2017 (8) TMI 923 - AT - Income Tax

Exemption u/s 11 eligibility - proof of activities of the assessee trust are not charitable within section 2(15) - Held that - Having taken a view in assessment years 2007-08, 2013-14 & 2014- 15 treating the assessee as exempt u/s 11 of the Act, the AO could not have taken a view to the contrary in other years there being no change in facts or the legal position. - Decided in favour of assessee. Disallow the expenditure in various forms on estimate basis - addition limited to 10% by the ld. CIT(A) - main thrust of the argument of the AO is that since OBPL had been engaged to set up the hospital and run it, there was no requirement to incur these items of expenditure - Held that - According to the agreement between the assessee and OBPL already referred to earlier the latter has been contracted to set up the hospital and run it for which it is entitled to 70% of the surplus remaining after meeting the entire expenditure. The liability of OBPL does not extend to meeting the aforesaid items of expenditure, which are necessary for running the hospital. In view of the aforesaid submissions of the ld. counsel for the assessee, we find no infirmity in the order of the ld. CIT(A). We hold that the disallowance made by the AO is not called for either on facts or in law. Accordingly, we direct the deletion of addition made by the Assessing Officer which is on estimate basis and on surmises and conjectures - Decided in favour of assessee.

Issues Involved:
1. Exemption under Section 11 of the Income Tax Act.
2. Disallowance of expenditure.
3. Carry forward of deficit.
4. Admission of additional grounds of appeal.
5. Deletion of addition on account of unsecured loans.
6. Disallowance of financial expenses and depreciation.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Exemption under Section 11 of the Income Tax Act:
The Revenue contended that the assessee trust's activities were not charitable under Section 2(15) of the Act, thus disqualifying it from exemption under Section 11. The CIT(A) disagreed, stating that the trust's activities were indeed charitable, focusing on medical relief, and there was no misuse of funds. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, noting that the trust had been consistently treated as exempt under Section 11 in previous and subsequent years, and the Revenue had not provided any new evidence to justify a different treatment for the years in question.

2. Disallowance of Expenditure:
The Assessing Officer (AO) disallowed 25% of the expenditure incurred by the trust, arguing that the expenses were not justified since the hospital was managed by an external entity (OBPL). The CIT(A) reduced the disallowance to 10%. The Tribunal found no basis for the AO's disallowance, noting that the expenses were necessary for running the hospital and were in line with the agreement between the trust and OBPL. The Tribunal directed the deletion of the disallowance, emphasizing that the AO's decision was based on estimates and conjectures.

3. Carry Forward of Deficit:
The assessee argued that any deficit arising from the application of funds towards charitable purposes should be carried forward to subsequent years. The Tribunal agreed, citing a decision by the Mumbai Bench of the Tribunal, which allowed the carry forward of excess application of income to be adjusted in future years. The additional ground raised by the assessee was admitted and allowed.

4. Admission of Additional Grounds of Appeal:
The Revenue and the assessee both raised additional grounds of appeal. The Tribunal admitted the additional ground raised by the assessee, noting that it involved a question of law and did not require verification of new facts. However, the additional ground raised by the Revenue regarding the deletion of an addition on account of unsecured loans was rejected. The Tribunal found that the Revenue's claim was an afterthought and lacked merit, as it involved a factual matter that could not be raised as an additional ground.

5. Deletion of Addition on Account of Unsecured Loans:
The Revenue raised an additional ground challenging the deletion of an addition of ?23.50 crores made by the AO on account of unsecured loans. The Tribunal rejected this additional ground, stating that it was either a result of non-application of mind or a conscious decision to accept the CIT(A)'s relief, which could not be re-agitated. The Tribunal emphasized that appeals cannot be filed piecemeal and a party cannot benefit from its own negligence.

6. Disallowance of Financial Expenses and Depreciation:
For the assessment year 2009-10, the Revenue's grounds included the disallowance of financial expenses and depreciation. The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had not separately decided this issue and thus rejected the Revenue's ground outright.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal dismissed the appeals filed by the Revenue and allowed the appeals and cross-objections filed by the assessee. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decisions on the exemption under Section 11, the disallowance of expenditure, and the carry forward of the deficit. The additional grounds raised by the assessee were admitted and allowed, while those raised by the Revenue were rejected.

← Previous Next →