C.B.C.I. Society for Medical Education, Bangalore V. DIT, Bangalore

ITA 1226/BANG/2009

• Counselvise Citation: [2010] 136 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 5139 (ITAT-BANGALORE)
• Duration Of Justice: 6 month(s) 30 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 23-07-2010
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 25-05-2010
• Assessment Year: misc
• Appeal Filed On: 24-12-2009
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Charitable institution
• Section: 80G; 12A; 195

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL A BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI GEORGE GEORGE K., JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 1226/BANG/2009 ASSESSMENT YEAR : N.A. C.B.C.I. SOCIETY FOR MEDICAL EDUCATION, ST. JOHNS MEDICAL COLLEGE AND HOSPITAL CAMPUS, JOHN NAGAR, BANGALORE 560 034. : APPELLANT VS. THE DIRECTOR OF INCOME-TAX (EXEMPTIONS), BANGALORE. : RESPONDENT APPELLANT BY : SHRI H.N. KHINCHA, C.A. RESPONDENT BY : SHRI JASON P. BOAZ, CIT-I(DR) O R D E R PER A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER THIS APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE-TRUST IS DIRECTED AGAIN ST THE DENIAL OF RENEWAL OF RECOGNITION U/S 80G OF THE ACT BY THE DI RECTOR OF INCOME-TAX (EXEMPTION) [DIT(E)] IN NO.DIT(E)/BLR/80G/654/AAAT CO 773 R/TO(E)- I/VOL.2009-2010 DATED: 16.11.2009. ITA NO.1226/BANG/09 PAGE 2 OF 11 2. THE ASSESSEE-TRUST (THE ASSESSEE IN SHORT) HA S RAISED EIGHT GROUNDS. ON A CLOSE SCRUTINY OF THE SAME, THE SUBS TANCE AND ESSENCE OF THE ISSUE IS CONFINED TO THAT THE DIT(E) HAS ERRED IN REJECTING THE REQUEST FOR RENEWAL OF RECOGNITION U/S 80G(5)(VI)OF THE ACT ON THE GROUND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD VIOLATED THE CONDITIONS AS LAID DOWN IN S.80G(5 )(II) AND (III) OF THE ACT. 3. BRIEFLY STATED, THE ASSESSEE-TRUST ESTABLISHED THROUGH A MEMORANDUM OF ASSOCIATION DATED 7.12.1961 AND REGIS TERED 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 APPLICATI ON 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 TH E OBJECT, THE TRUST HAS BEEN RUNNING ST.JOHNS MEDICAL COLLEGE AN D 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 REQUI REMENT OF S.80G(5)(III) OF THE ACT. 5. IN COMPLIANCE TO SHOW-CAUSE NOTICE, THE CONTEN TIONS OF THE ASSESSEE WERE THAT (I) THE MEANING AND INTENTION OF SUB-CLAUSE (5) (III) O F S.80G IS THAT THE INSTITUTION SHOULD NOT BE EXCLUSIVELY FOR THE B ENEFIT OF THE ANY PARTICULAR COMMUNITY. IT IS CLEAR FROM THE PROVISI ON THAT IT IS NOT ITA NO.1226/BANG/09 PAGE 3 OF 11 APPLICABLE TO INSTITUTION CATERING TO THE BENEFIT O F MEMBERS FROM OTHER COMMUNITIES; (II) AS PER THE MEMORANDUM OF ASSOCIATION, THERE WAS NO RESTRICTION THAT THE BENEFICIARY SHOULD BE ONLY OF A PARTICULAR CASTE OR RELIGION. ALL THAT WAS STATED IN THE CONCLUDING PORTION OF OBJECT AT PARA 3 WAS PRIMARILY FOR THE BENEFIT OF CATHOLICS; OTHERS MA Y BE ADMITTED WITHOUT DISTINCTION OF CASTE AND CREED ; THAT THE CLAUSE CANNOT BE INTERPRETED TO MEAN THAT THE SOCIE TY HAS BEEN EXPRESSED FOR THE BENEFIT OF CATHOLICS ONLY. THE S OCIETY HAS BEEN BROUGHT INTO EXISTENCE AND ADMINISTERED BY CATHOLIC AS A MINORITY INSTITUTION. THE CLAUSE IS ONLY INTENDED TO CONVEY THAT IT IS A MINORITY INSTITUTION UNDER ARTICLE 30 OF THE CONSTI TUTION OF INDIA. IT WAS OPEN TO OTHERS WITHOUT DISTINCTION OF CASTE AND CREED AS IT WAS CLEARLY AND EXPLICITLY STATED IN THE SAME SE NTENCE; (III) IN ACTUAL PRACTICE ON AN AVERAGE 2000 PATIENTS WERE BEING TREATED DAILY AND APPROXIMATELY 75 80% OF SUCH PATIENTS W ERE FROM OTHER COMMUNITIES; THAT THE HOSPITAL WAS OPEN TO AN YBODY WITHOUT ANY DISTINCTION OF CASTE OR RELIGION; & (IV) ADMISSION TO MEDICAL COLLEGE WAS THROUGH AN OPEN CO MPETITIVE EXAMINATION DONE IN A TRANSPARENT MANNER. THE UNIQ UENESS AND TRANSPARENCY OF THIS ADMISSION HAS BEEN ENDORSED AN D ACCLAIMED BY THE SUPREME COURT WHERE THE MEDICAL COLLEGE WAS PERMITTED TO FOLLOW ITS OWN COMPETITIVE ADMISSION PROCESS. 5.1. BRUSHING ASIDE THE ARGUMENTS OF THE ASSESSEE- TRUST, THE LD. DIT(E) HAD REASONED THUS (I) THE INTERPRETATION OF THE REQUIREMENT OF S.80G(5)(I ) MADE BY THE AR THAT THE INTENTION OF THE SECTION IS THAT THE BE NEFIT IS NOT EXCLUSIVELY FOR THE BENEFIT OF A PARTICULAR COMMUNITY IS NOT ACCEPTABLE, AS LONG AS IT IS EXPRESSED PRIMARILY FO R THE BENEFIT OF A PARTICULAR COMMUNITY AND IN GENERAL FOR ALL; (II) THE REQUIREMENT OF S. 80G(5)(III) DOES NOT HAVE AN EXCLUSIVE PROVISION WHICH THE LD. AR HAD INTERPRETED. (III) RELIES ON THE DECISIONS OF (A) T.M.A.PAI FOUNDATION V. STATE OF KARNATAKA (2002) 8 SCC 481 (SC); & (B) IN THE CASE OF INAMDAR (SC) (IV) S.80G(5) (III) CONDITION FOR APPROVAL U/S 80G READS AS UNDER: ITA NO.1226/BANG/09 PAGE 4 OF 11 (III) THE INSTITUTION OR FUND IS NOT EXPRESSED TO BE FOR THE BENEFIT OF ANY PARTICULAR RELIGIOUS COMMUNITY OR CASTE. (V) THE FACTUAL POSITION OF THE ADMISSION OF STUDENTS T O THE MEDICAL COLLEGE AND THE NON-TEACHING STAFF WERE MADE. FOR THE ACADEMIC YEAR 2008-09 MORE THAN 80% OF TO THE NUMBER OF STUD ENTS ADMITTED FOR MBBS WERE FROM CATHOLICS AND THE STAFF POSITION OF NON-TEACHING STAFF HAD AROUND 90% FROM THE COMMUNIT Y; - THE FACTS OF THE ACTIVITY ALSO CONFIRM THE INTENTIO N OF THE SOCIETY TO EXIST PRIMARILY FOR THE BENEFIT OF MINORITY COMM UNITY; (VI) RELIES ON THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE A.P HIGH COUR T IN THE CASE OF ARSHA VIJNANA TRUST V. D.P.SHARMA, DIT(E) AND OTHER S REPORTED IN 295 ITR 437 5.2. ACCORDINGLY, THE ASSESSEES APPLICATION FOR R ENEWAL OF RECOGNITION U/S 80G(5)(VI) WAS REJECTED. 6. AGGRIEVED, THE ASSESSEE HAS COME UP WITH THE PR ESENT APPEAL. DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING, THE ARGUMENTS PUT-FOR TH BY THE LD. A R ARE SUMMARIZED AS UNDER: (I) THE LD. DIT(E) HAD ERRED IN REJECTING THE APPLICATI ON FOR RENEWAL OF RECOGNITION U/S 80G(5)(VI) OF THE ACT ON THE GRO UND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD VIOLATED THE CONDITIONS LAID DOWN IN S . 80G(5)(I) AND (III) OF THE ACT. ON A PROPER APPRECIATION OF FACT S 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 DE NOTE EITHER A RELIGIOUS COMMUNITY OR CASTE. THE CONCLUSION OF TH E DIT HAD NO BASIS AND IN FACT WAS ARRIVED AT ONLY ON SURMISE; - HE HAD ERRED IN HOLDING THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS FOR T HE BENEFITS OF RELIGIOUS COMMUNITY AND CASTE AND ALSO ERRED IN NOT APPRECIATING THE FACT THAT THERE WAS NO DISTINCTION OF CASTE AND CREED TO BE THE BENEFICIARY OF THE ASSESSEE TRUST; - HE HAD FURTHER ERRED IN HOLDING THAT SOME OBJECTS O F THE TRUST WERE NOT IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE REQUIREMENT OF S. 8 0G(5)(III) OF THE ACT; THAT ON A PROPER READING OF THE OBJECT S AND THE ITA NO.1226/BANG/09 PAGE 5 OF 11 SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE, IT WOULD BE CLEAR THAT THERE WAS NO VIOLATION OF THE SAID SECTION OF THE ACT; - DURING THE FINANCIAL YEAR 2008-09, OUT OF 9,00,406 PATIENTS RECEIVED TREATMENTS, 8,51,127 WERE NON-CATHOLIC/ NO N- CHRISTIANS WHICH ACCOUNTED FOR 94.52%. LIKEWISE FO R THE FY 09-00, OUT OF 9,07,641 PATIENTS WHO WERE TREATED IN THE ASSESSEES HOSPITAL, THE NON-CHRISTIANS WERE ACCOU NTED FOR 8,50,146 AND THE PERCENTAGE COMES TO 93.66%; - THE OBJECTS OF THE MOA DO NOT SAY THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS EXCLUSIVELY FOR CATHOLICS. RULE 51 OF THE RULES AN D REGULATIONS OF THE ASSESSEE EMPHATICALLY SUBSCRIBES THAT [SOURC E: PAGE 24 OF PB AR]: THE BENEFITS OF THE SOCIETY SHALL BE OPEN TO ALL I RRESPECTIVE OF CASTE, CREED OR RELIGION, IN AS MUCH AS IT DOES NOT GO AGAINST THE MAIN OBJECTIVE OF THE SOCIETY THIS AMPLY DENOTES THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN SERVING THE HUMANITY WITHOUT DISTINCTION OF CASTE, CREED, RELIG ION ETC. - THAT NO TANGIBLE REASON WAS BROUGHT ON RECORD TO RE MOTELY SUGGEST THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD VIOLATED THE PROVISIO NS OF THE S.80G(5)(I) OF THE ACT; & - CHIEFLY THE ASSESSEE WAS PURELY A CHARITABLE TRUST AND WAS ENTITLED TO RENEWAL OF RECOGNITION OF S.80G OF THE ACT. (III) RELIES ON (A) CIT V. BIGABASS MAHESWARI SEWA SAMITI 220 CTR 369 (RAJ); (B) SHANTAGAURI RAMNIKLAL TRUST V. CIT (1999) 239 ITR 528 (GUJ); (C) VIMALABAI NEELKANTH JATAR CHARITABLE TRUST V. ITO (2005) 001 SOT 961 (PUNE) (D) A.P.STATE CIVIL SUPPLIES CORPN. V.ITO (1991) 037 IT D 0001 (HYD) TM; (E) GIRIJAN CO-OPERATIVE CORPORATION LTD. V. CIT (1989) 178 ITR 0359 (AP); (F) CIT V. 21 ST SOCIETY OF IMMULATE CONCEPTION (2000) 241 ITR 0193 (MAD) 6.1. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LD. D R WAS OF THE FIR M VIEW THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD FAILED TO FULFILL THE PROVISIONS OF S. 80G(5)(III) OF THE ACT AND, ITA NO.1226/BANG/09 PAGE 6 OF 11 THUS, THE LD. DIT(E) WAS WITHIN HIS REALM TO REFUSE TO RENEW THE RECOGNITION SOUGHT FOR U/S 80G OF THE ACT. IT WAS, THEREFORE, PLEADED THAT NO INTERFERENCE IS CALLED FOR AT THIS STAGE. 7. WE HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISS IONS, VIEWED THE RELEVANT RECORDS DILIGENTLY AND ALSO PERUSED TH E PAPER BOOK FURNISHED BY THE LD. A R DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING TO DRIV E HOME HIS POINT. 7.1. WE HAVE DULY PERUSED THE PRIMARY OBJECT OF TH E ASSESSEE, A LEAF TAKEN OUT (OF WHICH) BY THE LD. DIT (E) TO ALL EGE 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 CR EED . NO DOUBT, THE ASSESSEE TRUST WAS INCORPORATED WAY BACK IN SIXTIES IN THE NAME AND STYLE OF ST.JOHNS MEDICAL COLLEGE AND HOSPITAL AND, SUBS EQUENTLY, IT WAS CHRISTENED AS C.B.C.I. SOCIETY FOR MEDICAL EDUCATION, ST.JOHNS NATIONAL ACADEMY OF HEALTH SCIENCES . THE OBJECT OF THE ASSESSEE TRUST WAS TO ESTABLISH AND RUN MEDICAL INSTITUTION, HOSPI TAL AND COLLEGE. SINCE THE INSTITUTION WAS A MINORITY INSTITUTION WHICH WAS GO VERNED 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 CASE OF INAMDAR, THE MINORITY INSTI TUTIONS WERE FREE TO ADMIT STUDENTS OF THEIR OWN CHOICE INCLUDING STUDENTS OF NON-MINORITY COMMUNITY AS ALSO MEMBERS OF THEIR OWN COMMUNITY FROM OTHER S TATES ETC. ITA NO.1226/BANG/09 PAGE 7 OF 11 7.2. HOWEVER, THE MOOT POINT ON HAND FOR CONSIDERA TION IS - WHETHER THE PRIMARY OBJECT OF THE ASSESSEE IN PARA 3 OF MEMORANDUM OF ASSOCIATION IS IN CONSONANCE WITH THE S.80G (5) (I II) OF THE ACT? 7.3. EVEN THOUGH THE OBJECT WAS PRIMARILY FOR THE BENEFIT OF CATHOLICS, THE OBJECTS DO NOT EXPRESSLY SAY SO THAT THE ASSESSEE-TRUST WAS EXCLUSIVELY FOR CATHOLICS. THIS VIEW IS STRONGLY S UPPORTED BY THE STATISTICS FURNISHED DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING THAT IN THE FINANCIAL YEAR 2008-09, THE ASSESSEE TRUSTS HOSPITAL HAD TREATED 8,51,127 PATIENTS OF NON-CHRISTIAN COMMUNITY OUT OF 9,00,406 TOTAL PATIENTS RECEIVED T REATMENTS WHICH WORKS OUT TO 94.5%. LIKEWISE, FOR THE F.Y.2009-10, THE TOTAL NUMBER OF PATIENTS RECEIVED VARIOUS TREATMENTS FROM ITS HOSPITAL WERE 9,07,641, OUT OF WHICH, 8,50,146 PATIENTS WERE NOT BELONGING TO THE CHRISTI AN COMMUNITY. THIS VERY FACT BELIES THE FINDING OF THE LD. DIT(E) THAT THE ASSESSEE-TRUST HAD SERVED ONLY ITS COMMUNITY AND WAS BEING RUN FOR THE BENEFI T OF CATHOLICS. WHEN THE ASSESSEE-TRUST WAS ESTABLISHED IN SIXTIES THE V ERY OBJECT MUST HAVE BEEN FOR THE BENEFIT OF CATHOLICS, HOWEVER, IN PRAC TICE THE OTHER COMMUNITY PATIENTS WHO HAVE OUT-NUMBERED THE CHRISTIAN COMMUN ITY INDEED RECEIVED TREATMENTS FROM ITS HOSPITAL CANNOT BE LOOKED IN IS OLATION. EVEN ON A GLIMPSE OF STATISTICS PROVIDED, WE FIND THAT OUT OF THE TOTAL NUMBER OF 685 STUDENTS ADMITTED IN ITS MEDICAL COLLEGE, 195 STUDE NTS WERE FROM HINDU COMMUNITY, 24 FROM MUSLIM AND THE REMAINING WERE FR OM VARIOUS SECTS OF CHRISTIAN COMMUNITY. LIKEWISE, THE NUMBER OF STA FFS EMPLOYED IN ITS VARIOUS INSTITUTIONS SUCH AS RESEARCH INSTITUTE, ME DICAL COLLEGE, HOSPITAL ETC., WE FIND THAT A FAIR NUMBER OF STAFFS WERE FR OM OTHER COMMUNITIES TOO. ITA NO.1226/BANG/09 PAGE 8 OF 11 THIS PRECISELY CONTRADICTS THE FINDING GIVEN BY THE LD. DIT (E) IN HIS IMPUGNED ORDER THAT 80% OF THE TOTAL NUMBER OF STUD ENTS FROM CHRISTIAN COMMUNITY AND THE POSITION OF NON-TEACHING STAFF WE RE AROUND 90% FROM ITS COMMUNITY AND SO ON SO FORTH. 7.4. IN A NUT - SHELL , THE ASSESSEE-TRUST HAS BEEN SERVING THE HUMANITY IN ITS NOBLE PROFESSION RENDERING TIMELY TREATMENT TO THE NEEDY WITHOUT DISCRIMINATING THE CASTE, CREED, COMMUNITY ETC.- ONE SHOULD APPROACH ITS CAUSE WITH A WIDER PERCEPTION RATHER T HAN TRYING TO READ BETWEEN THE LINES. 7.5. LET US NOW HAVE A LOOK AT THE LEGAL PRONOUNCE MENTS ON A SIMILAR ISSUE. (I) IN THE CASE CIT V. BIGABASS MAHESHWAR SEWA SA MITI REPORTED IN 220 CTR 369, THE HONBLE RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT WAS PLEAS ED TO OBSERVE THUS - 8. APPARENTLY, THIS ASPECT HAS NOT BEEN CONSIDERED BY THE LEARNED TRIBUNAL, AND THEREFORE. THE QUESTION WAS FRAMED. W E HAVE GONE THROUGH THE JUDGMENT IN GHULAM MOHIDIN TRUST VS. CI T, AND A LOOK THEREAT, MAKES IT CLEAR THAT THE BENEFICIARIES OF T HE TRUST WERE CONFINED TO MUSLIM COMMUNITY INTELLIGENTSIA. IN THE CASE IN HAND, EVEN FROM READING OF TWO CLS. 6 AND 13, AS QUOTED B Y LEARNED CIT, IT DOES NOT SHOW, THAT THE TRUST WAS CREATED OR ESTABL ISHED FOR THE BENEFIT OF ANY PARTICULAR RELIGION, COMMUNITY, OR C ASTE. AT BEST, CL. 13 SHOWS TO BE PROVIDING FOR SOME PREFERENCE, IN FA VOUR 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 REQU ESTED THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE, TO MAKE AVAILABLE THE COPY OF THE TRUST DEED, IF AVAILABLE WITH HIM, AND THE SAME WAS MADE AVAILABLE TO US, AND PERUSAL THEREOF SHOWS A DETAILED LIST OF OBJECTS OF THE TRUST, AND ALL THOSE OBJECTS IN CATEGORICAL TERMS S TATE, ABOUT THE ITA NO.1226/BANG/09 PAGE 9 OF 11 BENEFICIARIES BEING THE SOCIETY AT LARGE, AND DOES NOT CONFINE TO ANY PARTICULAR CASTE, COMMUNITY, OR EVEN RELIGION. (II) IN THE CASE OF VIMALABAI NEELKANTH JATAR CHARI TABLE TRUST V. ITO (2005) 001 SOT 961 ( PUNE) (THREE MEMBERS BENCH), THE HON BLE TRIBUNAL, AFTER ANALYZING THE ISSUE AT A GREATER LENGTH AND ALSO TA KING INTO ACCOUNT THE VARIOUS JUDICIAL PRONOUNCEMENTS ON A SIMILAR ISSUE, HAD OBSERVED THUS IN THE LIGHT OF ABOVE DISCUSSION, WE HOLD THAT ONL Y A PREFERENCE WAS GIVEN TO THE STUDENTS FROM KARHADA OR AIYYANGAR BRA HMINS OTHER THINGS BEING EQUAL AND THE TRUST WAS NOT CREATED O R ESTABLISHED OR EXPRESSED FOR THE BENEFIT OF ANY PARTICULAR RELIGIO US COMMUNITY OR CASE. WE ACCORDINGLY HOLD THAT THE LEARNED CIT IS NOT JUSTIFIED IN REFUSING TO REGISTER THE TRUST UNDER SECTION 12A AN D TO GRANT CERTIFICATE UNDER SECTION 80G(5). HE IS DIRECTED T O RECOGNIZE THE TRUST UNDER SECTION 12A AND TO GRANT CERTIFICATE U/ S 80G(5). (III) THE HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF ECUMENICAL CHRISTIAN CENTRE V. CIT, K-I 139 ITR 226 WAS OF THE VIEW THAT - THE COMMISSIONER DID NOT GIVE ANY IMPORTANCE TO THE ORDER THAT HAD ALREADY BEEN MADE IN 1969 BY ONE OF HIS PREDECE SSORS AND THAT IT HAD BEEN RENEWED BY ANOTHER PREDECESSOR OF HIS. THE OBJECTS OF THE COMPANY REMAINED THE SAME AS IN EARLIER YEARS. IT MAY BE THAT THE CERTIFICATE IS GRANTED YEAR AFTER YEAR OR PERIO DICALLY AND, THEREFORE, THE MATTER IS OPEN FOR CONSIDERATION EVE RY TIME AN APPLICATION IS MADE BUT ALL THE SAME THE FACT THAT AN ORDER HAD ALREADY BEEN MADE EARLIER, ACCEPTING THE CONTENTION OF THE PETITIONER, SHOULD BE TAKEN NOTE OF AND SHOULD NOT BE LIGHTLY INTERFERED WITH. THERE MAY BE CIRCUMSTANCES JUSTIFY ING A RECONSIDERATION OF AN EARLIER ORDER, IF THE OBJECTS OF THE COMPANY HAD CHANGED OR THE ACTIVITIES WERE NOT IN CONSONANC E WITH THE OBJECTS OR OTHER RELEVANT CIRCUMSTANCES WHICH DISEN TITLE THE GRANT OF THE BENEFIT TO THE COMPANY. IT APPEARS TO ME THAT T HE APPROACH MADE BY THE COMMISSIONER IN IGNORING ALTOGETHER THE PREV IOUS ORDER THAT HAD BEEN MADE IN FAVOUR OF THE COMPANY WAS NOT JUST IFIED. 7.6. THUS, THE MEANING AND INTENTION OF SUB-CLAUSE (5) (III) OF S.80G IS THAT THE INSTITUTION SHOULD NOT BE EXCLUSI VELY FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE ANY PARTICULAR COMMUNITY. IT IS ABUNDANTLY CLEAR FROM THE SAID PROVISION ITA NO.1226/BANG/09 PAGE 10 OF 11 THAT IT IS NOT APPLICABLE TO AN INSTITUTION CATERING TO THE BENEFIT OF THE MEMBERS FROM OTHER COMMUNITIES TOO. FOR THE REASON S SET-OUT SUPRA, WE ARE OF THE FIRM VIEW THAT THE PROVISIONS OF S.80G(5 )(III) OF THE ACT CANNOT BE APPLIED TO THE INSTANT CASE SINCE THE ASSESSEE TRUS TS BENEFICIARIES BEING THE SOCIETY AT LARGE AND NOT TO BE BENEFICIARY OF CATHOLICS ALONE AS AL LEGED BY THE LD. DIT(E). 7.7. IN OVER ALL CONSIDERATION OF THE FACTS AND CI RCUMSTANCES OF THE ISSUE AND ALSO IN CONFORMITY WITH THE LEGAL PRONOUN CEMENTS AS DELIBERATED UPON IN THE FORE-GOING PARAGRAPHS, WE ARE OF THE UN ANIMOUS VIEW THAT THE LD.DIT (E) WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN REFUSING TO RENEW T HE RECOGNITION U/S 80G OF THE ACT. IT IS ORDERED ACCORDINGLY. 8. IN THE RESULT, THE ASSESSEES APPEAL IS ALLOWED . PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THIS 23 RD DAY OF JULY, 2010. SD/- SD/- ( GEORGE GEORGE K. ) (A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY ) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER BANGALORE, DATED, THE 23 RD JULY, 2010. DS/- ITA NO.1226/BANG/09 PAGE 11 OF 11 COPY TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR, ITAT, BANGALORE. 6. GUARD FILE BY ORDER ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT, BANGALORE.