2017 (2) TMI 1396 - AT - Income Tax

Charitable activity u/s 2(15) - hostel facility of the school provided exclusively to students of the school - whether not an integral part of education u/s 2(15) - but is a separate business activity in terms of section 11 (4A)? - Income for charitable purposes - Held that - Referring to the order of Director of Income Tax (Exemption) vs. Indraprastha Cancer Society 2014 (11) TMI 733 - DELHI HIGH COURT wherein has held that where a charitable institution, which has purchased capital assets and treated amount spent on purchase of capital asset as application of income, is entitled to claim depreciation on same capital asset utilized for business. - Decided in favour of assessee

Summary

Issues:
1. Whether the hostel facility provided by the school exclusively to students is considered an integral part of "education" under section 2(15) or a separate business activity under section 11(4A).
2. Whether the assessee is entitled to exemption under section 11-12 for maintaining separate accounts for the hostel activity.
3. Whether the disallowance of depreciation debited to the P&L account is justified.

Analysis:
Issue 1:
The appeal raised concerns regarding the classification of the hostel facility as either an integral part of education or a separate business activity. The Assessing Officer (AO) considered the hostel running as a distinct business, not falling under charitable purposes per section 2(15). The AO also noted the absence of separate accounts for the hostel business. The CIT(A) upheld this view, leading to the current appeal. The counsel argued that the hostel facility should be deemed integral to education under section 2(15) and not a separate business activity under section 11(4A). Citing relevant case law, the counsel contended that the lower authorities erred in their interpretation. The Tribunal, after considering the arguments and the cited case law, deleted the addition in dispute, allowing the appeal and holding in favor of the assessee.

Issue 2:
The second issue revolved around the entitlement of the assessee to exemption under sections 11-12 for maintaining separate accounts for the hostel activity. The AO had disallowed the exemption due to the absence of separate accounts. The counsel argued that sufficient separate accounts were indeed maintained, and the AO's rejection of the exemption was unjust. However, the Tribunal's decision on Issue 1, declaring the hostel facility as integral to education, rendered this issue moot as the exemption was allowed based on that determination.

Issue 3:
Lastly, the matter of disallowance of depreciation debited to the P&L account was contested. The counsel argued against the disallowance, citing legal principles favoring the assessee when faced with differing views. The Tribunal, after considering the arguments and a relevant High Court decision, concluded that the assessee was entitled to claim depreciation on capital assets utilized for business purposes. Consequently, the addition in dispute was deleted, and the issue was resolved in favor of the assessee.

In conclusion, the Tribunal allowed the appeal, overturning the lower authorities' decisions and ruling in favor of the assessee on all contested issues, including the classification of the hostel facility, entitlement to exemption, and disallowance of depreciation.