2016 (10) TMI 1150 - AT - Income Tax

Non granting of exemption u/s 11 - finding of the A.O. that the assessee s main activity for the year under consideration is to run coaching classes by collecting hefty fees for every kind of services - Held that - We find that a categorical finding is given by the A.O. on page 7 of the assessment order that the assessee s main activity for the year under consideration is to run coaching classes by collecting hefty fees for every kind of services. Even before CIT (A), the assessee has filed nothing to controvert these findings of the A.O. The submissions of the assessee before CIT (A) are available on pages 233 to 261 of the paper book as per which, the assessee has filed copy of Registration certificate u/s 12AA, Copy of Trust Deed and Financial Statements for F Y 2010 11. Before us also, no evidence is filed to controvert this finding of the A.O. The Activity report on pages 36 to 38 of the paper book is a report about which, even this is not known as to who prepared this report and on what date or in which year. Such a vague report has no evidentiary value. Hence, we proceed on this basis that the assessee has nothing to say about this finding of the A.O. that the assessee s main activity for the year under consideration is to run coaching classes by collecting hefty fees for every kind of services - Decided against assessee.

Summary

Issues:
1. Non-granting of exemption u/s 11
2. Charging of interest
3. Non-allowing of credit of TDS in part

Analysis:
1. The appeals were filed by the assessee against two separate orders of the CIT (A) for different assessment years. The main grievances raised were regarding the non-granting of exemption u/s 11, charging of interest, and non-allowing of credit of TDS in one of the years. The appeal for one assessment year was filed late, but the delay was condoned considering the reasons provided by the assessee.

2. The AR of the assessee argued that the activities were focused on education programs, supported by various documents and judicial pronouncements. However, the AO had found that the main activity was running coaching classes for hefty fees. The tribunal noted the lack of evidence to counter this finding and deemed the vague activity report insufficient to prove otherwise.

3. Various judicial pronouncements were cited by the AR in support of the contention that the activities qualified as education or general public utility, but the tribunal found that none of these judgments directly applied to the current case. The tribunal concluded that the proviso to section 2(15) was applicable in this case, and therefore, upheld the CIT (A)'s order denying the exemption u/s 11.

4. The tribunal analyzed each judgment cited by the AR and found that the facts in those cases were materially different from the present case. Ultimately, it was held that none of the judgments provided relevant support to the assessee's claims. As a result, both appeals of the assessee were dismissed, and the orders of the CIT (A) were upheld.

This detailed analysis of the judgment highlights the key issues raised by the assessee, the arguments presented, the examination of evidence, and the tribunal's ultimate decision based on the application of relevant legal provisions and judicial precedents.