2017 (3) TMI 979 - HC - Income Tax

Court affirms Tribunal decision for charitable assessee, granting tax exemption under Income Tax Act.

The court affirmed the Tribunal's decision, ruling in favor of the assessee and dismissing the Revenue's appeal. The court held that the assessee's ... Benefit of Sections 11 and 12 denied - the activities of the assessee is in the field of providing medical relief to the animals - charitable activity - Held that:- Considering Section 2 [15] of the Act, there cannot be any distinction between medical relief to the human and medical relief to the animals. As observed hereinabove, as per Section 2 [15] of the Act, any activity of the relief to the poor, eduction, medical relief, preservation of environment [including watersheds, forests and wildlife] can be said to be for “charitable purpose”. It does not say activities of the medical relief to the human being only which can be said to be for “charitable purpose”. Therefore, the language of Section 2 [15] of the Act is very clear. As per the settled proposition of law, any provision under the Statute; more particularly, the benevolent provision of the Statute, is required to be read as it is. Neither there can be any addition nor there can be any deletion, while interpreting a particular statute; more particularly, the benevolent provision. The expression “medical relief ” is required to be given widest meaning so as to achieve the object and purpose of granting exemption to an assessee, whose activities are for “charitable purpose”. It is not in dispute that the assessee's activities includes providing maternity, animal nursery, fertility, vaccination to milch animals belonging to the milk producers. Thus, the assessee's activities are to ensure that milching animals are free from diseases, their breed improvement and overall well-being. Thus, we are of the opinion that activities of the medical relief, even to the animals, will fall under former specific category of “medical relief ” and not covered under the last limb of Section 2 [15] of the Act ie., “advancement of any other object of general public utility”. - Decided in favour of assessee Issues Involved:1. Whether the Appellate Tribunal erred in allowing the assessee's appeal and negating the findings of the CIT (Appeals) and the Assessing Officer regarding the denial of benefits under Section 11 [1](a) of the Income Tax Act.2. Whether the Appellate Tribunal erred in giving the benefit of Sections 11 and 12, which the Assessing Officer disallowed by invoking the provision of Section 2 [15] read with Section 13 [8] of the Act.Detailed Analysis:Issue 1: Tribunal's Decision on Charitable Purpose and Section 11 [1](a) ExemptionThe Tribunal allowed the assessee’s appeal, overturning the CIT (Appeals) and Assessing Officer's decision, which denied the benefits under Section 11 [1](a) of the Income Tax Act. The Tribunal held that the assessee could be considered a 'charitable institution' under Section 2 [15] of the Act and thus entitled to the exemption. The Tribunal's decision was based on the assessee's activities, which included providing medical relief, and determined that the proviso to Section 2 [15] did not apply.The Revenue argued that the assessee's activities were for economic development and constituted a 'public utility service,' falling under the 'advancement of any other object of general public utility' as per Section 2 [15]. Therefore, the proviso to Section 2 [15] should apply, disqualifying the assessee from exemption under Section 11 [1](a).The court examined the definition of 'charitable purpose' under Section 2 [15], which includes relief of the poor, education, medical relief, and the advancement of any other object of general public utility. The court emphasized that the term 'medical relief' should be interpreted broadly to include medical relief to animals, not just humans. The court concluded that the assessee's activities, which included veterinary services, fell under the category of 'medical relief' and not under 'advancement of any other object of general public utility.' Therefore, the proviso to Section 2 [15] did not apply, and the assessee was entitled to the exemption under Section 11 [1](a).Issue 2: Applicability of Sections 11 and 12 BenefitsThe Tribunal granted the benefits of Sections 11 and 12, which the Assessing Officer had disallowed by invoking Section 2 [15] read with Section 13 [8]. The Revenue contended that since the assessee collected Cess from farmers, the activities were commercial, and thus the proviso to Section 2 [15] should apply.The court referred to Circular No. 11/2008, which clarifies that the proviso to Section 2 [15] applies only to entities advancing any other object of general public utility involving commercial activities. Since the assessee's activities fell under 'medical relief,' the proviso did not apply. The court reiterated that the assessee's activities of providing veterinary services and improving livestock health were charitable purposes under the first three limbs of Section 2 [15], and therefore, the assessee was entitled to the benefits under Sections 11 and 12.Conclusion:The court dismissed the Revenue's appeal, affirming that the Tribunal correctly classified the assessee's activities as charitable under Section 2 [15] and entitled to exemption under Section 11 [1](a). The question of law was answered in favor of the assessee and against the Revenue.