2018 (3) TMI 588 - HC - Income Tax

Claim of exemption u/s 11 denied - medical facilities for poor patients - beds reserved for needy and poor persons kept - Held that - CIT (Appeals) has independently come to the satisfaction that in the subject Assessment Year, the Assessee has kept necessary percentage of bed reserved for needy and poor people and necessary percentage of the gross revenue was transferred to Indigent Patients Fund. It is only after having reached an independent conclusion for the subject Assessment Year that the Respondent is entitled to Section 11 of the Act, does it further record that in the Appellant s own case for the Assessment Year 2008-09, exemption was allowed under Section 11 of the Act. As observed by the CIT (A) as well as the Tribunal in the impugned order that the requirement is to keep and which has been done in this case. The test cannot be percentage of the poor patients actually treated, in the absence of any evidence to indicate that poor patients were denied in-house treatment in the hospital. - Decided against revenue.

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to order of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal regarding exemption u/s.11 for Assessment Year 2009-10.

Analysis:
1. The Revenue challenged the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (the Tribunal) dated 5.3.2015 regarding the exemption u/s.11 for Assessment Year 2009-10.
2. The Tribunal upheld the order of the CIT (A) allowing the claim of exemption u/s.11 for the Respondent-Assessee, stating that the conditions under the Bombay Public Trust Act and Section 13 of the Act were not violated.
3. The Revenue contended that the Tribunal's decision was based on the CIT (A)'s order for the Assessment Year 2008-09, which was subsequently allowed by the Tribunal and remanded back to the CIT (A) for fresh consideration.
4. The Tribunal found that fresh evidence presented during the first appellate proceedings for the Assessment Year 2008-09 was not made available to the Assessing Officer, leading to a violation of Rule 46A(3) of the Income Tax Rules. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the order and remanded it to the CIT (A) for fresh consideration.
5. The Revenue did not raise any grievance before the Tribunal regarding the use of evidence not made available to the Assessing Officer in the order dated 15.2.2013 for the Assessment Year 2009-10.
6. The Tribunal presumed that the Revenue was given notice of any additional evidence presented before the CIT (A) for the subject assessment year, as there was no record of any grievance raised by the Revenue.
7. Both the CIT (A) and the Tribunal observed that the requirement for exemption u/s.11 was met by reserving beds for needy and poor persons, not by treating a specific percentage of poor patients.
8. The question proposed by the Revenue was found to not give rise to any substantial question of law, leading to the dismissal of the appeal.

This detailed analysis of the judgment highlights the issues involved, the arguments presented by the parties, and the reasoning behind the court's decision to dismiss the appeal challenging the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal regarding exemption u/s.11 for the Assessment Year 2009-10.