COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. FLT LT RAJAN DHALL CHARITABLE TRUST REGD.

PDF · subscribers
ITA/137/2021HC DelhiDLHC01003270202007 February 2022Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVIN CHAWLA3 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court upheld the ITAT's decision, finding no perversity in its order. The tribunal had correctly noted that the Revenue failed to establish the activities were solely for the assessment year in question, and similar exemptions were allowed in earlier and subsequent years.

What were the facts?

The Revenue appealed against the ITAT's order granting exemption under Sections 11 and 12 of the Income Tax Act. The Revenue argued that the assessee's activities were commercial and not for a charitable purpose as defined in Section 2(15). The transfer of hospital management was also cited as a violation.

What were the issues?

Whether the activities of the assessee trust were for a charitable purpose and whether the transfer of hospital management violated Section 11 of the Act, considering the principle of consistency.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 11,Section 12,Section 2(15)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

ITA No.137/2021

Page 1 of 3

$~5 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + ITA 137/2021

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

..... Appellant

Through Mr.Abhishek Maratha, Sr.Standing

Counsel.

versus

FLT LT RAJAN DHALL CHARITABLE TRUST REGD. ..... Respondent

Through None

Date of Decision: 07th February, 2022

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVIN CHAWLA

J U D G M E N T

MANMOHAN, J: (Oral)

C.M.No.27246/2021

Keeping in view the averments in the application, the delay of 47 days in filing the appeal is condoned.

Accordingly, the application stands disposed of. 1. The appeal has been heard by way of video conferencing. ITA No.137/2021 2. Present appeal has been filed challenging the order dated 28th

August, 2019 passed by Delhi Bench 'B' of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal in ITA No. 4257/De1/2016 for Assessment Year 2012-13. This is a digitally signed Judgement. NEUTRAL CITATION NO: 2022/DHC/000509

ITA No.137/2021

Page 2 of 3

3.

Learned counsel for the Appellant submits that the Tribunal erred in granting the exemption under Sections 11 and 12 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereafter referred to as the ‘Act’). 4. He submits that the Tribunal erred in ignoring the fact that the activities of the assessee are not the activities done for 'charitable purpose' according to the Section 2(15) of the Act, since they are of a purely commercial nature. 5. Learned counsel for the Appellant submits that the Tribunal erred in overlooking the fact that the act of transfer of the management and control of Rajan Dhall Hospital, Vasant Kunj, Delhi vide 'Operational and Management Agreement with M/s Fortis Hospital Pvt. Ltd. existing absolutely for commercial purposes is violative of Section 11 of the Act. 6. Upon a perusal of the paper book, this Court finds that the Tribunal as the last fact finding authority has held that the Revenue had failed to establish that the said activities had been undertaken by the Respondent only in the Assessment Year under consideration. In fact, the said activities have been undertaken by the respondent right from the year 2007-08. 7. A perusal of the paper book also reveals that for the earlier and subsequent Assessment Years, exemptions have been allowed in the similar circumstances. 8. On 23rd August, 2021, this Court had observed that the impugned order passed by the ITAT suffers from no perversity as it abides by the principle of consistency and uniformity by following orders passed in the earlier and subsequent Assessment Years i.e. Assessment Years 2007-08, 2008-09, 2009-10, 2011-12, 2013-14 and 2014-15. However, at that stage, learned counsel for the Appellant had prayed for some time to obtain This is a digitally signed Judgement. NEUTRAL CITATION NO: 2022/DHC/000509

ITA No.137/2021

Page 3 of 3

instructions and file additional documents. 9. Though, learned counsel for the Appellant states that he has filed the additional documents, however, the same are not on record. In any event, in view of the principle of consistency and uniformity, this Court is of the view that no substantial questions of law arises for consideration in the present case. 10. Accordingly, the present appeal is dismissed on the ground of consistency and uniformity.

MANMOHAN, J

NAVIN CHAWLA, J FEBRUARY 07, 2022 KA

This is a digitally signed Judgement. NEUTRAL CITATION NO: 2022/DHC/000509

More judgments on Section 11

All 7,190 judgments and leading authorities on Section 11 →

Latest GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →