TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2012 (8) TMI 428
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n of the amount of Rs.13.69 crores for acquiring overseas equipment, he had proceeded to withdraw the benefit to the assessee under Section 11 of the I.T Act and assessed the grant and contribution given by various persons including the state government as well as interest earned by the assessee. The main reason is that the main donor is the Government of Andhra Pradesh and application included expenses worth of Rs.4,88,49,585/- towards supply of equipment to Government Sector. The AO felt that if any part of the income or property of the trust is directly or indirectly applied for the benefit of any person mentioned in Section 13 (3) and benefit under Section 11 is not applicable. 3. By appeal before the CIT(A) the assessee submitted as under :- 5. During the course of appellate proceedings, the representative of the assessee submitted that the appellant society is a Charitable institution operating under the name 'Andhra Pradesh Right to Sight Society', which was formed with the objective of developing high quality sustainable comprehensive eye care services, aiming towards intensifying and accelerating the efforts throughout the state of A.P. for eradication of needless bl....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... and Endowments Act, 1987. It was submitted that the appellant's society is not a private trust, but has been constituted by the Govt. of A. P., with Chief Minister and other principal heads of various departments as trustees and its functioning is monitored by the responsible persons of the Govt. He averred that the grants released by the Govt. are monitored by a task force committee. The representative submitted that the legislative purpose of registration u/s 43(1) of the above Act is to ensure that all the public and charitable institutions, which thrive on voluntary contributions, should conduct themselves in a fair and transparent manner. However, the appellant trust is formed by the Govt. itself and in view of its constitution and functioning, the benefits cannot be denied on account of its non registration under the said act. The appellant further contended that the \ Income tax Act, 1961 no where states that exemption u/s. 11 should be denied if the trust is not registered under a local statute. 5.4 The representative of the appellant further submitted that the observations made regarding the functioning of the society and lapses in utilization of the equipments are pur....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... interest' in the appellant's society. It is not entitled to any part of the profits of the appellant at any time. 6.3 Moreover, it is an established position of the law that what is barred u/s. 13(1)(c)(ii) is 'the personal benefit of the trustees", as was pointed out by the Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Sri Radha Krishna Temple Trust (277 ITR 158). It is clear that by way of contributing equipments to the Govt. Hospitals, the Government did not get any personal benefit nor granted any personal benefit to any other interested person of the appellant's society. In this regard, t is seen that Hon'ble Mumbai ITAT in case of Smt Chandarkala Somani Charitable Trust v. ITO (30 ITD 70) had observed that the word "benefit" has to be interpreted as an advantage, profit, fruit or privilege and, in the context in which it is used in the present section, it has to be treated as an advantage of a pecuniary nature. Referring to the decision of Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of Manickvasagam Chettiar (53 ITR 292) the bench observed that the characteristic of a benefit is that it is real and not notional, concrete and not abstract, certain and not conjectural. Howe....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....herwise requires, the meaning of an expression contained in the Act should prevail throughout the Act. Therefore, whenever a different meaning is sought to be given to that expression occurring at different places in the act, it is necessary to point out why the context requires different meanings to be given to the same expression occurring at different places in the Act. Now, the definition of the expression "person" occurring in section 2(31) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, is a very crucial definition because it is with reference to the categories of entities specified in section 2(31) that the liability to tax under the Act is determined. If a person is not capable of being considered as a "person" within the meaning of section 2(31), then no liability attaches. If the State or the Government cannot be regarded as a "person" for the purpose of section 2(31) and, consequently, is immune from taxation, whether on the grounds of sovereignty or otherwise, it is natural to extend the same logic to understand the expression "person" wherever it occurs in the Act. There is no reason to give a different expression to the word "person " which occurs in the Explanation to section 32(1)(vi)....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of the reopening. 8. For the reasons stated earlier, on merits of the case, we accept the finding and conclusion of the CIT(A) and dismiss the revenue's appeal. C.O. NO. 43/Hyd/2011 by the assessee 9. The assessee filed its return of income admitting Nil Income. The case was selected for scrutiny by issuing notice u/s 143(2) and after discussing with the AR of the assessee and examination of books of account, the assessment was completed on 29/12/2006 determining the income at NIL. The assessment was reopened u/s 147 on 30/11/2009 and notice u/s 148 was issued on the ground that the assessee utilized Rs. 13.69 crores on acquisition of certain overseas equipment etc. as per the report of Comptroller and Auditor General (Civil) for the Govt. of Andhra Pradesh for the year ended 31/03/2004 on page-133. A cross verification of the return shows that the total assets amounted to Rs. 4,14,382/- only. 10. The CIT(A) confirmed the order of the Assessing Officer with respect to the reopening of assessment. 11. On appeal before us, the learned counsel for the assessee contended that the CIT(A) should have appreciated that the Assessing Officer in the present case had reopened ....