JAWAHAR MEDICAL FOUNDATION,DHULE vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX EXEMPTIONS PUNE, PUNE

आदेश/ ORDER

PER DR. DIPAK P. RIPOTE, AM:

“1. The order passed u/s. 10(23C)(vi) of the Act is bad in law, since it is passed without following the principle of natural justice. The order of rejection may therefore kindly be set aside.

5. The Ld. CIT failed to appreciate that appellant trust was solely engaged into educational & allied activities and therefore, the approval u/s. 10(23C)(vi) ought to have been granted to the appellant trust.

Submission of ld.AR : 2. The ld.AR for the assessee submitted a paper book. The ld.AR submitted that ld.CIT(E) had issued notice dated 06.11.2023 and assessee filed elaborate reply on 17.11.2023. Then, ld.CIT(E) issued another notice dated 11.03.2024 asking assessee to file certain details on or before 15.03.2024. Ld.AR submitted that since the time granted was only three days, assessee filed an adjournment petition which is at page no.18 of the paper book. However, ld.CIT(A) rejected the assessee’s application for approval u/sec.10(23C) on the ground that assessee has not complied and not filed required evidence. Ld.AR submitted that assessee had filed an elaborate submission in response to the first notice dated 06.11.2023 which is at page no.4 to 15 of the paper book. Ld.AR took us through the submission dated 17.11.2023 filed before ld.CIT(E). Ld.AR explained that assessee is running Medical College, Nursing College, Dental College, Physiotherapy College; therefore, assessee fulfills condition of section 10(23C) of the Act. Ld.AR pleaded that the findings given by ld.CIT(E) that assessee had not filed details is incorrect. Ld.AR submitted that ld.CIT(E)’s order may kindly be set-aside with the direction to verify the submissions filed by the assessee.

Submission of ld.DR : 3. The ld.DR for the Revenue invited our attention to the paper book to demonstrate that copy of trust deed has not been filed.

Ld.DR submitted that as per para 2.2 of the ld.CIT(E)’s order, certain objects of the assessee are not solely for the educational purpose. Ld.DR relied on the order of ld.CIT(E).

Findings &Analysis : 4. We have heard both the parties and perused the records. It is a fact that ld.CIT(E) vide notice dated 11.03.2024 had asked assessee to submit certain specific details on or before 15.03.2024. Thus, ld.CIT(E) had granted time of only three days. Vide notice dated 11.03.2024, ld.CIT(E) had asked assessee following details : “(ii) Further it is seen from the trust deed that some of the objects are not aimed of solely for education purpose i.e. object number 3(b), 3(d), 3(e), 3(f) & 3(g). Please furnish your explanation.”

4.1 We specifically asked ld.AR regarding these clauses referred by ld.CIT(E). Ld.AR submitted that these are ancillary clauses like running hospital which is mandatory a medical college. However, ld.AR has not filed copy of the trust deed before us. It is also a fact that assessee had filed an adjournment application before ld.CIT(E) on 15.03.2024. However, without granting any further time as requested by assessee, ld.CIT(E) passed the order on 18.03.2024. In these facts and circumstances of the case, we agree with the assessee that principle of natural justice has been violated.

Therefore, we set-aside the order of the ld.CIT(E) to ld.CIT(E) for de-novo adjudication. The ld.CIT(E) shall provide opportunity to the assessee. The assessee shall file all relevant documents before the ld.CIT(E). Accordingly, grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purpose.