Ita/154/2014 Of Commissioner Of Income Tax-1 v. M/S Christian Medical College

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA ATCHANDIGARH ITA No.154 of 2014 (O&M)Date of decision: 11.9.2014 Commissioner of Income Tax I, Ludhiana Vs, ..-.-- Appe M/s Christian Medical College .....Responde CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTALHON’BLE MR. JUSTICE FATEH DEEP SINGH Present: Mr. Rajesh Katoch, Advocate for the appellant. Ajay Kumar Mittal,J. 1.This appeal has been preferred by the revenue under Section|260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short, “the Act’) against the orderdated 30.8.2013, Annexure A.II passed by Income Tax Appellate Tribunal,Chandigarh Bench ‘A’, (in short, “the Tribunal’) in ITA No.620/CHD/2012for the assessment year 2012-13, claiming following substantial questionsot law:- 1) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, theHon'ble ITAT was justified in law in holding that the assesseeis entitled to the registration under Section 80G(5) of theLT.Act, 1961? 11) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case,the Hon'ble ITAT was correct in law in ignoring the fact thatthe primary aim of the society is to train Christian men andwomen as health professionals and thus the society wasproviding benetit of medical educational primarily to thepersons of Christian faith?” ?DA few facts relevant for the decision of the controversyinvolved as narrated in the appeal may be noticed. The assessee society wasestablished in the financial year 1949-50 and had been granted registrationunder section 12A of the Act. It had also been granted exemption undersection 80G of the Act and the last exemption was granted vide order dated28.7.2008 upto assessment year 2011-12. The assessee filed application inForm No.10G for renewal of exemption under Section 80G of the Act on22.12.2010. The Commissioner of Income Tax Ludhiana (CIT) on perusalof the memorandum of association and bye-laws found that the aims andobjects of the society were in violation of Explanation 3 to Section 80G(5)(111) of the Act. It was held by CIT that the aims and objects of the assessee-Society were of religious nature and since “charitable purpose” does notinclude any purpose, the whole or substantially the whole of which is of areligious nature. The exemption granted was withdrawn by the CIT videorder dated 25.5.2012, Annexure A.1. Aggrieved by the order, the assesseefiled appeal before the Tribunal. Vide order dated 30.8.2013, AnnexureA.ll, the Tribunal allowed the appeal. Hence the instant appeal by theTEVENUE. 3,We have heard learned counsel for the appellant and perusedthe record. 4The ‘Tribunal while allowing the appeal of the assesseeobserved that the assessee was registered as a charitable institution undersection 12A of the Act and the registration granted thereunder was valideven for the current assessment year. The Tribunal further noticed that theassessee society was established and run by a minority Christian communitybut as the aim and object of the assessee was to train professionals in the ITA No.154 of 2014 (O&M) field of medical and health care and also to provide medical facilities intheir hospitals to all persons of any caste, creed, race, language, religionetc., the activities carried out by the assessee were charitable in nature. Theassessee had been running and maintaining Christian Medical College,Christian Dental College, Christian College of Nursing and _ otherInstitutions where medical care and training for the professionals was beingprovided by the assessee society to all irrespective of their caste, creed, race,religion etc. The findings recorded by the Tribunal read as under:- ITA No.154 of 2014 (O&M) field of medical and health care and also to provide medical facilities intheir hospitals to all persons of any caste, creed, race, language, religionetc., the activities carried out by the assessee were charitable in nature. Theassessee had been running and maintaining Christian Medical College,Christian Dental College, Christian College of Nursing and _ otherInstitutions where medical care and training for the professionals was beingprovided by the assessee society to all irrespective of their caste, creed, race,religion etc. The findings recorded by the Tribunal read as under:- “13. In the facts of the present case, we find that the assesseewas registered as charitable institution under section 12A ofthe Income Tax Act and the said registration is being continuedto be granted to the assessee society even for the year underconsideration. The primary aim of the assessee society was totrain men and women as health professionals in the spirit ofJesus Christ and the said facility of training healthprofessionals and medical care was to be provided withoutconsideration of caste, race, creed, language and religion,Though in the primary para of the objects of the assesseesociety, it is mentioned that the primary aim was to educate andtrain Christians men and women as health professionals but inactual fact, the assessee society has been running andmaintaining the Christian Medical College, Christian DentalCollege, Christian College of Nursing and other institutions,though on the ideals and principles in the spirit of Christianservices, but for training the professionals of any caste, creed,race, religion etc. Similarly, the medical care is being providedby the assessee society to all irrespective of their caste, creed orreligion etc. The learned AR for the assessee was directed tofurnish the information in respect of the concessions beingallowed to the patients by the assessee society and necessaryevidence has been filed on record in this regard which clearlyestablishes the case of the assessee that the said facilities of providing concessional medical and health care is provided topersons of any caste, creed or religion. The assessee societywas established and run by a minority Christian community,but as the aim and object of the assessee society is to trainprofessionals in the field of medical and health care and also toprovide medical facilities in their hospital to all persons of anycaste, creed, race, religion etc., we are of the view that theactivities carried out by the assessee society are charitable innature and consequently, the assessee is entitled to theregistration under section 80G(5) of the Act. We find no meritin the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax in this regardand reversing the same, we hold that the renewal of registrationunder section 80G(5) is to be granted to the assessee society,The grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are, thusallowed.” 5 In the light of the findings recorded by the Tribunal, which have not been shown to be illegal or perverse in any manner, no substantialquestion of law arises. The appeal stands dismissed. (Ajay Kumar Mittal)sudge September 11, 2014 (Fateh Deep Singh)sudge