TMI Blog2020 (2) TMI 674X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... given certificate post facto approval on 28.02.2016, eligibility for exemption would require fresh consideration on facts. Therefore, impugned order is set aside and the case is remitted back to the respondents. Petition allowed by way of remand. - W.P.No.25311 of 2013 And M.P.No.1 of 2013 - - - Dated:- 30-1-2020 - Mr. Justice C. Saravanan For the Petitioner : Mr.S.A.Rajan For the Respondent : Mr.P.Srinivas Standing Counsel ORDER In this Writ Petition, the petitioner has challenged the impugned order dated 23.07.2013 bearing reference Na.Ka.No.878/2003/A1 demanding a sum of ₹ 5,31,710/- from the 1st petitioner. 2. The demand is pursuant to the findings given by the Villupuram Municipality on 28.06.2013, w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... AHATAMA GANDHI ROAD, PUDUCHERRY 605 003. C.No.9175/PCIT/PDY/2016-17 Dated: 29.08.2016 To The Chief Commissioner of Income tax-4, Chennai. Sir, Sub: Approval for getting exemption of medical benefits u/s 17(2) of the IT Act in the case of M/s. Shantha Medical Foundation, Trichy Main road, Villupuram - Forwarding of report Reg. Ref: Letter dated 16.02.2016 in C.No.28/Hospital Approval /2015-16/272 from O/o the CCIT-4, Chennai ********** Kindly refer to the above The Joint Commissioner of Income tax, Villupuram range, Villupuram in his letter dated 29.07.2016 has endorsed the verification report dated 31.05.2016 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eing used to cover the expenses of medicines and implements as well as for building more and more hospitals. Moreover, very similar objections raised by the concerned authorities in respect of the other Corporations, were rejected by this Court in W.P.Nos.14414 and 14415 of 1999 and the same has been upheld by the Apex Court. 6.The learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that the petitioner is a Charitable Trust running Hospital and has been recognised as charitable by the Income Tax Authority as well. Therefore, the exemption of tax can be given to the 1st petitioner. 7. The learned counsel for the petitioner further drew my attention to a decision of the Madurai Bench of this Court in the Principal, Sarada Krishana H ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pital charges cannot be equated to rent as contemplated under the provisions of the Act and the denial of the benefit of exemption to the petitioner on that score cannot be sustainable. Hence, I hold that the petitioner is exempted from paying the tax and the benefit of Section 123(e) of the Act should be extended to the petitioner as far as the hospital is concerned and hence, WP No. 13190 of 1992 is allowed. 24. Now coming to the other contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the Commissioner can issue notice within three years from the date on which such person should have been assessed and beyond that the Commissioner has no power as found in Section 168 of the Act, there is considerable force. There is no disput ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . Further, the 1st petitioner was also issued with a notice on an earlier occasion also. The petitioners challenged the same in W.P.No.11105 of 2004. By an order dated 22.03.2013, the court had quashed the demand and remitted back the case to the 2nd respondent therein to consider the claim of the petitioner whether the petitioner is indeed eligible for exemption or not. Since the Income Tax Department has given certificate post facto approval on 28.02.2016, eligibility for exemption would require fresh consideration on facts. Therefore, impugned order is set aside and the case is remitted back to the respondents. 12. Therefore, the respondents are directed to pass a fresh order in the light of the letter dated 29.08.2016 of the Inc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
