Director of Income-tax-(Exemption) v. R.B.Seth Jessa Ram & Bros. Charitable Hospital Trust
[Citation -2016-LL-0104-7]

Citation 2016-LL-0104-7
Appellant Name Director of Income-tax-(Exemption)
Respondent Name R.B.Seth Jessa Ram & Bros. Charitable Hospital Trust
Court HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Relevant Act Income-tax
Date of Order 04/01/2016
Assessment Year 2005-06
Judgment View Judgment
Keyword Tags operation and maintenance agreement • condonation of delay
Bot Summary: There is an extraordinary delay of 655 days in re-filing these appeals. The explanation offered is the standard one regarding the practice directions issued by this Court for e-filing of the appeals. The Court is not persuaded to condone the extraordinary delay of 655 days in re-filing these appeals. The appeals have also been examined on merits. These are appeals under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 by the Revenue against a common order dated 19th July 2013 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal in ITA No. 2261/Del/2010 for the Assessment Years 2005-06 and 2006-07. In the said order, the ITAT took note of the decision for AY 2004-05 which involved the same question as has been raised in the present appeals. The appeals are accordingly dismissed both on grounds of the extraordinary delay of 665 days in re-filing the appeals as well as on merits.


$ * IN HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI 1. + ITA 1021/2015 DIRECTOR OF INCOMETAX-(EXEMPTION) ..... Appellant Through: Mr. Kamal Sawhney, Senior Standing counsel with Mr. Raghvendra K. Singh, Mr. Shikhar Garg and Mr. Sharad Agarwal, Advocates. versus R.B. SETH JESSA RAM & BROS. CHARITABLE HOSPITAL TRUST ..... Respondent AND 2. + ITA 1022/2015 DIRECTOR OF INCOMETAX-(EXEMPTION) ..... Appellant Through: Mr. Kamal Sawhney, Senior Standing counsel with Mr. Raghvendra K. Singh, Mr.Shikhar Garg and Mr. Sharad Agarwal, Advocates. versus R.B. SETH JESSA RAM & BROS. CHARITABLE HOSPITAL TRUST ..... Respondent CORAM: JUSTICE S. MURALIDHAR JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU ORDER % 04.01.2016 CM No. 31872/2015 (for condonation of delay in re-filing petition) & ITA No. 1021/2015 ITA Nos. 1021/2015 & 1022/2015 Page 1 of 4 CM No. 31874/2015 (for condonation of delay in re-filing petition) & ITA No. 1022/2015 1. There is extraordinary delay of 655 days in re-filing these appeals. explanation offered is standard one regarding practice directions issued by this Court for e-filing of appeals. As has already been observed by this Court in several orders, practice directions were issued after consultation with bar and after giving sufficient time for bar to get acquainted with requirement of e-filing. Additionally, Court has also provided scanning machines at filing counter so that no difficulty is caused to bar for switching over to system of e-filing. In any event, delay of 655 days on this ground is wholly unacceptable. Consequently, Court is not persuaded to condone extraordinary delay of 655 days in re-filing these appeals. 2. Nevertheless, appeals have also been examined on merits. 3. These are appeals under Section 260A of Income Tax Act, 1961 ( Act ) by Revenue against common order dated 19th July 2013 passed by Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) in ITA No. 2261/Del/2010 for Assessment Years ( AYs ) 2005-06 and 2006-07. ITA Nos. 1021/2015 & 1022/2015 Page 2 of 4 4. ITAT has followed earlier order passed by ITAT in case of same Assessee for AY 2008-09 where dismissal was on account of low tax effect. However, in said order, ITAT took note of decision for AY 2004-05 which involved same question as has been raised in present appeals. essential point raised is that Respondent Assessee, which is Trust registered under Section 12AA of Act, has by virtue of operation and maintenance agreement entered into with Fortis Healthcare Limited ( FHL ) on 29th October 2013, transferred control of Trust to FHL and by virtue of said agreement has agreed to pay management fees at 35% of gross billings of hospital to FHL. 5. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [ CIT (A) ] has in order dated 26th February 2010, common to both AYs, disagreed with Assessing Officer ( AO ) and held that there is no evidence to show that there has been any siphoning off of funds and that by virtue of agreement control of Trust has been transferred to FHL. 6. On facts of present case, therefore, Court is not inclined to frame any question of law as has been urged by Revenue. Nevertheless, Court would leave questions open for consideration in appropriate ITA Nos. 1021/2015 & 1022/2015 Page 3 of 4 case. 7. appeals are accordingly dismissed both on grounds of extraordinary delay of 665 days in re-filing appeals as well as on merits. S. MURALIDHAR, J VIBHU BAKHRU, J JANUARY 4, 2016 dn ITA Nos. 1021/2015 & 1022/2015 Page 4 of 4 Director of Income-tax-(Exemption) v. R.B.Seth Jessa Ram & Bros. Charitable Hospital Trust
Report Error