Commissioner Of Income Tax, Dehradun v. M/S Divya Yog Mandir Trust

IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITALIncome Tax Appeal No. 05 of 2014 Commissioner of Income Tax, Dehradun ………Appellant Vs. M/s Divya Yog Mandir Trust ….……Respondent Dated: 27th February, 2019 Coram: Hon’ble Ramesh Ranganathan, C.J.Hon’ble R.C. Khulbe, J. Hon’ble Ramesh Ranganathan, C.J. (Oral) Heard Mr. Hari Mohan Bhatia, learned Senior Standing Counsel for the appellant. 2. This appeal, under Section 260A of Income Tax Act, 1961, is preferred by the revenue against the order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal in ITA No. 387/Del/2013 dated 27.08.2013 for the assessment year 2009-10. 3. Against the order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), the assessee carried the matter in appeal to the Tribunal contending, among several other grounds, that the Commissioner had erred, both on facts and law, in upholding the action of the assessing officer in denying exemption, under Sections 11/12 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, after holding that the appellant’s activities were not charitable in nature; the CIT (Appeals) had erred, both on facts and law, in holding that the objects of the appellant did not fall within the purview of providing medical relief, imparting education or relief to the poor, but was in the nature of object of general public utility as contained in the definition of “charitable purpose” under Section 2(15) of the Act; and the CIT had erred, both on facts and law, in failing to appreciate that the revenue authorities had, in the past years, consistently accepted that the objects of the appellant, in providing medical relief, inter alia, by treating patients through ayurveda, yoga, naturopathy, acupressure, etc, were for a charitable purpose. 4. While several other contentions were raised by the assessee in challenge to the order of Commission Income Tax (Appeals), it is not necessary for us to burden this judgment with all the contentions raised by the assessee before the Tribunal, or to again refer to the findings of fact recorded by the Tribunal. The Tribunal has, by an elaborate and well considered order, not only examined all questions of fact and law urged on behalf of both the parties, but has also relied on several judgments in this regard. 5. While Shri Hari Mohan Bhatia, learned Senior Standing Counsel for the appellant, would draw our attention to the substantial questions of law framed by the revenue in challenge to the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, he is unable to show us how the order of the Tribunal, under appeal before us, gives rise to any such substantial question of law. In this context, it must be borne in mind that the Tribunal is the final Court of fact, and a finding of fact, recorded by the Tribunal in the order under appeal, would give rise to a substantial question of law only if it is perverse or is based on no evidence. 6. Shri Hari Mohan Bhatia, learned Senior Standing Counsel for the appellant, is unable to show us how the elaborate and well considered order of the Tribunal, and the findings of fact recorded therein, suffer from any such infirmity. He is also not in a position to show us how the conclusion arrived at by the Tribunal, deciding all the issues in favour of the assessee and in holding that the assessee was entitled to claim exemption under Sections 11 and 12 of the Act, suffers from any such legal infirmity, which would give rise to a substantial question of law, warranting interference in proceedings under Section 260-A of the Act. 7. We have patiently heard Shri Hari Mohan Bhatia, learned Senior Counsel for the Income Tax, read out the order of the Tribunal in its entirety, and are satisfied that the Tribunal has rightly arrived at its conclusions after having considered all the contentions urged both by the assessee and the revenue both on facts and law. The Tribunal has also agreed with the assessee’s contentions that the revenue had consistently, 7. We have patiently heard Shri Hari Mohan Bhatia, learned Senior Counsel for the Income Tax, read out the order of the Tribunal in its entirety, and are satisfied that the Tribunal has rightly arrived at its conclusions after having considered all the contentions urged both by the assessee and the revenue both on facts and law. The Tribunal has also agreed with the assessee’s contentions that the revenue had consistently, accepted that the objects of the assessee for the previous years, (as in the nature of providing medical relief etc) fell within the definition of “charitable purpose” under Section 2(15) of the Act. It has, therefore, held, in our opinion rightly so, that the assessing officer was not justified in denying the assessee exemption under Sections 11/12 of the Act. 8. We are satisfied that the order under appeal does not give rise to a substantial question of law warranting exercise of jurisdiction under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The appeal fails and is, accordingly, dismissed. No costs. (R.C. Khulbe, J.) Arti/Balwant (Ramesh Ranganathan, C.J.)