2014 (12) TMI 765 - HC - Income Tax

Obligations mentioned u/s 11(2) fulfilled or not - Whether the Tribunal was correct in holding that by mentioning Further utilization in Form No. 10 read with Rule 17 of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 the Assessee has fulfilled its obligation as required u/s 11(2) Held that - THE Tribunal rightly observed that the assessee had mentioned the words further utilization in column No. 1 of Form No. 10, which meant that the assessee was to utilize the funds for the benefit of the members i.e. the employees of the New Bank of India in case of death, retirement and permanent disability - the funds were paid/given to the employees of New Bank of India in the eventualities and it was in this context, the words further utilization had been mentioned - assessee was to provide financial assistance to the members in case of death, retirement and permanent disability - This was the sole and only purpose for which funds could be utilized - the description further utilization was neither vague nor unspecific. During the course of assessment proceeding, the assessee has clarified and stated that the money would only be used for the purpose of making payments to the members or their legal representatives in case of their death, retirement or permanent disability - The Tribunal rightly referred to the scheme floated by the assessee under which the employees who were desirous of becoming members had to deposit ₹ 10/- as admission fees and thereafter pay ₹ 25/- per month for a period of 25 years - other benefits which were specified in part (b) of the Scheme, which stipulated that a sum of ₹ 500/- shall be paid to the members on the event specified the order of the Tribunal is upheld - Decided against revenue.

Issues:
1. Interpretation of Section 11(2) of the Income Tax Act regarding accumulation of funds by a charitable institution without specifying the purpose.
2. Validity of mentioning "further utilization" in Form No. 10 under Rule 17 of the Income Tax Rules, 1962.
3. Disallowance of accumulation under Section 11(2) and addition to total income by the assessing officer.
4. Upholding of assessing officer's decision by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals).
5. Reversal of assessing officer's decision by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (Tribunal).
6. Comparison with previous judgments on similar issues by the Delhi High Court.

Analysis:

1. The case involved the interpretation of Section 11(2) of the Income Tax Act concerning the accumulation of funds by a charitable institution without specifying the purpose. The respondent society declared nil taxable income for the assessment year 1996-97 and filed Form No. 10 as required by Section 11(2). The assessing officer disallowed the accumulation under Section 11(2) as the purpose "further utilization" was deemed vague and not specific. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) upheld this decision, emphasizing the need for a definite and specified purpose for accumulation.

2. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (Tribunal) reversed the earlier decisions, stating that the mention of "further utilization" in Form No. 10 indicated the funds' intended use for the benefit of the members, specifically the employees of the New Bank of India in certain situations. The Tribunal found the purpose clear and specific, in line with the objectives of the society. It distinguished this case from a previous Calcutta High Court judgment based on the clarity and specificity of the objectives.

3. The Tribunal's decision aligned with the objective behind Section 11(2) of curbing long-term accumulation without a specified purpose. Previous Delhi High Court judgments, such as Commissioner of Income Tax v. Hotel and Restaurant Association, supported the idea that accumulation for one or more purposes aligned with the institution's objects was permissible. The Tribunal's findings were consistent with these precedents, leading to the acceptance of the respondent's explanation regarding the funds' utilization for the welfare of the employees.

4. The Tribunal's reference to the scheme devised by the respondent society further supported the clarity of purpose and the alignment with the institution's objectives. The Tribunal's decision was in line with various judgments from the Delhi High Court, confirming the validity of accumulation for specific purposes related to the charitable institution's objectives. The appellant revenue's appeal was dismissed, emphasizing the respondent's entitlement to accumulate funds for the stated purposes.

5. In conclusion, the Tribunal's decision was upheld, and the substantial question of law was answered in favor of the respondent assessee. The appellant revenue's appeal was dismissed, with no order as to costs, based on the consistent application of legal principles and precedents from the Delhi High Court regarding accumulation of funds by charitable institutions for specific purposes aligned with their objectives.

← Previous Next →