DCIT (Exemption), Uttar Pradesh V. M/s. Divya Yog Mandir Trust, Haridwar

ITA 5612/DEL/2015

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 117 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7060 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 6 month(s) 29 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 30-04-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: D
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Appeal Filed On: 01-10-2015
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: ROHIT JAIN SHRI VIBHU GUPTA
• Keywords: Charitable institution; Principle of natural justice; Set aside
• Section: 12A; 11; 15

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (DELHI BENCH D : NEW DELHI) BEFORE SHRI N.K. BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI KULDIP SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO.5612/DEL./2015 (ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2011-12) DCIT, EXEMPTION CIRCLE, VS. M/S. DIVYA YOG MANDIR TRUST, GHAZIABAD. KRIPALU BAG, KANKHAL, HARDWAR. (PAN : AAATD1114E) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : SHRI ROHIT JAIN, ADVOCATE SHRI VIBHU GUPTA, CA REVENUE BY : SHRI J.K. MISHRA, CIT DR DATE OF HEARING : 07.03.2019 DATE OF ORDER : 30.04.2019 O R D E R PER KULDIP SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER : THE APPELLANT, DCIT, EXEMPTION CIRCLE, GHAZIABAD (HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS THE REVENUE) BY FILIN G THE PRESENT APPEAL SOUGHT TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 22.07.2015 PASSED BY THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS), DEHRADUN, QUA THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2011-12 ON THE GROUNDS INTE R ALIA THAT :- 1. THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN PARTLY ALLOWING THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IGNORING THE FACT THAT THE MAJOR ACTIV ITY AS CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE TRUST IS ITS INTER-TRUST DONATION O F RS.68.78 CR., OUT OF ITS TOTAL INCOME OF RS.144.88 CR., WHICH AMPLY S HOWN THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT CARRYING OUT MANY OF ITS OBJECTIVES OTHER THAN ITA NO.5612/DEL./2015 2 EARNING PROFITS AND STASHING AWAY ITS SURPLUS TO OT HER GROUP TRUST. 2. THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN PARTLY ALLOWING THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IGNORING THE FACT THAT THE A SSESSEE TRUST HAS ITSELF DECLARED THAT IT I CARRYING ON BUSINESS THRO UGH IT, VARIOUS BUSINESS UNDERTAKINGS AND IN THE PROCESS BY WAY OF TRADING AND BUSINESS, IT HAD BEEN RECEIVING CONSIDERATION ON SA LE OF MEDICINES, PUBLICATIONS, CD-VCDS ETC. AND THEREFORE , IN THE LIGHT OF AMENDMENT TO CLAUSE 15 OF SEC-2 OF THE I.T . ACT, SUCH ACTIVITIES OF THE TRUST CANNOT BE SAID TO BE CHARIT ABLE IN' NATURE, AS THE TRUST IS ADMITTEDLY RECEIVING CONSIDERATE PR OFIT WHILE CARRYING ON ITS BUSINESS ACTIVITIES WHICH PROVES TH AT THE ASSESSEE IS ENGAGED IN BUSINESS ACTIVITY WHICH FALL UNDER TH E EXPLANATION OF 'ADVANCEMENT OF ANY OTHER OBJECT OF GENERAL PUBL IC UTILITY. 3. THE ORDER OF LD. CIT (A) BE CANCELLED AND THE OR DER OF THE A.O. BE RESTORED' 2. BRIEFLY STATED THE FACTS NECESSARY FOR ADJUDICAT ION OF THE CONTROVERSY AT HAND ARE : ASSESSEE TRUST BEING REGI STERED UNDER SECTION 12A(A) OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961 (FOR SHO RT THE ACT) CLAIMED EXEMPTION IN TERMS OF SECTIONS 11, 12A AND 12A(A) OF THE ACT. AO HELD THE ACTIVITIES OF THE ASSESSEE TRUST NOT COVERED U/S 2(15) OF THE ACT AND DECLINED THE EXEMPTION U/S 11 OF THE ACT. AO TAXED THE TOTAL INCOME AT RS.52,76,05,600/- ON THE GROUND THAT THE ACTIVITIES OF THE TRUST ARE NOT OF CHARITABLE IN NA TURE BEING NOT INVOLVED IN PROVIDING RELIEF TO THE POOR, EDUCATION AND MEDICAL RELIEF ETC. AO ALSO HELD THAT AT THE MOST, THE TRU ST CAN BE TREATED AS ADVANCEMENT OF OTHER OBJECTS OF GENERAL PUBLIC UTI LITY AND ON THIS GROUND ALSO, THE ASSESSEE IS NOT ENTITLED FOR ANY R ELIEF BECAUSE ITA NO.5612/DEL./2015 3 INCOME OF THE TRUST DURING THE YEAR UNDER ASSESSMEN T EXCEEDS RS.25,00,000/-. 3. ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MATTER BY WAY OF FILING AN APPEAL BEFORE THE LD. CIT (A) WHO HAS PARTLY ALLOWED THE RELIEF B Y FOLLOWING THE DECISION RENDERED BY THE TRIBUNAL IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR AY 2009-10. FEELING AGGRIEVED, THE REVENUE HAS COME U P BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL BY WAY OF FILING THE PRESENT APPEAL. 4. WE HAVE HEARD THE LD. AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVES OF THE PARTIES TO THE APPEAL, GONE THROUGH THE DOCUMENTS R ELIED UPON AND ORDERS PASSED BY THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES BELOW IN T HE LIGHT OF THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. GROUND NO.1 5. LD. AR FOR THE ASSESSEE CONTENDED THAT THE ISSUE IN CONTROVERSY IS COVERED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE VIDE ORDER DATED 27.08.2013 OF THE TRIBUNAL IN ITA NO.387/DEL/2013 FOR AY 2009-10 [(2013) 37 TAXMANN.C OM 227 (DELHI-TRIB.)], WHICH HAS SINCE BEEN AFFIRMED BY THE HONBLE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND VIDE ORDER DATED 27.02.2019 . 6. THE FIRST ISSUE TO BE DECIDED IS WHETHER THE LD. CIT (A) HAS ERRED IN PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE IGNORING THE FACT THAT MAJOR ACTIVITIES AS CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE TR UST IS ITS INTER-TRUST ITA NO.5612/DEL./2015 4 DONATION OF RS.68.78 CRORES OUT OF THE TOTAL INCOME OF RS.144.88 CRORES WHICH SHOWS THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT CARRYIN G OUT MANY OF ITS OBJECTS OTHER THAN EARNING PROFITS AND STASHING AWA Y ITS SURPLUS TO OTHER GROUP TRUST. 7. THIS ISSUE HAS BEEN DECIDED BY THE COORDINATE BE NCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR AY 2009-10 IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE (SUPRA) BY RETURNING FOLLOWING FINDINGS :- 4.21. IN SUPPORT OF GROUND NO.7 REGARDING INTER-TR USTS DONATIONS, THE LD.A.R. SUBMITTED THAT THE AUTHORITI ES BELOW HAVE WRONGLY HELD THAT THE INTERTRUST DONATIONS AMOUNTIN G TO RS.38.35 CRORES MADE TO PATANJALI YOGPEETH, ANOTHER CHARITAB LE TRUST FOR THE PURPOSE OF SETTING UP OF YOGA GRAM AND OTHER YO GA RELATED ACTIVITIES, DID NOT AMOUNT TO APPLICATION OF INCOME FOR THE PURPOSE OF MEDICAL RELIEF OR IMPARTING EDUCATION . THE LEGAL POSITION IN THIS REGARD IS WELL SETTLED THAT WHEN D ONOR TRUST WHICH ITSELF IS A CHARITABLE TRUSTS, DONATES ITS INCOME T O ANOTHER TRUST, THE SAME CONSTITUTES APPLICATION OF INCOME U/S 11(1 )(A) OF THE ACT. IN THIS REGARD, HE DREW OUR ATTENTION TO THE I NSTRUCTIONS ISSUED BY CBDT VIDE INSTRUCTION NO.1132 DATED 05.01 .1978 REPRODUCED HEREUNDER: A QUESTION HAS BEEN RAISED REGARDING THE AVAILABIL ITY OF EXEMPTION IN THE HANDS OF CHARITABLE TRUSTS OF AMOU NTS AID AS DONATION TO OTHER CHARITABLE TRUSTS. THE ISSUE HAS BEEN CONSIDERED BY THE BOARD AND IT H AS BEEN DECIDED THAT AS THE LAW STANDS AT PRESENT, THE PAYMENT OF A SUM BY ONE CHARITABLE TRUST TO ANOTHER FOR UTILIZATION BY THE DONEE TRUST TOWARDS ITS CHARITAB LE OBJECTS IS PROPER APPLICATION OF INCOME FOR CHARITABLE PURP OSE IN THE HANDS OF THE DONEE TRUST; AND THE DONOR TRUST W ILL NOT LOSE EXEMPTION UNDER SECTION 11 OF THE I. T. ACT, 1 961, MERELY BECAUSE THE DONEE TRUST DID NOT SPEND THE DO NATION DURING THE YEAR OF RECEIPT ITSELF. THE ABOVE POSITION MAY KINDLY BE BROUGHT TO THE NOT ICE OF ALL OFFICERS WORKING IN YOUR CHARGE. 4.22 IN SUPPORT, THE LD. AR PLACED RELIANCE ON THE FOLLOWING DECISIONS:- ITA NO.5612/DEL./2015 5 I) CIT VS THANTHI TRUST 239 ITR 502 (SC) II) CIT VS TRUSTEES OF JADI TRUST 133 ITR 494 (BOM .) III) CIT VS HINDUSTAN CHARITY TRUST 139 ITR 913 (CAL.) IV) CIT VS NIRMALA BAKUBHAI FOUNDATION 226 ITR 394 (GUJ.) V) CIT VS SHRI RAM MEMORIAL FOUNDATION 269 ITR 35 (DEL.) VI) CIT VS HPS SOCIAL WELFARE FOUNDATION 235 CTR 330 (DEL.) .. 6.6.4. FURTHER ALLEGATION OF LD. CIT(DR) REMAINED T HAT THE APPELLANT HAS APPLIED MINIMUM AMOUNT OF INCOME FOR CHARITABLE PURPOSE AND DIVERTED SUBSTANTIAL AMOUNT TO ITS SIST ER CONCERN I.E. PATANJALI YOGPEETH TRUST WITH THE INTENTION OF RETA INING FUNDS WITHIN ITS OWN CONTROL. IT WAS ALLEGED BY HER THAT THE APPELLANT WAS CHARGING EXHORBITANT RATES FOR ACCOMMODATION FE E IN THE NAME OF PARTICIPATION FEE. IN ALLEGING SO THE LD. C IT(DR) HAS PLACED RELIANCE ON THE STATEMENT OF ONE SHRI BALWAN T SINGH MINHAS, WHEREIN HE HAS ALLEGED TO HAVE PAID AMOUNT OF RS. 49,000/- AS PARTICIPATION FEE FOR THE YOGA SHIVIR P URPORTEDLY CONDUCTED BY THE APPELLANT IN THE ASSESSMENT YEAR U NDER CONSIDERATION. THE LD. CIT(DR) HAS FURTHER ALLEGED THAT APPELLANT HAS COLLECTED A SUM OF RS. 68.45 LACS UND ER THIS HEAD DURING THE YEAR. SHE ALLEGED FURTHER THAT THE ASSES SEE HAS CHARGED RS. 290.79 LACS FROM PATIENTS DURING THE AS SESSMENT YEAR THROUGH MEDICAL HOSPITAL WHICH WAS IN ADDITION TO T HE PRICE OF MEDICINE CHARGED FROM PATIENTS. SHE ALLEGED THAT TH E APPELLANT WAS UNABLE TO PRODUCE DURING THE APPELLATE PROCEEDI NGS ANY DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT THE CHARITABLE ACTI VITIES IN THE FORM OF MEDICAL RELIEF IN THE HOSPITAL RUN BY THE A PPELLANT. SHE ALLEGED THAT THE APPELLANT WAS UNABLE TO PRODUCE TH E MEDICAL PRACTICITIONER DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. T HE REJOINDER OF THE LD. AR REMAINED THAT THERE IS NO LEGAL IMPED IMENTS IN ONE CHARITABLE TRUST GIVING DONATION TO INTER CHARITABL E TRUST. IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT IT IS A WELL SETTLED POSITION THAT W HEN A CHARITABLE DONATION AMOUNT OUT OF ITS CURRENT INCOME IS DONATE D TO INTER CHARITABLE TRUST, THE SAME CONSTITUTE APPLICATION O F INCOME U/S 11(1)(9) OF THE ACT. A COPY OF CERTIFICATE OF REGIS TRATION OF THE DONEE TRUST U/S 12A OF THE ACT HAS BEEN PLACED AT P AGE 856 OF THE SUPPLEMENTARY PAPER BOOK (III). THE CBDT INSTRUCT ION NO. 1132 DATED 5.1.1978, EXTRACT OF WHICH HAS BEEN MADE AVAILABLE AT PAGE NO. 857 OF THE SUPPLEMENTARY PAPER BOOK-III HA S MADE IT CLEAR THAT PAYMENT OF A SUM BY ONE CHARITABLE TRUST TO ANOTHER FOR UTILIZATION BY THE DONEE TRUST TOWARDS ITS CHARITAB LE OBJECTS IS PROPER APPLICATION OF INCOME FOR CHARITABLE PURPOSE IN THE HANDS OF THE DONEE TRUST AND THE DONOR TRUST WILL NOT LOO SE EXEMPTION U/S 11 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT 1961. WE THUS DO NOT F IND SUBSTANCE IN THE CONTENTION OF THE LD. CIT(DR) THAT THE APPELLANT ITA NO.5612/DEL./2015 6 HAS DONATED AN AMOUNT TO THE DONEE TRUST TO DEVIATE FROM ITS OBJECTIVES. SINCE IT IS NOT THE CASE OF THE DEPARTM ENT THAT PATANJALI YOG TRUST, THE DONEE HAS NOT APPLIED SUCH SUMS FOR CHARITABLE PURPOSES, THERE IS NO SUBSTANCE IN THE A LLEGATION THAT THE APPELLANT HAS DEVIATED THE FUNDS. 8. SO, FOLLOWING THE ORDER PASSED BY THE COORDINATE BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL FOR AY 2009-10, WE ARE OF THE CONSIDER ED VIEW THAT INTER-TRUST DONATION BY ONE CHARITABLE TRUST TO ANO THER FOR UTILIZATION BY THE DONEE TRUST TOWARDS CHARITABLE OBJECTS IS PR OPER APPLICATION OF INCOME FOR CHARITABLE PURPOSE IN THE HANDS OF DO NEE TRUST AND IT WILL NOT AFFECT THE EXEMPTION CLAIMED BY THE ASSESS EE U/S 11 OF THE ACT IN ANY MANNER WHATSOEVER NOR INTER-TRUST DONATI ON CAN BE TERMED AS DEVIATION FROM ITS OBJECTS AS IT IS NOWHE RE THE CASE OF THE DEPARTMENT THAT THE DONEE TRUST HAS NOT APPLIED SUC H SUMS FOR CHARITABLE PURPOSE BY DEVIATING ITS FUNDS, HENCE RE LIEF GRANTED BY LD. CIT (A) NEEDS NO INTERFERENCE AT THE ENDS OF TH E TRIBUNAL BEING BASED UPON THE FINDINGS OF THE TRIBUNAL PERTAINING TO AY 2009-10. SO, GROUND NO.1 OF THE REVENUES APPEAL IS DETERMIN ED AGAINST THE REVENUE. GROUND NO.2 9. GROUND NO.2 RAISED BY THE REVENUE CHALLENGING TH E IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED BY THE LD. CIT (A) IS THAT SI NCE THE ASSESSEE TRUST HAS BEEN RECEIVING CONSIDERATION ON SALE OF M EDICINES, PUBLICATIONS, CD-VCDS, ETC., SUCH ACTIVITIES OF THE TRUST CANNOT BE ITA NO.5612/DEL./2015 7 SAID TO BE CHARITABLE IN NATURE AS IT IS RECEIVING CONSIDERATION WHILE CARRYING OUT ITS BUSINESS ACTIVITIES WHICH FALLS UNDER THE EXPLANATION OF ADVANCEMENT OF ANY OBJECT OF ANY PU BLIC UTILITY UNDER SECTION 2(15) OF THE ACT. 10. AGAIN, THIS ISSUE HAS BEEN DECIDED BY THE COORD INATE BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR AY 2009-10 IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE (SUPRA) , WHICH HAS SINCE BEEN CONFIRMED BY THE HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT VIDE ORDER DATED 27.02.2019 (SUPRA). OPERATIVE PART OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE TRIBUNAL FOR READY PERUSAL IS AS UNDER :- 6.4.6. IN VIEW OF ABOVE DISCUSSIONS ESPECIALLY THE RECOGNITION OF YOGA AS A RECOGNIZED SYSTEM OF MEDICINE AS PER SECT ION 2 (H) OF CLINICAL ESTABLISHMENT (REGISTRATION AND REGULATION ) ACT 2010 AND THE COMPLETE INFORMATION MADE AVAILABLE BY THE AYUSH ON ITS WEBSITE WE FIND NO HESITATION IN COMING TO THE CONC LUSION THAT YOGA CAN BE SAFELY ACCEPTED AS A SYSTEM FIT INTO TH E DEFINITION OF MEDICAL RELIEF. YOGA AS A SCIENCE IS A WELL RECOG NIZED SYSTEM OF MEDICINE, WHICH HAS THERAPEUTIC EFFECTS IN TREATING VARIOUS SERIOUS AILMENTS. THE PREDOMINANT OBJECTIVE OF THE APPELLANT TRUST AS IT IS APPARENT FROM ITS OBJECTS, REMAINED TO PROVIDE MEDICAL RELIEF THROUGH AYURVEDA AND PROPAGATION OF YOGA FOR THE PURPOSE OF TREATING / CURING VARIOUS DISEASES. IMPARTING EDUCATION 6.5. THE QUESTION NOW IS AS TO WHETHER THE APPELLAN T TRUST FALLS WITHIN THE PURVIEW OF PROVIDING IMPARTING EDUCATIO N. THE GRIEVANCE OF THE APPELLANT IS THAT THE AUTHORITIES BELOW HAVE FAILED TO APPRECIATE THAT THE PROPAGATION OF YOGA B Y WAY OF CONDUCTING YOGA CLASSES ON A REGULAR BASIS AND IN A SYSTEMIZED MANNER ALSO FALLS UNDER THE CATEGORY OF IMPARTING OF EDUCATION AS PROVIDED U/S 2(15) OF THE ACT. RELIANCE HAS BEEN PLACED ON SEVERAL DECISIONS, WHICH WE WILL DISCUSS HEREUNDER. THE CONTENTION OF THE LD. AR REMAINED THAT THE PREDOMIN ANT OBJECT OF THE APPELLANT TRUST ARE TO PROVIDE PRACTICAL AND THEORETICAL TRAINING IN THE FIELD OF YOGA, WHICH WOULD ULTIMATE LY PROVIDE MEDICAL RELIEF TO THE SOCIETY AT LARGE. IT WAS SUBM ITTED THAT IN PURSUANCE OF THE SAID OBJECTIVE THE APPELLANT TRUST HAS MADE ITA NO.5612/DEL./2015 8 INTERTRUST DONATIONS TO PATANJALI YOG PEETH TO SUPP ORT THEIR ENDEAVORS OF IMPARTING YOGA EDUCATION BY MEANS OF O RGANIZING YOG SHIVIRS/CAMPS ACROSS THE COUNTRY ON DAILY/WEEKL Y/MONTHLY BASIS IN A SYSTEMIZED/ORGANIZED MANNER IN ORDER TO PROVIDE MEDICAL RELIEF TO PEOPLE WHO CANNOT AFFORD MODERN M EDICAL METHOD OR HAVE BEEN SUBJECTED TO ILL EFFECTS OF MOD ERN MEDICINE. IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT IMPARTING OF YOGA TRAINING TH ROUGH WELL STRUCTURED YOGA SHIVIIRS/CAMPS ALSO FALLS UNDER THE CATEGORY OF IMPARTING EDUCATION ONE OF THE CHARITABLE OBJECTS DEFINED U/S 2(15) OF THE ACT AND ACCORDINGLY THE APPELLANTS AC TIVITIES ARE NOT HIT BY THE PROVISO INSERTED IN THE DEFINITION OF CH ARITABLE PURPOSE AS CONTAINED IN THE SAID SECTION. DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING THE APPELLANT WAS DIRECTED TO PROVIDE COMPLETE DETAILS OF THE PATANJALI BHARTIYA AYURVIGYAN AVAM ANUSANDHAN SANSTHAN AT HAR IDWAR FOR IMPARTING EDUCATION IN THE FIELD OF AYURVEDA WH ICH STARTED OPERATIONS W.E.F. 20.7.2009. IN COMPLIANCE THE LD. AR SUBMITTED THAT DURING THE YEAR THE APPELLANT HAD APPLIED SUBS TANTIAL AMOUNT ON CONSTRUCTION OF THE AYURVEDA MEDICAL COLL EGE WHICH IS AFFILIATED TO THE UTTARAKHAND TECHNICAL UNIVERSITY. IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT AYURVEDA MEDICAL COLLEGE SET UP BY T HE APPELLANT WAS APPROVED AND DULY RECOGNIZED BY THE DEPARTMENT OF AYURVEDA, YOGA & NATUROPATHY, UNANI, SIDDHA AND HOM OEOPATHY (AYUSH) VIDE NOTIFICATION DATED 20.7.2009, A COPY T HEREOF HAS BEEN MADE AVAILABLE AT PAGE NO. 805 AND 806 OF THE SUPPLEMENTARY PAPER BOOK II. DEPARTMENT OF AYUSH I S A BODY SET UP BY THE MINISTRY OF HEALTH & FAMILY WELFARE, GOVT . OF INDIA WITH THE PRIMARY OBJECTIVE OF REGULATING AND UPGRAD ING THE EDUCATIONAL STANDARDS, QUALITY CONTROL AND STANDARD IZATION OF DRUGS, IMPROVING THE AVAILABILITY OF MEDICINAL PLAN T MATERIAL, RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT AND AWARENESS GENERATION A BOUT THE EFFICACY OF AYURVEDA, YOGA AND NATUROPATHY, UNANI, SIDDHA AND HOMOEOPATHY SYSTEMS OF MEDICINES. FOR THE PURPOSE O F RECOGNIZING AND GRANTING PERMISSION FOR ESTABLISHME NT OF MEDICAL COLLEGES, THE DEPARTMENT OF AYUSH MANDATES FULFILLMENT OF CERTAIN MINIMUM STANDARD AND REQUIREMENTS AS PRE SCRIBED UNDER THE INDIAN MEDICAL CENTRAL COUNCIL ACT 1970 ( IMCC ACT). ONE OF THE PRIMARY CONDITIONS LAID DOWN IN THE IMCC ACT FOR THE GRANT OF RECOGNITION IS THE EXISTENCE OF A MEDICAL HOSPITAL ATTACHED TO THE AYURVEDIC COLLEGE WITH THE PRESCRIB ED BED STRENGTH ALONGWITH OUTDOOR PATIENT DEPARTMENT (OPD) AND INDO OR PATIENT DEPARTMENT (IPD) FACILITIES. LD. CIT(DR) ON THE OTH ER HAND HAS PLACED RELIANCE ON THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BE LOW, AS DISCUSSED ABOVE. 6.5.1. THE EXPRESSION EDUCATION HAS NOT BEEN DEFI NED UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF INCOME TAX ACT. THE HONBLE SUPRE ME COURT IN THE CASE OF LOK SHIKSHANA TRUST (SUPRA), RELIED UPON BY THE LD. AR, HAS BEEN PLEASED TO EXPLAIN THE MEANING OF THE WORD EDUCATION IN THE CONTEXT OF SECTION 2(15) OF THE ACT. AS PER THIS DECISION THE EDUCATION IS THE PROCESS OF TRAINING A ND DEVELOPING THE KNOWLEDGE, SKILL, MIND AND CHARACTER OF STUDENT S BY SCHOOLING ITA NO.5612/DEL./2015 9 BY WAY OF SYSTEMATIC INSTRUCTION, SCHOOLING OR TRAI NING. THE HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF DELHI MUSIC SOCIETY VS. DGIT (SUPRA) HAS BEEN PLEASED TO HOLD THAT SINCE TH E ASSESSEE SOCIETY WAS TEACHING AND PROMOTING ALL FORMS OF MUS IC AND DANCE , WESTERN, INDIAN OR ANY OTHER AND WAS RUN LIKE ANY SCHOOL OR EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTION IN A SYSTEMIC MANNER WITH R EGULAR CLASSES, THE SAME THEREFORE MEET THE REQUIREMENT OF AN EDUCA TIONAL INSTITUTION WITHIN THE MEANING OF SECTION 10(23C)(V I) OF THE ACT. IN THE CASE OF ITO VS. SRM FOUNDATION OF INDIA (SUP RA) THE DELHI BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL, WHERE THE ASSESSEE WAS ENGAGED IN SPREADING THE SYSTEM OF TRANSCENDENTAL MEDITATION ( TM) HAS HELD THAT IRRESPECTIVE OF THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS ITS OWN PRESCRIBED SYLLABUS, TRAINED TEACHERS, BRANCHES ALL OVER INDIA TO SPREAD SYSTEM OF TRANSCENDENTAL DEEP MEDITATION AMO NG PEOPLE IN ALL WALKS OF LIFE, THE SAME CONSTITUTED IMPARTING O F EDUCATION AND THE ASSESSEE WAS ENTITLED TO EXEMPTION U/S 10(22) O F THE ACT. WE THUS COME TO THE CONCLUSION THAT ANY FORM OF EDUCAT IONAL ACTIVITY INVOLVING IMPARTING OF SYSTEMATIC TRAINING IN ORDER TO DEVELOP THE KNOWLEDGE, SKILL, MIND AND CHARACTER OF STUDENTS, I S TO BE REGARDED AS EDUCATION COVERED U/S 2(15) OF THE AC T. IN VIEW OF THESE DECISIONS WE HOLD THAT IMPARTING OF YOGA TRAI NING THROUGH WELL STRUCTURED YOGA SHIVIR / CAMPS ALSO FALLS UNDE R THE CATEGORY OF IMPARTING EDUCATION WHICH IS ONE OF THE CHARITAB LE OBJECTS DEFINED U/S 2(15) OF THE ACT. THE APPELLANTS ACTIV ITIES ARE THUS NOT HIT BY THE PROVISO INSERTED IN THE DEFINITION O F CHARITABLE PURPOSE IN SECTION 2(15) OF THE ACT. RELIEF TO THE POOR 6.6. SO FAR AS QUESTION OF PROVIDING RELIEF TO THE POOR BY THE APPELLANT TRUST TO BRING IT WITHIN THE PURVIEW OF T HE SAME IS CONCERNED, WE FIND THAT THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSES SEE REMAINED THAT THE APPELLANT THROUGH ITS HOSPITAL, PATANJALI HOSPITAL AND PATANJALI CHIKITSALAYA AT HARIDWAR, RANCHI AND PATN A HAS SERVED MORE THAN 2.25 LACS, 0.60 LACS AND 0.75 LACS PATIENTS DURING THE RELEVANT YEAR. THE HOSPITALS HAVE TEAM O F DOCTORS, NURSES AND PARAMEDICAL STAFF WORKING ROUND THE CLOC K. IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THE HOSPITAL AT HARIDWAR IS WELL EQU IPPED WITH ULTRA MODERN DIAGNOSTIC FACILITIES LIKE OPD AND IPD , PATHOLOGY LAB, CARDIOLOGY LAB, PANCHKARMA CLINIC, YOGA AND SH ATKARMA CLINIC, SURGICAL, DENTAL AND OPHTHALMOLOGICAL CLINI C AND PROVIDES FREE YOGIC AND AYURVEDIC CONSULTANCY TO ALL ITS PAT IENTS. IT WAS POINTED OUT THAT DURING THE YEAR THE APPELLANT HAS PROVIDED FREE MEDICAL SERVICES/TREATMENT TO MORE THAN 38 LACS PAT IENTS THROUGH PATANJALI CHIKITSALAYA SPREAD ALL ACROSS THE COUNTR Y. IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT ALL RECORDS OF SUCH TREATMENTS AND A CTIVITIES OF THE TRUST HAS BEEN EXAMINED IN SCRUTINY ASSESSMENT BY R EVENUE DEPARTMENT OVER SO MANY YEARS AND HAVE NEVER BEEN D ISPUTED. ITA NO.5612/DEL./2015 10 6.6.1. THE TRUST DEED IN CLAUSE J AND N HAS PROVIDE D THE OBJECTIVE OF APPELLANT TO IMPART EDUCATION AND PROV IDE RELIEF TO THE POOR. THE CONTENTION OF THE LD. CIT(DR) REMAINE D THAT 7 OUT OF 15 OBJECTIVES IN THE TRUST DEED OF THE APPELLANT ARE IN A NATURE OF GENERAL PUBLIC UTILITY. THE OBJECTS OF THE APPEL LANT ARE AS UNDER A. 'THE MAIN AIM OF THE TRUST WOULD BE TO IMPART T HE PRACTICAL AND FUNCTIONAL TRAINING OF ASTUNG YOG, RA J YOG, HATH YOG, ASHAN AND PRANAYAM ETC AS RECEIVED FROM T HE ANCIENT TRADITION PROPOUNDED BY THE RISHIS AND MUNI S TO MAKE AN END OF EXTREME SUFFERINGS TO CURE DISEASES AND TO RECEIVE A CALM STAGE OF MIND AND EXTREME HAPPINESS. B. TO CONSTRUCT THE BUILDING ETC FOR BOARDING AND LODGING FOR THOSE WHO ARE INSTRUCTED III Y OG AND MEDITATION. C. TO ORGANIZE YOGA CAMPS IN THE COUNTRY AND ABROA D IN ORDER TO PROPAGATE THE YOGA, TRAINING AND VEDIC DHA RMA. D. TO OPEN AND ESTABLISH CHARITABLE HOSPITALS FOR THE TREATMENT OF THE HELPLESS POOR, OUT CASTE AND ALSO TO DISTRIBUTE MEDICINES, CLOTHES AND FOOD ARTICLES IN THE TRIBAL AREA. E. TO FURNISH AND EQUIP THE CHARITABLE HOSPITAL WI TH MODERN MEDICAL FACILITIES. F. TO CARRY OUT CONDUCT RESEARCH ON YOGA, AYURVEDA AND VEDIC LITERATURE AND ALSO TO ORGANIZE SCHOLARLY SEM INARS AND COMPETITIONS. G. TO PREPARE AND TO SALE AND PURCHASE OF THE AYURV EDIC MEDICINES FOR THE CHARITABLE HOSPITALS, HOSPITAL CO LLEGES, SCHOOLS AND FOR THE SOCIAL AND YOGIC ACTIVITIES OF THE TRUST. H. TO MAKE AN ARRANGEMENT FOR THE STUDY OF VEDS, T HE GEETA, THE PHILOSOPHY AND UPANISHADS, GRAMMER AND YOGIC SCRIPTURES FOR CHARACTER BUILDING, MORAL CULTURAL UPLIFTMENT AND IMPARTING EDUCATION FOR CHARACTER BUILDING AND UPLIFTMENT OF MORAL VALUES. I. TO PREPARE MISSIONARIES AND FACILITATE THEM AND SENSITIZE PEOPLE FOR UPROOTING JEALOUSLY, HATE, EVILS, INJUST ICE, TYRANNY AND HEAVENLY THIS ON EARTH BY KEEPING ABOVE THE COMMUNALISM, CASTES AND THE FEELING OF SEX AND CREE D. J. TO RUN THE FREE EDUCATIONAL CENTERS AND TO FACI LITATE THE WORTHY POOR HELPLESS ORPHANS, STUDENTS BY PROVIDING CLOTHES, FOOD, STUDY MATERIAL AND LODGING. K. TO ESTABLISH AND RUN STABLES FOR THE POOR COWS TO SAVE THEM FROM VICTIMIZATION AND KILLINGS. ITA NO.5612/DEL./2015 11 L. TO CARRY OUT RESEARCHES OR AGNI HOTRA AND PERFO RM SCIENTIFIC YAJNAS IN ORDER TO SOLVE THE SERIOUS PRO BLEMS OF ENVIRONMENTAL POLLUTION OF MODERN AGE. M. TO GIVE AWARD AND CERTIFICATES TO THE TRAINEES WHO UNDERTAKE WEEKLY, FORTNIGHTLY, MONTHLY, QUARTERLY A ND ANNUALLY YOG AND ACUPRESSURE TRAINING. N. TO HELP AND CO-OPERATE THE RELIEF ACTIVITIES RE LATED TO FLOOD, EARTHQUAKES, EPIDEMIC, DROUGHT ETC. O. TO CO-OPERATE OTHER SUCH INSTITUTIONS AND ORGAN IZATIONS WHICH MATCH OR AIMS AND OBJECTIVES, AND ORDER TO FU LFILL THESE AIMS AND OBJECTIVES TO ACCEPT THE DONATING OF MONEY, LAND ETC.' (EMPHASIS SUPPLIED) 6.6.2. WE FIND THAT THE PREDOMINANT OBJECTIVE OF TH E APPELLANT TRUST HAS BEEN SET OUT IN CLAUSE A OF THE TRUST DEE D AS PER WHICH THE OBJECT IS TO ALLEVIATE EXTREME SUFFERINGS AND C URE DISEASES BY PROVIDING PRACTICAL AND FUNCTIONAL TRAINING OF ASTA NG YOG, RAJ YOG, DHYAN YOG, HATH YOG, ASHAN AND PRANAYAM ETC. A S RECEIVED FROM THE ANCIENT TRADITION PRONOUNCED BY THE RISHIE S AND MUNIS. THUS TO KNOW THE MISSION AND REASON OF THE APPELLAN T TRUST WE HAVE TO READ ITS OBJECTIVES IN TOTALITY. THE VARIOU S OTHER OBJECTIVES PROVIDED IN THE TRUST DEED ARE MERELY INDEPENDENT / ANCILLARY TO THE MAIN OBJECTION WHICH IS TO PROVIDE MEDICAL RELI EF AND IMPART EDUCATION AND DO NOT IN ANY WAY CONSTITUTE OBJECTIV ES OF GENERAL PUBLIC UTILITY AS CONTENDED BY THE LD. CIT(DR). WE THUS HOLD THAT THE CASE OF THE APPELLANT DOES NOT FALL WITHIN THE LAST LIMB OF THE DEFINITION OF CHARITABLE PURPOSE GIVEN U/S 1(15 ) OF THE ACT. IN THE CASE OF THIAGARAJAR CHARITIES VS. ACIT (SUPRA) BEFORE THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT, THE MAIN OBJECTS OF THE ASSE SSEE TRUST WERE EDUCATION, MEDICAL RELIEF AND RELIEF TO THE PO OR. ONE OF THE OBJECTS CONTEMPLATED THE TRUST TO ENGAGE IN CARRYIN G ON, HELP, AID, ASSIST AND PROMOTE RURAL RECONSTRUCTION WORK, COTTA GE INDUSTRY AND ALL MATTERS INCIDENTAL THERETO. THE TRUSTEE CAR RIED ON BUSINESS BY INVESTING THE CORPUS AS PER POWERS GIVE N UNDER SOME CLAUSE OF ARTICLE OF TRUST. THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED TH AT THE BUSINESS CARRIED ON BY IT AND FROM OUT OF WHICH IT HAD DERIV ED INCOME WAS HELD UNDER TRUST AND SINCE THE TRUST WAS FOR CHARIT ABLE PURPOSE, THE INCOME WAS EXEMPT FROM TAX U/S 11. THE AO REJEC TED ITS CLAIM. THE TRIBUNAL AS WELL AS HONBLE HIGH COURT H ELD THAT THE OBJECT COVERED BY CLAUSE 1(G) INVOLVED CARRYING ON AN ACTIVITY FOR PROFIT. ON APPEAL THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT HELD IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE BY OBSERVING THAT CLAUSE I(G) REFERRED BY THE LOWER AUTHORITIES WAS NOT AN OBJECT BUT WAS REALLY IN THE NATURE OF A POWER. THE HONBLE COURT FURTHER HELD THAT THE ANCI LLARY ACTIVITY UNDERTAKEN BY THE ASSESSEE WAS TO AFFORD RELIEF TO POOR FALLING WITHIN SCOPE OF SECTION 2(15) OF THE ACT AND WAS NO T AN OBJECT OF GENERAL PUBLIC UTILITY. IT WAS FURTHER HELD THAT BU SINESS BEING ONLY ITA NO.5612/DEL./2015 12 A MEANS OF ACHIEVING THE OBJECT OF THE TRUST, EXEMP TION COULD NOT BE DENIED. 6.6.3. THE CONTENTION OF THE LD. CIT(DR) ALSO REMAI NED THAT THE PREDOMINANT OBJECTIVE OF THE APPELLANT TRUST IS TO PREPARE AND SELL MEDICAL FORMULATIONS, WHICH IS APPARENT FROM THE SH EER MAGNITUDE OF BUSINESS, SALES COUNTERS AND VOLUME OF ITS PROMOTION AND PUBLICATION HOUSE WHICH IS NOT INCIDE NTAL TO THE MAIN OBJECTIVE OF PROVIDING MEDICAL RELIEF. SHE HAS FURTHER ALLEGED THAT APPELLANT HAS ESTABLISHED A CHAIN OF R ETAIL OUTLETS (SEVA KENDRA) FOR SELLING ITS PRODUCTS ALL OVER IND IA AND HAS ALSO COLLECTED SECURITY DEPOSIT OF RS. 6.21 CRORES FROM THESE SEVA KENDRAS. SHE ALLEGED FURTHER THAT THE ASSESSEE IS A LSO ENGAGED IN EXPORT OF ITS PRODUCTS AND QUANTUM OF SUCH EXPORTS AGGREGATES TO RS. 5,15,64,050/- DURING THE ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION, WHICH PORTRAYS THAT THE APPELLANT IS PRE DOMINANTLY ENGAGED IN UNDERTAKING COMMERCIAL ACTIVI TIES. IN THE REJOINDER THE SUBMISSION OF THE LD. AR REMAINED THA T BUSINESS UNDERTAKINGS WERE RUN BY THE APPELLANT AS AN ACTIVI TY INCIDENTAL TO ATTAINMENT OF THE MAIN OBJECTS OF THE APPELLANT AND TO FEED CHARITY, WHICH IS PERMITTED U/S 11(4) / 11(4A) OF T HE ACT. IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THE AYURVEDIC PREPARATIONS/MEDICINES HAVE BEEN EXPORTED BY THE APPELLANT AT THE REQUEST OF THE PAT IENTS, IN ORDER TO FULFILL ITS PREDOMINANT OBJECTIVE OF MAKING THE WORLD DISEASE FREE. IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THE SAID EXPORTS WERE M ADE BY THE BUSINESS UNDERTAKING HELD UNDER THE TRUST AND THERE IS NO EMBARGO UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF THE ACT TO RESTRICT BUSINESS UNDERTAKING FROM MAKING EXPORTS IN THE COURSE OF UN DERTAKING ITS BUSINESS ACTIVITIES. IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THE CHIKITSALAYS WERE SET UP BY THE APPELLANT ALL ACROSS THE COUNTRY FOR PROVIDING FREE MEDICAL CONSULTATIONS TO PATIENTS SUFFERING FROM VA RIOUS DISEASES. MORE THAN 1000 VAIDAYS ARE GIVING FREE CONSULTATION TO OVER 50,000 PATIENTS FOR CURABLE AND INCURABLE DISEASE I N ABOUT 1000 PATANJALI CHIKITSALAYS ACROSS THE COUNTRY. FURTHER THAT ACCEPTANCE OF SECURITY DEPOSIT FOR SETTING UP SEVA KENDRAS DOES NOT IN ANY WAY IMPACT THE CHARITABLE NATURE OF THE ACTIVITIES UNDERTAKEN BY THE APPELLANT. 6.6.4. FURTHER ALLEGATION OF LD. CIT(DR) REMAINED T HAT THE APPELLANT HAS APPLIED MINIMUM AMOUNT OF INCOME FOR CHARITABLE PURPOSE AND DIVERTED SUBSTANTIAL AMOUNT TO ITS SIST ER CONCERN I.E. PATANJALI YOGPEETH TRUST WITH THE INTENTION OF RETA INING FUNDS WITHIN ITS OWN CONTROL. IT WAS ALLEGED BY HER THAT THE APPELLANT WAS CHARGING EXHORBITANT RATES FOR ACCOMMODATION FE E IN THE NAME OF PARTICIPATION FEE. IN ALLEGING SO THE LD. C IT(DR) HAS PLACED RELIANCE ON THE STATEMENT OF ONE SHRI BALWAN T SINGH MINHAS, WHEREIN HE HAS ALLEGED TO HAVE PAID AMOUNT OF RS. 49,000/- AS PARTICIPATION FEE FOR THE YOGA SHIVIR P URPORTEDLY CONDUCTED BY THE APPELLANT IN THE ASSESSMENT YEAR U NDER CONSIDERATION. THE LD. CIT(DR) HAS FURTHER ALLEGED THAT ITA NO.5612/DEL./2015 13 APPELLANT HAS COLLECTED A SUM OF RS. 68.45 LACS UND ER THIS HEAD DURING THE YEAR. SHE ALLEGED FURTHER THAT THE ASSES SEE HAS CHARGED RS. 290.79 LACS FROM PATIENTS DURING THE AS SESSMENT YEAR THROUGH MEDICAL HOSPITAL WHICH WAS IN ADDITION TO T HE PRICE OF MEDICINE CHARGED FROM PATIENTS. SHE ALLEGED THAT TH E APPELLANT WAS UNABLE TO PRODUCE DURING THE APPELLATE PROCEEDI NGS ANY DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT THE CHARITABLE ACTI VITIES IN THE FORM OF MEDICAL RELIEF IN THE HOSPITAL RUN BY THE A PPELLANT. SHE ALLEGED THAT THE APPELLANT WAS UNABLE TO PRODUCE TH E MEDICAL PRACTICITIONER DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. T HE REJOINDER OF THE LD. AR REMAINED THAT THERE IS NO LEGAL IMPED IMENTS IN ONE CHARITABLE TRUST GIVING DONATION TO INTER CHARITABL E TRUST. IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT IT IS A WELL SETTLED POSITION THAT W HEN A CHARITABLE DONATION AMOUNT OUT OF ITS CURRENT INCOME IS DONATE D TO INTER CHARITABLE TRUST, THE SAME CONSTITUTE APPLICATION O F INCOME U/S 11(1)(9) OF THE ACT. A COPY OF CERTIFICATE OF REGIS TRATION OF THE DONEE TRUST U/S 12A OF THE ACT HAS BEEN PLACED AT P AGE 856 OF THE SUPPLEMENTARY PAPER BOOK (III). THE CBDT INSTRUCT ION NO. 1132 DATED 5.1.1978, EXTRACT OF WHICH HAS BEEN MADE AVAILABLE AT PAGE NO. 857 OF THE SUPPLEMENTARY PAPER BOOK-III HA S MADE IT CLEAR THAT PAYMENT OF A SUM BY ONE CHARITABLE TRUST TO ANOTHER FOR UTILIZATION BY THE DONEE TRUST TOWARDS ITS CHARITAB LE OBJECTS IS PROPER APPLICATION OF INCOME FOR CHARITABLE PURPOSE IN THE HANDS OF THE DONEE TRUST AND THE DONOR TRUST WILL NOT LOO SE EXEMPTION U/S 11 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT 1961. WE THUS DO NOT F IND SUBSTANCE IN THE CONTENTION OF THE LD. CIT(DR) THAT THE APPELLANT HAS DONATED AN AMOUNT TO THE DONEE TRUST TO DEVIATE FROM ITS OBJECTIVES. SINCE IT IS NOT THE CASE OF THE DEPARTM ENT THAT PATANJALI YOG TRUST, THE DONEE HAS NOT APPLIED SUCH SUMS FOR CHARITABLE PURPOSES, THERE IS NO SUBSTANCE IN THE A LLEGATION THAT THE APPELLANT HAS DEVIATED THE FUNDS. 6.6.5. AGAINST THE ALLEGATION OF CHARGING EXORBITAN T RATES FOR ACCOMMODATION FEE SUBMISSION OF THE LD. AR IN REJOI NDER REMAINED THAT THE ALLEGATION IS BASED ON THE STATEM ENT OF ONE SHRI BALWANT SINGH MINHAS WITHOUT APPRECIATING THAT THE APPELLANT DID NOT CONDUCT ANY YOG SHIVIR/CAMPS IN T HE ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION, THUS THE QUESTION OF CHAR GING EXORBITANT FEES FOR CONDUCTING YOGA SHIVIR DOES NOT ARISE AT ALL. THE FURTHER CONTENTION OF THE LD. AR REMAINED THAT RELIANCE HAS BEEN PLACED ON THE EX PARTE STATEMENT OF SHRI BALWA NT SINGH RECORDED BEHIND THE BACK OF THE APPELLANT WITHOUT A FFORDING OPPORTUNITY TO CROSS EXAMINE HIM, WHICH ITSELF IS I N VIOLATION OF SETTLED PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE. IT WAS SUBMI TTED THAT AN AMOUNT OF RS. 68.45 LACS REPRESENTS THE AMOUNT OF R OOM RENT CHARGES RECEIVED BY THE APPELLANT FROM THE PATIENTS WHO HAVE AVAILED IN HOUSE FACILITIES IN THE HOSPITAL RUN BY THE APPELLANT AT HARIDWAR. THE AMOUNT OF ROOM RENT CHARGES RECEIVED BY THE APPELLANT IN THE ASSESSMENT YEAR IS MINUSCULE AS CO MPARED TO THE NUMBER OF PATIENTS WHO HAVE TREATED IN THE HOSPITAL RUN BY THE ITA NO.5612/DEL./2015 14 APPELLANT. LD. AR SUBMITTED FURTHER THAT AN AMOUNT OF RS. 2 .2 CRORES APPROXIMATELY HAS BEEN CHARGED FROM THE PATI ENTS WHO HAVE BEEN TREATED IN THE HOSPITAL RUN BY THE APPELL ANT, ROOM RENT CHARGES, DIAGNOSIS AND SURGICAL SERVICES PROVIDED B Y THE APPELLANT WHICH HAS ALSO BEEN CHARGED AT NOMINAL RA TES IN ORDER TO MEET THE ACTUAL COSTS INCURRED WITHOUT ANY ELEME NT OF PROFIT IMBIBED THEREIN. IN THIS REGARD ATTENTION WAS DRAWN ON THE INCOME AND EXPENDITURE STATEMENT OF APPELLANT TRUST PLACED AT PAGE 379 OF THE PAPER BOOK, WHEREIN APPELLANT HAS I NCURRED AN EXPENDITURE OF RS. 5.1 CRORES AS AGAINST INCOME OF RS. 2.2 CRORES THEREBY RESULTING IN A DEFICIT OF RS. 2.8 CRORES. R EGARDING THE ALLEGATION THAT THE APPELLANT WAS UNABLE TO PRODUCE ANY RECORD IN THE FORM OF MEDICAL PRESCRIPTIONS TO SUBSTANTIATE T HAT MEDICAL RELIEF WAS PROVIDED IN THE HOSPITAL RUN BY THE APPE LLANT, LD. AR SUBMITTED THAT AS A MATTER OF PRACTICE THE PRESCRIP TIONS MADE BY THE MEDICAL PRACTITIONERS IN THE OPD ARE NEVER RETA INED AND ARE ALWAYS GIVEN TO THE PATIENTS. NONETHELESS THE APPEL LANT MAINTAINS A RECORD OF THE PATIENTS WHO HAVE BEEN TREATED IN H OUSE WHICH HAS NOWHERE BEEN DISPUTED BY THE DEPARTMENT. AGAINS T THE ALLEGATION OF THE DEPARTMENT THAT APPELLANT WAS UNA BLE TO PRODUCE THE MEDICAL PRACTITIONERS FOR VERIFICATION DURING THE COURSE OF REMAND PROCEEDINGS IS ERRONEOUS. THE LD. AR SUBMITTED THAT THE APPELLANT HAS PRODUCED 15 OUT OF 71 MEDICAL PRACTITIONERS WHOSE DETAILS AND PERMANENT RESIDENTI AL ADDRESSES WERE MADE KNOWN TO THE REVENUE. IT WAS SUBMITTED TH AT IN THEIR STATEMENT RECORDED ON OATH , THE MEDICAL PRACTITION ERS WHO WERE IN THE EMPLOYMENT WITH THE HOSPITAL RUN BY THE APPE LLANT HAVE CATEGORICALLY ADMITTED TO THE FACT THAT THERE IS NO COMPULSION ON THE PATIENTS TO BUY MEDICINES PREPARED / MANUFACTUR ED BY THE APPELLANT ONLY AND THAT THEY ALSO PRESCRIBED MEDICI NE MANUFACTURED BY OTHER PHARMACEUTICAL COMPANIES. THE SE SUBMISSIONS OF THE LD. AR HAVE NOT BEEN REBUTTED. 6.6.6. CONSIDERING ABOVE SUBMISSIONS IN TOTALITY WE HOLD THAT THE APPELLANT TRUST FALLS WITHIN THE PURVIEW OF PROVIDI NG RELIEF TO THE POOR. 6.6.7. THE FIRST ISSUE AS TO WHETHER THE APPELLANT TRUST DID FALL WITHIN THE PURVIEW OF PROVIDING OF MEDICAL RELIEF IMPARTING EDUCATION OR RELIEF TO THE POOR IS THUS DECIDED IN FAVOUR OF THE APPELLANT. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE FINDING ON FIRST IS SUE THE SECOND AND THIRD ISSUE HAVE BECOME INFRUCTUOUS. IN THESE I SSUES THE QUESTIONS ARE AS TO WHETHER THE ACTIVITY OF THE APP ELLANT WERE IN THE NATURE OF PROVIDING GENERAL PUBLIC UTILITY OR O F ADVANCEMENT OF ANY OTHER OBJECT OF GENERAL PUBLIC UTILITY AS CO NTAINED IN SECTION 2(15) OF THE ACT. RELEVANT PROVISIONS U/S 2 (15) ARE REPRODUCED AS UNDER :- SECTION 2 (15) OF THE ACT DEFINES CHARITABLE PURP OSE AS UNDER:- ITA NO.5612/DEL./2015 15 ** (15) CHARITABLE PURPOSE INCLUDES RELIEF OF THE PO OR, EDUCATION, MEDICAL RELIEF, PRESERVATION OF ENVIRONMENT (INCLUD ING WATERSHEDS, FORESTS AND WILDLIFE AND PRESERVATION O F MONUMENTS OR PLACES OR OBJECTS OF ARTISTIC OR HISTORIC INTERE ST, AND THE ADVANCEMENT OF ANY OTHER OBJECT OF GENERAL PUBLIC U TILITY: ** THE PROVISO INSERTED IN SECTION 2(15) OF THE ACT BY THE FINANCE ACT, 2008, WITH EFFECT FROM 1.4.2009, READS AS UNDE R :- ** PROVIDED THAT THE ADVANCEMENT OF ANY OTHER OBJECT O F GENERAL PUBLIC UTILITY SHALL NOT BE A CHARITABLE PURPOSE, I F IT INVOLVES THE CARRYING ON OF ANY ACTIVITY IN THE NATURE OF TRADE, COMMERCE OR BUSINESS , OR ANY ACTIVITY OF RENDERING ANY SERVICE IN RELATION TO ANY TRADE, COMMERCE OR BUSINESS, FOR A CESS OR FEE OR ANY OTHER CONSIDERATION, IRRESPECTIVE OF THE NATURE OF USE OR APPLICATION, OR RETENTION, OF THE INCOME FROM SUCH ACTIVITY; **(EMPHASIS SUPPLIED) THEREFORE, THE AFORESAID PROVISO DOES NOT APPLY TO A TRUST/INSTITUTION ENGAGED IN THE CHARITABLE OBJECT OF PROVIDING RELIEF TO THE POOR, IMPARTING EDUCATION AND PROVIDI NG MEDICAL RELIEF. THE VISION WITH WHICH THE APPLICANT TRUST HAS BEEN SET UP AND WHICH IS BEING FOLLOWED OVER THE YEARS ARE AS UNDER :- - TO MAKE A DISEASE FREE WORLD THROUGH A SCIENTIFI C APPROACH TO YOGA AND AYURVED AND TO FULFILL THE RESOLUTION OF MAKING A NEW WORLD FREE FROM DISEASE AND MEDICINE; - TO ESTABLISH PRAN AS MEDICINE FOR THE TREATMENT OF ALL CURABLE AND INCURABLE DISEASES BY RESEARCH ON PRANA YAM /YOGA. - TO PROPAGATE PRANAYAM AS A FREE MEDICINE FOR TREATMENT OF DISEASES ROUND THE GLOBE, THROUGH IN-D EPTH RESEARCH IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PARAMETERS OF MODER N MEDICAL SCIENCE, SO THAT THE RICH AND POOR MAY AVAI L ITS BENEFITS IN ORDER TO ATTAIN SOUND HEALTH; - TO FORM A NEW INTEGRATED SYSTEM OF TREATMENT, CO NSISTING MAINLY OF THE TECHNIQUES OF YOGA AND AYURVEDA, FOR SURGERY AND EMERGENCY CASES , ALLOPATHY, HOMOEPATHY , ITA NO.5612/DEL./2015 16 UNANI AND ACUPRESSURE TO SOOTHE PATIENTS SUFFERING FROM UNBEARABLE PAINS AND RID THEM OF DISEASE. - TO EVALUATE METHODS OF TREATMENT OF PHYSICAL BOD Y, ETHERIC BODY , ASTRAL BODY, MENTAL BODY AND CASUAL BODY BEYOND THE PRESENT INCOMPLETE SYSTEM OF TREATM ENT FOR CURE OF PHYSICAL BODY ALONE; - IMPARTING YOGA AND HEALTH EDUCATION AND TO BEGIN DEGREE AND DIPLOMA COURSES FOR STUDENTS IN DISCIPLINES OF YOGA AND AYURVEDA. AS DISCUSSED ABOVE THE PROVISO TO SECTION 2(15) OF THE ACT APPLIES ONLY TO TRUSTS/INSTITUTION FALLING IN THE LAST LIMB OF THE DEFINITION OF CHARITABLE PURPOSE ; THAT TOO, IF SUCH TRUST / I NSTITUTION CARRY ON COMMERCIAL ACTIVITIES IN THE NATURE OF BUSINESS, TR ADE OR COMMERCE. THE SAID PROVISO DOES NOT APPLY TO TRUST / INSTITUTION ENGAGED IN THE CHARITABLE OBJECT OF PROVIDING RELIE F TO THE POOR, IMPARTING EDUCATION AND PROVIDING MEDICAL RELIEF. T HE LAST LIMB OF THE DEFINITION OF CHARITABLE PURPOSE U/S 2 (15) TALKS ABOUT THE ADVANCEMENT OF ANY OTHER OBJECT OF GENERAL PUBLIC U TILITY. THE AFORESAID PREDOMINANT OBJECTS AND THE VISION MAKE I T CLEAR THAT THE OBJECTS OF THE APPELLANT ARE TO PROVIDE MEDICA L RELIEF IMPART EDUCATION TO THE SOCIETY AT LARGE AND RELIEF TO T HE POOR HENCE THE PROVISO TO SECTION 2 (15) DOES NOT APPLY IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE / APPELLANT. 11. FOLLOWING THE AFORESAID DECISION RENDERED BY TH E COORDINATE BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL, AFFIRMED BY THE HONBLE JURI SDICTIONAL HIGH COURT, WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED VIEW THAT OBJECTS O F THE ASSESSEE TRUST FALL WITHIN THE PURVIEW OF PROVIDING MEDICAL RELIEF, IMPARTING EDUCATION OR RELIEF TO THE POOR AND ARE NOT IN THE NATURE OF GENERAL PUBLIC UTILITY, SO THE PROVISO TO SECTION 2(15) OF THE ACT IS NOT ATTRACTED IN CASE OF THE ASSESSEE TRUST. SO, LD. C IT (A) HAS RIGHTLY DECIDED THE ISSUE IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE BY FOLL OWING THE DECISION RENDERED BY THE TRIBUNAL IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR AY ITA NO.5612/DEL./2015 17 2009-10. SO, GROUND NO.2 OF REVENUES APPEAL IS DE TERMINED AGAINST THE REVENUE. GROUND NO.3 12. GROUND NO.3 OF REVENUES APPEAL IS GENERAL IN N ATURE, HENCE NEEDS NO ADJUDICATION. 12. IN VIEW OF WHAT HAS BEEN DISCUSSED ABOVE, APPEA L FILED BY THE REVENUE CHALLENGING THE IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED B Y THE LD. CIT (A) HAS NO MERIT, HENCE HEREBY DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON THIS 30 TH DAY OF APRIL, 2019. SD/- SD/- (N.K. BILLAIYA) (KULDIP SIN GH) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED THE 30 TH DAY OF APRIL, 2019 TS COPY FORWARDED TO: 1.APPELLANT 2.RESPONDENT 3.CIT 4.CIT(A), DEHRADUN. 5.CIT(ITAT), NEW DELHI. AR, ITAT NEW DELHI.