Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Mumbai
Acit (E) 2(1), Mumbai vs National Helath & Education Society, ... on 15 February, 2017
आयकर अपील
य अ धकरण, मंब
ु ई यायपीठ,H,मंब
ु ई ।
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
MUMBAI BENCHES "H", MUMBAI
Before Shri D.T. Garasia, Judicial Member, and
Shri Ashwani Taneja, Accountant Member
ITA No.3390/Mum/2015
Assessment Year: 2011-12
ACIT (E) 2(1) National Health & Education
R.No.510, 5 Floor, बनाम/ Society, Co. P. D. Hinduja
th
Pirmal Chambers, National Hospital & Medical
Vs.
Lalbaug Resarch Centre, Veer Savarkar
Mumbai-400012 Marg, Mahim
Mumbai-400016
(Revenue) (Respondent )
P.A. No.AAATN0093Q
Revenue by Shri Rahul Raman, (CIT-DR)
Respondent by Shri S.C. Tiwari, (AR)
सन
ु वाई क
तार
ख/Date of Hearing: 07/02/2017
आदे श क
तार
ख /Date of Order: 15/02/2017
आदे श / O R D E R
Per Ashwani Taneja, A.M:
This appeal has been filed by the Revenue against order of Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Mumbai-1 (in short 'CIT(A)'}, dated 24.03.2015 passed order against u/s 143(3) of the Act, Assessment order dated 20.03.2014 for Assessment Year 2011-12 on the following grounds:
1. "Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A), Mumbai, is justified in granting exemption u/s. 11 of the Income Tax Act, 1961?
2. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case
2 National Health & Education So.
and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) is justified in allowing the claim of the assessee for exemption u/s 11 ignoring the facts that the Assessing Officer in his order has pointed out that assessee runs a pharmacy store in its hospital for profit motive. Profit of pharmacy stores comes to Rs. 14,11,22,23 1/- ?
3. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A), Mumbai, is justified in allowing the claim of the assessee for exemption u/s 11 ignoring the fact that assessee has not maintained separate books of account in respect of pharmacy store. The assessee has not complied with that particular condition as required under the law?
4. The Appellant prays that the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-1, Mumbai be set aside and that of the Assessing Officer be restored."
2. The brief background and facts of this case are that the during the year the assessee was registered as a Charitable Organization with DIT (Exemption), Mumbai, u/s. 12A and also with Charity Commissioner of Mumbai and was running a hospital and medical research centre.
3. During the course of assessment proceedings, it was noted by the AO that the assessee runs a pharmacy store in its hospital and has turnover of Rs.40.49 crores comprising of sales of drugs and medicines to the patients through the pharmacy store. It showed surplus of Rs.14.11 crores on the sales done by the pharmacy store. Therefore, the AO asked the assessee as to why the benefit of exemption should not be denied to the assessee since assessee was engaged in the business and accordingly the surplus of pharmacy store of Rs.14.11 crore should be assessed as business income u/s 11(4A). In reply, the assessee submitted that sales of drugs and medicines were made to indoor patients of the hospital 3 National Health & Education So.
and no sale was done over the counter. Thus, no sale was done to outside patients; therefore running of the pharmacy store was part of the dominant object of the hospital and was not for the purpose of doing business and earning of profit through running of pharmacy store. However, the AO was not satisfied with the submissions of the assessee, therefore, surplus of Rs.14.11 crores earned by the pharmacy store was treated as business income u/s 14A of the Act. It was also observed by the AO that no separate books of accounts were maintained by the assessee with respect to pharmacy store and thus, the assessee failed to comply with conditions as required under the law. This profit earned by the pharmacy store was liable to the taxed separately.
4. Being aggrieved, the assessee filed before Ld. CIT(A) wherein detailed submissions were made reiterating the arguments made before the AO. Ld. CIT(A) considered the submissions of the assessee and relying upon the order for A.Y. 2010-11, deleted the addition made by the AO by observing as under:
"6.2 The issue has come up for consideration by the CIT(A)-I for A.Y. 2010- 11 also in its Ground No. 1 of appeal. After considering the facts and circumstances on this issue, it was held that -
"7. I have considered the f ac ts and circumstances of the c ase, assessment order of the A.O and submissions of the appellant. The AD has treated receipts from sale of medicines from the pharmacy store in the hospital run by the trust as business income and further resorted to application of section 11(4A) of the I. T. Act for this purpose. The contention of the appellant is that running of pharmacy in the hospital, which is being run for charitable purposes, is not a business activity merely for the reason that some surplus has been generated. It 4 National Health & Education So.
is also argued that the apparent surplus noted by AO is also not correct because it is without considering the overhead expenses. The AO in Para 7 of the assessment order has specifically noted that - "Though assessee claims that it does not sell medicines to outside patients meaning which are not registered at hospital as patients indoor or OPD trust deed of assessee does not bar hospital from selling medicines to outsiders. Nevertheless it sells medicines to its indoor and outdoor patients."
7.1 It is obvious f rom the above observ ation of AO th at he has determined the sale of medicines and running of pharmacy as business of appellant on the basis of objective clause of the trust rather than bringing on record any such material which could show that the pharmacy has been run as a business venture, separate and independent of hospital. Under the circumstances, the finding given by AO is erroneous. 7.2 It is also on record that the appellant has been granted approval u/s. 10(23C)(via) of the 1. T. Act with effect from A. Y. 2009-10 which has been agitated and incorporated in Ground No. 2 of appeal. The Id. CCIT during the proceedings u/s. 10(23C) is stated to have looked into the aspect of running of said pharmacy in the case of the appellant and had granted approval after satisfying himself on this issue. The approval granted by the Hon. CCIT u/s. 10(23C)(via) vide approval dated 07.04.2011 w.e.f. A.Y. 2009-10 is af ter satisfaction on the issue of 'existing Solely for philanthropic purposes and not for purposes of profit, as appearing in section 10(23C)(via), particularly when this issue had been examined and approved in the proceedings for granting such approval. The appellant has also furnished copy of submissions before the Hon. CCIT on this issue confirming that same was examined for that purpose and no adverse view was taken in reference to running of pharmacy. Therefore, under the similar facts and circumstances of the case there is no basis for treating the running of pharmacy as a business venture. No such material has been brought on record by AO requiring re-examin ati on on th is as pec t.
5 National Health & Education So.
Since in ter ms of approv al u/s. 10(23C)(via); the running of pharmacy is part of philanthropic activity of running of hospital, since there is no material and evidence brought on record by AO requiring adverse view or re-examination of the earlier findings on this issue and since the decision in the case of Jurisdictional High Court in Baun Foundation Trust vs. CCIT-I, Mumbai in WP No. 1206 of 2010 is applicable to the facts of the case, in favour of the appellant, therefore, for the reasons as above Ground No.1 of appeal is allowed. Since running of pharmacy is not a business activity of the appellant for the reason and material noted above; therefore, application of section 11(4A) is not called for and does not apply. Accordingly, the addition and taxability of surplus of pharmacy is held as erroneous and ordered to be deleted."
6.3 T he f ac ts and c ircu ms tances on th is issue, being simil ar to the assessment year 2010-11, it is held that the Ground No. 3 of appeal is liable to be allowed for the reasons as discussed above.
Therefore, Ground No.3 of appeal is allowed and the addition made by the A.O u/s. 11(4) of the I.T. Act, 1961 amounting to Rs. 14,11,22,231/- relating to surplus of pharmacy store is directed to be deleted."
5. Being aggrieved with the order of Ld. CIT(A), the Revenue has filed an appeal before the tribunal.
6. During the course of hearing before us, Ld. DR vehemently opposed the order of the AO. It was submitted by the Ld. DR that Ld. CIT(A) did not verify even the basic fact before reversing the order by the assessing officer. It has not been verified whether the assessee is maintaining separate books of accounts with respect to pharmacy store because the AO had given adverse comments about the same. Further, the crucial fact whether the profit of the pharmacy store has been used for the purpose of running hospital in the charitable activities or it has been used for some other purposes has not been 6 National Health & Education So.
verified. It is also not clear whether that drugs and medicines are sold to indoor patients only or these are sold to outside persons also who were not admitted in the hospital. Therefore, the issue decided by the Ld. CIT(A) without verification of facts needs to be sent back to the file of AO for proper examination of facts.
7. Per contra Ld. Counsel of the assessee submitted that identical issue has been decided by the Tribunal in assessee's own case vide order dated 17.08.2016. Thus, the issue is principally covered in favour of the assessee with the judgment of Hon'ble Tribunal. However, he fairly submitted that for the purpose of verification of facts, this matter can be sent back to the file of lower authorities. He also relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Baun Foundation Trust v. CCIT 73 DTR 45 and decision of Mumbai Bench of Tribunal in the case of Hiranandani Foundation v. ADIT (ITA No.560/Mum/2016) dated 27.5.2016.
8. We have gone through the order passed by the lower authorities. It is noted that Ld. CIT(A) has reversed the order of the AO and allowed the relief of the assessee relying upon his own order for earlier year and decision of Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Baun Foundation Trust (supra). However, while deciding this issue, Ld. CIT(A) has not discussed at all actual facts of the case as were involved in the year before us. Therefore, we find it appropriate to send this appeal back to the file of Ld. CIT(A) who shall decide this appeal afresh after taking into account fact of this case more specifically on those issues as were raised by the Ld. DR before 7 National Health & Education So.
us. He shall also take into account, the decision relied upon by the Ld. Counsel before us, and adequate opportunity of hearing shall be given to the assessee to file written submissions and evidences before passing the appeal order. Ld. CIT(A) shall take into account entire material as may be placed on record by the assessee and shall pass detailed and well reasoned order after discussing facts of this case as well as applicable legal position. The assessee shall be free to raise all the legal and factual issues as may be considered appropriate. With these directions this appeal is sent back to the file of Ld. CIT(A).
4. In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue may be treated as allowed for statistical purposes. Order was pronounced in the open court at the conclusion of hearing.
Sd/- Sd/-
(D.T. Garasia ) (Ashwani Taneja)
या यक सद य / JUDICIAL MEMBER लेखा सद य / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER मब ुं ई Mumbai; दनांक Dated : 15 /02/2017 ctàxÄ? P.S/. न.स.
आदे श क! " त$ल%प अ&े%षत/Copy of the Order forwarded to :
1. अपीलाथ / The Appellant
2. यथ / The Respondent.
3. आयकर आयु त(अपील) / The CIT, Mumbai.
4. आयकर आयु त / CIT(A)- , Mumbai
5. #वभागीय त न&ध, आयकर अपील य अ&धकरण, मब ुं ई / DR, ITAT, Mumbai
6. गाड+ फाईल / Guard file.
आदे शानस ु ार/ BY ORDER, स या#पत त //True Copy// उप/सहायक पंजीकार (Dy./Asstt. Registrar) आयकर अपील य अ धकरण, मब ुं ई / ITAT, Mumbai