Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + HC Income Tax - 2018 (11) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (11) TMI 1009 - HC - Income TaxApproval u/s 80G - eligibility for grant of exemption u/s 10(23C)(vi) - not maintaining the books of accounts in regular course - assessee is a creation of an Act of the State legislature, known as Pacific Medical University, Udaipur Act, 2014 - Held that:- We are of the considered opinion that the Tribunal has committed no error of law in concluding that the Commissioner(Exemption) has wrongly rejected assessee’s applications on the ground of not maintaining the books of accounts in regular course. A perusal of the orders dated 28.1.2016 and 28.07.2016 passed by the Commissioner u/s 80G and 10(23C)(vi)reveals that he has given much credence to the statements of Mr. D.K. Gupta and Dr. Rohilla Gorac which reveals that he has simply stated that the books of accounts of Tirupati Balaji Medical Stores and M/s Venkteshwar Enterprises, who used to sell medicines in the Hospital, have been maintained in their Office, while also informing that for the donations received towards corpus in the financial year 2014-15 and 2015-16 neither any receipts have been issued, nor have they received any letter from the donors, who had sent their contribution towards the corpus. Even if the said statement is taken to be at its face value, the same is not sufficient to infer that the assessee has not maintained books of accounts in regular course. Given the fact that the respondent assessee is a separate assessee having a separate Permanent Account Number, the statement made with regard to Medical stores at the hospital are not relevant and the same cannot be taken into consideration for the purpose of ascertaining the fact whether the books of accounts of the respondent – assessee have been maintained properly and in regular course. Similarly, the discrepancy arising from the statement of Dr. Rohilla Gorach; record of bio-attendance; and consequent difference in number of doctors actually worked and payments made as per the books, has been satisfactorily explained by the assessee. Similar has been the issue regarding document AS/4, which was found from Ms. Mayuri Jain, P.A. to Mr. Rahul Aggarwal, the Chairman of the respondent assessee. The Commissioner has wrongly rejected the request of opportunity of cross-examination of Ms. Mayuri Jain on the ground that such request of crossexamination of witness was not made before the Dy. Director of Income Tax. In absence of the requisite cross-examination, her statement cannot form a basis of arriving at a conclusion against the respondent. - Decided against revenue
|