9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (6) TMI 1389X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law as Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sole Trusty, Lok Shikshana Trust vs. Commissioner of Income tax (1975) 10 ITR 234 (SC) has defined word 'education' and observed that the sense in which the word "education" has been used in section 2(15), is the systematic instruction, schooling or training given to young in preparation for the work of life. The word "education" has not been used in that wide and extended sense according to which every acquisition of further knowledge constitutes education. 3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in ignoring that the assessee's activity falls under the category of 'Advancement of any other object of general public utility" and first proviso to section 2(15) is early applicable on it as 'income-from coaching class' was explicitly business receipt in nature. 4. The appellant craves leave to add, to alter or amend any ground of appeal raised above at the time of hearing." 3. In this case Assessing Officer has observed that the assessee is established by the Act of Parliament of ICAI Act of 1949 an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s etc. The coaching classes are conducted for the benefit of the CA students to make them professionally efficient and the coaching classes are integral part of imparting education and its activities come under the definition of education u/s. 2(15) of the Act. It was further submitted that the exemption to the assessee was denied earlier on the ground that the assessee is involved in commercial activities but the exemption has been granted to the assessee for the assessment years 2005-06, 2006-07, 2007-08 by the Ld. CIT(A) and the Tribunal and the High Court. Hence, the present issues in dispute is squarely covered by the various decisions of the Tribunal, Hon'ble High Court and the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India. To support his contention, he filed the Paper Book containing pages 1 to 96 having the copies of the following judicial decisions:- 1. Dismissal of Department SLP by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the matter of DDIT and Ors. Vs. ICAI and Ors dated 27.1.2014. 2. Judgment of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the matter of ICAI and Anr. Vs. DGIT and Ors. Dated 4.7.2013. 3. Judgment of the Hon'ble High Court in the matter of DIT (E) vs. ICAI dated 11.5.2012. 4. I ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rtmental appeal vide the order dated 19/9/2011 in ITA No. 869/2011. The Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the order dated 4/7/2013 has also directed the DGIT(E) to grant exemption to the assessee uls 10(23C)(iv) holding that the assessee is an educational institution. The AO is also aware that the case of the assessee is covered in favour of the assessee but has not allowed exemption to the assessee and the ground the department has not accepted these orders and the department is in appeal in the Hon'ble Supreme Court vide Para 43 of the assessment order. After considering all the facts and circumstances of the, case I am of the view that the case of the assessee is fuly covered in favour of the assessee by the assessee's own case of earlier years by the orders of the Ld. CIT(A), Hon'ble Tribunal and Hon'ble High Court and as such respectfully following the above orders the appeal of the assessee is allowed and the AO is directed to allow exemption to the assessee. 3. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed." 8.2 After going through the aforesaid findings, we are of the considered opinion that the issue in dispute is squarely covered by the various decisions of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... gment of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi dated 04.07.2013 in assessee's own case by which writ petitions of the assessee for AY from 2006-07 to 2011-12 have been allowed by setting aside impugned orders of Director General Income Tax (Exemption) dated 13.04.2012 and 28.9.2012 with a direction to DGIT(E) to recognize the petitioner/assessee as eligible u/s 10(23)(c)(iv) of the Income Tax Act, 1961(for short the Act) for charitable purposes, having regard to its object and importance, subject to the petitioner/assessee complying with the other provisions of the Act. The AR also submitted a copy of the orders of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No. CC792/2014 dated 27.01.2014 by which Special Leave Petition of the department against the order of the judgment of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi dated 04.07.2013 (supra) have been dismissed. Ld. DR submitted that the Commissioner of Income Tax(A) has erred in ignoring that the assessee's predominant objectives are to conduct examination for the CAs and to regulate its members and it does not provide any scholastic education, thus, its activities do not fall within the category of education covered by the definitio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... oaching classes through Regional Councils, the appellant Institute, following its main purpose and objective of giving training to the future Chartered Accountants, for which it has been enacted by the Parliament and further emphasizing that CBDT while granting Notification u/s 10(23C)(iv) of the Act to the appellant Institute was well aware about the component of its income reflected in Annual accounts filed with the application for applying for exemption of income u/s. 10(23C)(iv) of the Act consistently to the assessment year 2005-06, and therefore the objection of the Assessing Officer in this respect is misconceived, even on the Principle of Doctrine of Consistency enunciated by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Radhaswamy Satsang (cited supra). Pursing the Chartered Accountants regulations, annual accounts of the appellant Institute and written arguments of the Ld. Authorised Representative and judicial precedents brought to my notice on the issue involved, I am inclined to accept the argument of the ld. counsel that income of coaching classes of the appellant Institute is not an activity of business as alleged by the Assessing Officer in the assessment order, but the said ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ue is in appeal before us. 6. Ld. counsel of the assessee submitted that the issue is covered in favour of the assessee by the decision of this tribunal in assessee's own case in ITA No. 1853/Del/2010 for A.Y. 2005-06. In this regard, ld. counsel of the assessee referred para 15 of the above said order which reads as under:- "15. The Institute as such merely it is receiving coaching fee from students for imparting education, cannot be said to have been carrying on business and accordingly it is not required to maintain separate books of accounts as alleged by DIT(E). The income of the coaching classes earned by the assessee institute is within its objects and its Regulations and further these activities are educational activity within the definition of section 2(15) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and consequently therefore cannot be activity of business for which separate books of accounts are required to be maintained. The order of the ld.DIT(E) is therefore, not sustainable as the income of the Institute is exempt not only u/s 10(23C)(iv) but also under section 11. The institute is an educational institute and hence its income will also be exempt under section 11 as education ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
