- (1.) Even before the case was taken up, there was a plea for adjournment by the proxy counsel Mr. Parveen Goyal, Advocate, appearing for Mr. S.C. Patela, Advocate, for respondent No.2. The case is of the year, 1991 and the Division Bench, while admitting the case, directed it to be disposed of within 3 months. Two decades have since passed. I cannot allow the case to brook any further delay. I, therefore, proceed to dispose of the case on merits even in the absence of the arguing counsel for respondent No.2.
(2.) The petition challenges the property tax assessment sought to be levied by the Municipal Committee, 2nd respondent herein, on the hospital premises at Ferozepur City. The petitioner is a charitable institution and the income earned through the charities is fully exempt as seen from the proceedings of the Income Tax Officer dated 09.10.1985, where the Income Tax Officer has observed as under: ...Keeping in view all these submissions made by the assessee, firstly there is no element of profit, and the income, if any, of the Institution is exempt under the provisions of Section 10(22A) of the I.T. Act. Secondly, the Institution is covered by 2(15) of the I.T. Act. Considering all these facts the income of the Institution is exempt. The case is accordingly declared N.A. ASSESSED: Issue requisite document.
(3.) It is, therefore, beyond any doubt that the petitioner was a charitable institution and recognized as such by I.T. Department. The assessment made in respect of the property held by the petitioner was the subject of appeal to the Additional Deputy Commissioner, who dismissed the appeal on the ground that the charitable institution was itself not running the hospital, but had rented to a private institution to run the building as a hospital and since it was not run by the same charitable institution, the exemption from property tax cannot apply. It is this order of assessment and the order of the Appellate Authority that are in challenge in this writ petition.;