Section 11 – Charitable institution – (1) Claim for depreciation on fixed assets is treated as application of income; (2) Receipt of loan in violation of the Bombay Public Trust Act does not invite denial of exemption u/s. 11; (3) Repayment of loan originally taken for the objects of the trust will amount to an application of income.
Facts:
The assessee is a charitable trust registered with the Charity Commissioner as well as u/s 12A of the Act. In the assessment order passed for the year under appeal, the AO held as under:
1. In respect of depreciation of Rs. 19.48 lakh claimed: Since cost of fixed assets had already been allowed as application of income in the earlier years, relying on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Escorts Ltd. & Anr. Vs. Union of India (199 ITR 43), the claim for depreciation was denied;
2. Re: Treatment of repayment of loan of Rs. 2.92 crore as the application of income: Since the loan when it was raised was not declared/treated as income in the year of receipt, relying on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Escorts Ltd. & Anr. (supra), the assessee’s claim would result into double deduction, hence not permissible;
3. The above loan was taken without the Charity Commissioner’s permission, thus in violation of the provisions of section 36A(3) of the Bombay Public Trust Act. Therefore, relying on the Bombay high court decision in the case of CIT vs. Prithvi Trust (124 ITR 488), he forfeited the exemption granted u/s. 11.
Being aggrieved by the order of the CIT(A), who held in favour of the assessee, the revenue filed appeal before the tribunal. Before the tribunal, the revenue justified the order passed by the AO and further relied on the decision of the Cochin bench of tribunal in the case of DDIT Vs. Adi Shankara Trust (ITA no. 96/Coch/2009 dated 16-06-2011) and on the Cochin tribunal decision in the case of Lissie Medical Institution (2010 TIOL 644). According to it, the later decision was also affirmed by the Kerala high court. Further, it was contended that the decision of the Bombay high court in CIT vs. Institute of Banking Personnel Selection (264 ITR 110) relates prior to insertion of section 14A of the Act without considering the judgment of Escorts Ltd.
Held:
As regards the denial of exemption u/s. 11 on the ground that loan taken by the assessee in earlier years from managing trustee was in violation of the Bombay Public Trust Act, the tribunal held that under the Act, once the CIT grants registration u/s. 12AA, looking to the objects of the trust, the same cannot be withdrawn until and unless there was a violation of provisions of section 13 or the registration is cancelled u/s. 12AA(3). The tribunal further observed that once the loan taken was duly shown in the Accounts, there was no requirement under the Act that the provisions of other Acts have to be complied with. According to it, the Bombay high court decision in the case of Prithvi Trust was on a different ground, hence, not applicable to the case of the assessee. According to it, the decision of the Supreme court in the case of ACIT vs. Surat City Gymkhana (300 ITR 214) and Mumbai tribunal decision in the case of ITO (Exemption) vs. Bombay Stock Exchange (ITA No. 5551/Mum/2009 dt. 22. 08. 2006) also support the case of the assessee.
As regards the allowability of depreciation – the tribunal preferred to follow the decision of the Bombay high court in the case of Institute of Banking Personnel Selection. It further noted that on the similar issue, the Punjab & Haryana high court in the case CIT vs. Market Committee, Pipli (330 ITR 16) after considering the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Escorts Ltd., held in favour of the assessee. Also, taking note of the Mumbai tribunal decision in the case of ITO vs. Parmeshwaridevi Gordhandas Garodia (ITA No. 4108/ Mum/2010 dated 10-08-2011), the tribunal held that allowing of depreciation is application of income and it does not amount to double deduction. Hence, the order of the CIT (A) was upheld on this ground also.
As regards the claim for treating repayment of loan as the application of income, the tribunal agreed with the order of the CIT (A) and relying on the CBDT Circular No. 100 dated 24-01-1973 and the decision of the Gujarat high court in the case CIT vs. Shri Plot Swetamber Murti Pujak Jain Mandal (211 ITR 293)and of the Rajasthan high court in the case of Maharana of Mewar Charitable Foundation (164 ITR 439), held that such repayment of loan originally taken to fulfill one of the objects of the trust will amount to an application of income for charitable and religious purposes.
