9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Denial of claim for accumulation under section 11(2) due to vagueness in the purpose specified. 2. Alternative contention for exemption under section 11(1)(a) for 25% of the income. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Denial of Claim for Accumulation under Section 11(2): The primary issue was whether the assessee-trust's claim for accumulation under section 11(2) was valid. The Assessing Officer (AO) denied the claim on the grounds that the purpose specified in Form No. 10, "relief of poverty," was too vague and not specific. The AO also noted that the resolution accompanying Form No. 10 did not mention the amount of accumulation or the specific purpose for which the accumulation was made. According to the AO, the accumulation should be specific in both purpose and amount. Consequently, the AO determined the income of the assessee at Rs. 44,663 after deducting allowable expenses. Upon appeal, the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [DC(A)] upheld the AO's decision, relying on the Calcutta High Court decision in *Director of Income-tax (Exemption) v. Trustees of Singhania Charitable Trust [1993] 199 ITR 819*. The High Court held that the purpose of accumulation must be a concrete one, instrumental or ancillary to the implementation of the trust's objects, and not a generic term. The assessee contended that the conditions for accumulation under section 11(2) were met, including filing Form No. 10 before the due date, specifying the purpose of accumulation, ensuring the period of accumulation did not exceed 10 years, and investing the accumulated money in specified modes. The assessee argued that "relief of poverty" was one of the trust's objects and should be considered specific enough. However, the Tribunal did not agree with the assessee's contentions. It held that merely specifying one of the trust's objects without elaborating on a clear project or proposal for major investment did not satisfy the requirements of section 11(2). The Tribunal emphasized that accumulation for a period of 10 years necessitates a clear and specific purpose, which was not demonstrated by the assessee. The Tribunal also noted that the decision of the Madras Tribunal in *ITO v. CSI Technical & Vocational Training Trust [1986] 24 TTJ (Mad.) 266* was in direct conflict with the Calcutta High Court decision, and thus, the High Court decision should prevail. 2. Alternative Contention for Exemption under Section 11(1)(a): The assessee alternatively contended that under section 11(1)(a), at least 25% of the income derived from property held under trust should be exempt if it is accumulated or set apart for application to charitable purposes in India. Section 11(1)(a) states that income derived from property held under trust for charitable purposes is exempt to the extent it is applied to such purposes in India, and any income accumulated or set apart for future application to such purposes is also exempt, provided it does not exceed 25% of the income. The Tribunal noted that the AO did not dispute the charitable nature of the trust or its utilization of income towards charitable objects. Therefore, in the absence of any contrary finding, the Tribunal held that 25% of the gross income should be allowed as exempt under section 11(1)(a). The gross income of the assessee trust was Rs. 71,496, and 25% of this amount, Rs. 17,873, should have been granted as exempt. Conclusion: The Tribunal partly allowed the appeal, rejecting the assessee's claim for accumulation under section 11(2) due to the lack of a specific purpose but granting the alternative relief under section 11(1)(a) for 25% of the income, amounting to Rs. 17,873.
|
