Medical relief and section 12AB renewal cannot be denied on receipts alone, and retrospective cancellation was quashed.

For a charitable hospital providing medical relief, renewal under section 12AB could not be refused merely because of receipts, patient volumes, treatment costs, salary expenditure or scale of operations; medical relief is an independent charitable head under section 2(15), and such factors did not by themselves prove profit motive or lack of genuineness. The Commissioner also could not independently find a breach of section 41AA of the Maharashtra Public Trusts Act, 1950 or the Indigent Patients' Fund Scheme without any adverse finding by the competent authority, and a lower percentage of indigent patients treated was insufficient absent proof of refusal of eligible patients. Retrospective cancellation from the original grant date was unsustainable in renewal proceedings and was quashed.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether a charitable hospital engaged in medical relief could be denied renewal of registration under section 12AB of the Income-tax Act, 1961 on the basis of its receipts, patient statistics, treatment costs, salary expenditure and alleged profit motive; (ii) whether the Commissioner could independently hold that the assessee violated section 41AA of the Maharashtra Public Trusts Act, 1950 and the Indigent Patients' Fund Scheme in the absence of any adverse determination by the competent authority; and (iii) whether retrospective cancellation of the existing registration from the date of original grant was sustainable in renewal proceedings.

Issue (i): whether a charitable hospital engaged in medical relief could be denied renewal of registration under section 12AB of the Income-tax Act, 1961 on the basis of its receipts, patient statistics, treatment costs, salary expenditure and alleged profit motive

Analysis: Medical relief was held to be an independent charitable head under section 2(15) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, and the proviso relating to advancement of any other object of general public utility could not be mechanically imported into such a case. The scale of hospital operations, charging of fees, maintenance of infrastructure, employment of staff, average revenue per bed and accumulation of funds did not by themselves establish a profit motive or negate genuineness. The statute did not prescribe any affordability benchmark, cap on receipts or fixed model of healthcare delivery for renewal under section 12AB.

Conclusion: The denial of renewal on the ground of commerciality and non-genuineness was unsustainable and was set aside in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): whether the Commissioner could independently hold that the assessee violated section 41AA of the Maharashtra Public Trusts Act, 1950 and the Indigent Patients' Fund Scheme in the absence of any adverse determination by the competent authority

Analysis: The jurisdiction under section 12AB did not permit the Commissioner to assume the role of the authority entrusted with enforcing the Maharashtra Public Trusts Act, 1950. In the absence of any order, direction or adverse finding by the competent authority under that enactment, the Commissioner could not independently declare a violation of section 41AA or the Indigent Patients' Fund Scheme and use it as a basis to reject renewal. A lower actual percentage of indigent or weaker section patients treated, without proof that eligible patients were refused admission or treatment, was also held insufficient to establish non-compliance.

Conclusion: The finding of violation of section 41AA of the Maharashtra Public Trusts Act, 1950 and the scheme was rejected in favour of the assessee.

Issue (iii): whether retrospective cancellation of the existing registration from the date of original grant was sustainable in renewal proceedings

Analysis: Retrospective cancellation carried serious civil and fiscal consequences and could not be ordered merely because renewal was rejected. There was no finding of fraud, misrepresentation, concealment or voidness at inception. Proceeding on an application for renewal could not be converted into a proceeding for annulment of the original registration from its inception.

Conclusion: The retrospective cancellation of registration was held to be unsustainable and was quashed in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The impugned order was set aside, the rejection of renewal and the retrospective cancellation were quashed, and the registration was directed to continue and be renewed in accordance with law.

Ratio Decidendi: For institutions providing medical relief, charitable status under section 2(15) and renewal under section 12AB cannot be denied merely on the basis of receipts or operational scale, and the Commissioner cannot independently enforce another statute or order retrospective cancellation absent a legally established violation by the competent authority.

---