Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + HC Income Tax - 2015 (4) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2015 (4) TMI 1105 - HC - Income TaxEntitlement to exemption under section 11 - ITAT allowed the claim - that:- The definition of the term "charitable purpose" is appearing in section 2(15) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, and which includes medical relief. In so far as the exemption under section 11 is concerned, in paragraph 5 of its order, the Tribunal has found that for the assessment year 2005-06, the only reason for not applying the Tribunal's order for earlier assessment years and as recorded by the Assessing Officer is that the Revenue or the Department has not accepted the said order. However, in the light of the fair concession of Mr. Malhotra that the Tribunal's orders, on the same facts, as rendered for the earlier assessment years, have not been challenged by the Revenue, then we cannot fault the Tribunal or the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) for applying them. It is clear from the Tribunal's order that there was no issue before the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) in respect of any exemption under section 10(21) and section 10(23C). The Assessing Officer had disallowed the claim of exemption under section 11 of the Income-tax Act. The Tribunal's earlier orders are in relation to this exemption. The Tribunal concurred with its earlier order dated January 10, 2005. The Tribunal, therefore, found that when the facts are identical to the assessment order under consideration, then there is no difficulty in applying and following its views for the earlier assessment years. It is in these circumstances that we are of the view that the Tribunal's order does not raise any substantial question of law. In these circumstances, the conclusion reached in paragraph 5 and 5.1 cannot be termed as perverse or vitiated by any error of law apparent on the face of record. The argument of Mr. Malhotra that the levy of surcharge on patients and doctors ought not to have been treated as income earned from the activities of the trust but a corpus donation, need not detain us. Mr. Malhotra himself had pointed to us that certain directions were issued to the assessee by the Charity Commissioner of the State in exercise of his powers under section 34 of the Bombay Public Trust Act, 1950. The Charity Commissioner has been conferred with the powers to give directions to the trustees, in the event, he finds that the trust property is in danger of being wasted, damaged, alienated or wrongfully sold, removed or disposed of. It is the duty of every trustee or persons connected with trust to comply with these directions. In the circumstances and when section 41AA was inserted in the Bombay Public Trust Act by the Maharashtra Act of 1985 with a avowed and specific purpose, that we do not think that despite the directions of the Charity Commissioner, the Revenue can insist that the amounts charged or surcharges levied should not be treated as income from the activities of the trust. The authorities under the Income-tax Act are supposed to scrutinise the papers and related documents of the trust or the assessee so as to bring the income to tax and in accordance with the Income-tax Act. In such circumstances, the concurrent findings did not in any manner indicate that the directions issued by the Charity Commissioner are incapable of being complied or liable to be ignored as is held. The directions issued did not change the character of the receipts - Decided against revenue
|