2022 (1) TMI 624 - AT - Income Tax

Exemption u/s 11 - Addition made for non utilization of funds - addition for penal interest on FDR loan treating it as mis-utilization of funds and hence not allowable as utilization u/s 11 - HELD THAT - Assessee should not suffer on account of the mistake of a counsel/accountant/auditor etc. stands well addressed legally. The assessee has relied upon the proposition of law as laid down in the case of CIT Vs Siddhartha Enterprises 2009 (7) TMI 22 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT ; CIT Vs S. Dhanbal 2008 (8) TMI 15 - DELHI HIGH COURT and the oft quoted decision in the case of Price Waterhouse Coopers Pvt. Ltd. 2012 (9) TMI 775 - SUPREME COURT Before considering the position of law, it is necessary to first address the facts since there is no finding on the nature of this penal interest. Accordingly, we set aside this issue back to the file of the AO with a direction to give a specific finding on the nature of interest disallowed. In case it is a case of mis-utilization of funds, then of course the rigors of law will apply. However, if it is an issue of interest on over draft or loan facility for the purposes of the Board, then disallowance cannot be maintained. - Decided in favour of assessee.

Issues:
1. Completeness of the order by CIT(A)
2. Interpretation of section 11(2) of the Income Tax Act
3. Taxation of interest on overdraft as penal interest and mis-utilization of funds

Issue 1: Completeness of the order by CIT(A)
The assessee challenged the order of the CIT(A) for being incomplete, erroneous, and contrary to law and facts. The AR argued that the addition made for non-utilization of funds ignored the statutory provision allowing time for utilization in subsequent years. The trust, being a government entity, aimed at promoting tourism and preserving cultural heritage. The AR highlighted the trust's objectives and functions, emphasizing its non-profit nature and benefit to the general public. The AR contended that the CIT(A) overlooked the provision allowing accumulation of unutilized funds for future use, which was supported by the filing of Form No. 10. The Tribunal found merit in the argument and directed the issue to be verified by the AO after hearing the assessee.

Issue 2: Interpretation of section 11(2) of the Income Tax Act
The dispute centered on the applicability of section 11(2) regarding the utilization of income for charitable purposes. The AO added back underutilized receipts to the trust's taxable income, citing expenditure on non-charitable activities. The AR argued that the trust complied with the statutory requirement by filing Form No. 10 for accumulating unutilized funds. The CIT(A) failed to consider this submission, prompting the Tribunal to remand the issue for verification by the AO. The Tribunal emphasized the importance of complying with statutory provisions for utilization of income for charitable purposes.

Issue 3: Taxation of interest on overdraft as penal interest and mis-utilization of funds
The AO disallowed a sum as penal interest on FDR loans, treating it as mis-utilization of funds not allowable under section 11. The AR contended that the interest paid was on overdraft loans against FDRs, not penal interest. The bank confirmed the nature of the interest paid, contradicting the AO's characterization. The CIT(A, without disputing the facts, upheld the disallowance based on the auditor's classification of interest as penal. The Tribunal, citing legal precedents, emphasized that an assessee should not suffer due to an auditor's error. It directed the AO to determine the nature of the interest disallowed, remanding the issue for specific findings. The Tribunal highlighted the need to differentiate between mis-utilization of funds and legitimate interest payments on loans for the trust's purposes.

In conclusion, the Tribunal allowed the appeal for statistical purposes, emphasizing the importance of verifying facts and complying with statutory provisions in determining tax liabilities related to charitable trusts.

← Previous Next →