2020 (4) TMI 683 - AT - Income Tax

Exemption u/s 11 - Application u/s 12AA(1)(b)(ii) rejected - Charitable activities/object - applicant company submitted the reply stating that Sanjhi Sikhiya Foundation is a charitable educational Entity working towards improvement of the educational paraphernalia of the Government School - As per CIT-E contention of the assessee is not acceptable as mere gaining of knowledge of skill does not qualify for the label education in the sense of the term explained by the Apex Court in the case of Sole Trustee Lok Sikshan Sansthan 1975 (8) TMI 1 - SUPREME COURT AND non-filing of financial account and bank statement which resulted into non-corroboration of genuineness of the activities - HELD THAT - Objects of the society - As per amendment in section 2(15) of the Act, Yoga has also been included as a part of education which is also one of the object of the assessee in the instant case. If we see minutely the aims and objects of the assessee-company, then it can be inferred that the basic aims and objects of the assessee company are to provide educational, intellectual, physical and spiritual development of an individual, family, community and the nation by initiating, undertaking and supporting various projects and programs, which in our considered view, falls within the definition of education as prescribed u/s 2(15) of the Act, hence this ground of rejection is not tenable. Non-filing of financial account and bank statement - assessee company has been formed and registered with the Registrar of Company on dated 11th September, 2018 and as per claim of the assessee/applicant, it has started its operation from the month of April, 2019 only, therefore it is a fact that the assessee-society is at the initial stage and hence the activities of the society cannot be expected to be at high pedestal at the initial stage. The jurisdictional bench in the case of Care Share Welfare Society Vs CIT(Exemptions). 2019 (9) TMI 459 - ITAT AMRITSAR has held that where the assessee is at initial stage, then the question of genuineness did not arise. Assessee-company has filed various documents with regard to the carrying out many activities before us and the certification of the said document depicts that the assessee did not submit the details of the activities and works done by the assessee-company before the Ld. CIT(E). Hence in our considered view the activities of the assessee-company are required to be examined by the Ld. CIT(E) in its right perspective therefore respectively following the aforesaid judgment of the jurisdictional bench, we are inclined to set aside the instant ground of rejection and remit back to the file of the Ld. CIT(E) for decision afresh . Appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes.

Summary

Issues:
1. Rejection of application under section 12AA(1)(b)(ii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 by the Ld. CIT(E) based on the definition of "Education" under section 2(15) of the Act.
2. Non-furnishing of provisional financial accounts and bank statements leading to the rejection of the application.

Analysis:
1. The Ld. CIT(E) rejected the applicant's application on the grounds that the activities did not fall under the definition of "Education" as per section 2(15) of the Income Tax Act. The Ld. CIT(E) emphasized that mere acquisition of knowledge or skill does not constitute education, relying on the interpretation by the Apex Court in a relevant case. However, the Appellate Tribunal disagreed, stating that the aims and objects of the applicant company aligned with the definition of education under section 2(15), especially considering the holistic development aspects mentioned in the objectives.

2. The second ground of rejection was the non-furnishing of provisional financial accounts and bank statements. The Tribunal noted that the applicant was at an initial stage of operation, having started activities in April 2019, and therefore, the absence of extensive financial records at that stage was reasonable. Citing a jurisdictional bench case, the Tribunal highlighted that at the initial stage, the question of genuineness might not be applicable. The Tribunal directed the applicant to submit detailed financial accounts and bank statements for proper examination by the Ld. CIT(E) to ensure the genuineness of the activities.

3. Additionally, the Tribunal observed restrictive clauses in the Memorandum of Association of the applicant company regarding winding up or dissolution, suggesting amendments to these clauses for broader applicability. The Tribunal remitted the case back to the Ld. CIT(E) for a fresh decision, emphasizing the need for thorough examination of the activities, submission of financial documents, and potential amendments to the Memorandum of Association.

4. Ultimately, the appeal filed by the assessee was allowed for statistical purposes, and the case was remitted back to the Ld. CIT(E) for a fresh decision, considering the observations and directions provided by the Appellate Tribunal in its order dated 18/02/2020.