TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (9) TMI 1031
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....and then depreciation on same assets as per computation of income of assessee. 3. That the ld CIT(A) has erred in allowing caution money for which assessee could not furnish details." 3. The respondent assessee is a society registered under section 12 A of the income tax act, running educational Institute. In the name of Fortune Institute of International business in Delhi. For the year. It filed its return of income on 31/10/2007 showing nil income and claiming exemption under section 11 and 12 of the income tax act. On scrutiny, the Ld. assessing officer noted that that assessee has transferred during the year Rs. 85 Lacs to infrastructure development fund and Rs. 70 lakhs to general reserve and further he held that as the assessee is running be educational institutions with a view to earn profit which is nothing but commercial venture. Therefore he denied the claim of the assessee for applicability of provisions of section 11 and 12 of the income tax act. The Ld. assessing officer on verification of registration under section 12 A (A) for verification found that it was not signed by the DCIT (exemption) but ITO (HQ RS) (exemption) and held that he is not the right, a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed to the assessee as application of funds originally. Hon'ble Delhi high court's decision in the case of DDIT versus Indraprastha Cancer Society in ITA number 240 /2014 dated 18/11/2014 squarely covered is issue in favour of the assessee where the Hon'ble Delhi High Court after considering all the cases relied upon by the revenue. In this particular case, including the case of Hon'ble Supreme Court in escorts Ltd versus union of India, was considered and after that it was held as under :- "2. The respondent-assessees are charitable institutions to whom Sections 11 to 13 and other relevant provisions of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (Act, for short) apply. The issue raised in the present appeals is whether a charitable institution, which has purchased capital assets and treated the amount spent Director Of Income Tax... vs M/S Indraprastha Cancer Society on 18 November, 2014 Indian Kanoon - http://indiankanoon.org/doc/138934819/ 1 on purchase of the capital asset as application of income, is entitled to claim depreciation on the same capital asset utilised for business. Revenue submits that this would amount to double deduction. 3. This High Court in ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....income" is a wider term than the expression "profits and gains of business or profession". Reference was made to the nature of depreciation and it was pointed out that depreciation was nothing but decrease in the value of property through wear, deterioration or obsolescence. It was observed that depreciation, if not allowed as a necessary deduction for computing the income of charitable institutions, then there is no way to preserve the corpus of the trust for deriving the income. The circular No.5-P (LXX6) of 1968, dated July 19,1968 was reproduced in the judgment in which the Board has taken the view that the income of the trust should be understood in its commercial sense. The circular is as under: "Where the trust derives income from house property, interest on securities, capital gains, or other sources, the word income should be understood in its commercial sense, i.e., book income, after adding back any appropriations or applications thereof towards the purpose of the trust or otherwise, and also after adding back any debits made for capital expenditure incurred for the purposes of the trust or otherwise. It should be noted, in this connection, that the amounts so a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... income equal to the depreciation amount claimed on an year to year basis which is nothing but black money. This aspect is not seen considered in any of these decisions. We, therefore, sought the views from the Central Board of Direct Taxes. Senior Standing counsel Sri.P.K.R.Menon, appearing for the Revenue produced clarification obtained from the Central Board wherein they have stated as follows: "The Central Board of Direct Taxes is of the considered view that where an assessee has acquired an asset through application of income and has also claimed this amount as expenditure in its income expenditure account, depreciation on such asset would not be allowable to the assessee. Such notional statutory deductions like depreciation, if claimed as deduction while computing the income of the 'the property held under trust' under the relevant head of income, is required to be added back while computing the income for the purpose of application in the income expenditure account. This would imply that a correct figure of surplus from the trust property is reflected in the Income & Expenditure account of the trust to determine the income for the purpose of application unde....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ner laid down in this Act ". The word " income " is defined under s. 2(24) of the Act to include profits and gains, dividends, voluntary payment received by trust, etc. It may be noted that profits and gains are generally used in terms of business or profession as provided u/s. 28. The word " income ", therefore, is a much wider term than the expression ",profits and gains of business or profession ". Net receipt after deducting all the necessary expenditure of the trust (sic). There is a broad agreement on this proposition. But still the contention for the Revenue is that the depreciation allowance being a notional income (expenditure ?) cannot be allowed to be debited to the expenditure account of the trust. This contention appears to proceed on the assumption that the expenditure should necessarily involve actual delivery of or parting with the money. It seems to us that it need not necessarily be so. The expenditure should be understood as necessary outgoings. The depreciation is nothing but decrease in value of property through wear, deterioration or obsolescence and allowance is made for this purpose in book keeping, accountancy, etc. In Spicer & Pegler's Book-ke....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Keshav Mills Ltd. v. CIT [1953]23 ITR 230 at 230 in the following words : "The mercantile system of accounting or what is otherwise known as the double entry system is opposed to the cash system of book keeping under which a record is kept of actual cash receipts and actual cash payments, entries being made only when money is actually collected or disbursed. That system brings into credit what is due, immediately it becomes legally due and before it, is actually received and it brings into debit expenditure the amount for which a legal liability has been incurred before it is actually disbursed. It is not in dispute that if the mercantile system is followed, the depreciation allowance in respect of the trust property should be allowed. xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx The depreciation if it is not allowed as a necessary deduction for computing the income from the charitable institutions, then there is no way to preserve the corpus of the trust for deriving the income. The Board also appears to have understood the " income " u/s. 11(1) in its commercial sense. The relevant portion of the Circular No. 5-P (LXX-6) of 1968, dated July 19, 1968, reads: "Where the trust deriv....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f 1968 circular. It is clear from the reasoning given by the Kerala High Court that they have not gone by the express language of Section 11(a) and have purposively interpreted the provision." 7. Reference was once again made to the decision of the Supreme Court in Escorts Limited (supra) and provisions of Section 35(2B)(c) were quoted and it was observed that the language of the sub-clause (c) was clear and lucid but conspicuously different from section 11(1) of the Act. It has been observed in Indian Trade Promotion Organisation (supra) : 11. Clause a of Section 11(1) stipulates that income derived from property held under trust wholly for charitable or religious purposes is to be applied for such purposes in India and where such income is set aside or accumulated, it should not be in excess of 15% of the income from such property. Thus, there is an embargo and probation from accumulating or setting apart income derived from property held under trust beyond 15% of income from such property. If there is a violation of the said provision, proportionate income is deemed to be taxable and not exempt under Section 11(1). The language of the Section ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....re represented wholly or partly by an asset, no deduction shall be allowed in respect of that asset under [clause (ii) of sub- section (1)] of section 32 for the same or any subsequent previous year." 13. The language of the sub-clause c to Section 35(2B) is conspicuous and entirely different and wordings are clear and lucid. The language of Section 11(1), as noticed above, is distinguished and not worded in a similar manner. In Escorts Ltd. (supra), the Supreme Court was considering the said specific provision and the wordings therein. While dealing with the term "expenditure" and noticing the language it was held that no duplication or double deduction should be allowed towards depreciation in the same or subsequent year. Thus, the issue was decided against the assessee. Language of Explanation 1 to Section 43(1) can also be referred to and we notice that the language of the said explanation is absolutely different from the language used in Clause (a) to Section 11(1). Section 11(1)(a) is a peculiar provision which postulates application of income and it is not dealing with expenditure as such. The legislative desire is that money should be applied for the purpose of cha....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ompliance, i.e., application of money or funds and is not a factor which determines and decides the quantum of income derived from property held under trust. Computation of income is separate and distinct and has to be made on commercial basis by applying provisions of the Act." 9. To our mind, therefore, the issue has been examined in depth and detail twice and thus there is no error in the impugned orders passed by the Tribunal. However, learned counsel for the Revenue has drawn our attention to the decision dated 18th March, 2014 in ITA No. 322-323/2013 titled Director of Income Tax (Exemption) versus Charanjiv Charitable Trust, wherein it has been held: "30. So far as the claim of depreciation is concerned the decision of the Tribunal cannot be countenanced. The Tribunal has overlooked that the cost of the assets has already been allowed as a deduction as application of income, as held by the CIT (Appeals) as well as the assessing officer. It was their view that allowing depreciation in respect of assets, the cost of which was earlier allowed as deduction as application of income of the trust, would actually amount to double deduction on the basis of the rulin....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....in directing the allowance of depreciation in respect of such assets." 10. The aforesaid paragraph refers to the decision in the case of Vishwa Jagriti Mission (supra) but ratio was distinguished on the ground that in the said case the Court was concerned with computation of income of a charitable trust/institution on commercial principles and if so whether depreciation on fixed assets used for charitable purposes should be allowed as a deduction. The consensus of judicial opinion on the said aspect was referred to. It is noticeable that in Charanjiv Charitable Trust (supra) it stands observed that the Tribunal overlooked the fact that the cost of asset had been allowed as a "deduction" and thereafter depreciation was being claimed. The said case, therefore, appears to be a peculiar one wherein deduction as expenditure and depreciation was being claimed simultaneously, while computing the taxable income under the head "profits and gains from business". The said decision dated 18th March, 2014 does not refer to the decision in Indian Trade Promotion Organisation (supra) which was decided on 27th November, 2013. The judgment in the case of Indian Trade Promotion Organisation....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....peals:- '(a) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in allowing double deduction without considering the principles laid down in 199 ITR 43(SC)?' 3. The issue before us relates to the grant of depreciation to an entity seeking exemption in terms of section 11 of the Income Tax Act. (in short 'Act') which deals with the assessment of Income from property held for charitable or religious purposes. The relevant parts of Section 11 read as follows:- 1. (1) Subject to the provisions of sections 60 to 63, the following income shall not be included in the total income of the previous year of the person in receipt of the income- (a) income derived from property held under trust wholly for charitable or religious purposes, to the extent to which such income is applied to such purposes in India; and, where any such income is accumulated or set apart for application to such purposes in India, to the extent to which the income so accumulated or set apart is not in excess of fifteen per cent of the income from such property; ....... ....... (4) For the purposes of this section "propert....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n 11 in the same or any other previous year. The application of this sub-section retrospectively in regard to assessment years prior to 01.04.2015 is the subject matter of challenge in TCA.No.949 of 2015 to which we shall advert presently. 5. Section 11 was inserted in the Income Tax Act 1961 providing for an exemption in respect of income from property held under trust wholly for charitable and religious purposes. 'Charitable purposes' is defined in terms of section 2(15) of the Act to mean relief of the poor, education, medical relief and the advancement of any other object of general public utility. The clause has been modified over the years such that in its present form, it includes within its ambit yoga and the preservation of environment, monuments or places or objects of artistic or historic interest. The object of Section 11 is thus laudable and seeks to extend a benefit to entities engaging in activity of a specified nature. In the present batch of appeals there is no dispute in this regard. 6. We have heard Mr.J.Narayanaswamy appearing on behalf of the Revenue and several counsels appearing on behalf of the assesses and set out in brief the submissi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....for an allowance of one-fifth of the cost of the asset in five previous years starting with that of its acquisition and during these years the assessee could not get any depreciation in relation thereto. In respect of assets acquired in previous year relevant to assessment year 1968-69 and thereafter, their cost was written off in the previous year of acquisition and no depreciation could be allowed in that year. This is clear from the statute. Equally, it is not envisaged, and indeed, it would be meaningless to say, that depreciation could be allowed on them thereafter with a further absurdity that it could be allowed starting with the original cost of the asset despite its user for scientific research and the allowances made under the 'scientific research' clause. In our view, there was no difficulty at all in the interpretation of the provisions. The mere fact that a baseless claim was raised by some over-enthusiastic assessees who sought a double allowance or that such claim may perhaps have been accepted by some authorities is not sufficient to attribute any ambiguity or doubt as to the true scope of the provisions as they stood earlier.' 10. Reliance was ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....multaneous with exemption under section 11 would result in a relief over and above 100 % of the income which was not permissible under statute. 12. Our attention was drawn to the decision of the Kerala High Court in the case of Lissie Medical Institutions Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, Kochi, (348 ITR 344) = 2012-TIOL-303-HC-KERALA-IT which had concluded the issue in favour of the Revenue. The Kerala High Court had this to say; 'In fact the net effect is that after writing off full value of the capital expenditure on acquisition of assets as application of income for charitable purposes and when the assessee again claims the same amount in the form of depreciation, such notional claim becomes cash surplus available with the assessee, which goes outside the books of accounts of the Trust unless it is written back which is not done." ......... ........... "We have no doubt in our mind that business income of charitable trust also has to be computed in the same manner as provided u/s 29 of the Income Tax Act. However, the issue that requires consideration is when the expenditure incurred for acquisition of depreciable assets itself is ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the computation of income of a Trust. 15. Mr.N. Devanathan would distinguish the facts of Escorts (supra) from the present case on the ground that by virtue of granting weighted deduction under section 35, the asset itself was effaced which is not the case in an assessment under section 11 of the Act. He would also point out that the Department had filed petitions for Special Leave challenging the decisions of the Punjab and Haryana High Court favouring the assessee that had been dismissed whereas, the Special Leave Petitions filed by the assessee challenging the decision of the Kerala High Court and other cases following the decision of the Kerala High Court in Lissie Medical Institutions (supra) had been admitted by the Supreme Court. Thus according to him, the Supreme Court had clearly recognized the error in the decision of the Kerala High Court. 16. Mr. R. Kumar, appearing for the assessee/respondent in TCA.No.993 of 2015 would point out that the orders of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal in the same assessee's case for the previous years on the identical issue, had considered the judgment of the Supreme Court in Escorts and had distinguished the same. T....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ents in detail and carefully perused the documents relied upon as well as case law cited. 20. Depreciation, as defined in Spicer and Pegler's Book-Keeping and Accounts is the measure of the exhaustion of the effective life of a fixed asset owing to use or obsolescence during a given period. It may be regarded as that part of the cost of the asset which will not be recoverable when the asset is finally put out of use. The object of providing for depreciation is to spread the expenditure incurred in acquiring the asset over its effective lifetime, and the amount of provision made in respect of an accounting period is extended to represent the proportion of such expenditure which has expired during that period. 21. The necessity of providing for depreciation emanates from the fact that once an asset ceases to be effective, it will have to be replaced. Providing for depreciation would ensure setting aside out of the revenue of an accounting period, the estimated amount by which the capital investment has expired during that period. This provision, incurred for the use of that asset for the purpose of earned profit should be charged against those profits as and whe....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tutions (supra). Though the attention of the Division Bench of the Kerala High court was drawn to the decision in Rao Bahadur Calavala Cunnan Chetty Charities (supra) and several decisions along similar lines, the court was persuaded to take a contrary view preferring to follow the rationale of the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Escorts (supra). 25. As noted by us earlier, the judgment of the Supreme Court in Escorts turns on an entirely different position of law and would not impact the issue being discussed in the present case. 26. We are supported in our view by a plethora of decisions of various High Courts - the Bombay High Court in the case of CIT v. Munisuvrat Jain (1994 Tax Law Reporter 1084) and DIT (Exem) Vs. Framjee Cawasjee Institute (109 CTR 463); Karnataka High Court in CIT Vs. Society of the Sisters of St.Anne (146 ITR 28); Madhyapradesh High Court in CIT Vs. Raipur Pallottine Society (180 ITR 579); Gujarath High Court in CIT Vs. Sheth Manilal rachhnoddas Vishram Bhavan Trust 198 ITR 598 = 2003-TIOL-944-HC-AHM-IT; Punjab and Haryana High court in CIT Vs. Market Committee Pipli (330 ITR 16) and CIT Vs. Tiny Tots Education Society (330 I....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... Notice under Section 148 was issued on 13.9.2010, in response to which, the assessee filed the original return dated 31.10.2007. In the course of re-assessment, the assessing authority rejects the revised return on the ground that it is inadmissible in view of the provisions of section 139(5) requiring the original return to have been filed within time. He thus, does not take cognizance of the revised return and proceeds on the basis of the original return which had omitted to take into account the excess application of previous years as application for the present year and the assessment was completed on the basis of the original return alone. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), adjudicated the issue on merits, deciding the same against the assessee which order was confirmed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. 31. A recent amendment to section 139(5) reads thus; 'Following sub-section (5) shall be substituted for the existing subsection( 5) of section 139 by the Finance Act, 2016 w.e.f. 1.4.2017. (5) If any person, having furnished a return under sub-section (1) or sub-section (4), discovers any omission or any wrong statement therein, he may furnish a revis....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....section 10 of the Income-tax Act vis-à-vis the specific and special exemption regime provided in sections 11 to 13 of the said Act. As indicated above, the primary objective of providing exemption in case of charitable institution is that income derived from the property held under trust should be applied and utilized for the object or purpose for which the institution or trust has been established. In many cases it had been noted that trusts or institutions which are registered and have been availing benefits of the exemption regime to not apply their income, which is derived from property held under trust, for charitable purposes. In such circumstances, when the income becomes taxable, a claim of exemption under general provisions of section 10 in respect of such income is preferred and tax on such income is avoided. This defeats the very objective and purpose of placing the conditions of application of income, etc., in respect of income derived from property held under trust in the first place. 7.4.1 Sections 11, 12 and 13of the income-tax Act are special provisions governing institutions which are being given benefit of tax exemption. It is therefore imperative ....