SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img



IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Manmohan, Navin Chawla, JJ.
Commissioner of Income Tax - Appellant
Versus
FLT Lt Rajan Dhall Charitable Trust Regd. - Respondent
ITA 137 of 2021
Decided On : 07-02-2022




The Tribunal correctly granted exemption under the Income Tax Act, 1961, based on the principle of consistency, affirming the Trust's activities as charitable.

Headnote:(A) Income Tax Act, 1961 - Sections 11 and 12 - Charitable purpose - Appeal against ITAT's order granting exemption to the Trust for AY 2012-13 - Tribunal found activities were consistently charitable since 2007-08, ignoring the submission that they were merely commercial - No perverse error found in Tribunal's order. (Paras 3, 4, 8, 10)

(B) Principle of consistency - Court upholds the Tribunal’s adherence to prior decisions on similar issues across multiple assessment years. (Paras 8, 9)

Facts of the case:
The appellant challenged the ITAT’s grant of exemption to a Trust, arguing the activities conducted were commercial and not charitable as per the provisions of the Act.

Findings of Court:
The Tribunal's findings were upheld as consistent with previous judgments allowing exemptions; no significant legal questions were raised.

Issues: Whether the activities of the Trust qualified as a charitable purpose under the Act and if the Tribunal's decision appropriately followed the principle of consistency.

Ratio Decidendi: The court concluded that the ITAT acted correctly by maintaining uniformity in its conclusions regarding the Trust's activities across assessment years, leading to the dismissal of the appeal.

Result: Appeal dismissed.

Table of Content
1. tribunal's error in granting tax exemption under the act. (Para 3 , 4 , 5)
2. court's observations on the tribunal's consistency. (Para 6 , 7 , 8)
3. dismissal based on the principle of consistency. (Para 9)
4. conclusion of appeal dismissal. (Para 10)

JUDGMENT

Manmohan, J.: (Oral)

C.M.No.27246/2021

Keeping in view the averments in the application, the delay of 47 days in filing the appeal is condoned.

Accordingly, the application stands disposed of.

ITA No.137/2021

1. The appeal has been heard by way of video conferencing.

2. Present appeal has been filed challenging the order dated 28th August, 2019 passed by Delhi Bench 'B' of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal in ITA No. 4257/De1/2016 for Assessment Year 2012-13.

3. Learned counsel for the Appellant submits that the Tribunal erred in granting the exemption under Sections 11 and 12 of the INCOME TAX ACT , 1961 (hereafter referred to as the `Act').

4. He submits that the Tribunal erred in ignoring the fact that the activities of the assessee are not the activities done for 'charitable purpose' according to the Section 2 (15) of the Act, since they are of a purely commercial nature.

5. Learned counsel for the Appellant submits that the Tribunal erred in overlooking the fact that the act of transfer of the management and control of Rajan Dhall Hospital, Vasant Kunj, Delhi vide 'Operational and Management Agreement with M/s Fortis Hospital Pvt. Ltd. existing absolutely for commercial purposes is violative of Section 11 of the Act.

6. Upon a perusal of the paper book, this Court finds that the Tribunal as the last fact finding authority has held that the Revenue had failed to establish that the said activities had been undertaken by the Respondent only in the Assessment Year under consideration. In fact, the said activities have been undertaken by the respondent right from the year 2007-08.

7. A perusal of the paper book also reveals that for the earlier and subsequent Assessment Years, exemptions have been allowed in the similar circumstances.

8. On 23rd August, 2021, this Court had observed that the impugned order passed by the ITAT suffers from no perversity as it abides by the principle of consistency and uniformity by following orders passed in the earlier and subsequent Assessment Years i.e. Assessment Years 2007-08, 2008-09, 2009-10, 2011-12, 2013-14 and 2014-15. However, at that stage, learned counsel for the Appellant had prayed for some time to obtain instructions and file additional documents.

9. Though, learned counsel for the Appellant states that he has filed the additional documents, however, the same are not on record. In any event, in view of the principle of consistency and uniformity, this Court is of the view that no substantial questions of law arises for consideration in the present case.

10. Accordingly, the present appeal is dismissed on the ground of consistency and uniformity.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top