2021 (4) TMI 705 - AT - Income Tax

Grant exemption u/s.10(23C)(vi) declined - appellant institution was not solely for educational purposes - as per assessee various activities carried on by the appellant were towards educational purposes of the banking staff and consequently the appellant had fulfilled all the conditions required u/s.10(23C)(vi) of the Act to avail the exemption as provided therein - HELD THAT - Admittedly, the Tribunal in the earlier year for AY 2014-15 2016 (10) TMI 593 - ITAT BANGALORE only relied on clause (d) (g) of the Memorandum of Association of the assessee college and overlooked clause (a) (b) of the Memorandum of Association. However, at this stage, we are not in a position to take a decision in favour of the assessee, since the decision of the Tribunal is not disturbed by any higher forum. However, in the interests of justice, it is appropriate to remit the issue in dispute to the file of the CIT(Exemptions) for appropriate decision, after the final judgment of the Hon ble High Court of Karnataka in the case of assessee for the AY 2014-15. With these observations, we remit the issue to the file of the CIT(Exemptions). Appeal by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.

Summary

Issues:
- Whether the assessee is entitled to exemption u/s. 10(23C)(vi) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.
- Whether the Tribunal's decision in the earlier year for AY 2014-15 should be considered in the current case.

Analysis:
1. The appeal was against the order of the CIT(Exemptions) denying exemption u/s. 10(23C)(vi) of the Act. The appellant contended that the institution was solely for educational purposes, fulfilling all conditions for exemption. The Commissioner failed to recognize the educational activities carried out by the appellant, leading to the denial of exemption.

2. The issue revolved around whether the appellant qualified for exemption u/s. 10(23C)(vi) of the Act. The Tribunal had previously upheld the denial of exemption for AY 2014-15. The appellant argued that the activities were educational in nature, citing relevant case laws and judgments to support their claim.

3. The Hon'ble High Court framed substantial questions of law related to the interpretation of the word "education" and whether the appellant's activities were genuinely educational. The Tribunal's decision was challenged, emphasizing the importance of considering the broad scope of educational activities.

4. Despite the Tribunal's earlier decision against the appellant, the current appeal highlighted the educational nature of the institution's activities. The appellant provided detailed submissions and case laws to demonstrate their eligibility for exemption under section 10(23C)(vi) of the Act.

5. The appellant referenced various judgments supporting their case, including decisions from different Tribunals and High Courts. The argument focused on the educational purpose of the institution and how it distinguished from mere consultancy services.

6. The Tribunal acknowledged the appellant's arguments but refrained from making a decision in their favor due to the lack of intervention by a higher forum. To ensure justice, the issue was remitted to the CIT(Exemptions) for a fresh adjudication post the final judgment by the High Court for AY 2014-15.

7. Ultimately, the appeal was allowed for statistical purposes, emphasizing the need for a comprehensive review of the appellant's educational activities to determine their eligibility for exemption u/s. 10(23C)(vi) of the Act.