9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Whether the assessee is entitled to exemption under section 10(22) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. 2. Whether the assessee is an educational institution existing solely for educational purposes and not for profit. 3. The impact of the assessee's ancillary objects on its eligibility for exemption. 4. The relevance of the assessee's past assessment history and the Department's inconsistent appeal filing. 5. The applicability of various judicial precedents and CBDT circulars to the assessee's case. Detailed Analysis: 1. Entitlement to Exemption under Section 10(22): The primary issue in all the appeals was whether the assessee was entitled to exemption under section 10(22) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The assessee, a corporation formed by the Government of Assam, claimed that its main objective was the printing and publishing of textbooks for educational purposes, thereby qualifying for the exemption. The Department argued that the assessee had several ancillary objects not related to education, thus disqualifying it from the exemption. 2. Educational Institution Existing Solely for Educational Purposes and Not for Profit: The Tribunal examined whether the assessee could be considered an "educational institution" under section 10(22). The Tribunal noted that the entire share capital of the assessee was held by the Government of Assam and that the assessee's activities were restricted to printing and publishing textbooks for educational purposes. The Tribunal referenced a letter from the Government of India indicating that State Text-book Publication Boards should be treated as educational institutions. The Tribunal also considered several judicial precedents, including the Supreme Court's decision in Aditanar Educational Institution v. Addl. CIT, which held that institutions existing solely for educational purposes and not for profit qualify for exemption under section 10(22). 3. Impact of Ancillary Objects: The Department contended that the assessee's ancillary objects, such as carrying on business as publishers and printers of all kinds, indicated a profit motive. However, the Tribunal found that the assessee had not engaged in any activities beyond printing and publishing textbooks. The Tribunal emphasized that the mere presence of ancillary objects in the Memorandum of Association did not disqualify the assessee from exemption unless those activities were actually carried out. 4. Past Assessment History and Inconsistent Appeal Filing: The Tribunal noted that the Department had filed appeals for only four out of the five assessment years covered by a common order of the CIT(A). The Tribunal held that the Department's failure to appeal for the assessment year 1993-94 meant that the order for that year had become final, and the Department could not challenge the same order for other years. This inconsistency further supported the assessee's claim for exemption. 5. Judicial Precedents and CBDT Circulars: The Tribunal considered various judicial precedents, including decisions of the Orissa High Court in Secondary Board of Education v. ITO and the Rajasthan High Court in CIT v. Rajasthan State Text-Book Board, which granted exemption under similar circumstances. The Tribunal also referenced a CBDT circular that recognized State Text-book Societies as educational institutions. The Tribunal distinguished the cases cited by the Department, noting that they did not apply to the facts of the assessee's case. Conclusion: The Tribunal concluded that the assessee was entitled to exemption under section 10(22) of the Act as it existed solely for educational purposes and not for profit. The Tribunal allowed the assessee's appeals and dismissed the Department's appeals. The Third Member concurred with the Judicial Member's view, emphasizing that the assessee's activities were restricted to educational purposes and that any incidental activities did not disqualify it from exemption. The Tribunal's decision was based on a thorough analysis of the facts, relevant legal provisions, and judicial precedents.
|
