Shushrusha Citizens’ Co-operative Hospital Ltd. v. CIT (2023) 202 ITD 443/ (2024) 228 TTJ 840 (Mum) (Trib.)

S. 10(23C) : Medical institution-Hospital-Failure to follow the direction of High Court-Order of commissioner rejecting the exemption is set aside. [S.10(22A, 10(23C(iiiac), 10(23C) (iiiae), 10(23C)(via)]

Assessee, a co-operative society was formed to give members of society and citizens better medical facilities at reasonable charges and provide decent hospital facilities, dispensaries, and other up-to-date scientific medical and surgical amenities.  It enjoyed benefit under section 10(22A) and in past, applications made by assessee under section 10(23C) were also accepted. Assessee filed an application for continuation of registration under section 10(23C)(via)-Commissioner (E) rejected said application on ground that there was no system prevailing of reserving beds for poor or indigent patients and amounts spent on patients belonging to economically weaker societies was on an average only 0.93 per cent of total receipts for last 4 years.  On writ High Court held that it is  necessary for Commissioner to look into entire record for ascertaining income received by assessee from beds/rooms provided in hospital. Further, it is  necessary for Commissioner to ascertain as to how many patients, treatment was rendered either free of cost or at a concessional rate. High Court  remitted matter back to Commissioner (E) for fresh consideration of application for registration under section 10(23C)(via). On remand Commissioner (E) rejected application for continuation of registration under section 10(23C)(via). On appeal the Tribunal held that on  pursuant to remand by High Court, assessee submitted all necessary information to Commissioner (E), like details of total no. of patients admitted year-wise; total amount collected from patients; details availing discounts offered for poor patients; details availing discount offered for indigent patients; details of occupation of beds etc., but Commissioner (E) without examining all these aspects, as directed by High Court, had reiterated its findings regarding non-earmarking of any beds for indigent and weaker sections, which was held to be not a correct test by High Court. Since directions of High Court had not been complied with by Commissioner (E), Tribunal   restored the issue to file of Commissioner (E) for de novo adjudication as per directions of High Court. (AY. 2019-20)

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*