1994 (11) TMI 101 - HC - Income Tax

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Entitlement to exemption u/s 10(22A) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.
2. Entitlement to exemption u/s 11 of the Income-tax Act, 1961.
3. Applicability of section 13(1)(bb) and section 13(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.
4. Limitation for the order passed u/s 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961.

Summary:

1. Entitlement to exemption u/s 10(22A) of the Income-tax Act, 1961:
The main dispute centered on whether the assessee-trust was entitled to exemption u/s 10(22A). The High Court held that the trust, which existed solely for the purpose of running a hospital, was entitled to exemption. The court noted that the trust had not indulged in any activity other than running the hospital, and all its funds were utilized for that purpose. The court referenced several cases to establish that if a trust exists solely for a specific philanthropic purpose, its income is exempt, even if derived from sources other than the primary activity, provided the income is used for the intended philanthropic purpose.

2. Entitlement to exemption u/s 11 of the Income-tax Act, 1961:
The assessee's claim for exemption u/s 11 was negatived due to the applicability of section 13(1)(bb) and section 13(1)(c). The High Court upheld the Tribunal's decision, which had denied the exemption based on the provisions of these sections. The court referred to the decision in CIT v. Sreenarayana Chandrika Trust [1994] 207 ITR 108, which had concluded the matter against the assessee for prior years.

3. Applicability of section 13(1)(bb) and section 13(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961:
The Tribunal held that section 13(1)(bb) and section 13(1)(c) were attracted in the case of the assessee, thereby disentitling it from exemption u/s 11. The High Court agreed with this view, noting that the trust was carrying on business and that the business was not being carried out in the course of carrying out the primary objects of the trust.

4. Limitation for the order passed u/s 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961:
For the assessment year 1978-79, the question arose whether the order passed by the Commissioner u/s 263 was barred by limitation. The Tribunal held that the order was passed within the prescribed time, though it was communicated later. The High Court noted that the matter had not been considered by the Tribunal in light of the decision in Government Wood Workshop v. State of Kerala [1988] 69 STC 62, which stated that an order is not complete until it is issued and beyond the control of the authority. Therefore, the High Court declined to answer the additional question referred at the instance of the assessee.

Conclusion:
The references and original petitions were disposed of accordingly. The questions referred at the instance of the assessee regarding exemption u/s 11 were answered against the assessee and in favor of the Revenue. The questions referred at the instance of the Revenue regarding exemption u/s 10(22A) were answered against the Revenue and in favor of the assessee. The additional questions referred at the instance of the assessee were not answered. There was no order as to costs.