Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, V. Lata Mangeshkar Medical Foundation, Pune

ITA 712/PUN/2015

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 127 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 9342 (ITAT-PUNE)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 1 month(s) 8 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 23-06-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 15-05-2015
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: MUKHESH JHA
• Keywords: Business income; Charitable institution; Benefit of exemption
• Section: 143(3); 12A; 11

Judgement Text

] IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH A, PUNE BEFORE MS. SUSHMA CHOWLA, JM AND SHRI ANIL CHATURVEDI, AM . / ITA NO.712/PUN/2015 / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2010-11 THE ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, (EXEMPTION) CIRCLE, PUNE. 2 ND FLOOR, B.O. BHAVAN, SECTOR NO.47, PLOT NO.1, PUNE SATARA ROAD, PUNE 411 009. . / APPELLANT V/S LATA MANGESHKAR MEDICAL FOUNDATION, DEENANATH MANGESHKAR HOSPITAL, S.NO.8, 13+2 ERANDWANE, NEAR MHATRE BRIDGE, PUNE 411004. PAN : AAATL1944N. . / RESPONDENT / APPELLANT BY : SHRI MUKHESH JHA / RESPONDENT BY : SHRI NIKHIL PATHAK / ORDER PER ANIL CHATURVEDI, AM : THIS APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE IS EMANATING OUT OF THE ORDER OF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (A) 10 PUNE, DT.1 8.02.2015 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010-11. 2. THE RELEVANT FACTS AS CULLED OUT FROM THE MATERIAL ON R ECORD ARE AS UNDER :- 2.1 ASSESSEE IS A TRUST RUNNING A HOSPITAL UNDER NAME AN D STYLE OF DEENANATH MANGESHKAR HOSPITAL AT ERANDWAN, PUNE. AS SESSEE / DATE OF HEARING : 08.06.2017 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 23.06.2017 2 FILED ITS RETURN OF INCOME FOR A.Y. 2010-11 ON 12.10.2010 DECLA RING TOTAL INCOME AT RS. NIL. THE CASE WAS SELECTED FOR SCRUTINY AND THEREAFTER THE ASSESSMENT WAS FRAMED U/S 143(3) OF THE ACT VIDE ORDER DT.22.03.2013 AND THE TOTAL INCOME WAS DETERMINED AT RS.18,16,02,520/-. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF AO, ASSESSE E CARRIED THE MATTER BEFORE LD.CIT(A), WHO VIDE ORDER DT.18.02.2015 IN APPEAL NO.(PN/CIT(A)-10/ITO, WD.11(1)/859/13-14) GRANTED SUBSTANTIAL RELIEF TO THE ASSESSEE. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDE R OF LD.CIT(A), REVENUE IS NOW IN APPEAL BEFORE US AND HAS RAISE D THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS : 1. WHETHER IN THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF TH E CASE AND IN LAW THE LD.CIT(A) GROSSLY ERRED IN HOLDING THAT THE ASS ESSEE IS ENTITLED TO EXEMPTION UNDER SECTION 11 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1 961 ? 2 . WHETHER IN THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF TH E CASE AND IN LAW, THE LD. CIT(A) GROSSLY ERRED IN FAILING TO APP RECIATE THE VOLUMINOUS DATA AND EVIDENCES GATHERED AND USED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER WHICH WOULD CLEARLY ESTABLISH THA T THE ASSESSEE WAS RUNNING ITS HOSPITAL , CANTEEN AND OTHER ACTIVITIES ALONG COMMERCIAL LINES, AND, THEREFORE, COULD NOT BE TREA TED AS PURSUING CHARITABLE OBJECTS? 3. WHETHER IN THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF TH E CASE AND IN LAW , THE LD. CIT(A) GROSSLY ERRED IN DILUTING THE CONCEP T OF CHARITY BEYOND RECOGNITION AND IN NOT TAKING ANY NOTE OF TH E SPIRIT UNDERLYING THIS CONCEPT OF CHARITY RECOGNITION AND IN NOT TAKING ANY NOTE OF THE SPIRIT UNDERLYING THIS CONCEPT AS USED IN THE INCOME TAX 1961 ? 4 . WHETHER IN THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF TH E CASE AND IN LAW , THE LD . CIT(A) GROSSLY ERRED IN HOLDING THAT THE ASSESSEE C ANNOT BE CONSIDERED TO HAVE VIOLATED THE PROVISIONS OF SE CTION 13 ))1 )(C) OF THE ACT? 5 . WHETHER IN THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF TH E CASE AND IN LAW, THE LD . CIT(A) GROSSLY ERRED IN ROUTINELY DISMISSING THE INSTANCES OF VIOLATIONS OF SECTION 13(1)(C) BROUGHT OUT IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, PARTICULARLY WITH REGARD TO THE U NJUSTIFIABLE PAYMENTS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE TO MRS. MEENA KELKAR AND MRS. BHARTI MANGESKAR? 3. ALL THE GROUNDS BEING INTER-CONNECTED ARE CONSIDERED TOGETHER. 3 4. DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS AND ON PERUSING THE INCOME AND EXPENDITURE ACCOUNT, AO NOTICED THAT ASSESSEE WAS RUNNING A CANTEEN IN HOSPITAL AND FROM IT H AD EARNED GROSS RECEIPTS OF RS.2.94 CRORES AND HAD INCURRED EXPEN DITURE OF RS.1.90 CRORES AND THEREBY EARNED PROFIT OF RS.1.04 CRORES WHICH WORKED OUT TO 35.43%. AO WAS OF THE VIEW THAT THE CANT EEN WAS RUN WITH CLEAR PROFIT MOTIVE AND RUNNING OF CANTEEN WAS NOT THE OBJECTIVE OF THE ASSESSEE. HE ALSO NOTICED THAT ASSESSE E HAD MADE FOLLOWING PAYMENTS : (A) RS.1,80,000/- TO SMT. MEENA KELKAR, MOTHER OF ONE OF THE TRUSTEES. DR. SHRI DHANANJAY KELKAR, AS HONORARIUM. (B) RS.4,56,000/- TO SHRI SACHIN KSHIRSAGAR, BROTHER OF ANOTHER TRUSTEE DR. JITENDRA KSHIRASAGAR, AS SALARY, (C) RS.4,20,000/- AND RS.1,80,000/- TO MRS. BHARATI MANGESHKAR AS HONORARIUM AND CONVEYANCE CHARGES AND (D) RS.1,35,000/- AS SALARY / HONORARIUM TO MRS. SWATHI KELKAR, W/O. DHANANJAY KELKAR. AO WAS OF THE VIEW THAT THE AFORESAID PAYMENTS WERE HIT BY SEC.13(1)(C) OF THE ACT. AO ALSO NOTICED THAT DURING THE Y EAR UNDER CONSIDERATION ASSESSEE HAD RECEIPTS FROM MEDICAL TREATMEN T TO THE TUNE OF RS.107.27 CRORES AGAINST WHICH ASSESSEE HAD SPE NT ONLY RS.65,87,635/- ON INDIGENT AND WEAKER SECTION PATIENTS WH EREAS AS PER THE POLICY FRAMED BY THE BOMBAY HIGH COURT, ASSE SSEE WAS REQUIRED TO SPENT 2% OF THE MEDICAL RECEIPTS AND THUS TH ERE WAS A SHORTFALL OF RS.1,48,67,880/- IN THE AMOUNT REQUIRED TO BE SPENT ON INDIGENT AND WEAKER SECTION PATIENTS. THE ASSESSEE WA S THEREFORE ASKED TO SHOW CAUSE AS TO WHY THE ASSESSEE NOT BE D ENIED EXEMPTION U/S 11 OF THE ACT. THE SUBMISSION MADE BY TH E 4 ASSESSEE WAS NOT FOUND ACCEPTABLE TO AO. HE THEREAFTER CONCLUDED THAT ASSESSEE WAS RUNNING THE HOSPITAL WITH THE INTENTION OF MAKING PROFIT. HE ACCORDINGLY DENIED EXEMPTION U/S 11 OF T HE ACT AND DETERMINED TOTAL INCOME AT RS.18,16,02,520/-. AGGRIEVE D BY THE ORDER OF AO, ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MATTER BEFORE LD.C IT(A), WHO DECIDED THE ISSUE IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE BY HOLDING AS UNDER : 15. I HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE FACTS OF THE CASE AS WELL AS REPLY OF THE APPELLANT. I FIND THAT THE ISSUE IS C OVERED IN FAVOUR OF THE APPELLANT VIDE APPELLATE ORDER FOR A.YS.2008-09 AND 2009-10. FOR THE SAKE OF CLARITY, OPERATING PARA OF CIT(A) S ORDER FOR A.Y. 2009-10 IS REPRODUCED AS UNDER : 4.7. I HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE FACTS OF THE CASE AND THE LAW AS ARE APPARENT FROM RECORDS. FROM THE VARIOUS OBJECTIONS RAISED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR DENY ING EXEMPTION U/S 11 OF INCOME TAX ACT, IN THE ASSESSME NT ORDER, IT CAN BE SEEN THAT THESE CAN BE BROADLY CON SIDERED TO BE FALLING IN TWO CATEGORIES I.E.(A) OBJECTIONS SAY ING THAT THE ACTIVITIES OF THE APPELLANT TRUST ARE NOT CHARITABL E IN NATURE AND (B) THE OBJECTIONS SAYING THAT THE APPELLANT HAS VIOLATED SEC . 13(1)(C) BY MAKING PAYMENTS TO MRS. MEENA KELKAR AN D MRS. BHARATI MANGESHKAR . MY LEARNED PRECEDECESSOR IN HIS APPELLATE ORDER NO. PN/CIT(A)-IIADDL.CIT R- 11 PN/ 282/10- 11 DATED 30.03.2012 WAS EXAMINED THE FACTS AND ISSU ES OF THE CASE, FOR A. Y. 2008-09 WHICH ARE IDENTICAL TO THE FACTS AND ISSUES IN THE CURRENT APPEAL. HE HAS ANALYSED T HE JUDICIAL PRECEDENT IN RESPECT OF 'CHARITABLE PURPOS E' AND VIDE PARAS 4 . 10.1 TO 4.10.6 OF HIS ORDER COME TO A FINDING THAT THE OBJECTIONS OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER WHICH LED HER T O DENY THE BENEFIT OF SEE . 11 TO THE APPELLANT WAS NOT CORRECT IN LAW. FOR THIS REASON, HE HAD REMANDED THE MATTER TO THE ASSE SSING OFFICER AND CONSIDERED THE REMAND REPORT IN UPHOLDI NG THE CLAIM OF THE APPELLANT FOR THE BENEFITS U/S 11 . SINCE THE FACTS ARE ABSOLUTELY IDENTICAL FOR THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMEN T YEAR, RELYING UPON THE ORDER OF MY PREDECESSOR, IT IS TO BE HELD THAT GROUNDS NO. 1 TO 4.1 AND 9 ARE ALLOWED IN FAVOUR OF THE APPELLANT. 16. SINCE, FACTS BEING IDENTICAL, I DO NOT FIND ANY NECESSITY TO DIFFER FROM THE VIEW TAKEN IN A.Y. 2008-09 & 2009-1 0. ACCORDINGLY. FOLLOWING THE APPELLATE ORDER OF A.Y. 2008-09 & 2009-10, GROUNDS NO.1 TO 4 AND 9 ARE ALLOWED. 17. GROUND NO.7 AND 8: THESE GROUNDS RELATE TO THE ISSUES REGARDING VIOLAT ION OF PROVISIONS OF SEE . 13(1)(C) IN RESPECT OF PAYMENTS MADE TO MRS. MEENA KELKAR AND BHARATI MANGESHKAR. I FIND THAT THE ISSUE IS COVERED IN FAVOUR OF THE APPELLANT IN A.Y. 5 2008-09 & 2009-10. FOR THE SAKE OF CLARITY, RELEVAN T PORTION OF THE APPELLATE ORDER FOR A.Y. 2009-10 IS REPRODUCED AS UNDER: ' THIS ISSUE HAS BEEN DEALT WITH BY MY PREDECESSOR IN PARAS 4.11 . 1 TO 4.11 . 6 OF THE ORDER FOR A. Y. 2008-09 (SUPRA) AND ARE NOT BEEN REPEATED FOR THE SAKE OF BREVITY. FOR THE REASONS DISCUSSED IN . THE APPELLATE ORDER FOR THE A. Y. 2008-09, GROUNDS NO. 7 AND 8 ARE ALLOWED IN FAVOUR OF THE APPELLANT. THUS, GROUND NO.7 & 8 ARE ALLOWED.' SINCE, FACTS BEING IDENTICAL, FOLLOWING THE APPELLA TE ORDER FOR A.Y. 2008-09 & 2009-10, BOTH THE GROUNDS ARE ALLOWED. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF LD.CIT(A) REVENUE IS NOW IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 5. BEFORE US, LD. D.R. TOOK US THROUGH THE VARIOUS OBSERVATIONS OF AO AND SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF AO. ON T HE OTHER HAND, LD.A.R. REITERATED THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BEFORE LOWER AUTHORITIES AND FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT IDENTICAL ISSUE AROS E IN CASE OF ASSESSEE IN EARLIER YEARS. HE SUBMITTED THAT WHILE ALLOWI NG THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE FOR A.Y.2010-11, LD.CIT(A) HAD FOLLOWED THE ORDER OF HIS PREDECESSOR FOR A.YS.2008-09 AND 2009-10. AGAINST THE ORDER OF LD.CIT(A) FOR A.Y. 2008-09 AND 2009-10, RE VENUE HAD PREFERRED APPEALS BEFORE TRIBUNAL. THE CO-ORDINATE BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL UPHELD THE ORDER OF LD.CIT(A) BY ORDER DT.15.04.2016 IN ITA NO.2046/PN/2012 AND ITA 761/PN/2003 FOR A.YS.2008-0 9 AND 2009-10 RESPECTIVELY. HE PLACED ON RECORD THE COP Y OF THE AFORESAID ORDER. HE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE ISSUE RAIS ED IN THE YEAR UNDER APPEAL BEING IDENTICAL TO THAT OF EARLIER YEARS, NO INTERFERENCE TO THE ORDER OF LD.CIT(A) IS CALLED FOR. HE THUS SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF LD.CIT(A). 6 6. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD. THE ISSUE IN THE PRESENT CASE IS WITH RESPECT TO DENIAL OF CLAIM OF DEDUCTION U/S 11 OF THE ACT. WE FIND THAT LD.CIT(A) WHILE DECIDING THE ISSUE IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE HAD NOTED THAT THE FACTS IN THE YEAR UNDER APPEAL ARE IDENTICAL TO THAT OF A.YS.2008-09 AND 2009-10. HE THEREAFTER FOLLOWING THE ORDE R OF HIS PREDECESSOR FOR A.YS.2008-09 AND 2009-10 HAD DECIDED TH E ISSUE IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE. WE FIND THAT AGAINST THE ORDER OF LD.CIT(A) FOR A.Y. 2008-09 AND 2009-10, REVENUE HAD PREFE RRED APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. THE CO-ORDINATE BENCH OF TH E TRIBUNAL VIDE ORDER DATED 15.04.2016 UPHELD THE ORDER OF LD.CIT(A) B Y HOLDING AS UNDER : 48. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL ARGUMENTS MADE BY BOTH THE SIDES, PERUSED THE ORDERS OF THE AO AND CIT(A) AND THE PAPER BOOK FILED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE. WE HAVE ALSO CONSI DERED THE VARIOUS DECISIONS CITED BEFORE US. WE FIND THE ASSESSEE IN THE INSTANT IS A CHARITABLE TRUST FORMED ON 20-08-1988. THE ASSESSEE TRUST HAS BEEN REGISTERED U/S 12A OF THE INCOME TAX ACT VIDE ORDER DATED 27- 12-1988 ISSUED BY THE CIT, PUNE, A COPY OF WHICH HA S BEEN PLACED AT PAGE 16 OF THE PAPER BOOK. THE ASSESSEE TRUST RU NS A HOSPITAL UNDER THE NAME AND STYLE OF DEENANATH MANGESHKAR HO SPITAL AT PUNE. THE ASSESSEE TRUST FILED ITS RETURN OF INCOME CLAIMING EXEMPTION U/S.11 OF THE I.T. ACT. WE FIND THE AO DE NIED THE CLAIM OF EXEMPTION U/S 11 AND DETERMINED THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE AT RS.11,34,45,230/- ON THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS : 1. THE ASSESSEE TRUST HAS NOT FURNISHED PROPER INFORMA TION TO THE CHARITY COMMISSIONER AND THERE IS SHORTFALL I N MAKING PROVISION FOR IPF. 2. THE ASSESSEE TRUST IS RUNNING A HOSPITAL WITH AN IN TENTION OF MAKING PROFIT. 3. THE ASSESSEE TRUST HAS GENERATED HUGE SURPLUS AND I S ALSO NOT CARRYING OUT ANY CHARITABLE ACTIVITY. 4. THE ASSESSEE IS RUNNING A CANTEEN IN THE HOSPITAL A ND HAS EARNED HUGE PROFIT. 5. THE ASSESSEE TRUST HAS ORGANIZED MUSICAL NIGHTS WHI CH IS NOT ACCEPTABLE IN HOSPITAL. 6. THE ASSESSEE TRUST HAS ISSUED DONATION RECEIPTS WHI CH ARE NOT VOLUNTARY DONATIONS BUT MEDICAL FEES CHARGE D BY THE TRUST. 7 7. THE ASSESSEE TRUST HAS PAID SALARY TO MRS. BHARTI MANGESHKAR (TRUSTEE) AND MRS. MEENA KELKAR (MOTHER OF THE TRUSTEE). 8. THE ASSESSEE HAS RECEIVED RENT OF RS.2,88,100/- FROM VARIOUS PARTIES WHICH INCLUDES RS.1,80,000/- FROM B HARTI AIRTEL. 49. WE FIND THE LD.CIT(A) ALLOWED THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE BY REJECTING THE VARIOUS OBJECTIONS RAISED BY THE AO. WE DO NOT FIND ANY INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A). WE FIND T HE FIRST OBJECTION OF THE AO FOR DENYING CLAIM OF EXEMPTION IS DUE TO INC ORRECT INFORMATION TO CHARITY COMMISSIONER AND SHORTFALL IN MAKING PRO VISION FOR INDIGENT PATIENT FUND (IPF) AS PER THE GUIDELINES I SSUED BY CHARITY COMMISSIONER. AS PER THE GUIDELINES ISSUED BY THE CH ARITY COMMISSIONER/, EACH HOSPITAL SHOULD MAKE A PROVISION OF 2% OF THE HOSPITAL RECEIPTS FOR IPF. ACCORDING TO THE AO, THE ACTUAL RECEIPT OF THE TRUST IS RS.72.31 CRORES AS AGAINST RS.21.09 CR ORES DISCLOSED TO THE CHARITY COMMISSIONER. THEREFORE, THE ASSESSEE S HOULD HAVE CREDITED AN AMOUNT OF RS.1.44 CRORES TO THE IPF FUN D WHEREAS IT HAS CREDITED RS.66.06 LAKHS ONLY. THUS THERE IS SHORTFA LL IN MAKING PROVISION FOR THE INDIGENT PATIENT FUND. 50. IT IS THE SUBMISSION OF THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE THAT THERE HAD BEEN NO PROPER CLARIFICATION REGARDING TH E INTERPRETATION OF THE CONCEPT OF 2% OF PATIENTS RECEIPTS. ACCORDING TO HIM, THE COMPUTATION OF GROSS RECEIPTS WAS A DEBATABLE ISSUE WITH CHARITY COMMISSIONER FOR WHICH THE HOSPITALS ASSOCIATION OF PUNE HAD TAKEN UP THE MATTER WITH THE CHARITY COMMISSIONER. IT IS ALSO THE SUBMISSION OF THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE THAT THE GROSS RECEIPTS OF THE ASSESSEE WAS ONLY THE HOSPITAL CHAR GES EXCLUDING THE OPD FEES, MEDICINE CHARGES, DOCTOR FEES ETC. FOR WH ICH IT HAS MADE THE PROVISION OF 2% OF THE HOSPITAL RECEIPTS FOR IP F. AFTER THE VISIT OF THE CHARITY COMMISSIONER, HE DIRECTED TO INCLUDE TH E OPD FEES ONLY TO THE HOSPITAL CHARGES AND MEDICINE CHARGES AND DO CTOR FEES WERE NOT CONSIDERED FOR THE PURPOSE OF MAKING PROVISION FOR INDIGENT FUND. THE ASSESSEE ACCORDINGLY MADE PROVISION FOR THE BAL ANCE AMOUNT ON 31-05-2010 FOR THE PERIOD FROM OCTOBER 2006 TO NOVE MBER 2009. WE FIND FORCE IN THE ABOVE SUBMISSION OF THE LD. COUNS EL FOR THE ASSESSEE. WE ALSO FIND MERIT IN THE SUBMISSION OF T HE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE THAT AFTER THE INSPECTION OF RECOR DS BY THE CHARITY COMMISSIONER, THE ASSESSEE HAS MADE PROVISION FOR TH E SHORTFALL AND THE CHARITY COMMISSIONER HAS NEITHER CANCELLED T HE REGISTRATION NOR LEVIED ANY PENALTY, THEREFORE, THIS CANNOT BE A GROUND FOR DENYING THE EXEMPTION U/S.11 OF THE I.T. ACT. 51. WE FIND ALTHOUGH THE ASSESSEE IN THE INSTANT CA SE HAS CLARIFIED THE ABOVE FACTS BEFORE THE AO, HOWEVER, IT WAS NOT APPRECIATED BY HIM. WE FIND THE CIT(A) AFTER PROPERLY APPRECIATING THE FACTS HAS GIVEN A FINDING THAT THE SHORTFALL COMPUTED BY THE CHARITY COMMISSIONER WAS MUCH LESS THAN THE SHORTFALL COMPUT ED BY THE AO. FURTHER, THE SHORTFALL IN THE CREATION OF IPF W AS DUE TO CERTAIN CONFUSION REGARDING THE AMOUNT TO BE PROVIDED FOR T HE SAID FUND AND THE ASSESSEE HAS MADE PROVISION FOR THE SHORTFALL I N IPF. UNDER THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, WE FIND NO INFIRMITY IN THE OR DER OF CIT(A) ON THIS ISSUE. THEREFORE, THIS OBJECTION OF THE AO HAS NO MERIT. 8 52. AS REGARDS THE OBJECTION OF THE AO THAT THE ASS ESSEE TRUST HAS GENERATED SURPLUS AND IS NOT CARRYING ANY CHARITABL E ACTIVITY IS CONCERNED, WE FIND THE ALLEGATION OF THE AO IS ALSO BASELESS. THE INCOME AND EXPENDITURE ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE TRUS T HAS ALREADY BEEN REPRODUCED AT PARA 32 OF THIS ORDER. IF THE CA PITAL EXPENDITURE IS CONSIDERED THEN THE SURPLUS IN EACH YEAR IS LESS THAN 15% AND IN SOME CASES THERE IS DEFICIT. WE ALSO FIND MERIT IN THE SUBMISSION OF THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE THAT LEGISLATURE H AS ALLOWED ACCUMULATION UPTO 15% OF THE RECEIPTS. FURTHER, THE SUBMISSION OF THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE THAT WHATEVER SURP LUS HAS BEEN GENERATED HAS BEEN UTILIZED FOR THE PURPOSE OF THE TRUST COULD NOT BE CONTROVERTED BY THE LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE . 53. WE FIND THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE O F ACIT VS. SURAT ART SILK CLOTH MANUFACTURERS ASSOCIATION REPORTED I N 121 ITR 1 HAS HELD AS UNDER (HEAD NOTES) : CHARITABLE TRUST CHARITABLE PURPOSE ADVANCEMEN T OF ANY OTHER OBJECT OF GENERAL UTILITY NOT INVOLVING CARRY ING ON OF ANY ACTIVITY FOR PROFIT WHERE, THE PURPOSE OF A TRUST OR INSTITUTION IS RELIEF OF THE POOR, EDUCATION OR MEDICAL RELIEF, THE REQUIREMENT OF THE DEFINITION OF CHARITABLE PURPOS E WOULD BE FULLY SATISFIED, EVEN IF AN ACTIVITY FOR PROFIT IS CARRIED ON IN THE COURSE OF THE ACTUAL CARRYING OUT OF THE PRIMARY PU RPOSE OF THE TRUST OR INSTITUTION IT IS THE OBJECT OF GENE RAL PUBLIC UTILITY WHICH MUST NOT INVOLVE THE CARRYING ON OF ANY ACTIV ITY FOR PROFIT AND NOT ITS ADVANCEMENT OR ATTAINMENT WHAT IS INHIBITED BY THESE LAST TEN WORDS IS THE LINKING OF ACTIVITY FOR PROFIT WITH THE OBJECT OF GENERAL PUBLIC UTILITY AN D NOT ITS LINKING WITH THE ACCOMPLISHMENT OR CARRYING OUT OF THE OBJECT IT IS NOT NECESSARY THAT THE ACCOMPLISHMENT OF TH E OBJECT OR THE MEANS TO CARRY OUT THE OBJECT SHOULD THAT THE ACCOMPLISHMENT OF THE OBJECT OR THE MEANS TO CARRY OUT THE OBJECT SHOULD NOT INVOLVE AN ACTIVITY FOR PROFIT WHERE THE PREDOMINANT OBJECT OF THE ACTIVITY IS TO CARRY OUT THE CHARITABLE PURPOSE AND NOT TO EARN PROFIT, IT WOULD NOT LOSE ITS CHARACTER OF A CHARITABLE PURPOSE MERELY BECAUSE SO ME PROFIT ARISES FROM THE ACTIVITY EXCLUSIONARY CLAUSE DOES NOT REQUIRE THAT THE ACTIVITY MUST BE CARRIED ON IN SUC H A MANNER THAT IT DOES NOT RESULT IN ANY PROFIT. 54. WE FIND THE CBDT VIDE CIRCULAR NO.14/2015 DATED 17-08- 2015 HAS GIVEN CLARIFICATION ON CERTAIN ISSUES RELA TED TO GRANT OF APPROVAL AND CLAIM OF EXEMPTION U/S.10(23C)(VI) OF THE ACT, 1961. IN PARA 3 OF THE SAID CIRCULAR IT HAS BEEN STATED A S UNDER : A DOUBT HAS BEEN RAISED WHETHER GENERATION OF SURP LUS OUT OF GROSS RECEIPTS WOULD NECESSARY BREACH THE THRE SHOLD CONDITION THAT THE EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTION SHOULD E XIST SOLELY FOR EDUCATIONAL PURPOSE AND NOT FOR THE PURPOSE OF PROFIT. PERUSAL OF PRESCRIBED PROVISIONS CLEARLY REVEAL THA T MERE GENERATION OF SURPLUS CANNOT BE A BASIS FOR REJECTI ON OF APPLICATION U/S.10(23C)(VI) ON THE GROUND THAT IT A MOUNTS TO AN ACTIVITY OF THE NATURE OF PROFIT MAKING. IN FACT , THE THIRD PROVISO TO THE SAID CLAUSE CLEARLY PROVIDES THAT AC CUMULATION OF INCOME IS PERMISSIBLE SUBJECT TO THE MANNER PRES CRIBED THEREIN PROVIDED SUCH ACCUMULATION IS TO BE APPLIED WHOLLY AND EXCLUSIVELY TO THE OBJECTS FOR WHICH IT IS ESTA BLISHED. HENCE, IT IS CLARIFIED THAT MERE GENERATION OF SURP LUS BY 9 EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTION FROM YEAR TO YEAR CANNOT BE A BASIS FOR REJECTION OF APPLICATION U/S.10(23C)(VI) IF IT IS USED FOR EDUCATIONAL PURPOSES UNLESS THE ACCUMULATION IS CON TRARY TO THE MANNER PRESCRIBED UNDER LAW. 55. WE FIND THE HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN THE CA SE OF VANITA VISHRAM TRUST (SUPRA) HAS HELD THAT SURPLUS THAT MA Y INCIDENTALLY ARISE FROM THE ACTIVITIES OF THE TRUST AFTER MEETIN G THE EXPENSES INCURRED FOR CONDUCTING EDUCATIONAL ACTIVITIES WOUL D NOT DISENTITLE THE TRUST OF THE BENEFIT OF SECTION 10(23C) OF THE ACT. THE HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF TOLANI EDUCATION S OCIETY (SUPRA) HAS ALSO TAKEN SIMILAR VIEW. IT HAS BEEN HE LD IN VARIOUS DECISIONS THAT MERE GENERATION OF SURPLUS YEAR AFTE R YEAR CANNOT BE THE REASON FOR DISALLOWING THE CLAIM OF EXEMPTIO N U/S.11. FURTHER, IN THE INSTANT CASE, AS MENTIONED EARLIER, THE CLAIM OF EXEMPTION U/S.11 HAS BEEN ALLOWED BY THE AO FROM A. YRS. 2002- 03 TO 2007-08 IN ASSESSMENTS COMPLETED U/S.143(3) O F THE ACT. UNDER THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, WE DO NOT FIND ANY REASO N AS TO WHY THE EXEMPTION U/S.11 SHOULD BE DENIED TO THE ASSESS EE MERELY BECAUSE THERE IS SOME SURPLUS. SINCE THE LD.CIT(A) WHILE DEALING WITH THIS ISSUE HAS GIVEN JUSTIFIABLE REASONS AND A CCEPTED THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE, THEREFORE, WE DO NOT FI ND ANY INFIRMITY ON THIS ISSUE. 56. THE NEXT OBJECTION OF THE AO IS THAT THE ASSESS EE IS NOT ENGAGED IN CHARITABLE ACTIVITY SINCE THE ASSESSEE H AS NOT PROVIDED SERVICES TO THE UNDERPRIVILEGED CLASS OF THE SOCIET Y. FROM THE VARIOUS DETAILS FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE WE FIND T HE ASSESSEE HAS GIVEN FREESHIPS TO PATIENTS. FURTHER, IT IS NOT MANDATORY THAT THE ASSESSEE SHOULD PROVIDE MEDICAL SERVICES ONLY T O THE POOR PEOPLE. AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 2(15) THE TERM CHARITABLE PURPOSE INCLUDES RELIEF OF THE POOR, EDUCATION, ME DICAL RELIEF AND THE ADVANCEMENT OF ANY OTHER OBJECT OF GENERAL PUBL IC UTILITY. RELIEF TO THE POOR IS ONE OF THE PURPOSE BUT THERE IS NO C ONDITION THAT EDUCATION OR MEDICAL SERVICES SHOULD BE PROVIDED ON LY TO THE POOR. IN OUR OPINION, SO LONG AS THE TRUST IS ENGAGED IN MEDICAL ACTIVITIES IT WOULD FALL WITHIN THE DEFINITION OF CHARITABLE PURPOSE AND THE SAID TRUST CAN ENJOY THE BENEFIT OF EXEMPTION U/S.1 1. 57. WE FIND THE MUMBAI BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF KAUSHALYA MEDICAL FOUNDATION (SUPRA) HAS HELD THAT WHERE A CHARITABLE TRUST RUNS A HOSPITAL AND IS CLAIMING TA X EXEMPTION, THERE IS NO REQUIREMENT THAT MEDICAL AID SHOULD BE PROVIDED ONLY TO THE POOR NOR THERE IS ANY REQUIREMENT THAT SOME PARTICULAR PERCENTAGE OF SERVICES SHOULD BE RENDERED FREE. SO LONG AS IT IS NOT SHOWN THAT THE HOSPITAL WAS RUNNING WITH THE OBJECT OF EARNING PROFITS, THE TRUST CANNOT BE DENIED EXEMPTION. 58. WE FIND THE PUNE BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE C ASE OF NOBLE MEDICAL FOUNDATION AND RESEARCH CENTRE AT PARA 23 O F THE ORDER HAS OBSERVED AS UNDER : 23. ANOTHER ASPECT OF THE DENIAL OF DEDUCTION UND ER SECTION 11 OF THE ACT TO THE ASSESSEE WAS THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD FAILED TO PROVIDE CONCESSIONAL TREATMENT TO INDIGEN T / POOR PATIENTS. ADMITTEDLY, THIS WAS THE FIRST YEAR OF OP ERATION OF THE HOSPITAL AND THE PLEA OF THE ASSESSEE WAS THAT IT COULD NOT PROVIDE FREE MEDICAL RELIEF TO LARGE NUMBERS OF INDIGENT / POOR PATIENTS. HOWEVER, AS PER THE DATA SUBMITTED B EFORE THE 10 ASSESSING OFFICER, WHICH IS INCORPORATED UNDER PARA 9 AT PAGE 10 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, SUCH SERVICES TO I NDIGENT / POOR PATIENTS WAS NUMBERING 808 WAS PROVIDED BY THE ASSESSEE TRUST AND THE TOTAL BILL AMOUNT OF CONCESS ION GIVEN TO THE PATIENTS WAS RS.14,49,969/- AS AGAINST THE B ILLED AMOUNT RECEIVED FROM OTHER PATIENTS OF RS.3.22 CROR ES. UNDER THE INCOME-TAX ACT, THERE IS NO PROVISION FOR PROVI DING A PERCENTAGE OF THE CONCESSION TO INDIGENT / POOR PAT IENTS. BUT CERTAIN LIMITS HAVE BEEN LAID DOWN OTHERWISE. HOWEV ER, IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY LIMIT BEING PROVIDED IN THE INCO ME-TAX ACT, VIOLATION, IF ANY, OF THE SAID LIMIT DOES NOT ENTIT LE THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES TO DISALLOW THE CLAIM OF EXEMPTION UNDE R SECTION 11 OF THE ACT TO THE ASSESSEE TRUST, WHICH OTHERWIS E HAD CARRIED OUT THE ACTIVITIES AS PER ITS OBJECTS AND H ENCE, IS ENTITLED TO THE DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 11 OF THE A CT. ACCORDINGLY, THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS DIRECTED TO A LLOW THE CLAIM OF ASSESSEE IN THIS REGARD. 59. SINCE THE CIT(A) WHILE DEALING WITH THIS ISSUE HAS ALSO GIVEN JUSTIFIABLE REASONS, THEREFORE, THE SAME BEING IN O RDER WE DO NOT FIND ANY INFIRMITY ON THIS ISSUE. 60. ANOTHER OBJECTION OF THE AO IS THAT THE ASSESSE E IS RUNNING A CANTEEN IN THE HOSPITAL WHICH IS NOT ONE OF THE OBJ ECTS OF THE TRUST AND IS NOT PROVIDING FREE MEALS EVEN TO THE INDIGEN T PATIENTS AND IT IS IN THE NATURE OF BUSINESS CONDUCTED BY THE ASSES SEE. ACCORDING TO HIM, THE INCOME FROM SUCH BUSINESS CANNOT BE EXE MPT UNLESS IT IS IN THE COURSE OF THE ACTUAL CARRYING OUT OF THE PRIMARY PURPOSE OF THE TRUST. IT IS THE SUBMISSION OF THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE THAT THE ASSESSEE IS RUNNING A HUGE HOSPITAL AND TH EREFORE CANTEEN FACILITY IS REQUIRED TO BE PROVIDED TO THE PATIENTS AND THEIR FAMILIES. THUS, CANTEEN IS AN ESSENTIAL PART AND A NECESSITY. ACCORDING TO HIM, THE RATES CHARGED FOR THE FOOD IS VERY REASONABLE AND MUCH LESSER THAN THE STANDARD RATES WHICH HAS B EEN ACCEPTED BY THE CIT(A). HE HAS ALSO BROUGHT TO OUR NOTICE THAT THE PROFIT GENERATED BY THE CANTEEN IS ONLY RS.18.95 LA KHS AS AGAINST RS.78.81 LAKHS COMPUTED BY THE AO. FURTHER, THE ASS ESSEE HAS MAINTAINED SEPARATE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT FOR THE CANTEE N ACTIVITY. IT IS ALSO HIS SUBMISSION THAT EVEN ASSUMING THAT THE CAN TEEN ACTIVITY AMOUNTS TO CARRYING OUT BUSINESS, STILL IN VIEW OF PROVISIONS OF SECTION 11(4A) THE ASSESSEE CAN CARRY OUT A BUSINES S SO LONG AS THE BUSINESS IS INCIDENTAL TO THE OBJECTS OF THE TR UST. 61. WE FIND MERIT IN THE ABOVE ARGUMENT OF THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE. THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF TANTHI TRUST (SUPRA) HAS HELD THAT AFTER THE AMENDMENT TO SECTIO N 11(4A) A CHARITABLE TRUST CAN CARRY OUT A BUSINESS SO LONG A S THE BUSINESS IS INCIDENTAL TO THE OBJECTS OF THE TRUST. IT HAS F URTHER BEEN HELD THAT BUSINESS IS INCIDENTAL TO THE OBJECTS OF THE T RUST WHEN THE SURPLUS GENERATED FROM THE BUSINESS IS UTILIZED FOR THE OBJECTS OF THE TRUST. THE RELEVANT OBSERVATION OF THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT AT PARA 21 OF THE ORDER READ AS UNDER : 20. WE NOW ADDRESS THE THIRD CONTROVERSY, WHICH RE LATES TO SUB-SECTION (4A) OF SECTION 11 AS SUBSTITUTED WITH EFFECT FROM APRIL 1, 1992. THE LEARNED SOLICITOR-GENERAL SUBMIT TED THAT WHILE THE SUBSTITUTED SUB-SECTION (4A) GAVE TRUSTS AND INSTITUTIONS A WIDER LATITUDE THAN THE EARLIER SUBS ECTION (4A), IT HAD STILL TO BE CONSTRUED TO MEAN THAT A TRUST O R INSTITUTION 11 WOULD NOT GET THE BENEFIT OF SECTION 11 UNLESS THE BUSINESS IT CARRIED ON WAS CARRIED ON IN THE COURSE OF THE ACTU AL CARRYING OUT OF A PRIMARY PURPOSE OF THE TRUST OR INSTITUTIO N. DR. PAL, ON THE OTHER HAND, SUBMITTED THAT THE SUBSTITUTED SUB- SECTION (4A) WAS COUCHED IN WIDE LANGUAGE AND A TRUST WAS E NTITLED TO THE BENEFIT OF SECTION 11 IF IT UTILISED THE INC OME OF ITS BUSINESS FOR THE PURPOSES OF ACHIEVING ITS OBJECTS. 21. THE SUBSTITUTED SUB-SECTION (4A) STATES THAT TH E INCOME DERIVED FROM A BUSINESS HELD UNDER TRUST WHOLLY FOR CHARITABLE OR RELIGIOUS PURPOSES SHALL NOT BE INCLU DED IN THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE PREVIOUS YEAR OF THE TRUST OR I NSTITUTION IF 'THE BUSINESS IS INCIDENTAL TO THE ATTAINMENT OF 38 ITA NO.2046/PN/2012 & 761/PN/2013 THE OBJECTIVE OF THE TRUST OR, AS THE CASE MAY BE, INSTITUTION' AND SEPARATE B OOKS OF ACCOUNT ARE MAINTAINED IN RESPECT OF SUCH BUSINESS. CLEARLY, THE SCOPE OF SUB-SECTION (4A) IS MORE BENEFICIAL TO A TRUST OR INSTITUTION THAN WAS THE SCOPE OF SUB-SECTION (4A) AS ORIGINALLY ENACTED. IN FACT, IT SEEMS TO US THAT TH E SUBSTITUTED SUB-SECTION (4A) GIVES A TRUST OR INSTITUTION A GRE ATER BENEFIT THAN WAS GIVEN BY SECTION 13(1)(BB). IF THE OBJECT OF PARLIAMENT WAS TO GIVE TRUSTS AND INSTITUTIONS NO M ORE BENEFIT THAN THAT GIVEN BY SECTION 13(1)(BB), THE LANGUAGE OF SECTION 13(1)(BB) WOULD HAVE BEEN EMPLOYED IN THE SUBSTITUT ED SUB- SECTION (4A). AS IT STANDS, ALL THAT IT REQUIRES FO R THE BUSINESS INCOME OF A TRUST OR INSTITUTION TO BE EXEMPT IS TH AT THE BUSINESS SHOULD BE INCIDENTAL TO THE ATTAINMENT OF O BJECTIVES OF THE TRUST OR INSTITUTION. A BUSINESS WHOSE INCOM E IS UTILISED BY THE TRUST OR THE INSTITUTION FOR THE PURPOSES OF ACHIEVING THE OBJECTIVES OF THE TRUST OR THE INSTITUTION IS, SURELY, A BUSINESS WHICH IS INCIDENTAL TO THE ATTAINMENT OF T HE OBJECTIVES OF THE TRUST. IN ANY EVENT, IF THERE BE ANY AMBIGUITY IN THE LANGUAGE EMPLOYED, THE PROVISION MUST BE CON STRUED IN A MANNER THAT BENEFITS THE ASSESSEE. THE TRUST, THE REFORE, IS ENTITLED TO THE BENEFIT OF SECTION 11 FOR THE ASSES SMENT YEAR 1992-93 AND THEREAFTER. IT IS, WE SHOULD ADD, NOT I N DISPUTE THAT THE INCOME OF ITS NEWSPAPER BUSINESS HAS BEEN EMPLOYED TO ACHIEVE ITS OBJECTIVES OF EDUCATION AND RELIEF TO THE POOR AND THAT IT HAS MAINTAINED SEPARATE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT IN RESPECT THEREOF. 62. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE DECISION AND IN VIEW OF TH E DETAILED REASONING GIVEN BY THE CIT(A) THAT DENIAL OF EXEMPT ION U/S.11 BY THE AO ON ACCOUNT OF RUNNING OF THE CANTEEN IS NOT CORRECT, WE FIND NO INFIRMITY IN HIS ORDER HOLDING THAT THE ASSESSEE CANNOT BE DENIED EXEMPTION U/S.11 OF THE ACT FOR RUNNING A CANTEEN A ND MAKING PROFIT OUT OF IT. SO LONG AS THE SURPLUS GENERATED FROM TH E CANTEEN IS UTILIZED FOR MAKING RELIEF, THE EXEMPTION U/S.11 IN OUR OPINION CANNOT BE DENIED UNLESS IT IS BROUGHT ON RECORD THA T SUCH SURPLUS GENERATED HAS NOT BEEN UTILIZED FOR CHARITABLE PURP OSES OR HAS BEEN UTILIZED FOR NON CHARITABLE PURPOSES. SINCE THERE I S NO SUCH FINDING GIVEN BY THE AO, THEREFORE, DENIAL OF EXEMPTION U/S .11 ON ACCOUNT OF RUNNING OF THE CANTEEN IS NOT JUSTIFIED. .. 12 65. AS REGARDS THE OBJECTION OF THE AO THAT THE ASS ESSEE HAS VIOLATED THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 13(1)(C) OF THE ACT BY PAYING REMUNERATION OF RS.90,000/- TO MRS. MEENA KELKAR AN D RS.6 LAKHS TO MRS. BHARTI MANGESHKAR IS CONCERENED, WE FIND SU CH OBJECTION OF THE AO IS ALSO NOT CORRECT. FROM THE VARIOUS DETAIL S FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE WE FIND MR. MEENA KELKAR HAS BEEN PAID REM UNERATION OF RS.90,000/-. SHE WAS EARLIER LOOKING AFTER HOUSE KE EPING DEPARTMENT OF SANJEEVAN HOSPITAL AND THUS WAS HAVIN G ENOUGH EXPERIENCE. FURTHER, SHE WAS APPOINTED IN PLACE OF SMT. SARITA SHELKE WHO WAS LOOKING AFTER THE HOUSE KEEPING ACTI VITY AND SHE WAS PAID REMUNERATION OF RS.16,000/- PER MONTH. THE VARIOUS EVIDENCES FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE PAPER BO OK SHOW THAT MR. MEENA KELKAR WAS ACTUALLY LOOKING AFTER THE HOU SE KEEPING ACTIVITY OF THE ASSESSEE TRUST. THE TRUSTEE DR. DHA NANJAY KELKAR HAD ALSO FILED AN AFFIDAVIT BEFORE THE CIT(A) THAT THE REMARK MADE BY THE AO WAS INCORRECT AND HE HAD NOT MADE ANY STATEMENT IN THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS AS ALLEGED BY THE AO. 66. SIMILARLY IN THE CASE OF MRS. BHARTI MANGESHKAR SHE HAS BEEN GIVEN REMUNERATION OF RS.50,000/- PER MONTH FOR LOO KING AFTER THE GENERAL ADMINISTRATION OF THE HOSPITAL. THE AO HAS BROUGHT ON RECORD THE REMUNERATION PAID TO ONE MR. BOMI BHOTE OF RUBY HALL CLINIC AT RS.1 LAKHS PER MONTH WHO WAS ALSO HANDLIN G GENERATION ADMINISTRATION OF THE HOSPITAL. THUS, THE REMUNERAT ION PAID TO MRS. BHARTI MANGESHKAR IS MUCH LESS THAN THE REMUNERATIO N PAID TO PERSONS PLACED IN SIMILAR CIRCUMSTANCES. AS REGARDS THE ALLEGATION OF THE AO THAT SHE WAS NOT REGULAR IN THE HOSPITAL IS CONCERNED, WE FIND FROM THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE AS W ELL AS THE CONFIRMATIONS FILED IN THE PAPER BOOK THAT VARIOUS PERSONS WERE REPORTING TO MRS. BHARTI MANGESHKAR AND THEY HAVE C ONFIRMED THAT THEY USED TO DISCUSS ALL THE IMPORTANT MATTERS RELAT ING TO THE HOSPITAL WITH MRS. BHARTI MANGESHKAR. IN OUR OPINIO N, THERE IS NO VIOLATION OF PROVISIONS OF SECTION 13(1)(C) OF THE ACT IN RESPECT OF PAYMENT MADE TO THE ABOVE PERSONS WHO HAVE RENDERED SERVICES TO THE ASSESSEE TRUST. FURTHER, THE PAYMENTS MADE TO T HE ABOVE PERSONS ARE NOT EXCESSIVE OR UNREASONABLE AS MENTIO NED EARLIER. IT HAS BEEN HELD IN VARIOUS DECISIONS THAT IN ORDER TO INVOKE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 13(1)(C) OF THE ACT THE ONUS IS ON THE A O TO PROVE THAT THE PAYMENT MADE TO THE TRUSTEE OR THE RELATIVE IS EXCE SSIVE OR UNREASONABLE. AS MENTIONED EARLIER, THE PAYMENT MAD E TO MRS. MEENA KELKAR AND MRS. BHARTI MANGESHKAR ARE NOT EXC ESSIVE OR UNREASONABLE. WE, THEREFORE, CONCUR WITH THE FINDIN GS GIVEN BY THE LD.CIT(A) ON THIS ISSUE. ACCORDINGLY, THE OBJECTION OF THE AO ON ACCOUNT OF VIOLATION OF SECTION 13(1)(C) OF THE ACT IS NOT JUSTIFIED. 7. BEFORE US, REVENUE HAS NOT PLACED ANY MATERIAL ON RECO RD TO DEMONSTRATE THAT AFORESAID ORDER OF TRIBUNAL DT.15.04.2 016 PASSED IN THE CASE OF ASSESSEE HAS BEEN SET-ASIDE OR OVER-RULED IN ANY MANNER BY THE HIGH COURT. IN VIEW OF THE AFORESAID FA CTS AND SINCE THE FACTS OF THE CASE FOR THE YEAR UNDER APPEAL AR E IDENTICAL TO THAT OF A.Y. 2008-09 AND 2009-10, WE FIND NO REASON TO IN TERFERE 13 WITH THE ORDER OF LD.CIT(A) AND THUS, THE GROUNDS OF THE REVENUE ARE DISMISSED. 8. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DISMISS ED. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON 23 RD DAY OF JUNE, 2017. SD/- SD/- ( SUSHMA CHOWLA ) ( ANIL CHATURVEDI ) ! / JUDICIAL MEMBER '! / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER . PUNE; ! DATED : 23 RD JUNE, 2017. YAMINI #$%&'('% / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. / THE APPELLANT 2. / THE RESPONDENT 3. 4. 5. 6. CIT(A)-II, PUNE. CIT-2, PUNE. #$% &&'(,* '(, / DR, ITAT, A PUNE; %-.// GUARD FILE. / BY ORDER, // TRUE COPY // // 0 1234 / ASSISTANT REGISTRAR, * '( , / ITAT, PUNE.