KOSHLESH TIWARI,FAIZABAD AYODHYA vs. ITO - 1 KORBA, KORBA , CHHATISGARH

At the time of hearing none appeared for the assessee. However, an adjournment petition has been filed which is rejected. The matter is heard after recording the submissions of the Ld. Sr. DR and on a careful perusal of the materials available on record.

The solitary grievance of the assessee is that the Revenue Authorities have treated the stipend received by the assessee as salary and not scholarship, therefore, denied exemption u/s.10(16) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘the Act’).

Admittedly, during the relevant time, the assessee was registered as Super Speciality Trainee – Genito Urinary Surgery (Urology) in Batra Hospital and Medical Research Centre, New Delhi and was doing super Speciality in Urology. That during this tenure of his course which was for 3 years, he was getting stipend for his entire duration of 3 years. That at the assessment proceedings, the assessee had also furnished certificate

The Ld. CIT(Appeals)/NFAC in its impugned order had sustained the addition made by the A.O on the ground that the assessee had not filed any documentary evidence demonstrating specifically that he was receiving scholarship from Batra Hospital and Medical Research Centre, New Delhi. However, the fact of the matter is that admittedly, his education qualification and that he was Super Speciality Trainee in Urology Department has all been accepted by the Department. It is also accepted that he was received stipend for all the 3 years. The fact further is that the Revenue has not brought on record distinction to demarcate ‘scholarship’ and ‘stipend’ for not granting exemption u/s.10(16) of the Act. Both terms are used to demonstrate a particular sum of money to assist a student to complete educational degrees, for which, he has been enrolled. Essentially, the word ‘scholarship’ is used in Educational Institution in higher degree college where the word ‘scholar’ is associated with the package given to the student for his academic brilliance, therefore, such financial aid is referred to as term ‘scholarship’. Similarly, in any other professional institution whatever the amount is given to a particular person for completion of training, is referred to as ‘stipend’. Therefore, the terms are though different but the purpose is one and same

The Revenue in the present case has not negated the facts on record and at the same time, has not given any specific findings regarding the fact that the stipend is not scholarship. Mere on the basis of terminology, the rightful exemption cannot be denied to the assessee when all other facts are admitted by the Department. In view thereof, I set-aside the order of the Ld.CIT(Appeals)/NFAC and direct the A.O to delete addition from the hands of the assessee while providing appeal effect of this order.

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed as per afore-stated terms. Order pronounced in open court on 21st day of April, 2026.