9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2021 (11) TMI 1098 - AT - Income TaxDenial of exemption u/s 11 - Assessee earned income only by way of interest on FDRs and the expenditure incurred were related to administration expenses only - as per AO Income and expenditure account reflected no charitable activity carried out by the assessee contended that the facts reflected in the financial statements though not denied, do not reflect the complete picture and the factum of having carried out charitable activity nor can it be culled out from the said statement alone - HELD THAT - As noted by the ITAT in its order in earlier year, as above, that the assessee had only been indulging in construction activity since its creation for a very long period of around 8-10 years, had never itself run the medical facility despite a part of it being completed in the year 2000 and had in fact earlier on decided to lease out the running of its medical facility to a private party in PPP mode, and considering the order of the ITAT in the backdrop of the aforesaid facts, holding that the assessee never intended to carry out its stated charitable activity of running the medical college and hospital, and further in view of our findings above that the assessee had virtually sold its facility by leasing it out for 99 years and having no substantial control over it, we have no hesitation in agreeing with the CIT(A) that vis a vis the medical facility being run in PPP mode the assessee cannot be said to be carrying out any charitable activity. Other contention of assessee that it had amended its objects in 2009 and included therein funding of various medical projects in Government Medical College and Hospitals in Punjab and to which effect it had contributed over the years substantial sum of money, the Ld. DR has pointed out the fallacy in this argument of assessee by drawing our attention to the Memorandum of Understanding the assessee society had entered into with Baba Farid University, filed alongwith submissions of the assessee dated 9/7/2019, where the assessee has contended to have utilized its funds for medical upgradation in the hospital run by it. DR has pointed out that it was not simplicitor funding of projects in the hospital as claimed by the assessee, but in fact in the nature of investment in the hospital. The Memorandum of Understanding, he pointed out, required revenue sharing between the assessee and Baba Farid University in the ratio 60 40 or 80 20 of the net receipts earned from the project. As perused the documents and find the contention of the Ld.DR with regards to Revenue sharing arrangement entered into with respect to the amount invested in Baba Farid University of Health and Sciences, to be correct. Even otherwise the Ld.Counsel for the assessee was unable to contradict the same. It is clear, therefore, there is not merit in the claim of the assessee that it was indulging in charitable activities by way of funding medical projects in Government hospitals as it was nothing but a commercial transaction by the assessee society. Thus we hold, agreeing with the Revenue, that the assessee society was not indulging in carrying out any charitable activities worth its name during the year but on the contrary was only earning income by non charitable activities, earning from investments made by it in FDR s or other medical institutes. The assessee, we hold, has therefore been rightly held to be not entitled to exemption u/s 11 of the Act. The order of the Ld.CIT(A) is, therefore, upheld. The grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are dismissed.
Issues Involved:
1. Denial of exemption under Section 11 of the Income Tax Act. 2. Assessment of income in the status of Association of Persons (AOP). 3. Alleged vagueness in the assessment order regarding exemption under Section 10(23C)(vi) and registration under Section 12AA. 4. Determination of whether the appellant society was conducting business during the relevant previous year. 5. Consideration of charitable activities carried out through another charitable trust. 6. Consistency in allowing deductions under Section 11 in previous assessment years. 7. Additional grounds related to the accumulation of income, application of income tax paid, and alleged violations under Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 11(5). Detailed Analysis: 1. Denial of Exemption Under Section 11 of the Income Tax Act: The primary issue in the appeal was the denial of exemption under Section 11 of the Act to the assessee, which claimed to be a charitable entity. The Assessing Officer (AO) noted that the assessee society, established by the Punjab Government and registered under the Registration of Societies Act, had not carried out any charitable activity during the assessment year 2015-16. The AO observed that the society's income was derived from interest on Fixed Deposit Receipts (FDRs) and lease income, with expenditures limited to administrative expenses. The AO held that the assessee's primary objective appeared to be profit-making, not charitable activities, and thus denied the exemption under Section 11. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) [CIT(A)] upheld the AO's decision. 2. Assessment of Income in the Status of Association of Persons (AOP): The AO assessed the surplus income of Rs. 5,02,35,799/- generated during the year in the status of AOP, citing that the assessee did not fulfill the conditions for exemption under Section 11. The AO also added back the amount accumulated in the assessment year 2010-11, amounting to Rs. 60,65,97,152/-, for alleged non-utilization and non-compliance with specified purposes. The CIT(A) upheld the AO's decision regarding the surplus income but deleted the addition related to the accumulated surplus, noting that taxing it again would result in double addition. 3. Alleged Vagueness in the Assessment Order: The assessee argued that the assessment order was vague regarding the withdrawal of exemption under Section 10(23C)(vi) and the denial of registration under Section 12AA. The CIT(A) did not address this contention specifically, but the primary focus remained on the denial of exemption under Section 11. 4. Determination of Whether the Appellant Society Was Conducting Business: The AO and CIT(A) concluded that the assessee was not conducting any charitable activities and was instead engaged in profit-making activities. The assessee contended that it was carrying out its charitable activities through another charitable trust under a Public-Private Partnership (PPP) model. However, the Tribunal found that the lease agreement for 99 years with a private party effectively amounted to a sale, and the assessee had no substantial control over the medical infrastructure. Therefore, the Tribunal upheld the finding that the assessee was not conducting charitable activities. 5. Consideration of Charitable Activities Carried Out Through Another Charitable Trust: The assessee claimed that it was conducting charitable activities through another charitable trust by leasing out the medical infrastructure while retaining control over its management. The Tribunal, however, found that the lease agreement for 99 years with a private party indicated a virtual sale, and the assessee had no substantial control over the medical infrastructure. The Tribunal held that the assessee could not be considered to be carrying out charitable activities in such circumstances. 6. Consistency in Allowing Deductions Under Section 11 in Previous Assessment Years: The assessee argued that the AO had allowed deductions under Section 11 in the assessment year 2013-14, and the facts of the case for the assessment year 2015-16 were similar. The Tribunal did not find this argument persuasive, as the primary issue was the lack of charitable activities during the relevant assessment year. 7. Additional Grounds Related to Accumulation of Income, Application of Income Tax Paid, and Alleged Violations Under Section 13(1)(d) Read with Section 11(5): The additional grounds raised by the assessee pertained to the denial of benefit of accumulation of income under Section 11(2), the treatment of income tax paid during the year as an amount utilized for charity, and the non-adjudication of the ground regarding alleged violations under Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 11(5). The Tribunal held that these additional grounds were relevant only if the assessee was entitled to exemption under Section 11, which it was not. Therefore, the additional grounds were rendered infructuous and not addressed. Conclusion: The Tribunal upheld the denial of exemption under Section 11 of the Act to the assessee, agreeing with the Revenue that the assessee was not conducting any charitable activities during the relevant assessment year. The appeal of the assessee was dismissed, and the additional grounds were not adjudicated as they were rendered infructuous.
|
