9911796707
TMI Blog2010 (7) TMI 1187X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d u/s 12A of the Act on 18.1.1999 was earlier granted recognition u/s 80G of the Act till 31.3.2009. On 20.3.2009, the assessee had applied for grant of renewal of recognition u/s 80G of the Act. 4. While processing the renewal application of the assessee, the DIT (E), taking cue from the provisions of s. 80G (5)(i) and (iii) of the Act, has observed that - (i) the primary object of the assessee was to establish and run medical college and hospital. In furtherance of the object, the trust has been running St.John's Medical College and hospital; (ii) As per Para 3 of the Memorandum of Association, the primary object of the trust was among others, primarily for the benefit of Catholics; others may be admitted without distinction of caste and creed; - the said clause is not in accordance with the requirement of s.80G(5)(iii) of the Act. 5. In compliance to show-cause notice, the contentions of the assessee were that - (i) the meaning and intention of sub-clause (5) (iii) of s.80G is that the institution should not be exclusively for the benefit of the any particular community. It is clear from the provision that it is not applicable to institution catering to the benefit of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dmitted for MBBS were from Catholics and the staff position of non-teaching staff had around 90% from the community; - the facts of the activity also confirm the intention of the society to exist primarily for the benefit of minority community; (vi) relies on the decision of the Hon'ble A.P High Court in the case of Arsha Vijnana Trust v. D.P.Sharma, DIT(E) and Others reported in 295 ITR 437 5.2. Accordingly, the assessee's application for renewal of recognition u/s 80G(5)(vi) was rejected. 6. Aggrieved, the assessee has come up with the present appeal. During the course of hearing, the arguments put-forth by the Ld. A R are summarized as under: (i) the Ld. DIT(E) had erred in rejecting the application for renewal of recognition u/s 80G(5)(vi) of the Act on the ground that the assessee had violated the conditions laid down in s. 80G(5)(i) and (iii) of the Act. On a proper appreciation of facts and law, there was no violation of any of the conditions; (ii) the DIT(E) had erred in holding that "Catholic" was a religious community or caste. The term 'catholic' does not denote either a religious community or caste. The conclusion of the DIT had no basis and in fact was arrive ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ference is called for at this stage. 7. We have carefully considered the rival submissions, viewed the relevant records diligently and also perused the paper book furnished by the Ld. A R during the course of hearing to drive home his point. 7.1. We have duly perused the primary object of the assessee, a leaf taken out (of which) by the Ld. DIT (E) to allege that the said clause is not in consonance with the requirement of s.80G(5)(iii) of the Act. Precisely the object says 'primarily for the benefit of Catholics, others may be admitted without distinction of caste and creed'. No doubt, the assessee trust was incorporated way back in sixties in the name and style of St.John's Medical College and Hospital and, subsequently, it was christened as 'C.B.C.I. Society for Medical Education, St.John's National Academy of Health Sciences'. The object of the assessee trust was to establish and run medical institution, hospital and college. Since the institution was a minority institution which was governed by the Article 30 of the Constitution of India. As ruled by the highest judiciary of the land in the cases of T.M.A.Pai Foundation v. State of Karnataka (2002) 8 SCC 481 and also in the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... use with a wider perception rather than trying to read between the lines. 7.5. Let us now have a look at the legal pronouncements on a similar issue. (i) In the case CIT v. Bigabass Maheshwar Sewa Samiti reported in 220 CTR 369, the Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court was pleased to observe thus - "8. Apparently, this aspect has not been considered by the learned Tribunal, and therefore. the question was framed. We have gone through the judgment in Ghulam Mohidin Trust vs. CIT, and a look thereat, makes it clear that the beneficiaries of the trust were confined to Muslim community intelligentsia. In the case in hand, even from reading of two cls. 6 and 13, as quoted by learned CIT, it does not show, that the trust was created or established for the benefit of any particular religion, community, or caste. At best, cl. 13 shows to be providing for some preference, in favour of the persons belonging to a particular community. So far cl. 6 is concerned, that does not talk anything about as to for whose benefit the trust has been created. 9. However, instead to stand on ceremonies, we requested the learned counsel for the assessee, to make available the copy of the trust deed, if availa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
