Manav Sewa Samiti, Ratlam v. The C I T,

ITA 77/IND/2009 | misc
Pronouncement Date: 18-05-2010 | Result: Allowed

Appeal Details

RSA Number 7722714 RSA 2009
Assessee PAN AAAAM4918L
Bench Indore
Appeal Number ITA 77/IND/2009
Duration Of Justice 1 year(s) 2 month(s) 24 day(s)
Appellant Manav Sewa Samiti, Ratlam
Respondent The C I T,
Appeal Type Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date 18-05-2010
Appeal Filed By Assessee
Order Result Allowed
Bench Allotted SMC
Tribunal Order Date 18-05-2010
Assessment Year misc
Appeal Filed On 24-02-2009
Judgment Text
1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL INDORE SMC BENCH INDORE BEFORE SHRI JOGINDER SINGH JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO.77/IND/2009 UNDER SECTION 80G (5) OF THE I.T. ACT MANAV SEWA SAMITI ROOM NO.1 NAGRIK VISHRAM GRIH COLLEGE ROAD RATLAM PAN AAAAM 4918 L ..APPELLANT V/S. CIT-UJJAIN ..RESPONDENT APPELLANT BY : SHRI P.N. DIXIT & SUPRIYA DIXIT DEPARTMENT BY : SMT. APARNA KARAN SR. DR ORDER THIS APPEAL IS BY THE ASSESSEE CHALLENGING THE ORD ER OF THE LD. CIT DATED 22.12.2008 PASSED U/S 80G OF THE ACT. DURING HEARING OF THIS APPEAL I HAVE HEARD THE LD. RESPECTIVE COUNSEL AND CONSIDERED THE ARGUMENTS ADVANCED BY THEM. THE CRUX OF ARGUMENTS O N BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE IS THAT THE ASSESSEE IS A SAMITI/SOCIETY R UNNING A BLOOD BANK BY COLLECTING THE BLOOD FREE OF COST AND AFTER PROC ESSING THE SAME 2 SUPPLYING TO THE NEEDY PATIENTS AS PER THE RECOMMEN DATION OF GOVERNMENT AND PRIVATE HOSPITALS/NURSING HOMES. IT WAS PLEADED THAT THE FINDING IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER THAT THE ASSESSEE IS SELLING THE BLOOD IS FACTUALLY INCORRECT AS THE ASSESSEE IS ONLY CHAR GING PROCESSING FEE WHICH IS INCURRED FOR PROCESSING THE BLOOD. IT WAS ALSO POINTED OUT THAT THE PROCEEDINGS WHICH WERE STARTED FOR CANCELLATION OF REGISTRATION U/S 12AA OF THE ACT BY THE LD. COMMISSIONER WERE DROPPE D FOR WHICH MY ATTENTION WAS INVITED TO PAGES 13 & 48 OF THE PAPER BOOK. ON THE OTHER HAND THE LD. SR. DR STRONGLY DEFENDED THE IM PUGNED ORDER BY CONTENDING THAT THE ASSESSEE SAMITI IS INVOLVED IN SALE OF BLOOD THEREFORE IT IS NEITHER DOING ANY MEDICAL RELIEF N OR FALLS UNDER ADVANCEMENT OF ANY OBJECT OF GENERAL PUBLIC UTILITY . 2. I HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERU SED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON FILE. BRIEF FACTS ARE THAT THE ASSESSE E IS A SOCIETY ENGAGED IN COLLECTING BLOOD FROM VARIOUS PERSONS AND AFTER PROCESSING THE SAME CLAIMING THAT IT IS SUPPLYING TO THE NEEDY PERSONS ON THE RECOMMENDATION OF GOVERNMENT AND PRIVATE HOSPITALS/ NURSING HOMES. THE STAND OF THE LD. SR. DR IS THAT THE ASSESSEE IS INVOLVED IN SALE OF BLOOD THEREFORE THERE IS NO ADVANCEMENT OF ANY OB JECT OF GENERAL PUBLIC UTILITY. THE IMPUGNED ORDER WAS PASSED ON TH E BASIS THAT THE ASSESSEE IS ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF COLLECTION A ND SALE OF BLOOD AT A 3 PRICE AND IS EVEN CHARGING DONATION FROM THE RELATI VES OF THE PATIENTS. ON A QUERY FROM THE BENCH REGARDING LETTER DATED 6. 8.2008 REGARDING LETTER OF THE ASSESSEE AND THE RESOLUTION OF THE SA MITI DATED 23.3.2008 IT WAS CONTENDED THAT IT WAS FOR THE PURPOSE OF AVO IDING LITIGATION. THE CRUX OF ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE IS THAT THE AMOUNT WAS CHARGED AS PER THE NORMS PRESCRIBED BY THE COMPETEN T AUTHORITY. HOWEVER NO SUCH FINDING IS THERE IN THE IMPUGNED O RDER WHETHER THE ASSESSEE SOCIETY WAS CHARGING AS PER THE PERMISSIBL E LIMIT PRESCRIBED BY ANY COMPETENT AUTHORITY. THEREFORE IN THE ABSEN CE OF SUCH FINDING THIS FILE IS REMANDED BACK TO THE FILE OF THE LD. CIT FOR FRESH ADJUDICATION IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW. NEEDLESS TO ME NTION HERE THAT DUE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD BE PROVIDED TO THE A SSESSEE WITH FURTHER LIBERTY TO FURNISH EVIDENCE IF ANY TO SUB STANTIATE ITS CLAIM. IT IS MADE CLEAR THAT IF THE LD. CIT FINDS THAT THE AS SESSEE IS ACTUALLY ENGAGED IN ILLEGAL ACTIVITY BY CHARGING THE AMOUNT IN UNDESIRED/UNAUTHORISED MANNER EITHER FROM THE PATIE NTS OR FROM THEIR RELATIVES BEYOND PRESCRIBED LIMIT THEN HE/SHE IS FR EE TO TAKE THE DECISION IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW UNINFLUENCED BY THE ARGUMENTS ADVANCED BEFORE THIS TRIBUNAL. RESULTANTLY THIS APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWE D FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES ONLY. 4 ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT IN THE PRESENC E OF LD. REPRESENTATIVES OF BOTH SIDES AT THE CONCLUSION OF THE HEARING ON 18.5.2010. (JOGINDER SINGH) JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED: 18.5.2010 !VYAS! COPY TO: APPELLANT/RESPONDENT/CIT/CIT(A)/DR/GUARD F ILE