Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

4. Being aggrieved, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before Commissioner (Appeals). It was submitted before the Commissioner (Appeals) that Dr. P.N. Chuttani was founder of the trust, who was an eminent doctor and had an outstanding record of service in the medical field, He served PGI for almost two decades. Dr. Chuttani was a bachelor and bequeathed his entire wealth to TTVC. Since Dr. Chuttani was associated with medical profession, his dream was also to set up a trust, which would afford medical relief and encourage medical research, and for that purpose Chandigarh Medical Centre and Chuttani Medical Centre were set up. It was emphatically submitted that the assessing officer had failed to appreciate that the assessee-trust's activities were not merely to afford medical relief and encourage medical research but were charitable also which was obvious from its name as 'Trilok Tirath Vidyavati Chuttani Charitable Trust'. It was submitted that the assessing officer had mentioned the donee trust as 'Sardarni Uttam Kaur Charitable Society' all along in the assessment order, whereas the correct name of the donee trust is 'Sardarni Uttam Kaur Educational Society'. It was submitted that the assessing officer had misinterpreted the provision of law governing the trust. As per art. 4 of the trust, donation to university, school or other like institutions is one of the objects of the trust and 'education' stands covered under this article. The assessing officer had deliberately omitted the word 'educational' from the donee society and had substituted the word 'educational' by 'charitable'. It was further submitted that medical education cannot be acquired without completing primary and secondary education and, therefore, nursery and secondary education is an integral part of higher education. It was further pointed out that there is no bar against a charitable trust giving donation to another charitable trust. The CBDT had considered the issue and vide Instruction No. 1132, dated 5-1-1978, it was decided that "as law stands at present, the payment of a sum by one charitable trust to another for utilization by the donee trust towards its charitable objects is proper application of income for charitable purpose in the hands of the donee trust; and the donor trust will not lose exemption under section 11 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, merely because the donee trust did not spend the donation during the year of receipt itselt" It was further submitted that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT. v. Andhra Chamber of Commerce (1965) 55 ITR 722 (SC), had laid down that if the primary or dominant purpose of a trust or institution was charitable, any other object which by itself might not be charitable, which was actually or incidental primary or dominant purpose, would not prevent the trust from being a valid charity. It was submitted that the assessing officer had herself accepted the fact that Sardarni Uttam. Kaur Educational Trust is a charitable trust and allowed exemption under section 80G of the Income Tax Act. Since the assessee-trust has been recognized as a charitable trust, the assessing officer's action in holding that the donation given by the assessee-trust had not been applied towards the objects of the trust, is totally misconceived. It was thus pleaded that the impugned addition made by the assessing officer being contrary to law, should be deleted.

6. The learned Commissioner (Appeals) considered these submissions. She referred to the trust deed and found that as per clause (ii) of article 4, one of the objects of the assesseetrust was to maintain, establish, finance, subsidize, exclusively or partly, or give grants-in-aid, recurring or otherwise, for the maintenance of hospitals, clinics, dispensaries, nursery schools or other establishments of like nature. Thus, she found that providing financial assistance to nursery schools was also included in the objects of the trust. She observed that a donation of Rs. 29 lakhs given to SUKES for running a nursery school fell within the objects of the trust. She further observed that SUKES was also granted exemption under section 80G of the Income Tax Act and, therefore, there is no doubt that SUKES was a public charitable trust. Thus, she held that giving of the donation of Rs. 29 lakhs was not inconsistent with the objects of the assessee-trust. By referring to the CBDT Instruction No. 1132, dated 5-1-1978, the learned Commissioner (Appeals) further held that when a charitable trust donates to another charitable trust, provisions of section 11(l)(a) could be said to have been met. As regards the allegations of the revenue that donation given to SUKES was utilized for giving loans to the business ventures of Brar family and the funds were not utilized for achieving objects of the trust, the learned Commissioner (Appeals) held that donation was given in good faith and bona fide belief that it would be utilized for educational purposes. She also observed that once a donation is given and the money parts company, the donor ceases to have control over the money. If the funds were misutilized by the donee trust, the' donor trust does not have the power to recover the amount donated. Once SUKES was registered under section 12A and had also been granted exemption under section 80G of the Income Tax Act, the assessee had no doubt about the charitable character of the donee trust and, therefore, donation was given towards the objectives of the assessee. She further referred to the provisions of section 13(l)(d) of the Act and held that if the donee trust did not utilize the amount of donation for the objectives for which it had been set up, the assessee-trust would forfeit the benefit of exemption in respect of income by way of donation.

12. The facts discussed above further show that the assessee-trust was registered in the year 1976. Thereafter, registration has been allowed from time to time to the assessee-trust. A copy of order dated 19-5-1997, of CIT, Patiala, placed on our file shows that the assessee-trust was allowed exemption under section 80G for the period from 31-3-1993 to 31-3-1997, relevant to assessment years 1993-94 to 1997-98, which also covers the assessment year under reference. The scheme of registration and granting exemption under section 80G is with a specific objective. It enables the trust to collect donations from other parties to be utilized for achieving the objects of the trust. It is sort of incentive granted to the donors to make contributions to the public charitable trust which they can claim deduction in their returns. For this purpose, the institution is required to submit application in the prescribed proforma before the CIT. The CIT examines such application with reference to the objects of the trust and grants registration only if it is found that the objects of the trust are charitable. Procedure in this regard has been spelt out under section 12AA of the Income Tax Act and the requisite conditions for registration have been spelt out in section 12A of the Act. Once registration is granted to the trust, it enables the trust to claim exemption in respect of its income subject to fulfilment of other conditions relating to application and accumulation of income spelt out in sections 11 to 13 of the Income Tax Act. But, grant of registration is a testimony of the fact that trust is a charitable institution. It is also important to note that registration is not granted by the CIT for indefinite period. It is only for a limited period of 3 to 4 years. In case the assessee desires to seek renewal of registration, the assessee has to make fresh application. The same is liable to fresh examination by the CIT and further registration would be allowed only after satisfying that objects of the trust are charitable. However, at the time of completing the assessment, the assessing officer is dutybound to examine whether the requisite conditions' for application and utilization of income for the objects of the trust are met or not. The assessee would be entitled to exemption only if its income has been utilized as per provisions of the Act. But the question is, when once the character of the institution being charitable is accepted by the CIT at the time of granting registration, can the assessing officer still question the charitable character of the institution at the time of completing the assessment ? This issue came to be considered before the Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench, in the case of Stock Exchange, Ahmedabad (supra). The assessee in the said case was allowed registration under section 12A. The assessing officer rejected the claim for exemption under section 11 mainly on the ground that there was no prohibition clause in trust deed prohibiting the institution from distributing profits to members. On these facts, the Tribunal held that the dominant object of the assessee was development of stock market and it was covered under the definition 'charitable purposes' in section 2(15). It was further held that once the assessee has been allowed registration under section 12A, it was beyond the: jurisdiction of the assessing officer to reject the claim of exemption under section 11 by looking into the objects of association and holding the same as non-charitable in nature, moreso, when the association has been recognized as charitable for the past fifteen years. The facts of the present case are also similar to the facts of the aforesaid case decided by the Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench. Therefore, the charitable character of the assessee cannot be called into question and the assessee cannot be denied exemption in respect of income on the ground that it was not a charitable institution.

12.4 We wish to mention that there may be world fame doctors having vast experience, professional knowledge and skill in the medical field. But, possession of such professional competence and skill by themselves are not enough. Such doctors require other infrastructure facilities such as hospital, costly machines and equipment, operation theatres, lab oratories, assistance of other paramedical staff, assistance of other specialists necessary for diagnosis and treatment of the patients. All such facilities involve huge investments, which are beyond the reach of such professionally competent and world, fame doctors. It is here that the role of a charitable institution assumes importance. Such charitable institution engages the services of such doctors and provides all infrastructure facilities mentioned supra without which they cannot function. One such instance, is that of Dr. Trehan, a prominent heart specialist/surgeon, working in Escort Hospital, New Delhi, which is again a charitable institution. It is because of such facilities provided by the trust that such doctors can make use of their professional competence and skill in treating the patients. This is exactly what the assessee-trust has done. The assessee has brought prominent professionals under one roof and provided all necessary infrastructure and facilities required for the treatment of patients. Thus, these activities are for the attainment of the main object of the trust, i.e., providing medical relief to the public and, therefore, the running of CMC is for the attainment of the main object of the assessee-trust. In the case of Sivakasi Hindu Nadars Uravinmurai (supra), relied upon by the learned Departmental Representative, the Madras High Court has held that exemption in respect of assessee's income cannot be granted merely because objects of trust are charitable. The facts in the case before the Madras High Court were that the assessee had claimed exemption in respect of income from hiring of furniture and marriage hall purely for profit and these activities had nothing to do with the objects of the trust. On these facts, the High Court held that such commercial activities were not for public utility and the assessee was not entitled to exemption in respect of such income. However, the High Court further held that the manner in which the activities for advancing charitable purposes were being carried on and the surrounding circumstances would alone show whether the assessee has done such activities for charitable purposes or with an object of profit motive. This judgment is not applicable to the facts of the present case. We have already held that the activities of running CMC are in consonance with the objective of the trust for providing medical relief to the public. Since, the activities run by the CMC are not meant for particular caste, community or group or religion, it cannot be said that the same lack an element of altruism or the same are not charitable. Anybody can avail of medical treatment in the CMC. Therefore, the judgment of the Allahabad High Court in the case of Chamber of Commerce (supra), relied upon by the learned Departmental Representative is also of no help to the revenue.