Commissioner Of Income Tax-Exemption, Jaipur, Jaipur v. Of 5) [Ita-170/2018

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN ATJODHPUR D.B. Income Tax Appeal No. 170/2018 Commissioner Of Income Tax-Exemption, Jaipur, Jaipur ----Appellant Versus Anesthesia Society, Jawahar Nagar, Meera Marg. Sri Ganganagar.----Respondent For Appellant(s) : Mr. K.K.BissaFor Respondent(s): HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANGEET LODHA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA 04/12/2018 Judgment 1.This appeal preferred under Section 260A of Income Tax Act,1961 (for short “the Act”) is directed against order dated 6.3.18 ofthe Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Jodhpur Bench, Jodhpur,passed in ITA No.455/Jodh./2017, whereby an appeal preferred bythe respondent assessee against the order dated 9.10.17 passedby the Commissioner of Income Tax (CIT) (Exemption), rejectingthe application of the assessee under Section 12A of the Act, hasbeen allowed and accordingly, CIT (Exemption) has been directedto grant registration to the assessee under Section 12A of the Act.2.Precisely, the contention of the appellant is that the assesseesociety has been constituted for the benefit of only one branch ofmedicine i.e. Anaesthesia and not for the purpose of benefittingthe entire medical fraternity and therefore, the benefit ofregistration under Section 12A was rightly denied to the assessee society by the CIT (Exemption) and thus, the ITAT has erred in lawin extending benefit of registration under Section 12A to theassessee society. 3.The learned ITAT opined that the society might be catering toonly one particular branch of doctors, but it is not the case of thedepartment that the benefit will be accruing to specifiedindividuals rather, all the doctors practising Anaesthesia within thedistrict of Sriganganagar and Hanumangarh will stand benefitedby the activities of the society. Relying upon a decision of theHon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of ‘Ahmedabad Rana CasteAssociation vs. CIT’, (1971) 82 ITR 704 and a Bench decision ofthis court in ‘CIT vs. Jodhpur Chartered Accountants Society’, 258ITR 548 (Raj.), the ITAT held that the assessee society is eligiblefor the benefit of registration under Section 12A of the Act. 4.In Ahmedabad Rana Caste Association’s case (supra), theSupreme Court while dealing with the issue as to whether anobject of the public trust beneficial to a section of a public is anobject of general public utility, observed:- 4.In Ahmedabad Rana Caste Association’s case (supra), theSupreme Court while dealing with the issue as to whether anobject of the public trust beneficial to a section of a public is anobject of general public utility, observed:- “It is well settled by now and the High Court also hasrightly taken that view that an object beneficial to a section ofthe public is an object of general public utility. To serve acharitable purpose it is not necessary that the object shouldbe to benefit the whole of mankind or all persons in aparticular country or State. It is sufficient if the intention tobenefit a section of the public as distinguished from aspecified individual is present. This court in Commissioner ofIncome-tax v. Andhra Chamber of Commerce overruled theview of Beaumont C.J. in Commissioner of Income-tax v.Grain Merchants’ Association of Bombay on thepoint. It was,however, be sufficiently defined and identifiable by somecommon quality of a public or impersonal nature. Where therewas no common quality uniting the potential beneficiaries intoa class the trust might not be regarded as valid.…..xxxxxx……..”rightly taken that view that an object beneficial to a section ofthe public is an object of general public utility. To serve acharitable purpose it is not necessary that the object shouldbe to benefit the whole of mankind or all persons in aparticular country or State. It is sufficient if the intention tobenefit a section of the public as distinguished from aspecified individual is present. This court in Commissioner ofIncome-tax v. Andhra Chamber of Commerce overruled theview of Beaumont C.J. in Commissioner of Income-tax v.Grain Merchants’ Association of Bombay on thepoint. It was,however, be sufficiently defined and identifiable by somecommon quality of a public or impersonal nature. Where therewas no common quality uniting the potential beneficiaries intoa class the trust might not be regarded as valid.…..xxxxxx……..” We may usefully refer to the judgment of LordGreene M.R. in In re Complon: Powell v. Complon. The Master of the Rolls declared that no definition of whatwas meant by “a section of the public” had, so far as hewas aware, been laid down. But he indicated that thetrust of a public character is one in which thebeneficiaries do not enjoy the benefit when they receiveit by virtue of their character as individuals but by virtueof their membership of a specified class, the commonquality uniting potential beneficiaries into the classbeing essentially an impersonal one.” (Emphasissupplied) 5.In Jodhpur Chartered Accountants Society’s case (supra), aBench of this court while dealing with the question as to whetherthe assessee association constituted to educate the members ofthe profession on the subject of auditing, accounting, direct orindirect taxes by holding seminars, conferences and workshopsetc. falls within the purview of Section 2(15) of the Act so as tomake it entitle to registration under Section 12A of the Act, relyingupon inter alia the decision of Supreme Court in AhmedabadRana Caste Association’s case (supra), observed that thepredominant object of the society is dissemination of knowledgeand education of commercial law, tax laws for the benefit ofgeneral public to inculcate a sense of responsibility towards thenation and foster law abiding citizen. The court further observedthat it appears that the society is not for the benefit of smallgroup of individuals and it is also not only for the benefit ofmembers but to promote awareness and education of commercialand tax law for general public without any profit motive. The courtopined that in the situation of explosion in population, the vastchanges brought by the scientific technology and otherdevelopments, more particularly, the universal concept ofglobalisation, new trends in the world order to meet the evergrowing challenges to organising seminars, conferences and workshops to educate the people of commercial laws, tax laws,auditing, accounting, direct and indirect taxes are of great generalpublic utility, at least to a section of people falling in the categoryof charitable institution. 6.In the backdrop of position of law settled by the Apex Courtand this court as aforesaid, adverting to the facts of the presentcase, indisputably, the assessee society has been constituted tobring the doctors dealing in Anaesthesia speciality entitled to beregistered with the Medical Council of India together for thepurpose of inter alia the development of medical science,publication of research magazine, to promote the research andpractical work and to organise the seminars etc. Thus, in theconsidered opinion of this court, merely because the society isprimarily created for the benefit and convenience of Anesthetists,it cannot be said that the object of the society is confined to itsmembers practising in Sriganganagar and Hanumangarh Districts.Obviously, the education programme and research work to beundertaken by the assessee society in larger perspective are goingto benefit the public at large and therefore, the activities of theassessee society do fall within purview of general public utility soas to make it entitled for registration under Section 12A of theAct. 7.For the aforementioned reasons, we are firmly of the viewthat the issue involved in the present appeal stands squarelycovered by decision of the Apex Court in Ahmedabad Rana CasteAssociation’s case and decision of this court in Jodhpur CharteredAccountants Society’s case (supra) in favour of the assessee society and thus, no substantial question of law arises forconsideration of this court in the present appeal. 8.Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed in limine. (DINESH MEHTA),J(SANGEET LODHA),J 29-Aditya/-