2025 (4) TMI 281 - AT - Income Tax

Revision u/s 263 - AO s failure to examine the nature of capital receipts and expenditures of the assessee-trust in light of the provisions of Section 2(15) - HELD THAT - No infirmity therefore in the order of the Ld.CIT that the assessment order passed by the AO in the present case was erroneous causing prejudice to the Revenue for not having examined the activities carried out by the assessee being charitable in terms of the definition of the same in section 2(15) of the Act read with second proviso thereto as interpreted by the Hon ble apex court in the case of the assessee itself. Assessee was unable to demonstrate the said fact from the records. His reliance on the decision of the Hon ble Apex Court in the case of the assessee itself has also been rightly pointed out by the Ld.CIT to be ill conceived since the Hon ble Apex Court ruling in favour of the assessee was categorically stated to be applicable for the impugned year before the Hon ble apex court and for the other years the interpretation of the court of section 2(15) r.w 2nd proviso thereto was to be applied. No reason to interfere in the order of the ld.CIT. Appeal of the assessee is dismissed.

Summary

ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDERED

The core legal issue considered in this judgment is whether the order passed by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption) under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, setting aside the assessment order of the Assessing Officer (AO) for the assessment year 2018-19, was justified. Specifically, the question was whether the assessment order was erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue due to the failure to examine the nature of capital receipts and expenditures of the assessee-trust in light of the provisions of Section 2(15) of the Act.

ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS

Relevant Legal Framework and Precedents

The legal framework revolves around Section 263 of the Income Tax Act, which allows the Commissioner to revise an assessment order if it is found to be erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue. Section 2(15) of the Act defines "charitable purpose" and includes activities of general public utility (GPU), subject to certain conditions. The interpretation of these provisions was central to the case.

The judgment also references the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions) vs. Ahmedabad Urban Development Authority (AUDA), which provided clarity on the interpretation of activities considered as charitable under Section 2(15) and the applicability of the proviso concerning commercial activities.

Court's Interpretation and Reasoning

The Tribunal noted that the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (PCIT) invoked Section 263 because the AO failed to examine whether the activities of the assessee-trust, which involved substantial capital receipts and expenditures, fell under the definition of "charitable purpose" as per Section 2(15). The PCIT highlighted that the AO did not consider whether these activities were carried out in a commercial manner and whether their quantum exceeded the limits specified in the proviso to Section 2(15).

The Tribunal agreed with the PCIT's interpretation that the AO's failure to apply the law as clarified by the Supreme Court in the AUDA case rendered the assessment order erroneous and prejudicial to the Revenue's interest.

Key Evidence and Findings

The Tribunal considered the submissions made by the assessee, which relied on the Supreme Court's decision in its own case, arguing that the activities were charitable. However, the Tribunal noted that the Supreme Court's decision applied only to the specific assessment years before it and that the law needed to be applied to each year based on its facts.

Application of Law to Facts

The Tribunal applied the legal principles established by the Supreme Court in the AUDA case to the facts of the current case. It emphasized that the AO should have examined whether the assessee's activities were commercial in nature and whether they exceeded the prescribed limits, thereby affecting their classification as charitable activities.

Treatment of Competing Arguments

The assessee argued that the AO had already examined the capital receipts and expenditures during the assessment proceedings. However, the Tribunal found that the AO did not adequately consider the implications of the Supreme Court's interpretation of Section 2(15) and the proviso concerning commercial activities.

Conclusions

The Tribunal concluded that the PCIT was justified in invoking Section 263 to revise the assessment order. It held that the AO's failure to examine the nature of the assessee's activities in light of the Supreme Court's interpretation rendered the assessment order erroneous and prejudicial to the Revenue's interest.

SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGS

The Tribunal preserved the following crucial legal reasoning from the judgment:

"The ratio laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in ACIT(E) vs AUDA & Ors as discussed above is squarely applicable in the case of the assessee which has not been taken into cognizance by the Assessing officer."

"The decision of Hon'ble apex court applies retrospectively as per decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Saurashtra Kutch Stock Exchange Ltd."

The core principle established is that the AO must examine whether the activities of a trust classified as GPU exceed the commercial activity limits specified in the proviso to Section 2(15) to determine their eligibility as charitable activities.

The final determination was that the appeal of the assessee was dismissed, and the order of the PCIT under Section 263 was upheld, directing the AO to pass a fresh assessment order considering the Supreme Court's interpretation of the relevant legal provisions.