2019 (2) TMI 291 - AT - Income Tax

Revision u/s 263 - exemption u/s 11 denied - utilization of corpus donations in violation of proviso to section 11(1)(d) - charitable activity - Held that - Provisions of section 11(1)(d) in no way have been violated by the assessee. There has been excess of expenditure over income for the year under consideration and the same has been carried forward to the general fund in the balance sheet accumulated over the years whereas Corpus donations are separately appearing in balance sheet. (Page 1 to 12 of the paper book filed by the assessee). Therefore, the observations of the ld. CIT that the deficit for the year has been met out of the corpus donation, is not correct as is evident from the final accounts. Although no such adjustment has been made by the assessee, however there is no bar on such adjustment as per the provisions of section 11(1)(d) or u/s 12(1). The assessee is also entitled to carry forward the deficit for the year and set off the same in the next year(s), in the view of dictum laid down in CIT (E) Vs. Subros Educational Society 2018 (4) TMI 1622 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA . Therefore, when carry forward of deficit is allowed, it implies that the said excess utilization has been spent out from sources other than the voluntary contributions received during the year and should be out of Corpus only. For the aforesaid reasons and the judicial precedents cited supra, we are of the view that the CIT order passed u/s 263 of the I.T.Act is without jurisdiction and we quash the same. - Decided in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Invocation of Section 263 by CIT.
2. Alleged violation of Section 11(1)(d) by utilizing corpus donations.
3. Jurisdiction and validity of CIT's order under Section 263.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Invocation of Section 263 by CIT:
The CIT invoked Section 263 of the I.T. Act, issuing a notice to the assessee, a charitable society registered under Section 12AA. The CIT deemed the assessment order dated 29.03.2016 erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. The primary concern was the utilization of corpus donations for charitable purposes, which the CIT believed violated Section 11(1)(d). The CIT observed that the assessee received ?2,38,15,619 as foreign contributions, out of which ?1,82,93,750 was corpus donations under Section 11(1)(d). The CIT concluded that the voluntary contributions apart from corpus donations amounted to ?55,21,860, and noted that the assessee utilized ?1,12,03,845 for charitable purposes. Thus, the CIT inferred that ?56,81,961 was utilized from corpus donations, allegedly violating Section 11(1)(d).

2. Alleged Violation of Section 11(1)(d) by Utilizing Corpus Donations:
The CIT's revisionary order directed the AO to examine whether ?56,81,961 of corpus donations was utilized in violation of Section 11(1)(d). The assessee appealed, arguing that the CIT erred in invoking revisionary jurisdiction and that there was no revenue loss since the corpus donations were used for charitable purposes. The assessee contended that corpus donations, if utilized for charitable purposes, should be treated as voluntary contributions and exempt under Section 11.

3. Jurisdiction and Validity of CIT's Order under Section 263:
The Tribunal examined the conditions for invoking Section 263, which requires the order to be erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the revenue. The Tribunal found that even if corpus donations were considered in violation of Section 11(1)(d), they were still utilized for charitable purposes, resulting in a deficit of ?50,08,844. Adjusting the alleged violation amount with the deficit resulted in a surplus within the allowed accumulation limit, indicating no revenue loss. The Tribunal cited the Supreme Court's rulings in Malabar Industrial Co Ltd Vs CIT and CIT Vs Max India Ltd, emphasizing that an order is prejudicial to the revenue only if it results in an unsustainable view in law. The Tribunal concluded that the CIT's order did not fulfill the dual conditions of being erroneous and prejudicial to the revenue, making the CIT's invocation of Section 263 invalid.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal quashed the CIT's order under Section 263, ruling it without jurisdiction. The appeal filed by the assessee was allowed, emphasizing that the utilization of corpus donations for charitable purposes did not violate Section 11(1)(d) and did not result in any revenue loss. The Tribunal's decision was based on the interpretation of relevant sections and judicial precedents, ensuring that the assessee's actions were within the legal framework.