TMI Blog2022 (3) TMI 427X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the assessee is directed against the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions), Mumbai [hereinafter referred to as 'the CIT(E)'] dated 17.03.2021 passed under section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') for the AY 2016-17. 2. Sh. Sukhsagar Syal appearing on behalf of the assessee submitted that the CIT(E) invoked revisional jurisdiction under section 263 of the Act on the ground that the Assessing Officer (AO) has not made detailed enquiries with respect to investment in shares by the assessee, hence, the assessment order dated 04.12.2018 passed under section 143(3) of the Act is erroneous in so far as prejudicial to the interest of Revenue. The ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that for similar reasons the CIT(E) had exercised revisional powers under section 263 of the Act in the AYs 2014-15 and 2015-16 in assessee's own case and other group trusts. The matter travelled to the Tribunal. In appeal by the assessee for AY 2014-15 in ITA No. 3737/Mum/2019, the Tribunal vide order dated 28.12.2020 quashed the revision order. Similarly, for AY 2015-16, the assessee had assailed the order of CIT(E) passed under sectio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Both sides are unanimous in stating that the reasons for invoking revisional powers in the impugned AY are identical to the AYs 2014-15 2015-16. The order passed under section 263 of the Act by the CIT(E) for AY 2014-15 was challenged before the Tribunal in ITA No. 3737/Mum/2019 (supra) by the assessee. The Tribunal after having examined the issue threadbare, held as under: 30. The next issue raised by the learned Commissioner is with respect to the alleged failure of the Assessing Officer in not examining whether investments held by the assessee are in conformity with the provisions of Section 11(5) of the Act, and in not examining whether the assessee is covered by the exceptions carved out under proviso to Section 13(1)(d). 31. So far as this aspect of the matter is concerned, we have noted that the Assessing Officer has extensively examined the compliance with the requirements of Section 11(5) and Section 13(1)(d) of the Act. Vide letter dated 2nd December 2016, the Assessing Officer specifically asked the assessee whether any investment of the trust for last three years is in contravention of Section 11(5) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Also, whether any investment ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the assessee trust could not have invested in the shares of a company, other than in shares of a public sector company or shares prescribed as a form or mode of investment under clause (xii) of Section 11 (5), after 30th November 1983. None of these conditions are satisfied in the present case. However, proviso to Section 13(1) (d) states that nothing in the clause, containing aforesaid provision, will apply to, inter alia, (i) any assets held by the trust or institution where such assets form part of the corpus of the trust or institution as on the 1st day of June, 1973; and (ia)any accretion to the shares, forming part of the corpus mentioned in clause (i), by way of bonus shares allotted to the trust or institution . Therefore, as long as the shares are part of the corpus, as on 1st June 1973, or the shares are received as accretion to the shares being held to be part of the corpus, the provisions of Section 13(1)(c) will not come into play. 33. It is an admitted position that the shares becoming part of the investment, after 1st June 1973, were accretion to the original shareholdings as on 1st June 1973 and these were allotted as bonus shares only. So far as the question ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... a certain way by the CBDT, it cannot normally be open to the field officers to question the correctness of that position- particularly when it's a factual aspect, and this factual aspect has been found in a particular manner, and no interference in these settled facts is warranted on account of any particular reason. 34. While it is indeed true that there is no res judicata in the assessment proceedings, the principle of consistency, nevertheless has its firm roots in the income tax jurisprudence. Hon'ble Supreme Court's has, in the case of Radhasoami Satsang v. CIT [ (1992) 193 ITR 321 (SC)] held that, while strictly speaking, res judicata does not apply to income-tax proceedings but where a fundamental aspect permeating through the different assessment years has been found as a fact one way or the other, and the parties have allowed that position to be sustained by not challenging the order, it would not be at all appropriate to allow the position to be changed in a subsequent year. In the case of PCIT v. Quest Investment Advisors Pvt. Ltd. [ (2018) 419 ITR 545 (Bom.)], referring to this judgment and taking note of subsequent legal developments, Hon'ble juri ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... view. This mandate is subject only to the usual gateways of distinguishing the earlier decision of where the earlier decision is per incuriam. However, these are fetters only on a co- ordinate Bench which, failing the possibility of availing of either of these gateways, may yet differ with the view expressed and refer the matter to a Bench of superior strength or in some cases to a Bench of superior jurisdiction. (emphasis supplied) 9. The principle accepted by the Revenue for 10 earlier years and 4 subsequent years to the Assessment Years 2007-08 and 2008-09 was that the entire expenditure is to be allowed against business income and no expenditure is to be allocated to capital gains. Once this principle was accepted and consistently applied and followed, the Revenue was bound by it. Unless of course it wanted to change the practice without any change in law or change in facts therein, the basis for the change in practice should have been mentioned either in the assessment order or at least pointed out to the Tribunal when it passed the impugned order. None of this has happened. In fact, all have proceeded on the basis that there is no change in the principle which has ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ppeal No. 81 of 1999 dated 14-9-2000]. The shares have not been disposed of even during the assessment year in question. Now, under section 164(2), it is, inter alia, laid down that in the case of relevant income which is derived from property held under trust for charitable purposes, which is of the nature referred to in section 11(4A), tax shall be charged on so much of the relevant income as is not exempt under section 11. Section 164(2) was reintroduced by the Direct Tax Laws (Amendment) Act, 1989 with effect from 1-4-1989. Earlier it was omitted by the Direct Tax Laws (Amendment) Act, 1987. However, the Legislature inserted a proviso by the Finance Act, 1984 with effect from 1-4-1985. By the said proviso, it is, inter alia, laid down that where whole or part of the relevant income is not exempt by virtue of section 13(1)(d), tax shall be charged on the relevant income or part of the relevant income at the maximum marginal rate. The phrase 'relevant income or part of the relevant income' is required to be read in contradistinction to the phrase 'whole income' under section 161(1A). This is only by way of comparison. Under section 161(1A), which begins with a non ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... luded from section 10 could be included in the total income of the previous year of the person/assessee. That may be a person who receives or derives income from property held under trust wholly for charitable or religious purposes. Thus, the income which is not to be included in computation of the total income is a matter dealt with by section 10 and by section 11 the case of an assessee who has received income derived from property held under trust only for charitable or religious purposes to the extent to which such income is applied to such property in India and that any such income is accumulated or set apart for application for such purposes in India to the extent of which the income so accumulated or set apart in computing 15% of the income of such property, is dealt with. Therefore, it is a particular assessee and who is in receipt of such income as is falling under clause (a) of sub-section (1) of section 11 who would be claiming the exemption or benefit. That is a income derived by a person from property. It is that which is dealt with and if the property is held in trust for the specified purpose, the income derived therefrom is exempt and to the extent indicated in sect ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... body of written and/or spoken material for language research; (iii) anatomy any distinct mass of body tissue that may be distinguished from its surroundings. Latin: meaning- 'body'. 12. In the Law Lexicon of P. Ramanatha Aiyar, 2nd Edition reprint-208 the meaning of the word 'Corpus' is given as under: A Body; human body; an artificial body created by law; as a corporation; a body or collection of laws; a material substance; something visible and tangible; as the subject of a right; something having legal position as distinguished from an incorporeal physical substance as distinguished from intellectual conception; the body of estate; or a capital of on estate . 13. The word 'Corpus' is used in the context of Income Tax Act. We have to understand the same in the context of a capital, opposed to an expenditure. It is a capital of an assessee; a capital of an estate; capital of a trust; a capital of an institution. Therefore, if any voluntary contribution is made with a specific direction, then it shall be treated as the capital of the trust for carrying on its charitable or religious activities. Then such an income falls under Sectio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ilise the income from the deposit to carry out the charitable activities, then also the said amount would be a contribution to the corpus of the trust and the nomenclature in which the amount is kept in deposit is of no relevance as long as the contribution received are kept in deposit as capital and only the income from the said capital which is to be utilised for carrying on charitable and religions activities of the institute/corpus of the trust, for which Section 11(i)(d) of the Act is attracted and the said income is not liable for tax tinder the Act. [Emphasis, by underlining, supplied by us] 41. What essentially follows is that it's not the declaration of an investment being a corpus investment but the fact of its being treated as capital and rather than using the investment for the purposes of the trust, using the income from investment for the purposes of the trust, which is determinative of its being in the nature of corpus investment. How the trust is treating the investment, i.e., in the capital field or not, is thus truly determinative of the investment being part of the corpus. Viewed thus, the mere fact of these investments being held as capital for at ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
