Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2018 (3) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (3) TMI 76 - ITAT MUMBAIExemption u/s 11 eligibility - proof of charitable activities - assessee trust while calculating 2% of the Gross Billing has excluded the doctor’s fees which has resulted in shortfall in the transfer to Indigent Patient Fund (IPF Account)- Held that:- As decided in assessee’s own case for AY 2010-11 and AY 2011-12 [2017 (2) TMI 1324 - ITAT MUMBAI] non-compliance of one of the statutory stipulations should not nullify its efforts made towards achieving its charitable objectives. The same can be observed from the fact that it has appropriated 88% of its Income towards achieving the objectives of the trust. Further, the assessee has not altogether shrugged off its responsibility towards the Indigent and Weaker Section Patients. There is a difference of opinion w.r.t the amount of funds to be transferred to the Indigent Patient's Fund (IPF). It is noteworthy, that the assessee has not simply waited for the clarification and stalled the appropriation of funds to the IPF and its utilization towards the requisite purpose. Rather, until clarification on such matter, the assessee has chosen to transfer 2% of the total hospital billing net of doctor’s' fees to the IPF and has utilized the same towards the medical treatment of the Indigent and Weaker Section Patients. There is no single evidence which would suggest otherwise. The rationale behind the same being that the doctor’s fees is not a part of the hospital's earnings, but rather a reimbursement to the hospital. The hospital merely acts as a collecting agent between the two for this particular aspect. Neither is there any evidence which would suggest the assessee’s status of that of a "Charitable Trust registered under the Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950" being revoked by the Charity Commissioner. In such a scenario, we are of the view that the AO has no role in law by usurping the role of the Charity Commissioner and declaring that the assessee has breached the covenants of the Scheme. Hence, in light of the above, we confirm the order of CIT(A) and the appeal of Revenue is dismissed.
|