9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (11) TMI 1009X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... appeal No.97/2016 and 275/2016 filed by the respondent assessee. The first one being appeal No.32/2018 emanates from the order of the Tribunal passed in appeal No.97/JODH/2016, concerning the assessee's right to claim exemption under Section 80G of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act of 1961") whereas the other appeal being appeal No.94/2018 arises from ITA No. 275/JODH/2016, relating to rejection of respondent's application for registration under Section 10(23C)(vi) of the Act of 1961. Though there were two separate applications and correspondingly two orders by the Commissioner, Income Tax (Exemption), which led to filing of two appeals before the Tribunal, but the facts in essence are common, relevant facts ar ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y than TBET, its sponsor Trust. Facts relating to application under Section 80G(vi): The respondent's application seeking approval under Section 80-G of the Act of 1961 came to be rejected by the Commissioner vide his order dated 28.1.2016. While rejecting the application, the learned Commissioner recorded a finding that there was a discrepancy in the number of Doctors on roll. Such finding was recorded as salary payment vis a vis their attendance shown in the data relating to bio attendance system did not telly. Learned Commissioner (Exemption) noted that Dr. Rohilla Gorach had made statement on the basis of salary sheet that salary has been paid to 205 doctors, whereas the books of accounts of the assessee showed payment of salary to 21 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... another application on 07.07.2015, in prescribed form for grant of exemption under Section 10(23C)(vi) of the Act of 1961. The said application filed by the assessee came to be rejected by the Commissioner (Exemption) on two counts, firstly because the assessee had failed to reach the requisite parameters of aggregate annual receipt for financial year 2014-15 and 2015-16, and secondly because the respondent has not maintained proper books of account. While rejecting the application, the Commissioner relied upon the statement of Dr. Rohilla and Mr. D.K. Gupta and reiterated the views, which he had expressed while passing the order dated 27.1.2016 in relation to assessee's application under Section 80G(5) of the Act of 1961. The Commissioner ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he Tribunal after due deliberation and appreciation of evidence, concluded that the finding regarding non maintenance of the books of accounts in regular manner was based on conjectures and surmises, as there was hardly any discrepancy, if the matter was examined in its correct perspective. The Tribunal after detailed scrutiny has held that the assessee is entitled to grant of approval under Section 80G of the Act of 1961 and so also entitled for certificate of registration under Section 10(23C)(vi) of the Act of 1961 while allowing the appeals filed by the respondent assessee, vide its impugned order dated 06.09.2017. Mr. Bissa, learned counsel for the appellant - Income Tax Department, challenging the common order dated 6.9.2017 urged th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ge passed by the Tribunal by submitting that the Tribunal has recorded a clear and categorical finding in favour of the assessee that there is no discrepancy in maintaining the books of accounts. He argued that the findings recorded by the Tribunal are based on proper appreciation of evidence available on record and such a detailed and reasoned order passed by the Tribunal, after taking into consideration all the ocular and oral evidence as well as the arguments of both the sides, do not call for any interference. He contended that the findings recorded by the Tribunal are findings of fact, which have not even been alleged to be perverse, much less being proved to be perverse. He added that until and unless such findings of fact recorded by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nsidered opinion of this Court 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 act ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
