2007 (2) TMI 171 - HC - Income Tax

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Entitlement to exemption u/s 10(26B) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.

Summary:

Issue 1: Entitlement to exemption u/s 10(26B) of the Income-tax Act, 1961

The appeals under section 260A of the Income-tax Act, 1961, were heard analogously and disposed of by a common judgment. The core issue was whether the appellant-corporation, Arunachal Pradesh Forest Corporation Limited (APFC), was entitled to the benefit of exemption under section 10(26B) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.

The APFC, incorporated in 1977, claimed exemption under clause (26B) of section 10 of the Income-tax Act in its income returns for various assessment years. The assessing authority, appellate authority, and Appellate Tribunal rejected the claim, stating that the corporation was not established for the purpose of promoting tribal welfare.

Clause (26B) of the Act exempts the income of a corporation established by a Central, State, or Provincial Act, or any other body wholly financed by the Government, if it is formed for promoting the interests of Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, or backward classes. The court reiterated that the burden of proof lies on the claimant to establish eligibility for exemption, as established in CIT v. Ramakrishna Deo [1959] 35 ITR 312.

The court referred to the Allahabad High Court's interpretation in CIT v. Harijan Evam Nirbal Varg Avas Nigam [1997] 226 ITR 696, which emphasized that an entity may qualify for exemption if it promotes the interests of Scheduled Castes or Scheduled Tribes, even if it has other objectives.

The Revenue contended that APFC was established for commercial activities, not solely for promoting the interests of Scheduled Tribes. However, the court noted the background of APFC's formation, which was based on a Parliamentary Committee's recommendation to utilize forest resources for the economic development of Arunachal Pradesh's predominantly tribal population.

The court acknowledged that the APFC's memorandum of association included objectives related to forest resource development and socio-economic activities benefiting the local tribal population. Although an amendment explicitly stating the promotion of Scheduled Tribes' welfare was made later, the court found that the corporation's activities inherently aimed at tribal welfare.

The court concluded that APFC was primarily formed to ameliorate the tribal population's conditions and promote developmental activities in Arunachal Pradesh. Therefore, a restricted interpretation of clause (26B) was not warranted.

The court distinguished the present case from the Delhi Stock Exchange Association Ltd. v. CIT [1997] 225 ITR 235, which dealt with charitable purpose exemptions, stating that clause (26B) serves a different purpose.

In conclusion, the court held that APFC was entitled to exemption under clause (26B) of section 10 of the Income-tax Act. The appeals were allowed, and the impugned assessment orders were set aside.