Need Tally
for Clients?

Contact Us! Here

  Tally Auditor

License (Renewal)
  Tally Gold

License Renewal

  Tally Silver

License Renewal
  Tally Silver

New Licence
  Tally Gold

New Licence
 
Open DEMAT Account with in 24 Hrs and start investing now!
« From the Courts »
Open DEMAT Account in 24 hrs
 Inordinate delay in income tax appeal hearings
 Income Tax leviable on Tuition Fee in the Year of Rendering of Services: ITAT
 Supreme Court invoked its power under Article 142 of Constitution to validate notices issued under section 148 as notices issued under section 148A. However the same shall be subject to amended provisions of section 149.
 ITAT refuses to stay tax demand on former owner of Raw Pressery brand
 Bombay HC sets aside rejection of refund claims by GST authorities
 [Income Tax Act] Faceless Assessment Scheme does not take away right to personal hearing: Delhi High Court
 Rajasthan High Court directs GST Authority to Unblock Input Tax Credit availed in Electronic Credit Ledger
 Sebi-taxman fight over service tax dues reaches Supreme Court
 Delhi High Court Seeks Status Report from Centre for Appointments of Chairperson & Members in Adjudicating Authority Under PMLA
 Delhi High Court allows Income Tax Exemption to Charitable Society running Printing Press and uses Profit so generated for Charitable Purposes
 ITAT accepts Lease Income as Business Income as Business Investments were mostly in nature of Properties

M/s. Bhai Hospital Trust, 54, Janpath, Connaught Place, New Delhi Vs. DIT(Exemption), Plot No.15, 3rd Floor, Aayakar Bhawan, Laxmi Nagar, District Centre, New Delhi
June, 19th 2021

THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
DELHI “A” BENCH: NEW DELHI

(THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCING)

BEFORE SHRI G.S. PANNU, VICE PRESIDENT AND
SHRI KUL BHARAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER

ITA No.4147/Del/2011

Assessment Year : NIL

M/s. Bhai Hospital Trust, DIT(Exemption),

54, Janpath, Vs Plot No.15, 3rd Floor,

Connaught Place, Aayakar Bhawan, Laxmi

New Delhi-110001. Nagar, District Centre,

PAN-AAATB0492M New Delhi-110092.

APPELLANT RESPONDENT

Appellant by Sh. Tarandeep Singh, Adv. &
Respondent by Sh. Pulkit Verma, Adv.
Sh. Satpal Gulati, CIT DR

Date of Hearing 05.05.2021

Date of Pronouncement 18.06.2021

ORDER

PER KUL BHARAT, JM :
This appeal filed by the assessee for the assessment year NIL is

directed against the order of learned DIT(Exemptions), Delhi dated

19.07.2011. The assessee has raised following grounds of appeal:-

1. “That on facts and in law, the Order dated 19th July, 2011 passed
by the Director of Income Tax (Exemptions), New Delhi (Ld.DIT) cancelling
the registration u/s 12A of the Act of the appellant trust, since inception, is
bad and without properly considering and appreciating the facts and legal
position and is also contrary to the position consistently accepted by the
department over a long period of more than 25 years.
2. That on facts and in law, the Ld.DIT passed the impugned order by
making wrong and legally incorrect observations and by wrongly holding

1|Page
that the appellant trust had violated the provisions of section 2(15),
10(23C)(iiiae), 11(5), 13(1)(c) & 13(1 )(d) r.w.s. 13(3) of the Income Tax Act,
1961. He also failed to appreciate that the appellant had not violated any
of the provisions and full explanations / submissions in this regard had
been made in response to his show cause notice dated 28th March, 2011.

3. That on facts and in law, the Ld.DIT erred in not appreciating that
the case of appellant was covered u/s 10(23C)(iiiae) of the Act and the
Registration u/s 12A could not mean that compulsorily, the provisions of
section 11,12 & 13 particularly provisions of section 11(5) are applicable
and more so when the department in the past, had always accepted that
the case of the appellant was covered u/s 10(22A) upto Assessment Year
1998-99 and u/s 10(23C)(iiiae) from Assessment Year 1999-2000 to 2006-
07.

4. That on facts and in law, the Ld.DIT erred in taking a view that the
appellant trust had not been carrying on charitable activities wherein it
was duly accepted position in the past that charitable activities in the form
of running an OPD facility for poor and needy persons was being
continuously run since the year 1982.

5. Without prejudice to the grounds hereinabove and without accepting
any violation of law, even if there was any violation of provisions of section
11 (5) and 13 of the Act, it would only result in taxability of income of the
appellant and cannot be a basis for cancellation of registration u/s 12A of
the Act and accordingly the whole basis of the Ld.DIT to cancel the
registration, is illegal, unjustified and also against the provisions of law.

6. Without prejudice to the grounds hereinabove, the Ld.DIT also erred
in cancelling the registration u/s 12A since inception, whereas the powers
to cancel the registration were provided in provisions of section 12AA(3) of
the Act w.e.f. 1st June, 2010 and the registration could be cancelled
prospectively and not since inception i.e. 30th March, 1980.2. The facts

2|Page
giving rise to the present appeal are that Ld.DIT(E) vide impugned order
granted registration u/s 12A to the assessee’s society vide this office’s
order 1574 dated 30.03.1980. On the basis that the assessee had given
donation of Rs.13.65 crore to the Bhai Hospital Trust, the sister entity of
the assessee trust. It was observed that the donation was given out of the
borrowed funds on which the assessee trust had paid interest to the
related parties. It was also observed that the assessee had not carried out
any charitable activity except meager activity in the form of medical
facilities.”

2. The facts giving rise to the present appeal are that the Ld. DIT(E) vide
impugned order dated 19.07.2011 cancelled registration granted u/s 12A of
the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”) vide office Order 1574 dated 30.03.1980.
On the basis that the assessee had given donation of Rs.13.65 crores to the
Bhai Hospital Trust, the sister entity of the assessee trust. It was observed
that the donation was given out of the borrowed fund on which the assessee
trust had paid interest to the related parties. It was also observed that the
assessee had not carried out any charitable activity except meager activity in
the form of medical facilities.

3. Aggrieved against this, the assessee preferred present appeal before this
Tribunal.

4. Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that Ld.DIT(E) was not justified
in cancelling the registration u/s 12A of the Act. He further submitted that the
basis for cancellation of the registration stated to be donation given by the
assessee trust to another trust which was also authored by same person. He

3|Page
submitted that undisputedly registration of that trust i.e. Dr. Bhai Mohan
Singh Foundation has not been cancelled. He submitted that the donation
given by charitable trust to another charitable trust is not prohibited by the
law. He further submitted that the provision of section 11(5) of the Act could
not be applicable as the assessee trust is also registered u/s 10(23C)(iiiae) of
the Act. He submitted that authority below grossly erred in constraining the
provision of law and appreciating the facts of the case.

5. Per contra, Ld. CIT DR opposed these submissions and supported the
impugned order.

6. We have heard Ld. Authorized representatives of both the parties and
perused the impugned order and the material placed before us. The assessee
was granted registration u/s 12A of the Act in the year 1980 since then the
assessee was having registration u/s 12A of the Act. We find that Ld. DIT(E)
while cancelling the registration, observed that the main objective of the
assessee trust was running of a hospital but as per the examination of books
of account for the Assessment Years 2005-06 to 2009-10, a very meager receipt
from OPD was disclosed. It was also observed that the assessee trust was
carrying out its charitable activity from a small one room space. It was
observed by Ld.DIT(E) that the trust had depleted its property to the tune of
Rs.15.76 crores i.e. borrowed funds of Rs.13.65 crores and interest thereon. It
was observed that the assessee trust borrowed funds from company name M/s.
Oscar Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd. of Rs.13,66,50,000/-. Ld.DIT(E) observed

4|Page
that this borrowed fund was donated to another trust i.e. Dr. Bhai Mohan
Singh Foundation. Ld.DIT(E) observed that the donee trust was also not doing
any charitable work except donating substantial amount to others. It was
observed that this foundation was in receipt of substantial amount under the
head interest, dividend, profit on sale of Mutual Funds etc. Ld.DIT(E) was of
the view that the entire transaction revealed that there was a reasonable and
excessive benefit conferred to the related parties which was clearly hit by
section 13(1)(c) of the Act and such violation clearly attracts the denial of
exemption u/s 11 and 12 of the Act. Hence, Ld.DIT(E) rejected the explanation
of the assessee and cancelled the registration as granted u/s 12A of the Act by
observing as under:-

10. “Keeping in view the facts narrated above, it is seen that
Rs.13.65 Cr was paid by the assessee-Bhai Hospital Trust to another
sister entity-Dr. Bhai Mohan Singh Foundation and the author/settler of
both the trusts was the same person i.e. Dr. Bhai Mohan Singh. Such
payment was not permissible as per the provisions of section 13(1)( c) read
with section 13(3) of the IT Act. In light of above position, it is found that no
genuine charitable activity were carried out, there was no proper and
genuine application of trust's income/property, especially donation to other
entity and interest liability and violation of section 13(1)(c)(ii) and 11(5) of
the Act.

11. The entire transaction of taking huge loan from a company and
donating the same to another trust is totally unbecoming for charitable
institutions. The conduct of the charitable institution should be transparent
and the books of account maintained by them to be reliable. There is no
compulsion to obtain loan and donate the same to another organization in

5|Page
such a hurried manner and to repay the loan alongwith interest by selling
investments in Ranbaxy company is clearly an indication to benefit
themselves rather than carrying on any charitable activity to the benefit of
general public at all. After enjoying the tax benefit over the years, the
charitable organizations are nothing but public entities and the fund thus
hold belongs to the public and investment and application of income are to
be made strictly as per the provisions of law. The trusts cannot invest and
dispose off the funds as they like it. Instead they should follow the
procedure prescribed in the provisions of law, Provisions of section 11 (5)
mandates all charitable institutions registered u/s 12A to hold the
investment as per the conditions prescribed therein. Any deviation of said
condition will tantamount to violation of the law and not only the amount
subject to tax but consistent failure to comply to the law would attract
cancellation of the registration.

12. Besides the above violation of section 2(15) and 13(1)(c), the
assessee also hit by activity which is non-charitable in nature by obtaining
the loan for interest and diverting the same to another sister entity as
donation and claiming the same as application of money towards
charitable activity which is clearly violation of conferring the benefits to
specified persons without any reason. Further, the activity carried by the
assessee does not amount to any charity as it is claimed only for name
sake and there is no real activity is being carried on by the assessee trust.
Hence, the above fact confirms the non-charitable conduct of the assessee
which makes it imperative to cancel the registration granted u/s 12A of the
I.T. Act, 1961.

13. In view of provisions of section 2(15) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, the
activity of the society does not fall within the meaning of Charitable
activity, as the assessee trust has violated the provisions of section
13(l)(c)(ii) and 11(5) of the Act. Since, and the activity has been hit by the

6|Page
provisions of section 2(15), thus the society is no longer is charitable
society. It is established beyond reasonable doubt that the society has
intention to carry out non-charitable activities and thus violated the
provisions of section 2(15) and the activity by the society does not qualify
for registration u/s 12A. Accordingly, registration granted u/s 12A to the
assessee society is cancelled since inception as no charity and violating
the provisions of section 11(5) of I.T. Act after providing opportunity to the
assessee society.”

7. In this background, the question which needs to be adjudicated whether
Ld. DIT(E) was justified in cancelling the registration u/s 12A of the Act under
the facts and circumstances of the present case. Ld. DIT(E) cancelled the
registration u/s 12AA of the Act on the ground that the assessee violated the
provision of section 13(3) of the Act for taking loan of Rs.13.65 crores and
donating the same to the sister concern without carrying out any charitable
activity. It is further observed by Ld. DIT(E) that the donation amount received
from assessee trust to foundation has been shown as a corpus and directly
credited to the balance sheet and not through Income & Expenditure Account.
In the opinion of Ld. DIT(E), it is clearly violation of provision of law to divert
the property of assessee trust to others for non-charitable activities. In the
opinion of Ld. DIT(E), there was unreasonable and excessive benefit which was
given to the related parties which is clearly hit by section 13(1)(c) r.w. section
13(3) of the Act, hence, attracts action for denial of exemption u/s 12A of the
Act. Undisputedly, the words as obtained registration at any time was inserted
in section 12AA(3) of the Act w.e.f 01.06.2010. However, Ld.DIT(E) has

7|Page
cancelled the registration since inception. Therefore, it was contended by Ld.
Counsel for the assessee that the cancellation could not have been made prior
to the insertion of the provision thus, the Ld.DIT(E) clearly exceeded the
jurisdiction. For the sake of clarity, section 12AA(3) of the Act is reproduced as
under:-

12AA(3). “Where a trust or an institution has been granted registration
under clause (b) of sub-section (1) [or has obtained registration at any time
under section 12A [as it stood before its amendment by the Finance (No.2)
Act, 1996 (33 of 1996)]] and subsequently the [Principal Commissioner or]
Commissioner is satisfied that the activities of such trust or institution are
not genuine or are not being carried out in accordance with the objects of
the trust or institution, as the case may be, he shall pass an order in
writing cancelling the registration of such trust or institution:

Provided that no order under this sub-section shall be passed unless
such trust or institution has been given a reasonable opportunity of being
heard.]”

8. Another argument of the assessee is that since the assessee trust is also
registered u/s 10(23C) of the Act, therefore, provision of section 13(5) of the
Act is not applicable. The factum of registration u/s 10(23C) of the Act is not
rebutted by the Revenue. The Ld.DIT(E) is empowered to cancel the
registration u/s 12AA(3) of the Act if he is satisfied that the activities of such
trust or institution are not genuine and are not being carried out in accordance
with its objectives of the trust/institution as the case may be. However, in the
present case, the sole ground of cancellation of registration is that the assessee

8|Page
trust obtained a loan of Rs.13.65 crores, paid interest thereon and donated
this sum to another trust. Admittedly, the other trust was also granted
registration u/s 12A of the Act and its registration has not been cancelled and
author of both the trusts is same person. We are unable to sustain the action
of Ld.DIT(E) firstly, the registration has been cancelled from inception i.e. prior
to even when the trust that had obtained registration were brought within the
ambit of section 12AA (3) of the Act.

9. Secondly, the Ld.DIT(E) has proceeded purely on the basis that the
assessee trust had donated the amount which it had borrowed to other
charitable trust without pointing out as to under what provision of law, such
action is prohibited. Moreover, it is settled position of law that at the time
dissolution of trust, the property of trust would go to another charitable trust.
The Ld. DIT(E)’s apprehension that undue benefit is given to sister concern is
misplaced.

10. As the alleged sister concern is also a charitable trust, the donation from
one charitable trust to another charitable trust is not prohibited under law.
We find that Ld.DIT(E) himself has recorded that the assessee trust has carried
out some medical OPD in accordance with the objects of the trust.

11. Under these facts, it cannot be construed that the activities of the
assessee trust are not genuine. We, therefore, set aside the impugned order
and restore the registration granted u/s 12A of the Act. Thus, grounds raised
by the assessee in this appeal are allowed.

9|Page
12. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed.

Above decision was pronounced on conclusion of Virtual Hearing in the
presence of both the parties on 18th June, 2021.

Sd/- Sd/-
(KUL BHARAT)
(G.S. PANNU) JUDICIAL MEMBER
VICE PRESIDENT
ASSISTANT REGISTRAR
* Amit Kumar * ITAT, NEW DELHI

Copy forwarded to:
1. Appellant
2. Respondent
3. CIT
4. CIT(Appeals)
5. DR: ITAT

10 | P a g e

Home | About Us | Terms and Conditions | Contact Us
Copyright 2024 CAinINDIA All Right Reserved.
Designed and Developed by Ritz Consulting