COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX Vs. SAI BABA SUPER SPIRITUALITY HOSPITAL TRUST
LAWS(UTN)-2013-2-16
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
Decided on February 28,2013

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX Appellant
VERSUS
Sai Baba Super Spirituality Hospital Trust Respondents

JUDGEMENT

BARIN GHOSH,CJ. - (1.) CONCURRENT findings of fact have been recorded by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), and also, by the Tribunal. It was not urged or contended that the income of the assessee Trust has been used or applied during the relevant assessment year directly or indirectly for the benefit of any person referred to in sub-section (3) of Section 13 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. On the other hand, it was contended that the Trust property was initially purchased under the conveyance in the name of a person associated with the Trust and, later on, a rectification to the conveyance was made to show that the purchase, pursuant to the conveyance, was made by the Trust. It was contended that the same was not permissible as no permission of the Hon'ble High Court was obtained before effecting the rectification; as permission is required for altering the regulations of the Trust. The fact remains that the Trust and the Trust property were situate in the then State of Uttar Pradesh and in the State of Uttar Pradesh, no such permission was required at the relevant time. The decision rendered on this issue by the Tribunal is not sought to be assailed on the basis of any other decision of any superior court. Further, as has already been held by the Tribunal, rectification of a conveyance in relation to a property is not rectification of the regulation of the Trust. The Trust sought benefits of Sections 11 and 12 of the Income Tax Act in respect of the income derived by it from the property in question. That was purported to be denied by the Assessing Officer applying Section 13 of the Income Tax Act. It was not contended that the income of the property was being used for any private religious purpose or for the benefit of any particular religious community or cast. It was also not contended that any income was used for any purpose other than charitable purposes. It was, at the same time, not contended that any income of the property was being used directly or indirectly for the benefit of any person. It was not contended that the income was invested in any of the funds or shares mentioned in Section 13 of the said Act.
(2.) IN the circumstances, two fact finding authorities concurrently held that there is no scope of applying the provisions of Section 13 of the said Act in the instant case. The basic facts of the case remained undisputed. The question is, whether the law thereon was appropriately applied or not? In the background of the facts narrated above, we are unable to hold that the same was not done by the Tribunal. The appeal fails and the same is dismissed.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.