9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2024 (6) TMI 733 - AT - Income TaxExemption u/s. 11, 12 13 - assessee did not have registration u/s. 12A nor was any appeal against such order pending - Status of the assessee as a State under Article 12 of the Constitution of India - HELD THAT - Assessing officer did not consider any of the said claims but interpreted the order of the Tribunal to say that he can examine only the issue in regard to registration u/s. 12A of the Act. With this in mind, when one is to see the facts of the present case, it is noticed that the picture being given is that the Income Tax Officer is only a tax collector. This presumption of the Assessing Officer unfortunately is erroneous. As early as in April, 1955 vide Circular No. 14 (XL-35) dated 11/04/1955 specifically mentions that the Officers of the Department must not take advantage of ignorance of an assessee as to his rights. It is one of their duties to assist a taxpayer in every reasonable way, particularly in the matter of claiming and securing reliefs and in this regard the Officers should take the initiative in guiding a taxpayer where proceedings or other particulars before them indicate that some refund or relief is due to him. This attitude would, in the long run, benefit the Department for it would inspire confidence in him that he may be sure of getting a square deal from the Department. Now, in the present case, clearly in the initial stage, the assessee had not claimed all the benefit of deduction u/s. 10(23C) nor the status of State . But the facts were very much before the Assessing Officer. SCB Medical College and Hospital and the impugned Swastyhha Bikas Samiti functions at Cuttack as one of the biggest and primary and specialist Govt. hospital doing novel work in the field of medicine. In case of any untoward incident in the State, patients are rushed to SCB Medical College Hospital. It has created a name for itself and it is also well-known as one of the best Govt. hospital in the State. When so much is known and it is also well known that it is a Government Organisation, and to deny such organization, just because it has not got registration u/s. 12A, but it is entitled to deduction under other relevant provisions of the Act, it would be nothing but travesty of justice. As is evident that the lower authorities have not considered various beneficial claims available to the assessee. Therefore, the issues in this appeal are restored in its entirety to the file of the AO for denovo adjudication. We may make it clear that all the issues are left open and the assessee is at liberty to raise any fresh claim as is available to the assessee. We also make it clearly that in view of the decision of case of Goetze (India) Limited 2006 (3) TMI 75 - SUPREME COURT has held that the Assessing Officer shall consider the fresh claim if any raised by the assessee, even if such claim has not been claimed or made in the return of income. Further, we may mention here that the assessee shall make such claim in the form of a letter at least specifying the claim - Appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes.
Issues Involved:
1. Adjournment Petition 2. Exemption u/s 11, 12, and 13 3. Registration u/s 12A 4. Status as a State 5. Exemption u/s 10(23C)(iiiac) Summary: Adjournment Petition: The assessee's counsel filed an adjournment petition citing personal difficulties and the need for more time to seek relief for condonation of delay from the Hon'ble High Court of Orissa. The Tribunal rejected the adjournment application, noting that the issues in the appeals were simple and did not require in-depth verification of facts, and proceeded to dispose of the appeals on merits. Exemption u/s 11, 12, and 13: The assessee claimed exemption u/s 11, 12, and 13 of the Income Tax Act. However, the Tribunal noted that the assessee did not have registration u/s 12A, nor was any appeal against such order pending. The Tribunal upheld the Assessing Officer's and CIT(A)'s orders, stating that the income of the assessee is liable to be assessed as an AOP in the absence of registration u/s 12A. Registration u/s 12A: The Tribunal observed that this was the third round of litigation, and in all three rounds, the assessee failed to provide evidence for registration u/s 12A. The Tribunal had previously allowed the assessee to file a fresh application for registration u/s 12A, which was not done. The Tribunal concluded that without the registration u/s 12A, the assessee could not claim the exemptions. Status as a State: The Tribunal considered whether the assessee could be considered a 'State' under Article 12 of the Constitution of India. The Tribunal referred to the decision in the case of Watco vs CIT (Exemption), where it was held that certain entities could be considered as 'State' if they met specific criteria. The Tribunal noted that the assessee, being a fully government-controlled entity, performing public functions, and receiving government grants, could be considered a 'State' and thus exempt from taxation under Article 289 of the Constitution of India. Exemption u/s 10(23C)(iiiac): The Tribunal examined whether the assessee could claim exemption u/s 10(23C)(iiiac), which applies to hospitals or institutions existing solely for philanthropic purposes and substantially financed by the government. The Tribunal concluded that the assessee met all the conditions for this exemption, as it was a government entity providing medical services to the public and receiving government grants. Conclusion: The Tribunal restored the issues to the file of the Assessing Officer for de novo adjudication, allowing the assessee to raise any fresh claims. The appeals were partly allowed for statistical purposes.
|
