BATTA EDUCATION FOUNDATION,GURGAON vs. CIT (EXEMPTIONS), CHANDIGARH

ORDER PER BEENA A PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER Present appeal has been filed by assessee against order dt. 26.11.2015 passed by Ld.CIT(E), Chandigarh on the following grounds of appeal. “1. On the facts and the circumstances of the case and the law applicable thereto, the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption) has erred in rejecting the application seeking registration u/s 12AA of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

2. The Id. Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption) has also erred in rejecting the application for grant of registration u/s 12AA of the Income Tax Act, 1961 by giving finding that- a. The aims and objects of the trust are mostly general in nature with no specific purpose defined; b. Aims and objects do not point out towards any activity for public at large or any activity attributable to the charitable nature of the trust; and c. There are amendment clause, irrevocability clause, Utilisation Batta Education Foundation vs. CIT(Exemptions) clause, beneficiary clause in the deed. 3. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption) has passed the impugned order on the basis of surmises and conjectures alleging facts not relevant to the matter pending for consideration before him i.e. grant of registration u/s 12AA of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 4. The appellant craves leave to add, delete, modify, amend or vary any grounds of appeal

.”

2. Brief facts of the case are as under: Assessee filed application for registration under section 12 AA of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) on 05/05/15. Ld.CIT issued notice, in response to which representative of assessee appeared before Ld.CIT. Ld.CIT observed that trust deed was executed on 29/01/14 before Registrar of Trust Gurgaon and that assessee had acquired a school in Delhi by the name M/s Bloom School, during financial year 2013-14, which was earlier run under a Private partnership. Upon verifying balance sheet of school, Ld.CIT observed that sum of Rs. 78.54 lakhs was shown as income for year ending 31/03/13, where assessee had shown ‘Nil’ income, for year ending 31/03/14. It was also observed by Ld. CIT that the audit report in Form 10 BB for claiming exemption under section 10(23C) of the Act was not in prescribed form, and therefore to that extent exemption claimed was factually incorrect. Ld.CIT thus rejected the application for grant of registration under section 12AA of the Act.

3. Aggrieved by the order of Ld. CIT assessee is in appeal before us now.

4. Ld.AR submitted that assessee is engaged in providing primary education to children from 01/04/14. Assessee had also filed an application in Form 1C seeking recognition up to primary level under Right to Free and Compulsory Education Act,2009 2 Batta Education Foundation vs. CIT(Exemptions) with the State Education Department on 09/04/14. He referred to page 16-17 of paper book, wherein said application has been placed. He also referred to trust deed which is placed at page 1 to 15 of paper book wherein Objects Clause 2 reads as under: “ 2) to establish, acquire, hold, construct, maintain and run group of faculties, universities in different fields, secondary and senior secondary education, sports Academy, colleges institutes polytechnics for imparting all sorts of education in the field of medical, para medical, engineering, management, vocational course in India to children, boys, girls, men and women. 3) to establish, open, develop, run, support, maintain and administer Playskool, creche/daycare centres, schools, colleges, sports Academy, James for children, hostels, management training centres and similar other institutes along with necessary hostel facilities, MBA colleges, engineering colleges, career counselling centres, to provide education of all types (i.e. Basic, professional, technical and non-technical) also engaging in the activities necessary for education so as to benefit general public at large.” 4.1. Ld.AR submitted that, at the stage of grant of registration under section 12AA of the Act, Ld. CIT is supposed to examine/verify genuineness of objects of trust, and it is not appropriate on the part of Ld.CIT to examine the aspect of application of income. He placed reliance upon following decisions in support of his contentions: i. Reliable Educational Alliance Society vs. CIT(2009) 126 TTJ 407 (Del)(Trib) ii. Acharya Sewa Niyas Uttaranchal vs. CIT (2006) 105 TTJ 761 (Del) (Trib) iii. U.P.Awas Evam Vikas Parishad vs. ITO (2007) 162 Taxmann 173 (Luck.)(Trib) iv. Jyoti Prabha Society vs. CIT (2003) 87 TTJ 942 (Del.)(Trib.) Batta Education Foundation vs. CIT(Exemptions) v. CIT vs. Gopi Ram Goyal Charitable Trust (2016) 240 Taxman 749 (2017) 392 ITR 285 (Raj)(HC) vi. Shavak Shiksha Samiti vs. CIT, 104 TTJ 127 vii. Saint Kabir Educational Trust vs. CIT (2010) 41 DTR 267 (Amrit.)(Trib.) viii. Fifth Generation Education Society 185 ITR 634 (Allahabad HC) ix. Swami Dayanand Educational Trust vs. CIT (2016) 157 ITD 564 (Del.Trib.)

4.2. Ld. DR vehemently supported the order of Ld. CIT, however, could not controvert the submissions advanced by Ld. AR.

by assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes.