2023 (10) TMI 29 - AT - Income Tax

Exemption u/s 11 - As per AO from the balance sheet it can be seen that the assessee has made an investment in gold which is not an investment in the modes prescribed in Section 11(5) - HELD THAT - CIT(Appeals) has correctly observed that the Assessing Officer has erred in facts and in law in disallowing the entire claim of exemption to the assessee trust on the ground that the assessee has not violated the provisions of Section 11(5) of the Act. Further, it is also observed that on similar set of facts, the assessee trust has been subject to scrutiny assessment for various years, as mentioned in the preceding paragraphs and no additions have been made in the hands of the assessee, and therefore in absence of any change in facts, the principle of res judicata should apply as held by the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Excel Industries 2013 (10) TMI 324 - SUPREME COURT - Accordingly, looking into the facts of the instant case, the appeal of the Department is dismissed.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Whether the Ld. CIT(A) erred in allowing exemptions under Sections 11(1)(a) and 11(2) of the Income Tax Act.
2. Whether the Ld. CIT(A) erred in holding that the assessee did not violate the provisions of Section 11(5) of the Income Tax Act.

Summary:

Issue 1: Exemptions under Sections 11(1)(a) and 11(2):
The Revenue challenged the Ld. CIT(A)'s decision to allow the assessee's claim of exemptions under Sections 11(1)(a) and 11(2) of the Income Tax Act. The Assessing Officer (AO) had disallowed these exemptions, arguing that the assessee trust had invested in gold, which is not a prescribed mode of investment under Section 11(5). The AO concluded that this investment violated Section 11(5), thus disqualifying the trust from claiming exemptions under Section 11. However, the Ld. CIT(A) found that the gold and silver were purchased for making ornaments for religious purposes, not as an investment. The Ld. CIT(A) also noted that similar practices in previous assessment years were accepted without any additions, invoking the principle of res judicata as per the Supreme Court's ruling in Excel Industries 358 ITR 295 (SC).

Issue 2: Violation of Section 11(5):
The AO argued that the trust's purchase of gold constituted an investment, violating Section 11(5) and thus nullifying the exemptions under Section 11. The AO cited a Chennai Tribunal judgment to support this view. However, the Ld. CIT(A) found that the trust had provided detailed evidence showing that the gold and silver were used for making ornaments for religious purposes, not as investments. The Ld. CIT(A) criticized the AO for not conducting necessary inquiries and for relying on irrelevant case laws. The Ld. CIT(A) concluded that the AO's findings were erroneous and not based on concrete evidence.

Conclusion:
The Appellate Tribunal upheld the Ld. CIT(A)'s decision, dismissing the Department's appeal. It agreed that the AO had erred in disallowing the exemptions and that the principle of res judicata applied, given the consistent treatment of similar facts in previous years. The Tribunal found that the Ld. CIT(A) had correctly observed that the assessee did not violate Section 11(5) and had rightly allowed the exemptions under Sections 11(1)(a) and 11(2). The appeal of the Department was dismissed, and the status of the assessee was directed to be adopted as a "Trust" and not an "AOP" for tax purposes. The Tribunal also upheld the mandatory nature of charging interest under Section 234B.