ITO (EXEMPTION), UDAIPUR vs. M/S. RAJASTHAN MEDICARE RELIEF SOCIETY, CHITTORGARH
In favour of the assessee: the Revenue's appeal was dismissed. From the AI summary of this appeal.
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, agreeing that the assessee was substantially funded by the government and thus eligible for exemption under Section 10(23C)(iiiac). No contrary evidence was presented by the revenue.
What were the facts?
The assessee, a society running a hospital, claimed exemption under Section 10(23C)(iiiac) of the IT Act. The Assessing Officer (AO) made additions to the income, but the CIT(A) allowed the exemption, finding the assessee substantially funded by the government. The revenue appealed this decision.
What were the issues?
Whether the assessee society is eligible for exemption under Section 10(23C)(iiiac) when substantially funded by the government. Whether the CIT(A) erred in allowing the exemption based on a remand report.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cases cited in this judgment(1)Show listHide list
Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.
- Goetze (India) Ltd. v. CIT1,842 citing284 ITR 323 · 2006 · SC
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, JODHPUR BENCH, JODHPUR
Before: SHRI R.C. SHARMA & SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN
PER: SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM
This is an appeal filed by the revenue against the order of the ld.
CIT(A)-1, Udaipur dated 20/11/2018 for the A.Y.2015-16. The grounds
taken by the revenue reads as under:
"1. On the facts and the circumstances of the case and in law the Ld.CIT(Appeals) has erred in allowing the claim of the assessee for exemption u/s 10(23C)(iiiac) of the IT Act, 1961 ignoring the crucial fact that the assessee neither filed a return original or revised, claiming exemption u/s 10(23C) (iiiac) nor claimed such exemption in the course of assessment proceedings & hence, in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in Goetze (India) Vs. CIT 284 ITR 323, the claim of the assessee U/s 10(23C)(iiiac) is not sustainable.
2 ITA 54/Jodh/2019 ITO Vs M/s Rajasthan Medicare Relief Society 2. Any other question of law as deemed fit in the facts and circumstances of the case may also be framed before the Hon’ble Tribunal in the interest of justice." 2. No body appeared on behalf of the assessee in spite of giving the
opportunity, therefore, the Bench decided to dispose off the appeal after
considering the contention of the ld. Departmental Representative and the
material placed on record.
In this appeal, there is delay of seven days in filing the present
appeal, for which, an application for condonation of delay has also been
filed by the revenue. After considering the contention made in the
condonation petition, we condone the delay and heard the appeal on merit.
The only grievance of the revenue relates to allowing the assessee
for exemption U/s 10(23C)(iiiac) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short, the
Act). In this regard, the facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee is a
society in healthcare space registered under Rajasthan Societies
Registration Act, 1958. Government of Rajasthan has outsourced
maintenance of District Hospital, Chittorgarh to the assessee society. The
assessee society is also entrusted with the task of executing various
healthcare schemes financed by government from to time which include the
National Rural Health Mission of the Government of India. The society's
revenue comprises grants-in-aid from central and state governments, fees
from patients and firms for various services and donations from
3 ITA 54/Jodh/2019 ITO Vs M/s Rajasthan Medicare Relief Society
philanthropic agencies. The assessee is registered u/s 12AA and holds
exemption u/s 80G of the Act. The assessee society filed its Return of
Income for the year under consideration on 31-10-2015 declaring total
income at Rs. NlL and claiming exemption u/s 11 of the Act. The AO issued
Notice u/s 142(1) of the Act and after verification of Books of Accounts and
other materials, AO assessed the income of the assessee at Rs. 77,60,420/-
.
Aggrieved by the order of the A.O., the assessee preferred appeal
before the ld. CIT(A), who after considering the facts and material placed
on record allowed the appeal of the assessee by observing as under:
" 8. I have carefully considered the observation made by the Assessing Officer, appellant's submissions, remand report and rejoinder to the remand report submitted by the appellant. The AO made addition as per section 11(1)(a) of the Act. The appellant contended that its income is exempt u/s 10(23C)(iiiac) of the Act. The AO was asked to verify whether the receipts from government were in excess of 50% of the total receipts. Vide his report dated 31.08.2018, the Assessing Officer has confirmed as under:-
" The supporting documents submitted by the ld. AR of the assessee during the remand report proceedings have been examined and it is found that various funds allotted to the assessee by the State/Central government under the head RCH, NRHM, JSY, Shubhlakshmi Yojna etc. The assessee expends these funds and at the end of the month submit utility certificate showing head-wise expenditure and balance out of funds allotted by the government. These various grants/funds received by the assessee from the State Government under various schemes are more than 50% of the total receipts of the assessee for the year under consideration.”
4 ITA 54/Jodh/2019 ITO Vs M/s Rajasthan Medicare Relief Society Considering the facts of the case as above and provisions of Section 10(23C) (iiiac) of the Act, it is clear that the appellant is substantially funded by the Government and, therefore, is eligible for exemption u/s 10(23C)(iiiac) of the Act. Therefore, the same is allowed. Thus, without going into the merits of the addition made by the AO u/s 11(1)(a) of the Act, the same is deleted. The ground raised by the appellant regarding this issue is allowed.”
We have heard the ld. CIT-DR and perused the material available on
the record and found that the ld. CIT(A) had adjudicated the ground now
raised by the revenue before us by seeking and relying upon the remand
report. Therefore, considering those facts, the ld. CIT(A) had rightly noted
that the assessee had substantially funded by the Government and is
eligible for exemption u/s 10(23C)(iiiac) of the Act. Hence, we allow the
claim of the assessee. No new facts or contrary judgments have been
placed on record before us in order to controvert the findings so recorded
by the ld. CIT(A). Therefore, we find no reason to interfere in the order of
the ld. CIT(A). Hence, we uphold the same.
In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on 19th March, 2020.
Sd/- Sd/- (R.C. SHARMA) (SANDEEP GOSAIN) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Dated :19/03/2020 *Ranjan Copy to : 1. The Appellant 2. The Respondent
5 ITA 54/Jodh/2019 ITO Vs M/s Rajasthan Medicare Relief Society
The CIT 4. The CIT(A) 5. The DR 6. Guard File (ITA No. 54/Jodh/2019)
Assistant Registrar Jodhpur Bench
More judgments on Section 11(1)(a)
- Sri Vidyanikethan Educational Trust… vs DCIT Exemption Cir, VijayawadaITA 412/VIZ/2026[2022-23]Status: Disposed23 Sept 2026AY 2022-23
- Porwal Charitable Trust, Thane vs The Income Tax Officer, Exemption Ward…ITA 7604/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: Disposed23 Sept 2026AY 2018-19
- The Somaiya Trust, Mumbai vs Income Tax Officer, Exemption Ward 2(4)…ITA 4057/MUM/2026[2023-24]Status: Disposed16 Sept 2026AY 2023-24
- Jain Citizen Education Society, Surendra… vs ITO, Ward-2, Exmp, AhmedabadITA 737/AHD/2026[2023-2024]Status: Disposed14 Sept 2026AY 2023-2024
- Vanita Samaj, Mumbai vs Jurisdiction Exem Ward 2(4), MumbaiITA 8116/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: Disposed10 Sept 2026AY 2017-18
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- M/S Sita Enterprises vs. Office Of The CommissionerUttarakhand · 26 Oct 2026
- Capri Global Capital LTD Through Represented By Its Law Officer Mr. Varun Kaljoria vs. The State Of Madhya Pradesh Through Principal SecretaryMadhya Pradesh · 26 Oct 2026
- Sri Tatiparthy Venkata Swamy vs. The State Of Andhra PradeshAndhra Pradesh · 25 Oct 2026
- Piyush Shantilal Veera vs. State Of U.P.Allahabad · 23 Oct 2026
- Tvl. Pooja Shri Traders vs. The Deputy State Tax Officer - 1Madras · 23 Oct 2026