9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
The judgment involves interpretation of provisions u/s 11(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 regarding accumulation of income by a charitable trust and the validity of notice given by the assessee in Form NO. 10 listing all charitable objects for accumulation purposes. Interpretation of u/s 11(2) - Accumulation of Income: The Commissioner of Income-tax found the notice given by the assessee under section 11(2) listing all charitable objects for accumulation as erroneous and prejudicial to the Revenue's interests. The Commissioner set aside the Income-tax Officer's order and directed reassessment. The Tribunal, however, held that listing all trust objects for accumulation was permissible under the Act, as long as within the statutory period of ten years. The High Court disagreed, emphasizing the need for specific and concrete purposes to be mentioned in the notice for accumulation, rather than a blanket listing of all objects. Requirement of Specific Purpose for Accumulation: The High Court ruled that while accumulation for multiple purposes is allowed, the notice must specify the exact purposes for which income is being accumulated. The Court rejected the argument that interlinked purposes suffice, emphasizing the need for concrete and specific purposes to be stated in the notice. The Court highlighted that the statute requires a precise purpose for accumulation, not a global listing of trust objects. It was emphasized that the purpose specified must fall within the trust's objects clause, and vagueness about the purpose is not permissible. Decision and Remand: The Court answered question No. 2 in the negative, indicating that the Tribunal's decision was incorrect. Question No. 1 was declined to be answered. The matter was remanded to the Tribunal for the assessee to provide fresh evidence showing the specific purpose for accumulation as required by section 11(2). The Tribunal was directed to consider if the assessee had fulfilled the obligation under the provision and grant exemption accordingly. No costs were awarded in the judgment. *Note: Separate judgments were delivered by Judges Shyamal Kumar Sen and Ajit Kumar Sengupta, concurring with the decision.*
|
