TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2013 (6) TMI 165
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....aw Smt. Dipti Deepak Kothari, w/o Sri Deepak Kothari. The object of the Trust is to construct, establish, maintain and support charitable hospitals, nursing homes and dispensaries. 4. The petitioner-Trust claims to be running a public charitable Homoeopathic dispensary in the name of RK Dharmarth Dispensary at 7/169A, Swaroop Nagar, Kanpur. It also claims that it is providing free medical check up to the needy persons, organizing Eye relief camps and is providing the assistance to the Rotary Foundation and also free Ambulance service for transportation of poor and needy patients. 5. It has been granted registration certificate dated 9.7.2003 under section 12-A of the Act. It also enjoys the sanction under section 80-G of the Act vide certificate dated 9.7.2003 for the period 1.4.2003 to 31.3.2006. 6. The petitioner Trust claims to have purchase property No.24/146-A by sale deed dated 5.4.2004 and adjoining property No. 24/146B, Patkapur, Kanpur by sale deed dated 27.3.2004. It claims to have raised constructions on the land so purchased during May, 2004 to September, 2005. 7. According to the petitioner, the aforesaid constructions made by it are for the purpose of open....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he present writ petition has been filed. 10. We have heard Sri Ashish Bansal, counsel for the petitioner and Sri RK Upadhyaya, counsel for the Income Tax Department. 11. Sri Ashish Bansal, counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that the construction of the building from the corpus of the Trust does not ipso facto militate against charitable nature of the trust. He further contended that the conclusion arrived by the CIT that the petitioner-Trust is pre dominantly engaged in the business of constructing the commercial property is manifestly incorrect. According to him, the utilization of the corpus of the Trust to generate income to fulfil the object of the Trust cannot be said to be a commercial activity. He vehemently urged that the letting out of a small portion of the newly constructed building is to augment the income of the Trust and which will be utilized for charitable purpose. It does not denude the petitioner of it's charitable character. 12. He further submitted that the petitioner-Trust was in the process of obtaining requisite permission for running charitable hospital from the remaining part of the newly constructed building and there was no justifica....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ippled persons, to give money to the persons affected by flood and other natural calamity etc. The original corpus at the time of settlement was Rs. 5000/- and it appears that over the years it had multiplied several times on account of donation received by the Trust. According to the finding recorded in the impugned order, the corpus donation received by the Trust upto 31.5.2005 was a sum of Rs. 88,96,311/- and a major portion out of it, i.e, Rs.48,80,000/- was spent in constructing a four storied building over municipal No. 24/146, Patkapur, Kanpur. These figures have not been disputed by the petitioner. Further finding has been recorded in the impugned order that only a meagre sum has been spend by the petitioner for the charitable purpose. The finding is that during the year 2004-2005, the petitioner has spent only an amount of Rs.5,271/- on the medicines while other expenses included electricity expenses of Rs. 14,537/-, fees of Rs. 2200/- and salary payment of Rs. 36000/- and printing and stationary Rs. 400/-. Similarly for the financial year 2003-04, a meagre amount of Rs. 4,156/- has been spend on purchase of medicines. Perusal of the profit and loss account for financial y....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he said premises consisting of 1500 sq. feet area to M/s VV Industries Limited at the monthly rent of Rs. 1500/- only. 17. This court cannot shut its eyes to the fact that 1500 sq feet of commercial space in a building admittedly situate in a dense commercial area has been let out on a meagre rent of Rs. 1500/- per month only. Though the court is not recording any conclusive finding in this regard as it may prejudice the case of the petitioner which it might take in respect to the show cause notice issued to it under section 12-A of the Act, but it is quite discernible that the petitioner Trust has not genuinely applied its fund for charitable purpose. Needless to say that raising construction of commercial property is not the object of the Trust. In such circumstances, the finding recorded in the impugned order by CIT refusing to extend exemption under section 80-G cannot be said to be perverse, nor suffer from any error apparent on the face of the record and does not call for any interference from this Court. 18. The counsel for the petitioner during course of his argument has placed reliance on the decision of the Apex Court in CIT Vs. Thanthi Trust (2001) 247 ITR 785 wher....