2017 (10) TMI 1410 - AT - Income Tax

Charitable activities - entitlement to benefit of section 11 & 12 - proof of activities of commercial/ trade colour - Held that - As decided in assessee;s own case 2015 (5) TMI 515 - ITAT DELHI The dominant object of the assessee is definitely for the well being of public at large by organizing various seminars for the welfare of people by disseminating knowledge in various fields in order to uplift the social consciousness of the society at large. The composition of membership clearly exemplifies the real intention of assessee. We fail to understand as to how the hostel accommodation provided to various invitees could be considered as a commercial activity. Before any activity can be branded as being in the nature of trade or commerce, the AO has to demonstrate the intention of parties Backed with facts and figures of carrying out activities with profit motive. Mere surplus from any activity, which undisputedly has been undertaken to achieve the dominant object, does not imply that the same is run with profit motive. The intention has to be gathered from circumstances which compelled the carrying on an activity. The primary object of insertion of proviso to section 2(15) was to curb the practice of earning income by way of carrying on of trade or commerce and claiming the same as exempt in the garb of pursuing the alleged charitable object of general public utility. This proviso never meant to deny the exemption to those institutions, where the predominant object is undeniably a charitable object and in order to achieve the same incidental activities, essential in the given circumstances, are carried on - Decided in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues involved:
1. Allowance of benefit under sections 11 and 12 of the Income Tax Act.
2. Claim of depreciation on assets.
3. Provision for doubtful debts as an allowable expense.

Issue 1 - Allowance of benefit under sections 11 and 12 of the Income Tax Act:
The appeal by the department challenged the order of the ld. CIT(A) allowing the benefit of sections 11 and 12 of the Income Tax Act to the assessee. The department argued that the trust's activities did not fall under section 2(15) of the Act. The ITAT Delhi Bench 'C' had previously ruled in favor of the assessee, emphasizing the charitable nature of the trust's activities and the absence of a profit motive. The ITAT upheld the CIT(A)'s decision based on the previous ruling, stating that the trust's activities were not commercial in nature and primarily aimed at public welfare. The ITAT highlighted that the surplus generated was from interest income, not commercial activities, thus affirming the CIT(A)'s decision.

Issue 2 - Claim of depreciation on assets:
The department also contested the allowance of depreciation amounting to ?2,55,61,000 to the assessee, arguing that it would result in double deduction as the assets' cost had been claimed as application of income in earlier years. However, the ITAT did not find merit in the department's argument as the CIT(A) had not addressed this issue in the order. The ITAT noted that when exemption under section 11(1) of the Act is granted, issues related to depreciation become academic. Therefore, the ITAT dismissed the department's appeal on this ground.

Issue 3 - Provision for doubtful debts as an allowable expense:
The department raised a concern regarding the allowance of a provision for doubtful debts amounting to ?1,62,000 as an allowable expense. However, the CIT(A) did not provide any findings on this issue as it was not part of the consideration. The ITAT concurred that since the CIT(A) had granted exemption under section 11(1) of the Act, issues such as the provision for doubtful debts were rendered academic. Consequently, the ITAT found no merit in the department's grounds related to this issue and dismissed the appeal.

In conclusion, the ITAT upheld the decision of the CIT(A) in allowing the benefit under sections 11 and 12 of the Income Tax Act to the assessee, and dismissed the department's appeal concerning depreciation and provision for doubtful debts, emphasizing that these issues became irrelevant once the exemption under section 11(1) was granted.