CHOVIS GAM SACHIDANAND MEDICAL & RESEARCH CENTRE,ANAND vs. THE PR. CIT (EXEMPTION), AHMEDABAD

PDF · subscribers
ITA 2604/AHD/2017Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad14 May 2019AY 2016-174 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The ITAT found the rejection order to be cryptic and non-descript. The tribunal set aside the order and remitted the matter back to the Principal Commissioner for fresh adjudication.

What were the facts?

The assessee applied for approval under Section 10(23C)(vi) of the Income Tax Act. The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax rejected the application, citing surplus income and lack of demonstration of free or concessional treatment.

What were the issues?

Whether the rejection order for approval under Section 10(23C)(vi) was passed with adequate reasons and in accordance with natural justice.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 10(23C)(vi)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “ a ” BENCH, AHMEDABAD

Before: SHRI RAJPAL YADAV & SHRI PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA

For Respondent: Ms. Aparna Agrawal, CIT-DR
Pronounced: 14/05/2019

आदेश / O R D E R

PER PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA - AM: The captioned appeal has been filed at the instance of the Assessee against the order of the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax(Exemptions)-Ahmedabad [Pr.CIT(A) in short] dated 27/09/2017 relevant to Assessment Year (AY) 2016-17.

ITA No. 2604/Ahd/2017 Chovis Gam Sachidanand Medical & Research Centre vs.Pr.CIT(E) Asst.Year 2016–17 - 2 - 2. The grounds of appeal raised by the Assessee read as under:- 1. In law, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the impugned rejection order passed by the learned CIT(Exemption), Ahmedabad is against natural justice, bad in law and deserves to be cancelled. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(Exemption), Ahmedabad has grossly erred in rejecting the legitimate application for approval u/s.10(23C)(iv) of the Income tax Act. He may be directed to grant the requisite approval. 3. When the matter was called for hearing, non-appeared for the assessee. The matter is accordingly proceeded ex-parte.

4.

With the assistance of the Ld.DR for the Revenue, we find that application for seeking approval under s.10(23C)(vi) of the Act was disposed of on following terms:

“In this case, the application for seeking approval u/s.10(23C)(vi) of the I.T.Act was received on 27.09.2016 by this office in Form 56D.

2.

On perusal of the financial statement for the year ending 31.03.2014, it is seen that the assessee had a surplus of Rs.35,89,297/- on total receipt of Rs.97,89,066/-. This means that the institutions is not being run for philanthropic purposes. Further, in the details submitted, the applicant no where demonstrated about free or concessional treatment being given in this hospital in comparison to other commercial hospitals. In this view of the matter, the application of the applicant under section 10(23C)(vi) of the Act is hereby rejected.”

ITA No. 2604/Ahd/2017 Chovis Gam Sachidanand Medical & Research Centre vs.Pr.CIT(E) Asst.Year 2016–17 - 3 - 5. We find that the order passed by the Pr.CIT(E) declining approval under s.10(23C)(vi) is non-descript and cryptic. To ensure attaining of fairness, the adjudicating authority is expected to provide speaking order with reasons. Needless to say, reasons for approval of rejection of application would reveal manifestation of the mind of the adjudicator. The order passed by the Pr.CIT(E) dated 27/09/2017 is thus set aside and the entire matter is remitted back to the file of the Pr.CIT(E) for de novo adjudication after taking into account the submissions and explanations made on behalf of the assessee. Needless to say, it shall be open to assessee to make suitable representation to support its case.

6.

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed ex-parte for statistical purposes. This Order pronounced in Open Court on 14/ 05/2019

Sd/- Sd/- (राजपाल यादव) (�द�प कुमार के�डया) �या�यक सद�य लेखा सद�य (RAJPAL YADAV) ( PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA ) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

Ahmedabad; Dated 14/ 05 /2019

ट�.सी.नायर, व.�न.स./T.C. NAIR, Sr. PS

ITA No. 2604/Ahd/2017 Chovis Gam Sachidanand Medical & Research Centre vs.Pr.CIT(E) Asst.Year 2016–17 - 4 -

आदेश क� ��त�ल�प अ�े�षत/Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथ� / The Appellant 2. ��यथ� / The Respondent. 3. संबं�धत आयकर आयु�त / Concerned CIT 4. आयकर आयु�त(अपील) / The Pr.CIT(E)-Ahmedabad �वभागीय ��त�न�ध, आयकर अपील�य अ�धकरण, अहमदाबाद / DR, ITAT, Ahmedabad 5. 6. गाड� फाईल / Guard file. आदेशानुसार/ BY ORDER, स�या�पत ��त //True Copy//

उप/सहायक पंजीकार (Dy./Asstt.Registrar) आयकर अपील�य अ�धकरण, अहमदाबाद / ITAT, Ahmedabad 1. Date of dictation ..8.5.19 (dictation-pad 4- pages attached at the end of this appeal-file) 2. Date on which the typed draft is placed before the Dictating Member … 10.5.19 3. Other Member… 4. Date on which the approved draft comes to the Sr.P.S./P.S…………….. 5. Date on which the fair order is placed before the Dictating Member for pronouncement…… 6. Date on which the fair order comes back to the Sr.P.S./P.S…….14.5.19 7. Date on which the file goes to the Bench Clerk…………………14.5.19 8. Date on which the file goes to the Head Clerk…………………………………... 9. The date on which the file goes to the Assistant Registrar for signature on the order…………………….. 10. Date of Despatch of the Order………………

More judgments on Section 10(23C)(vi)

All 517 judgments and leading authorities on Section 10(23C)(vi) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →