DCIT (EXEMPTION) CIRCLE, GHAZIABAD vs. GAUTAM BUDH HEALTHCARE FOUNDATION, NOIDA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1447/DEL/2020Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 October 2023AY 2014-15Bench: SH. N. K. BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SH. C.N. PRASAD (Judicial Member)5 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that violation of Section 13 does not lead to denial of exemption for the entire income, but only for the income derived from the violating investment. The deletion of the addition related to denial of exemption was upheld.

What were the facts?

The assessee, a trust registered under Section 12AA, was denied exemption under Section 11 of the IT Act by the AO. The AO also made an addition on account of investment in Prakash Hospital. The CIT(A) partly allowed the appeal.

What were the issues?

Whether violation of Section 13 vitiates the entire exemption under Section 11, and whether the CIT(A) was justified in partly allowing the appeal regarding the investment addition.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 11,Section 13,Section 2(15),Section 12AA

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH ‘B’, NEW DELHI

Before: SH. N. K. BILLAIYA & SH. C.N. PRASAD

Hearing: 19.10.2023Pronounced: 31.10.2023

ORDER

PER N. K. BILLAIYA, AM:

1.

1. This appeal by the revenue is preferred against the order of the CIT(A)-1, Noida dated 24.02.2020 pertaining to A.Y. 2014-15.

2.

The grievance of the revenue read as under :-

1.

Whether on the facts or in law the CIT(A) was justified in allowing benefit of exemption u/s II of the IT Act to the assessee while activities carried out by the society during the instant assessment year were not found to be covered by any limb of charitable purpose' as defined in section 2(15) of the IT Act, 1961.

2. Whether allowability of exemption and violation of prescribed Law may go hand in hand as the assessee was found to indulged in the activities which vitiate the sanctity of trust. 3. The order of Ld.CIT(A) be cancelled and the order of the AO be restored. 4. Appellant craves leave to modify/amend or add any one or more grounds of appeal.

3.

Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the assessee is a trust duly registered u/s. 12AA of the Act with the object of providing Medical Relief, Education and Training and also running a medical college namely Prakash Institute of Physio-therapy, Rehabilitation and allied medical sciences.

4.

The assessee filed its return of income electronically on 25.11.2014 declaring nil income. The return was selected for scrutiny and accordingly statutory notices were issued and served upon the assessee.

5.

The assessment was completed vide order dated 21.12.2016 framed u/s.143(3) of the Act at an assessed income of Rs.556,06,660/-after making following two additions :-

a. On account of investment made in Prakash hospital 3.40 crores. b. Denial of benefit of exemption claimed u/s. 11 of the Act Rs.21606656/-

6.

The additions were challenged before the CIT(A). In so far as first addition is concerned it was contended that the entire investment has been received back by the trust, therefore, no benefit is derived by Prakash Hospital Private Limited.

7.

The CIT(A) was of the opinion that even if the entire investment has been received back by the assessee the fund which was utilized by Prakash Hospital Private Limited saved interest in as much as if the assessee trust had not given the loan fund Prakash Hospitals would have borrowed the loan and paid interest thereon.

8.

The appellant has worked out interest @ 12% over the fund utilized by the hospital which is as under :-

Thus the total interest for AY 2014-15 is worked out at Rs. 41,88,312/- which is to be taxed at Maximum Marginal Rate without giving benefit of exemption. Remaining amount of Rs. 40,80,000/- is to be taxed for AY 2015- 16. The prevailing market rate of interest is to be ascertaining by the AO and required to take remedial action accordingly. The figures of interest are subject to alteration based on baking rate for the year. The action of the AO is partly correct. The ground of appeal of the appellant is partly allowed.

9. The above findings of the CIT(A) are in line with the relevant provisions of the Act, therefore, called for no interference.

10.

In so far as the denial of exemption we are of the considered view that any violation u/s.13 does not result in denial of exemption u/s. 11 of the Act to the total income of the assessee meaning thereby that only that income is denied exemption which is in violation of section13 of the Act. For this proposition we draw support from the decision of the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of Mullers Charitable Institutions wherein the Hon’ble High Court has held that “it is only the income from such investment or deposit which has been made in violation of Section 11(5) of the Act that is liable to be taxed”.

11.

Accordingly deletion of addition of Rs.2,16,06,656/- does not called for any interference, accordingly appeal by the revenue is dismissed.

Order pronounced in the open court on 31.10.2023.

More judgments on Section 11

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →