9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2012 (5) TMI 334 - AT - Income TaxReopening - Exemption u/s 10(23C)(iiiab) - assessee is a University and it did not file its Returns for Assessment Years 2004-05 to 2007-08 voluntarily but filed in response to notice u/s. 148 of the Act on 08.10.2009 after claiming income as exempt u/s. 10(23C)(vi) of the Act as accruing to the assessee from principal activity of education - according to AO the assessee does not satisfy the conditions either of section 10(23C)(vi) or 10(23C)(iiiab) of the Act. and he disallowed the exemption claimed by assessee in all these years on the same premise - assessee is a University, governed by Governing Council consisting of 10 Members including the Chancellor, who is the Governor of the State of Sikkim - The Government also contributed Rs.30 cr. in Assessment Year 1999-2000 and Rs.23.37 cr. by way of annual grant during the Fin. Years 1997-98 to 2009-10 Held that - it is clear that the University does exist solely for education but not for making profit as well as the assessee is substantially financed by the Government. In our view, since all the conditions prescribed u/s. 10(23C)(iiiab) of the Act have been satisfied, the income of the assessee for all assessment years is exempt.
Issues Involved:
1. Exemption under Section 10(23C)(iiiab) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. Existence for educational purposes versus profit-making. 3. Substantial financing by the Government. 4. Consideration of government grants and land as part of substantial funding. 5. Ignoring findings of the CCIT, Jalpaiguri. Detailed Analysis: 1. Exemption under Section 10(23C)(iiiab) of the Income Tax Act, 1961: The assessee University claimed exemption under Section 10(23C)(iiiab) for the assessment years 2004-05 to 2007-08. The Assessing Officer (AO) rejected this claim, asserting that the University was not substantially financed by the Government and was engaged in profit-making activities. The CIT(A) upheld the AO's decision, leading to the University's appeal to the Tribunal. 2. Existence for Educational Purposes versus Profit-Making: The AO and CIT(A) concluded that the University did not exist solely for educational purposes but for making profit. They noted that the University charged high fees and had significant operating surpluses. However, the Tribunal found that the University's primary objective was educational, supported by its establishment under an Act of the Sikkim Legislative Assembly and its various educational activities. 3. Substantial Financing by the Government: The AO and CIT(A) argued that the University was not substantially financed by the Government, comparing annual government grants to the University's gross receipts. The Tribunal disagreed, stating that the term "substantially financed" should consider the entire period of the University's existence, not just year-by-year comparisons. The Tribunal cited the Delhi High Court's decision in CIT vs. Charat Ram Foundation, which supports considering the total government contributions over time. 4. Consideration of Government Grants and Land as Part of Substantial Funding: The Tribunal noted that the Government of Sikkim provided significant funding, including Rs. 30 crore, 25 acres of land for the Medical College, and 7 acres for the Engineering College. The Tribunal found that these contributions, along with annual grants, amounted to substantial financing by the Government, contradicting the lower authorities' findings. 5. Ignoring Findings of the CCIT, Jalpaiguri: The Tribunal highlighted that the CCIT, Jalpaiguri, had determined that the University was substantially financed by the Government and thus covered under Section 10(23C)(iiiab). The Tribunal criticized the AO and CIT(A) for not adhering to this higher authority's decision, citing the Supreme Court's ruling in Asstt. Collector of Central Excise vs. Dunlop India Ltd., which emphasizes the importance of lower authorities following higher authorities' decisions. Conclusion: The Tribunal concluded that the University met all conditions prescribed under Section 10(23C)(iiiab) and was substantially financed by the Government. Therefore, the University's income for the assessment years in question was exempt. The Tribunal allowed the appeals, reversing the decisions of the AO and CIT(A). Order Pronouncement: The Tribunal pronounced the order in the open court on 29.11.2011, allowing all appeals of the assessee University.
|
