DDIT (E) I(1), MUMBAI V. RASHTRIYA SEVA SAMITI, MUMBAI

ITA 3655/MUM/2013

• Counselvise Citation: 365519914 RSA 2013
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 9 month(s) 27 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 05-03-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: D
• Next Hearing Date: 05-03-2015
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 09-05-2013
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: LOVE KUMAR
• Section: 12A; 11

Judgement Text

, IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL D BENCH, MUM BAI BEFORE S/SHRI B.R.BASKARAN (AM) AND SANJAY GARG, ( JM) . . , , ./I.T.A. NO.3655/MUM/2013 ( / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2009-10) DY.DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX (E), I(1), ROOM NO.504, 5TH FLOOR, PIRAMAL CHAMBERS, PAREL, MUMBAI-400012. / VS. RASHTRIYA SEVA SAMITI, 380/82,JSS ROAD, GIRGAON, MUMBAI-400002 ( / APPELLANT) .. ( ! / RESPONDENT) ./ ' ./PAN/GIR NO. :AAATR3475J # / APPELLANT BY SHRI LOVE KUMAR ! $ # / RESPONDENT BY SHRI NONE % & $ '( / DATE OF HEARING : 5.3.2015 )* $ '( /DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 5.3.2015 / O R D E R PER B.R.BASKARAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: THE APPEAL BY THE REVENUE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 15.2.2013 PASSED BY THE LD.CIT(A)-I, MUMBAI AND IT RELATES TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10. THE REVENUE IS AGGRIEVED BY THE DECIS ION OF LD.CIT(A) IN GRANTING EXEMPTION UNDER SECTION 11 OF THE INCOME T AX ACT, 1961 (THE ACT) TO THE ASSESSEE. ITA. NO.3655/MUM/2013 2 2. NONE APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE THOUGH T HE ASSESSEE AWARE OF THE DATE OF HEARING. HENCE WE PROCEED TO D ISPOSE OF THIS APPEAL WITHOUT THE PRESENCE OF ASSESSEE. 3. WE HEARD THE LD. DR AND PERUSED THE RECORD. THE FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE IS RUNNING A GENERAL HOSPITAL NAMED INLAKS GENERAL HOSPITAL AND IT CLAIMED EXEMPTION UNDER SECTION 11 OF THE ACT. THERE IS NO MENTION ABOUT THE REGISTRATION OBTAINED BY THE A SSESSEE U/S 12A OF THE ACT AND SINCE THE AO DID NOT DISCUSS ABOUT THE SAME , IT IS PRESUMED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN GRANTED REGISTRATION U/S 12A OF THE ACT, ON THE STRENGTH OF WHICH, IT HAS CLAIMED EXEMPTION U/S 11 OF THE ACT. THE AO NOTICED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS TREATED 4561 PATIENTS , OUT OF WHICH FREE, INDIGENT AND WEAKER SECTION PATIENTS CONSISTED OF 214 PATIENTS ONLY, WHICH WORKED OUT TO 4.69% OF THE TOTAL BEDS. IT APP EARS THAT, AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF BOMBAY PUBLIC TRUST ACT (BPT), THE AS SESSEE WAS REQUIRED TO RESERVE 10% BEDS FOR NEEDY AND POOR PEOPLE. SINCE THE PERCENTAGE OF WEAKER SECTION PATIENTS TREATED WORKED OUT TO LESS THAN 10%, THE AO TOOK THE VIEW THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT ENTITLED TO THE E XEMPTION GIVEN UNDER SECTION 11 OF THE ACT. 4. THE LD.CIT(A), HOWEVER REVERSED THE DECISION OF THE AO WITH THE FOLLOWING OBSERVATIONS: 3.3 I HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSION OF THE APPELLANTS AR, ASSESSMENT ORDER AND THE FACTS OF THE CASE AND THE CASE LAWS CITED. I FIND THAT THE APPELLANT HAS KEPT 10% OF T HE BED RESERVE FOR NEEDY AND POOR PEOPLE AND 2% OF THE GROSS REVENUE I S TRANSFERRED ITA. NO.3655/MUM/2013 3 TO INDIGENT PATIENTS FUND (IPF). FREE TREATMENT IS GIVEN TO THE POOR AND NEEDY PEOPLE. OUT OF 91 BEDS 9 BEDS ARE RESERVE D FOR POOR PEOPLE AND 9 BEDS RESERVED FOR WEAKER SECTION PERSO NS. THUS, THE APPELLANT HAS NOT VIOLATED BOMBAY PUBLIC TRUST AC T (BPT ACT). THERE IS NO OTHER REQUIREMENT WHICH THE APPELLANT H AS TO COMPLY FOR GETTING EXEMPTION UNDER SECTION 11. HENCE, THE AO IS NOT JUSTIFIED IN DISALLOWANCE OF EXEMPTION U/S 11 OF THE ACT. ON SIMILAR FACTS MY PREDECESSOR HAS HELD IN FAVOUR OF THE APPELLANT. RE SPECTFULLY FOLLOWING MY PREDECESSORS DECISION IN THE CASE OF THE APPELLANTS OWN CASE FOR AY 2008-09 IN WHICH MY PREDECESSOR HAS ALLOWED THE EXCEPTION U/S 11. THEREFORE, THE APPELLANT IS ELIGI BLE FOR EXEMPTION. THE AO IS DIRECTED TO ALLOW EXEMPTION TO THE APPELL ANT U/S 11. THE GROUND OF APPEAL IS ALLOWED. ON PERUSAL OF THE ORDERS OF BOTH THE TAX AUTHORITIE S, WE NOTICE THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS GIVEN A SPECIFIC FINDING THAT THE ASSESS EE HAS NOT VIOLATED ANY OF THE PROVISIONS OF BOMBAY PUBLIC TRUST ACT AND TH E AO HAS NOT POINTED OUT THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS VIOLATED THE CONDITIONS P RESCRIBED IN SEC. 13 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT. UNDER THESE SET OF FACTS, WE D O NOT FIND ANY REASON TO INTERFERE WITH THE DECISION OF THE LD. CIT(A). 5. IN THE RESULT THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DISMI SSED. THE ABOVE ORDER WAS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 5TH MAR, 2015 . )* % + , -. 5 TH MARCH, 2015 * $ & / SD SD ( / SANJAY GARG ) ( . . / B.R. BASKARAN) / JUDICIAL MEMBER / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER + % & MUMBAI:5TH MARCH,2015. . . ./ SRL , SR. PS ITA. NO.3655/MUM/2013 4 !'#$ %$&' / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. / THE APPELLANT 2. ! / THE RESPONDENT. 3. % 1' ( ) / THE CIT(A)- CONCERNED 4. % 1' / CIT CONCERNED 5. 23 '4 , ( 4 , + % & / DR, ITAT, MUMBAI CONCERNED 6. 5& / GUARD FILE. 6 % / BY ORDER, TRUE COPY 7 (ASSTT. REGISTRAR) ( 4 , + % & /ITAT, MUMBAI