TRINITY EDUCATION AND RESEARCH FOUNDATION,ZIRAKPUR vs. CIT, EXEMPTIONS, CHANDIGARH

The Ld. AR advanced arguments and stated that the assessee has carried out charitable activities in medical field. The Ld. CIT-DR relied on the order of Ld. CIT(E) to state that no charitable activities are shown to have been carried out by the assessee. Having heard rival submissions and upon perusal of case records, the appeal is disposed-off as under.

From case records, it emerges that the assessee filed registration application seeking registration u/s 12AB(1)(ac)(iii) r.w.s. 12AB of the Act. The applicant society is stated to be engaged in providing relief to the poor, education and medical relief. The Ld. CIT(E), upon perusal of assessee’s submissions and financial statements, observed that the assessee society shared its address with a hospital by the name Trinity Hospital. The perusal of the photographs as submitted by the assessee would show that the assessee’s activities were basically been conducted by Trinity hospital. In FY 2020-21, against income of Rs.13.78 Lacs, the assessee reflected expenses which were in the nature of conference expenses, donation expenses, medicine expenses, professional expenses salary / wages and tour and training expenses. For FY 2021-22, the assessee received donations from pharma companies, laboratories and medical instrument companies and registration fees from the doctors. The expenses were primarily to hold conferences from time to time or for sponsoring participation of its members in conferences held across India by paying for their air tickets and stay expenses.

The Ld. CIT(A) then referred to Medical Council (Professional conduct, Etiquette and Ethics) Regulations, 2002 prohibiting medical practitioner from taking monetary benefits from pharma companies. The law recognizes no purpose as charitable unless it was of public character. A purpose to be charitable must be directed for the benefit of the community and not for the benefit of private individuals. The same was not the case here. The assessee classified its activities as education and medical relief. However, the genuineness of the activities and expenses thereof was doubtful considering the nature of expenses and considering the fact that the assessee shared its address with Trinity Hospital to which the members of the society belong. The term ‘education’ was to be interpreted in a narrow sense to imply only formal schooling. In the present case, the assessee work solely for the purpose of networking between the doctors and the pharma companies, labs and medical instrument companies which was unethical and contrary to public policy rather than to work for general public and in no way the activities of the assessee could be termed as for ‘Charitable purposes’ as defined u/s 2(15). Accordingly, the application was rejected against which the assessee is in further appeal before us. Our findings and Adjudication 5. Upon perusal of assessee’s consolidated financial statements for FYs 2020-21 to 2021-22 as placed on record, it could be seen that the assessee has received donations and registration fees and other receipts aggregating to Rs.21.49 Lacs. As against this, the major expenditure is on account of professional expenses for Rs.9.39 Lacs which primarily constitute professional fess paid to Ms. Aruna. The other major expenses are in the nature of conference expenses, medicine expenses, advertisement and donations to other funds. No major expenditure is shown to have been incurred towards charitable activities. The perusal of donors would show that the major donors are medical centers, healthcare centers, pharma companies and labs etc. These donations have been used to conductmeetings / conferences. The perusal of photographs would show that the assessee is carrying out its activities under the banner of Trinity Hospital which, apparently, run as a commercial enterprises. On these facts, it could very well be concluded that there was direct nexus between the subscription as received by the assessee and meetings / seminars conducted by the assessee. Therefore, the possibility of assessee-entity being used as a medium to promote the products of pharma companies as well as Trinity Hospital could not altogether be ruled out. The assessee is not shown to have carried out any substantial charitable activity. The Medical Council (Professional conduct, Etiquette and Ethics) Regulations, 2002, as referred to by Ld. CIT(E), prohibits such a nexus. We concur with the observation of Ld. CIT(E) that the assessee work solely for the purpose of networking between the doctors and the pharma companies, labs and medical instrument companies which is unethical and contrary to public policy. In no way the activities of the assessee could be termed as for ‘Charitable purposes’ as defined u/s 2(15). No substantial material could be shown to us to rebut these findings of Ld. CIT(E). Therefore, we see no reason to interfere in the impugned order.

The appeal stands dismissed. Order pronounced on 08-07-2025.