Full Text
1.
DIRECTOR OFINCOMETAX-(EXEMPTION) Appellant
Through: Mr. Kamal Sawhney, Senior Standing counsel with Mr, Raghvendra K. Singh, Mr. Shikhar Garg and Mr.Sharad Agarwal,Advocates.
2.
DIRECTOR OFINCOMETAX-(EXEMPTION) Appellant
Through: Mr. Kamal Sawhney, Senior Standing counsel with Mr. Raghvendra K. Singh, Mr.Shikhar Garg and Mr. Sharad Agarwal, Advocates.
04.01.2016 CM No.31872/2015(for condonation ofdelay in re-filing the petition!&
ITA No.1021/2015 ITA Nos.1021/2015&1022/2015 Page1of4
2016:DHC:8445-DB > CM No.31874/2015(for condonation ofdelay in re-filing the petition)&
ITANo.1022/2015
ORDER
1. 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 bythis Courtfor e-filing ofthe appeals. As has already been observed by this Court in several orders, the practice directions were issued after consultation with the bar and after giving sufficient time for the bar to get acquainted with the requirement ofe-filing. Additionally,the Court has also provided scanning machines at the filing counter so that no difficulty is caused to the bar for switching over to the system ofe-filing. In any event, the delay of655 days on this ground is wholly unacceptable. Consequently, the Courtis not persuaded to condone the extraordinary delay of655 days in re-filing these appeals.
2. Nevertheless,the appeals have also been examined on merits.
3. These are appeals under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ('Act')by the Revenue against a common order dated 19 July 2013 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal('ITAT')in ITA No.2261/Del/2010 forthe AssessmentYears('AYs')2005-06 and 2006-07. ITA Nos.1021/2015&1022/2015 Page2of[4] H
4. The ITAT has followed the earlier order passed by the ITAT in the case ofthe same Assessee for AY 2008-09 where the dismissal was on account of low tax effect. However, 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 essential point raised is that the Respondent Assessee,which is a Trustregistered under Section 12AA ofthe Act, has by virtue ofan operation and maintenance agreement entered into with Fortis Healthcare Limited ('FHL') on 29^ October 2013, transferred control ofthe Trustto FHL and by virtue ofthe said agreementhas agreed to pay managementfees at35%ofthe gross billings ofthe hospital to FHL.
5. The Commissioner ofIncome Tax(Appeals)['CIT(A)']has in the order dated 26 February 2010, common to both AYs, disagreed with the Assessing Officer ('AO') and held that there is no evidence to show that there has been any siphoning off of fiinds and that by virtue of the agreement control ofthe Trust has been transferred to FHL.
6. On the facts ofthe present case, therefore, the Court is not inclined to frame any question oflaw as has been urged by the Revenue.Nevertheless, the Court would leave the questions open for consideration in an appropriate ITA Nos.1021/2015&1022/2015 Page3of[4] > case.
7. The appeals are accordingly dismissed both on grounds of the extraordinary delay of665 daysin re-filing the appeals as well as on merits.
JANUARY 4,2016 dn S.MURALIDHAR,J VIBHUBAKHRU,J