THE INSTITUTE OF MARINE ENGINEERS (INDIA),MUMBAI vs. ITO EXEMPTIONS WARD 2(4), MUMBAI

Upon going through the contents and averments made in the affidavit, we are satisfied that the delay in filing the appeals was due to reasonable cause. Hence, we condone the delay and admit the appeals for adjudication on merits.

Since the appeals involve a common issue, they have been clubbed together and disposed of by way of a consolidated order, for the sake of convenience.

The solitary grievance of the assessee in these appeals relates to denial claim of exemption under Section 11 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”).

Briefly the facts are, the assessee is a society registered under the Societies Registration Act. It is also registered with the Charity Commissioner, Mumbai, under Bombay Public Trust Act. Even the Commissioner of Income Tax, being satisfied with the charitable objects of the assessee, has granted registration under Section 12A and approval under Section 80G of the Act to the assessee.

Be that as it may, the main object of the assessee is to provide Scientific Development and Marine Engineering in all its branches, and disseminate such knowledge. In this regard, the assessee imparts education and training to seafarers

Learned counsel appearing for the assessee, at the very outset, submitted that the issue is squarely covered in favour of the assessee, as, while dealing with identical nature of dispute in assessee's case in Assessment Year 2009-10, the Tribunal, after thoroughly examining the objects of the assessee and the nature of activities carried on, has held that since the assessee is an educational institution imparting education to seafarers, it is entitled to claim exemption under Section 11 of the Act. In this context, he drew our attention to the order passed by the Tribunal in ITA No. 5666/Mum/2025 17.12.2025, for Assessment Year 2009-10. Proceeding further, he submitted that even the First Appellate Authority, while dealing with similar dispute in assessee's case in Assessment Year 2014-15, has allowed claim of exemption under Section 11 of the Act. Thus, he submitted, assessee's claim of exemption under Section 11 of the Act should be allowed.

The learned Departmental Representative (DR), though agreed that in Assessment Year 2009-10, the ITAT has decided the issue in favour of the assessee, however, strongly relying upon the observations of the Departmental Authorities, he submitted that the assessee, in reality, is not imparting education.

We have considered rival submissions and perused the materials on record. The moot question, in our view, is with regard to nature of activities carried on by the assessee, whether it imparts education or its objects are for general public utility. While considering this particular aspect in the assessee's case for Assessment Year 2009-10, in order referred to above, the Coordinate Bench has held as under:

As could be seen from the observations of the Coordinate Bench, it had clearly and categorically held that the assessee Trust is existing solely for the purpose of imparting education. Thus, Department's objection that the objects of the assessee are for general public utility cannot be accepted. That being the case, proviso under Section 2(15) of the Act will not be applicable to the assessee. Notably, while deciding a dispute of identical nature in assessee’s case for Assessment Year 2014-15, the First Appellate Authority has held that the assessee is engaged in imparting education, hence, eligible to claim exemption under Section 11 of the Act.

In the result, appeals are allowed.