9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2012 (4) TMI 308 - AT - Income TaxEducational Institution exemption denied u/s 10(23C)(iiiad) on ground that institution is not active in field of education, and it is in process of establishing - AY 2003-04 & 2004-05 Held that - It is undisputed that Institution has been granted registration u/s 12A though on 29th September 2009 which infers aims and objects of the society was to run an educational institution and they are not for the purpose of profit. Apex court in case of ACIT v. Surat Art Silk Cloth Manufacturer Association(1979 - TMI - 5217 - Supreme Court - Income Tax) held that the test of pre-dominant object of the activity is to be seen whether it exists solely for education and not to earn profit. In the present case, society is in existence but actual educational activity has not taken place. Therefore in view of decisions of Calcutta High Court, Kerala High Court, wherein it has been observed that from construction period it is to be stated that educational institution is existing, we direct the A.O. to grant benefit of section 10(23C)(iiiad) Decided in favor of assessee.
Issues Involved:
1. Whether the assessee society is an educational institution. 2. Whether the assessee is entitled to claim exemption under Section 10(23C)(iiiad) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Whether the assessee society is an educational institution: The assessee, a society registered with the Registrar of Societies, Meerut, was formed with the aim of imparting education. The society filed nil income tax returns for the assessment years 2002-03 and 2003-04. The assessments were reopened, and notices under Section 148 were issued. The Assessing Officer observed that the assessee had shown donations received as corpus donations, claiming exemption from tax. However, the Assessing Officer noted that the assessee was not registered under Section 12AA of the Income-tax Act, 1961, and questioned the exemption claims. The assessee contended that it had not prepared an income and expenditure account as there was no functioning during the relevant periods and that the donations were corpus donations. The society had applied for a plot of land with the Greater Noida Authority for establishing an educational institution and had paid a substantial amount towards the plot. It claimed exemption under Section 10(23C)(iiiad), asserting that it existed solely for educational purposes and not for profit. The Learned CIT(Appeals) upheld the Assessing Officer's decision, leading to the appeals before the Tribunal. The Tribunal noted that the assessee had been granted registration under Section 12AA on 29th September 2009, indicating the genuineness of its activities. The Tribunal acknowledged that the aims and objects of the society were educational and not for profit, as evidenced by the documents and the provisional sanction by the CBSE for school affiliation. 2. Whether the assessee is entitled to claim exemption under Section 10(23C)(iiiad) of the Income-tax Act, 1961: The Tribunal considered whether the assessee's activities qualified it for exemption under Section 10(23C)(iiiad). The Assessing Officer had relied on the Madras High Court decision in CIT v. Devi Educational Institution, which held that the actual existence of an educational institution was a precondition for exemption. The Tribunal, however, referred to subsequent decisions, including MR. AR Educational Society v. CIT, where the Madras High Court suggested reconsideration of the earlier judgment, emphasizing that taking steps towards establishing an educational institution could qualify for exemption. The Tribunal also referred to the Calcutta High Court decision in CIT v. Doon Foundation, which held that preliminary steps towards running a teaching course could qualify an institution for exemption. Similarly, the Kerala High Court in CIT v. Sree Narayana Chandrika Trust held that income derived during the establishment phase of a hospital was exempt. The Tribunal concluded that the expression "existing" in Section 10(23C)(iiiad) should be interpreted to include institutions in the process of establishment. It noted that the society had taken substantial steps towards establishing an educational institution, including acquiring land and starting construction. The Tribunal held that the society's predominant object was educational and not for profit, and the incidental profit did not change its character. The Tribunal distinguished the Supreme Court decision in American Hotel & Lodging Association, Educational Institute v. CBDT, noting that the context was different and did not directly address the issue of when an institution is considered to exist for educational purposes. Conclusion: The Tribunal allowed the appeals, directing the Assessing Officer to grant the benefit of Section 10(23C)(iiiad) to the assessee for the assessment years 2002-03 and 2003-04, recognizing the society as an educational institution existing for educational purposes, even during its establishment phase.
|
