ground of invalid accumulation.

(g) The reasons recorded in the section 148A(b) notice and sustained in the section 148A(d) order, being factually and legally erroneous, could not validly support the formation of belief that income chargeable to tax had escaped assessment.

(h) Consequently, the show cause notice under section 148A(b) dated 8 August 2024, the order under section 148A(d) dated 29 August 2024, and the notice under section 148 dated 29 August 2024 were held unsustainable in law and were quashed and set aside.

(i) In view of this conclusion, the Court expressly declined to examine the other grounds and contentions raised (including jurisdictional challenges, the nature of "information", change of opinion, validity of sanction under section 151, and other procedural objections), leaving them open for consideration in an appropriate case.

---