I.T.A. No. 2267/Del./2013. Case: Patanjali Yogpeeth (Nyas) Vs ADIT [Exemptions], Range II. ITAT (Income Tax Appellate Tribunal)
| Case Number | I.T.A. No. 2267/Del./2013 |
| Counsel | For Appellant: Ajay Vohra, Sr. Adv. and Rohit Jain, Adv. an dFor Respondents: N.C. Swain, CIT [DR] |
| Judges | I.C. Sudhir, Member (J) and L.P. Sahu, Member (A) |
| Issue | Clinical Establishments (registration And Regulation) Act, 2010 - Sections 2(15), 2(h); Income Tax Act, 1961 - Sections 10, 10(1), 10(22), 10(23C), 10(23C)(vi), 10(72), 11, 11, 12, 13, 11(1), 11(1)(a), 11(1)(c), 11(1)(d), 11(4A), 11(5), 115BBC, 12, 12(1), 12(2), 12-A, 12A, 12AA, 13, 13(1), 13(1)(c), 13(1)(C)(ii), 13(1)(d), 13(1)(d)(iii), 13(2)... |
| Citation | 2017 (185) TTJ 1 (Del) |
| Judgement Date | February 09, 2017 |
| Court | ITAT (Income Tax Appellate Tribunal) |
Order:
I.C. Sudhir, Member (J), (ITAT Delhi 'F' Bench)
-
The assessee has questioned first appellate order on the following grounds:
-
That the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) erred on facts and in law in upholding the action of the assessing officer in denying exemption under sections 11/12 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ('the Act').
-
That the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) erred on facts and in law in passing a cryptic and non-speaking order, by merely reiterating the findings of the assessing officer, without judiciously considering/dealing with the submissions of the appellant.
-
That the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) erred on facts and in law in disregarding the objectives contained in the trust deed of the appellant and holding that the activities undertaken by the appellant did not fall within the purview of 'medical relief', 'imparting education' or 'relief to the poor', but were purely in the nature of object of general public utility under section 2(15) of the Act.
-
That the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) erred on facts and in law in failing to appreciate that the Revenue authorities had, in the past years consistently accepted the activities of the appellant as being in the nature of medical relief, education and relief to the poor.
-
That the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) erred on facts and in law in holding that the appellant's activities in relation to 'propagation of yoga' does not qualify as providing 'medical relief' or 'imparting education', but was purely in the nature of object of general public utility under section 2(15) of the Act.
-
That the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) erred on facts and in law in relying upon erroneous findings given in the special audit report furnished under section 142(2A) of the Act, without judiciously appreciating the details/explanation furnished by the appellant.
-
That the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) erred on facts and in law in summarily concluding that the appellant violated the provisions of section 13 of the Act, without judiciously disposing off the specific objections raised by the appellant against the various allegations levelled by the assessing officer in the impugned assessment order.
7.1. Without prejudice to the above, that the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) failed to appreciate that the alleged violation of provisions of section 13 of the Act, could not have resulted in complete denial of exemption under sections 11/12 of the Act.
7.2. That the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) erred on facts and in law in not deleting the following additions made by the assessing officer on account of alleged violation of provisions of section 13 of the Act:
(a) on account of services being made available to M/s. Rs. 96,00,000 Vedic Broadcasting Limited [para 7.5(a)]
(b) on account of giving interest free indirect advance to Rs. 2,40,000 M/s. Dynamic Buildcon Private Limited [para
7.5(b)]
(c) on account of investment in modes other than Rs. 12,00,000 specified in section 11(5) [para 7.5(c)]
(d) on account of investment in modes other than Rs. 7,09,560 specified in section 11(5) [para 7.5(d)]
-
That the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) erred on facts and in law in holding that the appellant had undertaken activities outside India, in violation of provisions of section 11(1)(a) of the Act.
-
That the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) erred on facts and in law in upholding the addition aggregating to Rs. 1,26,16,500 on account of corpus donations received by the appellant, comprising of the following amounts:
9.1. Without prejudice, that the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) failed to appreciate that corpus donation, in any case, represented capital receipt, not liable to tax under the provisions of the Act.
9.2. That the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) erred on facts and in law in failing to appreciate that the contributions received with specific directions, aggregating to Rs. 42,71,84,766, also constituted corpus donations not exigible to tax as under:
-
That the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) erred on facts and in law in holding that the voluntary contribution received by the appellant, including donations received through Yoga Camps and Yoga Samitis were not eligible for exemption under sections 11/12 of the Act.
-
That the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) erred on facts and in law in holding that the appellant received anonymous donations aggregating to Rs. 13,68,99,745 covered under section 115BBC of the Act.
-
That the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) erred on facts and in law in upholding the addition of Rs. 6,52,493, being the value of Tata Sumo (vehicle) received as donation by the appellant.
-
That the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) erred on facts and in law in holding that construction of building on land not owned/registered in the name of the appellant could not be regarded as application of income for charitable purposes.
-
That the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) erred on facts and in law in concluding, on the basis of the findings given in the special audit report, that there were certain irregularities in the books of accounts maintained by the appellant.
-
That the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) erred on facts and in law in disallowing expenditure amounting to Rs. 2,30,60,231, without considering the additional documentary evidence furnished by the appellant during the course of appellate proceedings.
-
That the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) erred on facts and in law in upholding the following additions/disallowances made by the assessing officer, by placing reliance on the findings given in the special audit report:
(a) Disallowance of Rs. 55,34,557 under section 40(a)(ia) of the Act;
(b) Addition of Rs. 1,00,000 on account of alleged donation to Gurukul Amsena
(c) Addition of Rs. 5,54,123 on account of alleged discrepancies in the books of the appellant.
-
That the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) erred on facts and in law in confirming addition of Rs. 1,24,80,000 alleging that the appellant failed to produce documentary evidence in support of delivery of medicines for charitable purpose out of amount received under the disaster relief scheme.
-
That the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) erred on facts and in law in not allowing expenditure incurred by the appellant towards acquisition of capital assets as application of income for charitable purpose
-
That the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) erred on facts and in law in not directing the assessing officer to delete interest charged under 234B of the Act."
-
Heard and considered the arguments advanced by the parties in view of the orders of the authorities below, material available on record and the decisions relied upon.
-
The general facts in brief are that assessee is a public charitable trust duly registered under section 12A vide order dated 14.03.2005 and is also duly approved under section 80G(5)(vi) of the Act vide order dated 27.08.2007. During the year the Assessing Officer in the assessment framed under section 143(3) of the I.T. Act has assessed the income at Rs. 72,37,98,956/- against the returned NIL income after denying exemption under section 11/12 of the Act. The ld. CIT (Appeals) has upheld the same which has resulted in the filing of the present appeal before the Tribunal.
-
At the outset of hearing, the ld. AR pointed out that issues raised in the grounds of the present appeal are almost covered by the decision of Delhi Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Divya Yog Mandir Trust Vs. JCIT in ITA. No. 387/Del./2013.
-
Ground Nos. 1 to 6: These grounds are on the issue of non-applicability of proviso to section 2(15) of the Act.
-
In support of the above grounds the ld. AR submitted that the predominant object of the assessee are to provide medical relief through Prayanam and Yoga and also to impart education in the field of yoga. He referred page Nos. 1 to 14 of the paper book i.e. copy of the trust deed dated 2.02.2005 wherein objects of the trust have been reduced in black and white to support his argument that the assessee was set up as a charitable trust with the following predominant objectives, which have been carried out over the years:
(a) providing medical relief through Yoga/Prayanam;
(b) imparting education in the field of Yoga; &
(c) providing relief to the poor.
On the basis of these objects the assessee was granted registration under section 12A of the Act and was also approved under section 80G(5)(vi) of the Act, which the assessee was enjoying during the year under consideration as well.
The ld. AR submitted that the assessee in accordance with the approved objectives has been consistently pursuing its charitable activities for the past four years including the assessment year under consideration and had always been allowed exemption under section 11/12, including in various assessments completed under section 143(3) of the Act. He asserted that there has been no change in facts during the year under consideration.
6.1 In furtherance of its above charitable objects, the assessee is continuously undertaking the following charitable activities:-
(a) Providing medical relief to various sections of the society, including but not limited to providing free medicines and treatment by organizing various shivirs/camps on a regular basis under the leadership of yoga guru, other trained teachers and teams of doctors.
(b) Conducting programmes and shivirs on a regular basis for propagating yoga and Ayurvedic methods of treatment and also to promote good health;
(c) Conducting yoga classes on a regular basis and in systemized manner so as to provide medical relief and also to impart education in yoga through systematic instructions and training programmes.
It may also be pertinent to mention here that yoga shivirs/camps are organized across the country on daily/weekly/monthly basis in a systemized/organized manner to provide/impart...
To continue reading
Request your trial