Rashtriya Seva Samiti, Mumbai vs Department Of Income Tax
- CitationI.T.A. No.3655/Mum/2013
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
The Tribunal holds that where the assessing officer has made no finding that the assessee violated the conditions of section 13 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and the first appellate authority has found that the assessee has not contravened the applicable provisions of the Bombay Public Trust Act, the assessee's entitlement to exemption under section 11 cannot be disturbed on the ground of a shortfall in the reservation of beds for weaker-section patients, and the Revenue's appeal against the grant of such exemption must fail.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
BEFORE S/SHRI B.R.BASKARAN (AM) AND SANJAY GARG, (JM) सव ी बी.आर.बा करन, लेखा सद य एवं ी संजय गग , या यक सद य के सम
आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.3655/Mum/2013 ( नधा रण वष / Assessment Year : 2009-10)
Dy.Director of Income Tax बनाम/ Rashtriya Seva Samiti, (E), I(1), Vs. 380/82,JSS Road, Room No.504, 5th Floor, Girgaon, Piramal Chambers, Parel, Mumbai-400002 Mumbai-400012. (अपीलाथ /Appellant) .. ( !यथ / Respondent)
थायी ले ख ा सं . /जीआइआर सं . /PAN/GIR No. :AAATR3475J
अपीलाथ ओर से / Appellant by Shri Love Kumar !यथ क$ ओर से/ Respondent by Shri None
सन ु वाई क$ तार(ख / Date of Hearing : 5.3.2015 घोषणा क$ तार(ख /Date of Pronouncement : 5.3.2015
आदे श / O R D E R
Per B.R.BASKARAN, Accountant Member:
The appeal by the Revenue is directed against the order dated
15.2.2013 passed by the ld.CIT(A)-I, Mumbai and it relates to assessment
year 2009-10. The revenue is aggrieved by the decision of ld.CIT(A) in
granting exemption under section 11 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the
Act) to the assessee.
2 ITA. No.3655/Mum/2013
2. None appeared on behalf of the assessee though the assessee
aware of the date of hearing. Hence we proceed to dispose of this appeal
without the presence of assessee.
3. We heard the ld. DR and perused the record. The facts of the case
are that the assessee is running a general hospital named "Inlaks General
Hospital" and it claimed exemption under section 11 of the Act. There is
no mention about the registration obtained by the assessee u/s 12A of the
Act and since the AO did not discuss about the same, it is presumed that
the assessee has been granted registration u/s 12A of the Act, on the
strength of which, it has claimed exemption u/s 11 of the Act. The AO
noticed that the assessee has treated 4561 patients, out of which "free,
indigent and weaker section" patients consisted of 214 patients only,
which worked out to 4.69% of the total beds. It appears that, as per the
provisions of Bombay Public Trust Act (BPT), the assessee was required to
reserve 10% beds for needy and poor people. Since the percentage of
weaker section patients treated worked out to less than 10%, the AO took
the view that the assessee is not entitled to the exemption given under
section 11 of the Act.
4. The ld.CIT(A), however reversed the decision of the AO with the
following observations:
"3.3 I have carefully considered the submission of the appellant's AR, assessment order and the facts of the case and the case laws cited. I find that the appellant has kept 10% of the bed reserve for needy and poor people and 2% of the gross revenue is transferred 3 ITA. No.3655/Mum/2013
to Indigent Patients Fund (IPF). Free treatment is given to the poor and needy people. Out of 91 beds 9 beds are reserved for poor people and 9 beds reserved for weaker section persons. Thus, the appellant has not violated Bombay Public Trust Act (BPT Act). There is no other requirement which the appellant has to comply for getting exemption under section 11. Hence, the AO is not justified in disallowance of exemption u/s 11 of the Act. On similar facts my predecessor has held in favour of the appellant. Respectfully following my predecessor's decision in the case of the appellant's own case for AY 2008-09 in which my predecessor has allowed the exception u/s 11. Therefore, the appellant is eligible for exemption. The AO is directed to allow exemption to the appellant u/s 11. The ground of appeal is allowed."
On perusal of the orders of both the tax authorities, we notice that the ld.
CIT(A) has given a specific finding that the assessee has not violated any
of the provisions of Bombay Public Trust Act and the AO has not pointed
out that the assessee has violated the conditions prescribed in sec. 13 of
the Income Tax Act. Under these set of facts, we do not find any reason
to interfere with the decision of the ld. CIT(A).
5. In the result the appeal of the revenue is dismissed.
The above order was pronounced in the open court on 5th Mar, 2015.
घोषणा खुले यायालय म, -दनांकः 5th March, 2015 को क$ गई ।
sd sd
(संजय गग /SANJAY GARG) ( बी.आर.बा करन / B.R. BASKARAN) या यक सद य / JUDICIAL MEMBER लेखा सद य / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER मुंबई Mumbai:5th March,2015. व. न.स./ SRL , Sr. PS 4 ITA. No.3655/Mum/2013
आदे श क !त#ल$प अ%े$षत/Copy of the Order forwarded to :
1. अपीलाथ / The Appellant
2. !यथ / The Respondent.
3. आयकर आयु1त(अपील) / The CIT(A)- concerned
4. आयकर आय1 ु त / CIT concerned
5. 2वभागीय त न4ध, आयकर अपील(य अ4धकरण, मुंबई / DR, ITAT, Mumbai concerned
6. गाड फाईल / Guard file.
आदे शानुसार/ BY ORDER, true copy सहायक पंजीकार (Asstt. Registrar) आयकर अपील(य अ4धकरण, मंब ु ई /ITAT, Mumbai
This page reproduces a public judgment and a summary of it. It is research material, not legal advice, and it is no substitute for advice from an advocate on your own facts.
Research this judgment with Miss Lucy
Ask what it holds, what has followed it, and what it means for your matter — in plain English, with the citations.
Try Miss Lucy free