Central India Institute Of ... vs Union Of India, Through Ministry ...
2015 Latest Caselaw 558 Bom

    Judgment                                                                      wp1307.14
                                            1




                  IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY




                                                                             
                            NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.




                                                     
                           WRIT PETITION  No.  1307  OF  2014. 




                                                    
    Central India Institute of Medical
    Sciences, 88/2. Bajaj Nagar, Nagpur,
    through its Director, Dr. Girdhar s/o
    Madanlal Taori, aged about 82




                                           
    Years, Occupation - Medical Practitioner,
    r/o. 33, Central Bazar Road, 
    Ramdaspeth, Nagpur - 440 010.                     ....    PETITIONER.
                                
                                         VERSUS


    1.Union of India,
       

    through Ministry of Finance,
    Department of Revenue, (CBDT)
    



    New Delhi.

    2.The Chief Commissioner of
    Income Tax, Vidarbha Region,





    Civil Lines, Nagpur.                              ....     RESPONDENTS . 





                             ----------------------------------- 
         Mr. A.M. Gordey, Senior Advocate with Shri N.S. Bhattad, Advocate 
                                      for Petitioner.
                    Mr. Rohit Deo, A.S.G.I. for Respondent No.1.
                Mr. Anand Parchure, Advocate for Respondent No.2.
                             ------------------------------------




        ::: Uploaded on - 21/11/2015                 ::: Downloaded on - 23/11/2015 23:58:54 :::
     Judgment                                                                               wp1307.14
                                                   2



                                        CORAM :   B.P.  DHARMADHIKARI




                                                                                      
                                                       & P. N. DESHMUKH, JJ.

    Date of Reserving the Judgment             :               07.10.2015.

    Date of Pronouncement                      :               21.11.2015.




                                                             
    JUDGMENT.   (Per B.P. Dharmadhikari, J)




                                               

Petitioner, a Society registered under the provisions of Societies

Registration Act, and a Public Charitable Trust, registered under the

provisions of Maharashtra Public Charitable Trust Act, 1950, has questioned

the rejection by respondents of its prayer to grant it approval under Section

35[1][ii] of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as "the 1961

Act" for short), by order dated 23.12.2013. This order is passed by

respondent no.1 - Government of India through its Deputy Secretary, and

respondent no.2 is Chief Commissioner of Income Tax for Vidarbha Region.

2. Perusal of the impugned order shows that petitioner was earlier

granted approval after holding that it qualifies as an "other institution" as

employed in that section. Rejection in impugned order is after holding that

the petitioner - organization is mainly involved in running hospital and no

education is imparted by it. It does not itself award/confer Ph.D. Degree

Judgment wp1307.14

upon anybody, and is not involved in significant educational activities.

3. It appears that this is second round of litigation. In first round,

order dated 22.10.2010 passed by the Director (ITA-II), was quashed and set

aside by this Court in Writ Petition No. 5956/2010 on 17.11.2011. That order

was set aside in view of the conclusion that application for approval needed

to be considered only by the Central Government and the Director (ITA-II)

has no such power.

4. We have heard Shri A.M. Gordey, learned Senior Advocate with

Shri N.S. Bhattad, learned counsel for petitioner, Shri Rohit Deo, learned

A.S.G.I. for respondent no.1 and Shri Anand Parchure, learned counsel for

respondent no.2.

5. Petitioner claims that it is established in the year 1984 and

carries on research activities, as also hospital activities on the donations

received from general donors. It is recognized as a Charitable and Research

Institute under Section 80G Income Tax Act and donors are entitled to claim

deductions accordingly. It does not get any assistance directly or indirectly

from the Government. It received donation of about 8 Crores. It is providing

research facility to Post-graduate students who are pursuing their Ph.D.

Judgment wp1307.14

Courses in various Universities, and 7 students are taking advantage of that

facility. It has also supplied list of students, who have already obtained Ph.D.

Degrees on the basis of research work conducted by them at the petitioner -

institute. It also has 4 registered patents in medicine issued by the Office of

the Controller of Patents Designs and Trade Marks under Patent and Designs

Act.

6. It was granted approval by respondent no.1 under Section 35[1]

[ii] of the 1961 Act, and it accordingly fulfilled all the terms and conditions

therefor. It is approved by the Central Government through its Department of

Science and Technology as Scientific and Industrial Research Organization.

Such an approval has been granted on 23.04.2011 for the period from

01.04.2011 to 31.03.2014. During pendency of this petition, it has received

recognition on 09.05.2014 for further period upto 31.03.2017. Petitioner

had sought approval in terms of Section 35[1][ii] of the Act and respondent

no.1 granted it since the year 1984. Last such approval was given on

15.11.2006, for a period from 01.04.2005 upto 31.03.2008. Petitioner

sought its renewal on 14.12.2007, and respondent no.1 raised certain queries

on 15.09.2008. Petitioner submitted compliance therewith on 23.09.2008.

Respondent no.2 then forwarded a favourable recommendation to respondent

no.1, but, request for extension of approval was rejected by respondent no.1

Judgment wp1307.14

on 27.04.2009, on the ground that petitioner Trust was not maintaining

separate books of accounts for research activity. According to petitioner, this

was factually incorrect. This rejection was questioned in Writ Petition

No.5956/2010, and the impugned communication was set aside on

17.11.2011. Thereafter, respondent no.1 granted opportunity to the

petitioner and vide order dated 20.06.2012, refused to extend the approval.

Petitioner points out that this order has infact been passed after expiry of

period for which the approval was sought for.

7. In the meanwhile, petitioner also applied for further approval

w.e.f. 01.04.2012 onwards. After a long gap on 27.04.2013, respondent no.1

called upon petitioner to submit clarification on certain issues, and also

sought explanation. Petitioner communicated compliance on 06.08.2013. On

18.11.2013, respondent no.1 asked for certain more compliances. Petitioner

duly fulfilled it, and thereafter impugned order dated 23.12.2013 came to be

passed.

8. In this background, Shri Gordey, learned Senior Counsel submits

that the reasons given in the impugned order overlook the fact that earlier

approval was granted by recognizing petitioner institute as 'other institute'

falling under Section 35[1][ii] of the Act, and reasons recorded in the

Judgment wp1307.14

impugned order are therefore, unsustainable. Students registered with

Nagpur University and a Deemed University perform research work in the

petitioner Institution and that research work is recognized by these

Universities for award of Ph.D. Degrees. A document at Annexure-P-4 is

relied upon to show that 8 doctors have been awarded Ph.D. Degrees by the

Nagpur University and the deemed University by name Datta Meghe

Institute of Medical Science University. 7 doctors are undertaking research

activities and they are registered for Ph.D. with above mentioned deemed

University under a guide duly recognized for that purpose. The Patent Office

of Government of India has issued Patent No.221910 dated 29.01.2004,

Patent No.219414 dated 22.03.2006 and Patent No.2214547 dated

08.03.2006 to petitioner Institute or to Dr. Lokendra Singh, who is one of its

Medical Officers. These patents are in relation to the new inventions carried

out in petitioner institution. Document at Annexure-P-15 is also pressed into

service to show the research projects already undertaken and in proposed.

9. In the light of this material, learned Senior Counsel invites

attention to the terms "Research Association", a "University", a "College" and

"other Institution" used in and distinction between them as envisaged under

Section 35[1][ii] of the 1961 Act. He submits that educational activity is not

essential in the scheme of said provision and primacy is given to research

Judgment wp1307.14

activities. According to him, petitioner has got faculty, as also facility to enroll

and guide research Ph.D. students and thus, there is sufficient compliance

with Section 35[1][ii] of the 1961 Act. Our attention is also invited to the

fact that separate forms of applications are provided for scientific research

association (on one hand) and for university, college or other institution, on

the other. He relies upon press release dated 03.11.2006, to point out that

CBDT has streamlined the procedure and now it is one time approval and it is

not necessary for the institute like the petitioner, to its renewal every year.

10. Shri Gorde further points out that the provision made in Section

35[1] is a beneficial provision which needs a liberal interpretation. He urges

that as for earlier years, approval under Section 35[1][ii] was already

granted; the same needs to be continued even in future. He has relied upon

certain judgments to buttress his submissions on construction of phrase

"other institution". We find it convenient to refer to those judgments little

later, at appropriate place.

11. Shri Deo, learned A.S.G.I., as also Shri Parchure, learned

Counsel, support the impugned order. Shri Parchure, learned counsel points

out that exemption under Section 35[1] is granted after due compliance with

the terms and conditions prescribed therefor, and is notified accordingly in

Judgment wp1307.14

Official Gazette by Central Government. This exemption or certificate is not

issued in respect of a hospital, and recognition given by the Central

Government as Scientific and Industrial Research Organization, is in different

context and not sufficient to demand approval under Section 35[1][ii]. Shri

Parchure, learned counsel submits that word "Research Association" has been

introduced in section 35[1] on 01.04.2011. Our attention is also invited to

Rule 5A of the 1962 Rules, to urge that research needs to be carried through

faculty and students. It is submitted that the petitioner does not have either

faculties or the enrolled students. By inviting attention to the impugned

order , learned counsel submits that negligible amount has been spent on

research activities. Section 2[17] of 1961 Act is further pointed out with

stand that a company is not entitled to deduction under Clause 1, unless it

enters into an agreement with prescribed Authority for cooperation in such

research and development facilities and for audit of accounts maintained by

that faculty. He places reliance upon Section 35[3] for this purpose.

He further invites attention to affidavit filed in reply in present

matter by the respondents and particularly paragraph no.7 thereof to point

out the lacunae noticed in the claim of petitioner. He therefore, prays for

dismissal of the writ petition.

Judgment wp1307.14

12. After brief reply arguments advanced on behalf of the petitioner,

Shri Parchure, learned counsel invites attention to the provisions in

Maharashtra Universities Act to explain what words "College, University or

institution" imply. He has also relied upon certain judgments to substantiate

his contentions.

13. Section 35 of the 1961 Act is on expenditure on scientific

research. It allows deductions as specified therein in respect of expenditure

on scientific research. Sub-clause [ii] therein regulates such deductions if

expenditure supporting such specific deduction is by a research association

which has as its object, the undertaking of scientific research or by a

University, College or other institution, to be used for scientific research.

14. One of the questions before this Court is how to construe the

word "other institution". In (2012) 6 SCC 339 (Commissioner of Customs

(import) Mumbai .vs. Konkan Synthetic Fibres), the Hon'ble Supreme

Court has considered principles governing interpretation of CBEC

Notifications /Circulars/Guidelines etc. In paragraph no.12, the Hon'ble

Supreme Court has noted that all beneficial notifications providing the levy of

duty at a concessional rate should be given a liberal interpretation. The

notification regarding exemption generally warrants strict interpretation, but,

Judgment wp1307.14

when purpose of exemption is to encourage or promote certain activities, the

exemption is beneficial and it should be liberally interpreted. The Hon'ble

Supreme Court has relied upon its earlier judgment reported at (2011) 12

SCC 74-Commissioner of Customs (preventive) .vs. M. Ambalal and Co., to

reach these conclusions. In paragraph no.13, 14 and 15 discussion in this

respect is seen. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in paragraph no.14 points out

that without doing violence to the language employed, liberal interpretation

should be accorded. It is also explained in paragraph no.15 that if a question

arises whether a subject falls in the notification or in the exemption clause,

then it being in the nature of exemption is to be construed strictly and against

the subject. But, once ambiguity or doubt about applicability is lifted, and a

subject falls in the notification, then full play should be given to it and it calls

for a wider and liberal interpretation.

15. In (1988) 27 ITD 581 (Allahabad) (U.P.Electronics

Corporation Ltd .vrs. Inspecting Assistant Commissioner), the Allahabad

High Court considers provisions of said Section 35, qua, a Corporation whose

main object was to promote Electronic Industry and to prepare project report

for entrepreneurs engaged in the business of electronic items. For preparation

of such project report that Corporation undertook research and development

work. Allahabad High Court held that the Corporation was entitled to

Judgment wp1307.14

exemption under Section 35. The contention of Corporation before the High

Court was that the assessee Corporation incurred expenditure on research and

its result was passed on to the subsidiary companies for use in carrying out

certain works. It was noted that specifically for such purpose that

Corporation itself was formed.

In (2005) 93 ITD 223 (Delhi) (Shri Ram Scientific and

Industrial Research Foundation .vrs. Additional Director of Income Tax),

the Delhi High Court has looked into provisions of Section 10[21], as also

Section 35[1][ii] of the 1961 Act. In the process it has found that scientific

research associations are one type of organization covered under Section 35.

Such associations have Research as its sole object. The other type of

institutions i.e. University, College or other institution use the money for

scientific research and are not solely established to carry scientific research,

but, may carry it out along with other activities for which they are

established. In paragraph no.8, the Delhi High Court has followed the

principles of ejusdem generis, and held that the expression "other institution"

will take colour from expressing preceding it. Such Other institution

therefore, imparts education in any discipline and in addition may carry out

scientific research.

Judgment wp1307.14

16. Shri Parchure, learned counsel has relied upon a judgment of

Gujarat High Court reported at (1993) 66 Taxman 411 (Gujarat)

(Commissioner of Income Tax .vrs. Sorabji Nusserwanji Parekh), which

considers provision exemption in Section 10[22] of the 1961 Act. As per that

provision any income of university or other educational institution existing

solely for educational purposes and not for the purpose of profit, cannot be

included while computing total income. Thus Section 10[22] does not use

the words "other institution", but, it employs words "other educational

institution". Hence, emphasis on education in scheme of said exemption is

apparent. It is not useful to understand Section 35(1)(ii) with which we are

concerned here.

(1997) 90 Taxman 528 (SC) (Aditnar Educational

Institution .vrs. Additional Commissioner of Income Tax), is the judgment

of Hon'ble Supreme Court relied upon by him. Said judgment again considers

Section 10[22].

Madras High Court has in (1984) 18 Taxman 221 (Madras)

(Commissioner of Income Tax .vrs. Devi Educational Institution), again

looked into Section 10[22] only. In paragraph no.9, the Madras High Court

has found that it is not necessary that all educational activities referred to in

Judgment wp1307.14

the Trust Deed should be performed or established and benefit of Section

10[22] can be availed, if some educational activities have been carried on and

the same have been laid on a permanent footing.

Judgment of Delhi High Court in case of Shri Ram Scientific and

Industrial Research Foundation .vrs. Additional Director of Income Tax (supra),

looks into the exemption provision of Section 10[21] of the 1961 Act. Delhi

High Court notes that Section 10[21] exempts only a scientific research

association and does not deal with the University, a College or other

institution. It has further held that "other institutions" referred to in Section

35[1][ii] imply "educational institutions" and they are not covered under

section 10[21] of the 1961 Act. It found that they may be covered under

Section 10[22] or Section 20[23C], as the case may be.

Shri Parchure, learned counsel has also relied upon a Division

Bench judgment of Gujarat High Court reported at (2012) 25 Taxman.com

133 (Gujarat) (Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (Asstt) .vrs. Mastek

Ltd.). Questions relating to Section 35[1] in Tax Appeals looked into by the

Gujarat High Court are formulated in paragraph no.2 of the said judgment.

The Gujarat High Court in the process also considers the provisions contained

in Section 35 and the term 'scientific research'. In paragraph no.24, the

Judgment wp1307.14

Division Bench has concluded that the terms Research and Scientific Research

respectively have a wide scope and do not necessarily mean only invention.

Consideration in paragraph nos. 26 and 27 show that the Division Bench

found that the Tribunal had decided the appeal before it in favour of the

assessee without referring to full material on record. But, ultimately, in the

light of discussion, the said Division Bench found that the Assessing Officer

had not obtained the decision of prescribed Authority in terms of Section

35[3], and therefore, was not justified in rejecting the assessee's claim for

deduction of expenditure incurred on scientific research. The view of the

Tribunal to that extent was upheld. Ultimately, the appeal filed by the

department has been dismissed by the Gujarat High Court. Thus, meaning of

words "other institution" do not form the subject matter of discussion of this

judgment. However, the liberal approach towards the phrase "research" or

"scientific research" can be gathered from this judgment.

17. Judgment which interprets Section 10[22], consider the primacy

given to the educational purposes in that provision. The University or

Educational Institution envisaged therein must exists solely for educational

purposes and not for the purpose of profit. This emphasis is absent in Section

35[1][ii]. In order to qualify for deduction, sum paid to the Research

association under Section 35[1][ii] in first category, the object of such

Judgment wp1307.14

research association has to be undertaking of scientific research. This object

or emphasis upon it is not mandated in case of second type of organizations.

This second type refers to only a University, College or other institution. Sum

paid to a University, College or other Institution for its use for scientific

research qualifies for deduction under Section 35[1].

18. University or College are no doubt the educational institutions.

The petitioners do not contend that it is not educational institution. On the

contrary, effort it to show that it is a educational institution recognized as a

scientific and industrial research organization. Petitioners have placed before

us, list of students with it who have been awarded Ph.D. Decree and who are

undergoing or undertaking research in it under a recognized faculty or guide.

Dr. Rajpalsingh Kashyap is stated to be that guide. The benefit of on-going

research for grant of Ph.D. Degree is availed or to be availed by students

enrolled deemed university, as also by Rashtrasant Tukdoji Maharaj Nagpur

University. Rashtrasant Tukdoji Maharaj Nagpur University has awarded

Ph.D. Degree to a student, each in year 2004, 2007 and 2012. It has awarded

Ph.D. Degree to two students each in 2011 and 2013. Datta Meghe Institute

of Medical Sciences (Deemed University) has awarded Ph.D. Degree to a

student by name Dr. Sweta Chourasia in 2014 in Medical Biotechnology.

Particulars given in respect of account of research work carried in petitioner

Judgment wp1307.14

institution, are not in dispute.

19. CBDT has vide its circular no. 402/92/2006-ALC pointed out that

for approval under Section 35(1)(ii) of a University, College or other

institution, sum paid to it has to be used for scientific research and research in

Social Science or research, which research should be carried out through its

faculty members or under enrolled students. Petitioner has got students who

have been awarded Ph.D. Degrees or who are undertaking research work

using the facilities provided by it. Those students are enrolled with the

University for said purpose and are being guided by a recognized guide.

Provisions of Rule 5E(3) stipulate conditions subject to which approval can

be granted to company. Maintaining separate books of accounts in respect of

sums received by it for scientific research reflected therein, to mean actually

used for such research, audit thereof, separate statements of donations

received for said purpose duly certified by auditor, documents to be filed

along with return under Section 139(1) etc., are the compliances

incorporated therein. Sub-rule (f) of Rule 5E(3) is the power of

Commissioner to report to the jurisdictional Chief Commissioner, in case he

finds any defaults or lacunae by such approved company.

20. In additional affidavit filed on 16.09.2015, the petitioner has

Judgment wp1307.14

pointed out that the Nagpur University has granted renewal to it as a place of

higher learning and research work leading to doctoral degree. This certificate

is dated 15.05.2012, and recognition granted is for a period of five years. It is

already placed on record along with rejoinder, which has been filed on

01.12.2014. It's copy is received by the respondents on the same date. This

certificate mentions that this recognition is in subject "Micro Biology and Bio

Chemistry" in the faculty of science with maximum intake capacity of 10

registered students in each subjects. The details of Ph.Ds., awarded as

disclosed in this additional affidavit are also not in dispute. Such recognition

by a Deemed University is also apparent from Ph.Ds. granted by it.

21. In this background, when the impugned order dated 23.12.2013

is perused, it shows plea of petitioner that it is recognized by Department of

Science and Technology as Scientific and Industrial Organization or that it

never claimed to be an educational institute with students with it as

educational recognition by different organization. Petitioner requested

respondent to consider those activities as tangible educational progress. In

the impugned order, in paragraph no. 3.1.2, it is found that recognition as

SIRO does not imply fulfillment of conditions laid down in Section 35[1][ii].

It is further found that applicant (petitioner), by itself does not grant Ph.D.

Degree. Main activity of petitioner is found to be hospital. Memorandum of

Judgment wp1307.14

Association of petitioner is looked into to hold that there is no specific

emphasis on pursuit of educational activities. However, the objective of

conducting of conferences, refresher courses, lectures, seminars,

demonstrations, workshops relating to research done and results obtained, is

taken note of in paragraph no.3.2. The impugned order observes in

paragraph no.3.2.2 that conduct of seminars, workshops etc., is not related to

conduct of organized educational activities and cannot be accepted due to

absence of any type of tangible educational activities. The dominant objective

of petitioner is found to be running Super Specialty Hospital.

22. In paragraph no.3.3 of the impugned order, it is found that

petitioner disclosed an insignificant amount out of its total gross receipts

towards or as the income from students fees. Explanation furnished by the

petitioner in paragraph no.3.3.1 that it collects fees from P.G Students and

Research Scholars and also from students doing their dissertation work at

nominal rate and charges do not cover the whole expenses, is, looked into in

paragraph no.3.2.2. The petitioner has in paragraph no.3.3.1 stated that such

activities are undertaken as a part of its social responsibilities and not to make

profits and total income therefrom constitutes a small fraction of revenue

earned from service center which is part of infrastructure of medical

research. Again impugned order observes in paragraph no. 3.3.2 that there is

Judgment wp1307.14

no tangible educational activity. In paragraph no.4 in the impugned order,

the application in form 3 CF-II submitted by the petitioner has not been

accepted for approval. There it is also observed that term "other institution"

needs to be construed in conjunction with term "University, College". The

provisions of Rule 5E[2] of Income Tax Rules, 1962 and term "Faculty or

enrolled Students" are also taken note of. It is concluded that such claimant

must be actively involved in pursuit of organized educational activities. It has

been found that the petitioner has no faculty or enrolled students on its roll.

23. Having thus rejected the application, impugned order proceeds to

point out deficiencies seen in the proposal of petitioner. It is noted that

salaries of employees for research and research expenses including

expenditure on consumables is only 5% of total expenditure. Thus, scientific

research is found to be only an ancillary activity. The explanation furnished

by the petitioner in paragraph no.6.1.1, that running of service center itself

costs more, has been rejected in paragraph no. 6.1.2 on account of "almost

insignificant expenditure on research activities". It is also noted that research

activities being carried out are not broad based spread over the various

branches of medical science.

24. In paragraph no.6.2 the impugned order observes that various

Judgment wp1307.14

research activities claimed by petitioner are merely an outcome of analysis of

data generated in hospital. Bulk of research is found to be conducted by few

employees of Bio-Chemistry laboratory. Explanation given by the petitioner is

found not satisfactory for the very same reasons.

25. Paragraph no. 6.3 of impugned order records that petitioner was

requested to clarify whether any administrative and financial support was

accorded to research projects undertaken by the employees. Petitioner has

given explanation pointing out that financial support for most of the research

projects comes partly from donations and partly from revenue of the

institution. For some projects, support comes from research funding

organization like DDT/ICMR/DST/ CSIR. The total years (annual) amount

from such funding does not exceed Rs. 20 lakhs. It was not giving any

financial incentive in the form of award etc. to the Scientists, Doctors but,

encouraged them to attend various National, International Conferences,

which are mostly funded by it. This explanation is rejected with observation

that if petitioner does not have institutional framework for grading research

work of Doctors/Scientists, the said research work does not have any bearing

on the promotions etc. Paragraph no.6.4 of the impugned order then raises a

query whether separate man hours are earmarked for conduct of research

activities by the employees. Petitioner explained that research staff members

Judgment wp1307.14

are working full time at the institute. The clinical consultants working full

time also devotes approximately 2-3 hours for research. This has been

rejected with comment that Doctors are primarily involved in running of the

hospital. Indirectly, the authority while passing impugned order sat in appeal

over the recognition granted, Ph.D.s awarded by the Universities and patents

duly registered on the strength of such research work.

26. In paragraph no.6.5 query about separate research cadre in

various departments for undertaking research activities has been raised and

petitioner has answered it in the affirmative. It's explanation has been found

not satisfactory as it is not supported by any documentary evidence. Thus,

even on this count, it is observed that petitioners do not satisfy the prescribed

conditions of approval in Section 35[1][ii] of the 1961 Act.

27. Hon'ble Apex Court in H.M.M. Ltd. v. CCE, (1996) 11 SCC 332,

Pg 340 ) notes that though the notification providing for an exemption has

to be strictly construed but, it is equally well-settled that the exemption

notifications, like any other statutory provision, has to be construed

reasonably having due regard to the language employed. Constitution Bench

of Hon'ble Apex Court in CIT v. Vatika Township (P) Ltd., (2015) 1 SCC 1,

at page 28) observes as under :

Judgment wp1307.14

"41. We would like to embark on a discussion on some

basic and fundamental concepts, which would shed

further light on the subject-matter:

41.1. No doubt, there is no scope for accepting the Libertarian theory which postulates among others,

no taxation by the State as it amounts to violation of individual liberty and advocates minimal interference by the State. The Libertarianism propounded by the

Austrian born economist philosopher Friedrich A.

Hayek and American economist Milton Friedman stands emphatically rejected by all civilized and

democratically governed States, in favour of a strongly conceptualised "welfare State". To attain a welfare State is our constitutional goal as well, enshrined as

one of its basic feature, which runs through our

Constitution. It is for this reason, specific provisions are made in the Constitution, empowering the legislature to make laws for levy of taxes, including the

income tax. The rationale behind collection of taxes is that revenue generated therefrom shall be spent by the Governments on various developmental and welfare

schemes, among others.

41.2. At the same time, it is also mandated that there cannot be imposition of any tax without the authority of law. Such a law has to be unambiguous and should prescribe the liability to pay taxes in clear terms. If the provision concerned of the taxing statute

Judgment wp1307.14

is ambiguous and vague and is susceptible to two

interpretations, the interpretation which favours the subjects, as against the Revenue, has to be preferred.

This is a well-established principle of statutory interpretation, to help finding out as to whether particular category of assessee is to pay a particular

tax or not. No doubt, with the application of this principle, the courts make endeavor to find out the intention of the legislature. At the same time, this very

principle is based on "fairness" doctrine as it lays down

that if it is not very clear from the provisions of the Act as to whether the particular tax is to be levied to a

particular class of persons or not, the subject should not be fastened with any liability to pay tax. This principle also acts as a balancing factor between the

two jurisprudential theories of justice -- Libertarian

theory on the one hand and Kantian theory along with Egalitarian theory propounded by John Rawls on the other hand."

Thus, even adoption of a literal meaning of word "other institution" does not

defeat the legislative intent of allowing deduction in present facts.

28. The fact that petitioner is recognized for enrolling students for

Ph.D. Degree by two universities or grant of Ph.D degrees by these

Judgment wp1307.14

universities, is not considered in the impugned order at all. The order mainly

aims at finding out whether scientific research is main or substantial part of

work undertaken by the petitioner. It therefore, overlooks the basic

distinction between a "research association" on one hand and a "university,

college or other institution" on the other, which is clearly spelt out by the

legislature in Section 35[1][ii]. Research association has to possess object of

undertaking scientific research. The donation to University, College or other

institution for it being used for scientific research is sufficient in the scheme of

said provision. The material produced on record by the petitioner sufficiently

demonstrates that the petitioner institution carries on scientific research and

is receiving donations for that purposes. We have already noted supra a

decision where existence of all research activities is found not sine qua non

for grant of such approval. We find that the petitioner has established on

record that it is 'other institution', which is involved in helping students for

Ph.D. and carries on scientific research. It is recognized as a place of higher

learning and research work leading to doctoral degree by at least two

Universities as per law. Such a place definitely qualifies as an "other

institution" in scheme of Section 35(1)(ii) of the Act. The impugned order

does not mention that the petitioner is not maintaining separate books of

account or then does not reflect therein amounts used for scientific research.

On the contrary, data looked into in the impugned order shows that petitioner

Judgment wp1307.14

maintains such account books with necessary details. There is no observation

in the impugned order that petitioner institution does not maintain a

separate statement of donation and amounts used for research or then that

copy of such statement was not duly certified by the auditor. We therefore,

find that the impugned order suffers from non application of mind and is

liable to be quashed and set aside.

29. Accordingly the said order dated 23.12.2013 passed by the

respondent no.1 is quashed and set aside. The application moved by the

petitioner is restored back to the file of respondent no.1, for taking fresh

decision upon it, in accordance with law, in the light of observations made

above. Fresh decision shall be taken after considering the entire material on

record and after giving opportunity to the petitioner to produce such other

documents as it may deem fit and proper. The fresh inquiry and proceedings

shall be completed within six months by the respondent no. 1 after

communication of this order to it. Writ Petition is thus, partly allowed and

disposed of. Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms, with no order as to

costs.

                                          JUDGE                            JUDGE
    Rgd.