Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee, Swaraj Mukherjee Memorial Medical College And Manikamal Hospital, had its applications for exemption under Section 10(23C)(via) and registration under Section 12A(1)(ac)(iii) rejected by the CIT(E). The former was rejected for being a 'private' trust, and the latter for procedural irregularity in submitting a provisional certificate. The assessee appealed these rejections, and a condoned delay was granted for one appeal due to the managing trustee's ill health.
Held
The Tribunal found the CIT(E)'s view on the 'private' nature of the trust too narrow and remanded the Section 10(23C) application for fresh consideration. It also directed the CIT(E) to holistically re-examine the Section 12A application on merits, considering recent amendments to Section 12A(1)(ac)(iii), despite the initial procedural lapse.
Key Issues
Whether the CIT(E) was justified in rejecting the applications for exemption under Section 10(23C)(via) and registration under Section 12A(1)(ac)(iii) on the grounds cited, and if these matters should be reconsidered on merits, including statutory amendments.
Sections Cited
10(23C)(via), 12A(1)(ac)(iii), 12A
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “B” BENCH, KOLKATA
Appearances by: Assessee represented by : Srikumar Banerjee, FCA Department represented by : P.N. Barnwal, CIT-DR Date of concluding the hearing : 29.04.2025 Date of pronouncing the order : 07.05.2025 O R D E R
PER SANJAY AWASTHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
This is a batch of two appeals of the same assessee. It is seen that the issues are inter-connected, hence these two cases are being taken up for adjudication simultaneously. is time barred by 195 days for which the assessee has filed a petition dated 25.11.2024 through which it has been pleaded that the managing trustee, one Ms. Indira Mukherjee, is fairly aged and has not been keeping good health and has been hospitalized Swaraj Mukherjee Memorial Medical College and Manikamal Hospital for several days at a stretch. It has been also mentioned in the said petition that even after being discharged from hospital the said trustee was advised bed rest. A medical certificate has been filed in support of this claim.
2.1 Considering the reasons advanced in the petition dated 25.11.2024, the delay is hereby condoned and the appeal is admitted for adjudication.
In these two cases, it is seen that the assessee filed an application under section 10(23C)(via) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereafter “the Act”) (ITA No. 2535/Kol/2024). It is also seen that the assessee has filed an application for registration u/s 12A(1)(ac)(iii) of the Act ( ). It is seen that the Ld. CIT(E) has dismissed the application u/s 10(23C)(via) of the Act on the ground that the assessee is admittedly a private charitable trust and not a public one. On this ground alone the application has been rejected. Regarding the application u/s 12A(1)(ac)(iii) of the Act, it has been rejected since the assessee furnished a provisional certificate in Form 10AC issued for section 10(23C) instead of a provisional certificate for registration u/s 12A of the Act.
3.1 Aggrieved with this action of the Ld. CIT(A) for both of the matters, the appellant has filed the present appeal before the ITAT challenging the action of Ld. CIT(E) on both counts.
Before us, the Ld. AR submitted that while the word “private” may be mentioned in the trust deed but the objections are all charitable and intended for the general public. The Ld. AR assailed the action of Ld. CIT(E) in taking on a single word for rejecting the said application and not carefully verifying that the objects of the trust were all pertaining to public utility. Regarding the application for registration u/s 12A of the Act he stated that as per the amended provisions (w.e.f. 01.10.2024) of section 12A(1)(ac)(iii) of the Act the benefit could be available to the assessee thereon.
Swaraj Mukherjee Memorial Medical College and Manikamal Hospital 4.1 The Ld. DR pointed out that regarding the Ld. CIT(E) was justified in rejecting the application of the assessee since provisional registration was not granted u/s 12A of the Act. Regarding Appeal No. 2535/Kol/2024, the Ld. DR stated that the assessee should have clarified that inspite of the word “private” used in the trust deed the objects of the trust were actually for public good and not confined to any private entity, family or any caste or community only.
We have carefully considered the submissions of the Ld. AR/DR and also gone through the impugned orders. We find that the Ld. CIT(E) has taken a very narrow view in terms of reading too much into the word “private”. It is felt that he should have examined the objects of the trust and should have arrived at a fair conclusion about the same. To this extent, we set aside the order of Ld. CIT(E) in and remand the same back to the file of Ld. CIT(E) for afresh consideration of facts.
12A of the Act. However, it has been averred by the Ld. AR that the benefit of exemption could be available to him with the amendment dated 01.10.2024 (supra) in this regard. To this extent, we direct the Ld. CIT(E) to holistically dispose of both the applications [i.e. u/s 10(23C) and 12A of the Act] on merit with speaking orders. The assessee would be required to make a presentation of facts and consciously seeking a remedy which is legally available to him. Needless to say, the Ld. CIT(E) would go through the objects of the trust and appropriately consider granting registration u/s 10(23C) of the Act.