1990 (12) TMI 47 - HC - Income Tax

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Whether the agricultural income of the assessee-trust could be considered for the purposes of section 11(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.

Summary:

Issue 1: Consideration of Agricultural Income for Section 11(1) Purposes

The primary issue was whether the agricultural income of the assessee-trust could be considered for the purposes of section 11(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The assessee, a trust assessed as an association of persons, derived income from various sources including agricultural land. The Income-tax Officer allocated the amount applied towards charitable/religious purposes between agricultural and taxable income in proportion to their respective amounts, as the assessee did not maintain separate accounts for these incomes. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner and the Tribunal disagreed with this approach, leading to the present reference by the Revenue.

Section 11(1) of the Act exempts income derived from property held under trust for charitable or religious purposes to the extent it is applied to such purposes in India. Section 10(1) excludes agricultural income from the total income. The court had to determine whether the Department could allocate the amount applied to charitable/religious purposes between agricultural and taxable income or if agricultural income should be excluded altogether.

The court observed that both sections 10 and 11 exclude certain types of incomes from the total income of a person. The exemption under section 11 is not absolute and is available only to the extent the income is applied for charitable or religious purposes in India. The court noted that the assessee had mixed both agricultural and non-agricultural incomes and spent amounts from this pool towards specified purposes. In the absence of separate accounts, the Income-tax Officer was justified in allocating the amount applied in proportion to the agricultural and non-agricultural income.

The court referred to various decisions, noting a conflict of opinion. It disagreed with the decisions cited by the assessee's counsel, stating that no provision of law is necessary for such apportionment. The Income-tax Officer must take a reasonable and realistic view, allocating the amount applied towards specified purposes in an appropriate proportion between agricultural and non-agricultural income.

Conclusion:

The question referred was answered in the negative, in favor of the Revenue and against the assessee. The court held that the Income-tax Officer was justified in allocating the amount applied towards charitable/religious purposes between agricultural and non-agricultural income. No costs were awarded.