9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (2) TMI 797X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sons who are suffering from illness or mental defectiveness. 2.1. The SBMI owns a number of mobile medical vans. These medical vans are run in collaboration with M/s. Bharat Sevashram Sangha, M/s. Vivekananda Swasthya Seva Sangha etc. which are charitable organizations. The mobile medical vans are well staffed with doctors, nurses, attendants etc and also are equipped with surgical equipments, xrays, diagnostic equipments and medicines. The entire expenditure incurred on these mobile medical vans are paid by the assessee i.e. SBMI. These mobile medical vans provide medical services in remote and rural areas, where no medical facilities are available. The total annual receipt of the assessee is less than Rs.1 crore. 2.2. The assessee, SBMI claimed exemption u/s 10(23C)(iiiae) of the Act. The AO in the assessment order passed u/s 143(3) of the Act on 09.03.2016 held that, M/s. Bharat Sevashram Sangha and M/s. Vivekananda Swasthya Seva Sangha were running mobile medical unit and submitting the bills monthly to the assessee for reimbursement. He was of the view that this mobile medical van is a part and parcel of the hospital of M/s. Bharat Sevashram Sangha or M/s. Vivekananda Swasth ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... with the appellant which can be said to be as a hospital." 2.6. Thus upheld the order of the AO. Aggrieved, the assessee is before us. 3. The ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the assessee Trust has been claiming exemption u/s 10(23C)(iiiae) of the Act for the last several years and has also claimed the same for the subsequent years and that the Department has been, in various orders passed u/s 143(3) of the Act accepted the claim of the assessee. He submitted that the term "hospital" has not been defined under the statute and that the meaning as understood in the general parlance has to be taken and that the term "hospital" denotes an institution providing medical surgical treatment and nursing care for sick or injured persons. He argued that nowhere under the statute or in the general parlance, the term "hospital" required to be a fixed place and that it should be an immovable property. He submitted that the assessee's mobile medical vans are fully equipped with surgical equipment such as x-ray machines etc. and staffed by qualified doctors and nurses and medical attendants and that medical and surgical treatment is provided in these vans. Thus he submits that the v ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the assessee is dismissed. 5. Rival contentions heard. On a careful consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case, perusal of the papers on record and the case law cited, we hold as follows. 6. Section 10(23C)(iiiae) of the Act reads as follows: "Section 10(23C) Any income received by any person on behalf of - (iiiae) Any hospital or other institution for the reception and treatment of or of persons requiring medical attention or rehabilitation, existing solely for philanthropic purposes and not for purposes of profit, if the aggregate annual receipts of such hospital or institution do not exceed the amount of annual receipts as may be prescribed." 6.1. This Section requires: a) That the income should be received on behalf of a hospital or other institutions, for the reception and treatment of persons suffering from illness etc. b) The assessee should exist solely for philanthropic purposes and not for the purpose of profit. c) The annual receipts of the assessee should not exceed the prescribed amount. 6.2. There is no dispute of the fact that the assessee Trust exists solely for philanthropic purposes and not for the purpose of profit. There is also no di ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lier assessment years as well as for the subsequent years, we hold that the assessee is eligible for deduction u/s 10(23C)(iiiae) of the Act. 8. We now consider the case laws relied upon by the parties. The Revenue relied on the judgement of the jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT vs. Apeejay Medical Research & Welfare Association (P) Ltd. (2016) 383 ITR 0079 (Cal.). In this case the claim of the assessee made u/s 10(22A) of the Act. The Hon'ble High Court held that the assessee had not undertaken any of the five activities mentioned u/s 10(22A) of the Act. The factual finding was given that the income in question for that assessee arose from interest and the predominant objectives of that assessee was not to carry out any act of charity or benevolence. On the contrary, the objective was to earn interest and the income had no nexus with any of the activities mentioned in the Section. Only in such factual circumstances the claim of the assessee was rejected. This is not the fact in the case on hand. There is not dispute in this case that the assessee's predominant objective is charity and the assessee is rendering medical services through mobile medical vans. Thus this c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
