9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2012 (4) TMI 78 - AT - Income TaxCharitable Institution - Trust registered u/s 12A engaged in conducting coaching classes for open university/distance education dis-allowance of exemption u/s 11 by A.O. - CIT(A) set aside dis-allowance on the ground that the assessee is entitled for exemption u/s 10(23C)(iiiad) Held that - Mere conducting of classes for open university/distance education cannot be construed as charitable activity within the meaning of section 2(15) of the Act. See Sole Trustee, Loka Shikshana Trust vs CIT (1975 - TMI - 6453 - Supreme Court), Bihar Institute of Mining And Mine Surveying v. CIT (1993 - TMI - 20160 - Patna High Court) Furthermore, when no approval was granted u/s 10(23C), CIT was not justified in holding that assessee is a charitable institution and eligible for exemption u/s 10(23C)(iiiad) Order of CIT(A) is set aside. Also, cancellation/rejection of registration u/s 12A and completion of assessment under AOP by the A.O. is without jurisdiction. Hence, it is open to the Commissioner to consider the case of the assessee and pass necessary order u/s 12AA(3). - Decided in favor of Revenue.
Issues:
Grant of exemption u/s 11 of the Income-tax Act. Analysis: The case involved a dispute regarding the grant of exemption u/s 11 of the Income-tax Act for the assessment year 2005-06. The appellant, being aggrieved by the Commissioner of Income-tax(A)-II's order, filed an appeal, while the respondent filed a cross objection against the same order. The main contention was whether the activities of the assessee, which involved conducting coaching classes for students of various courses, qualified as a charitable activity under section 2(15) of the Act. The appellant argued that since no regular school or college was established by the assessee, they were not entitled to exemption u/s 11. The respondent, on the other hand, claimed that the activities amounted to imparting knowledge and fell within the scope of education as per the Act. The Tribunal considered the arguments presented by both sides and examined the provisions of section 2(15) of the Act, which define "charitable purpose." The Tribunal referred to relevant case laws, including the judgment of the Supreme Court in Sole Trustee, Loka Shikshana Trust, to interpret the meaning of education under section 2(15). The Tribunal noted that the word "education" in section 2(15) implied a systematic process of training and developing knowledge through normal schooling. It highlighted that not all forms of teaching or knowledge acquisition could be considered education under the Act. Citing the judgment of the Patna High Court in Bihar Institute of Mining And Mine Surveying, the Tribunal emphasized that mere conducting of classes for open university/distance education might not qualify as a charitable activity under section 2(15). The Tribunal concluded that the activities of the assessee, which primarily involved coaching classes for students preparing for open university or distance education exams, did not meet the criteria of a regular and systematic schooling as required by section 2(15). Therefore, the Tribunal held that the assessee was not entitled to exemption u/s 11 of the Act. Additionally, the Tribunal addressed the issue of the Commissioner of Income-tax(A) allowing exemption u/s 10(23C)(iiiad) of the Act for the assessee, even though no approval was granted under that section. The Tribunal found that the Commissioner's decision was unjustified as no approval had been obtained, and therefore, the exemption was not applicable. The Tribunal also discussed the assessing officer's rejection of the registration granted u/s 12A and completion of assessment under 'AOP,' emphasizing that the assessing officer had exceeded his jurisdiction in canceling the registration. The Tribunal clarified that only the Commissioner had the authority to cancel the registration under specific conditions. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the Commissioner's order and restored that of the assessing officer. The cross objection filed by the assessee was dismissed, and the appeal of the revenue was allowed.
|
