9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2014 (7) TMI 682 - AT - Income TaxExpenses on scholarship paid for charitable purposes Exemption u/s 11 - Held that - CIT(A) has brushed aside all the objections of the AO by stating that by way of trivial procedural lapses, this in itself does not change the nature of application of income towards charitable purposes which is factually verified and accepted by the AO as such - the address of the applicant is of Calcutta - The application is addressed to the President of the assessee society at Kanpur it could not be understood as to how an application dated 16 th May, 2003, by a person residing in Calcutta, had reached to the President of the assessee society on 17th May, 2003 and thereafter, the managing committee of the assessee society had formed a scholarship committee who has called this person from Calcutta for interview and this person appeared before the scholarship committee for prolonged interview on 17th May, 2003 and thereafter, the said scholarship committee had reached to the conclusion to recommend granting of scholarship to Mr. Adheesh Bhagat as per the minutes signed on 18 th May, 2003 at 11.30 a.m. - The chronology and timing of the events support the case of the AO that there was no genuine process of selection/interview and it was all manipulation made by the assessee society and the scholarship was granted to Mr. Adheesh Bhagat at the sole discretion of the Vice President / President who intentionally avoided to appear before the Assessing Officer for fear of interrogation. It may be considered to be a good basis for considering the eligibility of applicant but when the application along with the enclosures cannot reach to the managing committee of the assessee society and the scholarship committee in time i.e. by 17th May, 2003 and it is not shown as to how Mr. Adheesh Bhagat was contacted for attending the interview and how he reached Kanpur for attending interview, all these material cannot justify his selection because these material cannot be available before the selection committee along with this fact that the candidate Mr. Adheesh Bhagat cannot be available for interview on 17 th May 2003 in the chronology of events discussed above - the impossibility of interview of Mr. Adheesh Bhagat by the selection committee, as claimed in the absence of any positive material having been brought on record by the assessee thus, the order of CIT(A) is not sustainable Decided in favour of Revenue. Allowability of depreciation as capital expenses - Entire cost of capital expenditure already allowed as deduction u/s 11 of the Act Held that - The decision in ACIT vs. Saraswati Gyan Mandir Shiksha Sansthan 2014 (7) TMI 626 - ITAT LUCKNOW followed - allowing exemption u/s 11 is not equal to allowing deduction - allowing exemption means that the income is not liable to tax but the income remains the same and it does not get reduced, although such income is not taxable because of the operation of section 11(1) of the Act - exemption is allowed at the time of acquisition of assets and depreciation is allowed at the time of user of assets, it does not amount to double deduction Decided partly in favour of Revenue.
Issues Involved:
1. Deletion of addition on account of scholarship expenditure. 2. Allowance of depreciation on capital expenditure for charitable trusts. Detailed Analysis: Issue 1: Deletion of Addition on Account of Scholarship Expenditure Assessment Year 2004-05: The Revenue challenged the deletion of an addition of Rs. 14,20,640/- made by the Assessing Officer (AO) on account of scholarship expenditure. The AO argued that the scholarship granted to Mr. Adheesh Bhagat was not for charitable purposes, citing several procedural lapses and inconsistencies in the selection process. The CIT(A) had deleted the addition, relying on a previous Tribunal decision for the assessment year 2005-06, which was later found to be based on misrepresented facts. The Tribunal, upon independent examination, found that the selection process for the scholarship lacked transparency and genuine procedure, thus reversing the CIT(A)'s decision and restoring the AO's addition. Assessment Year 2006-07: The Revenue raised a similar issue for the assessment year 2006-07, where an addition of Rs. 17,66,435/- was made by the AO on account of the same scholarship. The Tribunal, following its decision for the assessment year 2004-05, allowed the Revenue's appeal, thereby sustaining the AO's addition. Assessment Year 2007-08: For the assessment year 2007-08, the Revenue's appeal involved a similar addition of Rs. 16,40,236/-. Consistent with its previous decisions, the Tribunal allowed the Revenue's appeal, sustaining the AO's addition. Issue 2: Allowance of Depreciation on Capital Expenditure Assessment Year 2006-07: The Revenue contested the CIT(A)'s decision to allow depreciation of Rs. 1,66,49,749/- on capital expenditure, arguing that it amounted to double deduction since the entire cost of capital expenditure had already been allowed as a deduction under Section 11. The CIT(A) followed the Tribunal's decision in the case of ACIT vs. Saraswati Gyan Mandir Shiksha Sansthan, which allowed depreciation on the grounds that exemption under Section 11 is not equivalent to a deduction. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, rejecting the Revenue's appeal, and noted that the judgment of the Hon'ble Kerala High Court in Lissie Medical Institutions Vs Commissioner of Income-tax was not applicable. Assessment Year 2007-08: For the assessment year 2007-08, the Revenue raised a similar issue regarding the allowance of depreciation of Rs. 1,66,97,767/-. The Tribunal, consistent with its decision for the assessment year 2006-07, rejected the Revenue's appeal, thereby upholding the CIT(A)'s decision to allow depreciation. Combined Result: - The appeal of the Revenue for the assessment year 2004-05 is allowed. - The appeals for the assessment years 2006-07 and 2007-08 are partly allowed, with the Tribunal sustaining the AO's additions on scholarship expenditure but rejecting the Revenue's challenge on the allowance of depreciation. (Order was pronounced in the open court on the date mentioned on the caption page)
|
