9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (7) TMI 789X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tances of the case and in law, the Tribunal is justified in confirming the addition of Rs. 5,00,60,184/- to the income of the assessee by holding that the same cannot be treated as a corpus donation and is not eligible for exemption under Section 11(1) (d) of the Act B. especially in light of the decision of the very Tribunal passed in the favour of the very appellant in the same set of facts and circumstances for previous A.Y.s. B. Whether the Tribunal is right in law and on facts in reversing the order passed by the CIT (A without specially adverting to the findings of the said first appellate authority that the facts and circumstances for the present year were identical for the earlier assessment years wherein similar issue was decided in favour of the assessee by the ITAT." 3. The brief facts of the case are as under : 3.1. The assessee is a charitable trust. The activity of the trust is mainly of educational institution i.e. schooling from pre-primary to higher secondary at different locations. 3.2. The assessee filed its Return of Income on 21.09.2013 declaring its income at a loss of Rs. 60,84,191/-. The assessee also filed revised return of income declaring its income ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ment Year 2004-05, 2005-06 and 2009-10 and ITA Nos. 1321 and 1420 of 2011 dated 03.02.2012 for Assessment Year 2008-09 in which similar issues in case of appellant were under adjudication. It was held that contribution towards different corpus funds were in nature of the corpus fund and liable to be exempted under Section 12 of the Act. 3.8. Being aggrieved by the decision rendered by CIT(A), the Revenue preferred an appeal before the Tribunal. 3.9. The Tribunal vide order dated 14.07.2023 held that admission fee cannot be treated as 'corpus donation' and consequently, the same is not eligible for grant under Section 11 (1) (d) of the Act. Further, the Tribunal stated from the facts placed on record, neither the admission fee charged from the students qualify as "voluntary" donation nor there was a specific direction that the same may be used only for the purpose of corpus of the Trust. Therefore, the development fund amount cannot be treated as corpus donation and accordingly, the assessee is not eligible for benefit of exemption under Section 11 (1) (d) of the Act. However, if in case the amount is treated as the income of the assessee-trust, then the assessee is eligible for d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t of voluntariness in the donation made/ admission fees paid by the students/parents and had not even perused the stated documents i.e. Admission Forms and the Resolution which categorically evidenced the aspect of corpus donation. 5.1. On the other hand, this Appeal has been opposed by learned Senior Standing Counsel Ms. Maithili Mehta for the respondent. Learned Senior Standing Counsel Ms. Maithili Mehta would submit that no error, not to speak of any error of law could be said to have been committed by the Tribunal in passing the impugned order. Learned Senior Standing Counsel Ms. Maithili Mehta would submit that there is no iota of material to indicate that the assessee had indulged in any illegal activity and is not existing for the education purpose. 5.2. Learned Senior Standing Counsel Ms. Maithili Mehta invited our attention to the judgment delivered by this Court in the Tax Appeal No. 356 of 2012 decided on 28th September, 2018. The Tax Appeal No. 356 of 2012 was filed by the Revenue against the very same assessee who is here before us. The issue before the Court in the Tax Appeal No. 356 of 2012 was with regard to the restoration of the registration in favour of the Tru ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... able to take such a view. 23. In such circumstances referred to above, we are of the view that we should not disturb the order passed by the Tribunal affirming the order passed by the CIT(A). 24. Before we close this matter, we would like to observe something important. 25. The Apex Court in the case of Ms. Mohini Jain v. State of Karnataka and Ors. (1992) 3 SCC 666, held that capitation fee was nothing but price of selling education and such "teaching shops" were contrary to the Constitutional scheme and abhorrent to our Indian culture. 26. The Supreme Court's decisions in case of TMA Pai Foundation Vs. State of Karnataka (2002) (8 SCC 481), Islamic Academy of Education Vs. State of Karnataka (2003) (6 SCC 697) and P.A. Inamdar Vs. State of Maharashtra (2005) (6 SCC 537) also supports the fact that the education is not a commercial activity. 27. Education would remain as a charity only in a case where education is imparted systematically for a fee prescribed by Government. A private aided or unaided professional institution or any other educational institution of a State is required to collect fees with regard to infrastructure and benefit of students of that educati ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hat the said contributions were in the nature of corpus funds and as such exempt u/s. 12 oi the Act. Therefore, the order of Id. CIT(A) is confirmed with respect to this Issue. 7.3 Respectfully following the order of the Hon'ble ITAT, the addition made by the Assessing Officer on this account is deleted. Since the facts are identical for A.Y: 2012-13 respectfully following the order of Hon'ble ITAT, Ahmedabad and order of CIT(A)-XXI, I am of the considered opinion that the A.O. was not justified in making addition of Rs. 5,00,60,184/- on account of corpus donations. The A.O. is hereby directed to delete the addition of Rs. 5,00,60,184/-. Thus this ground of appeal is allowed. 7. Ground no. 4.1 is regarding not allowing the deduction of 15% towards accumulation u/s. 11 (1) (a). This alternate ground taken by the appellant becomes infructuous as the ground no. 3 has been allowed as discussed above. The same is therefore, dismissed." 9. However, the Tribunal without considering the decision of the Co-ordinate Bench in similar facts has held as under : "7. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the material on record. On going to the facts of the instant case, w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
