MATRU KARMADHARA TRUST,PONDICHERRY vs. ITO, PONDICHERRY

Shri R.M. Narayanan, the Ld. representative for the assessee submitted that the assessee’s trust was registered under Section 12A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’). The object of the trust was to establish pilgrims home in Pondicherry and to maintain and run the same. Apart from this, the assessee has other object, to teach and spread the teaching of Shri Aurobindo and the Mother. The Ld. representative further clarified that the assessee is charging only ₹100/- to 150/- per room for the pilgrims who visit the ashram. According to the Ld. representative, the preaching of teachings of Shri Aurobindo and the Mother would amount to education. Therefore, Proviso to Section 2(15) of the Act is not applicable. The Assessing Officer however treated the object of the assessee as object of general public utility and found that the total turnover of the receipt exceeded the prescribed limit. The Ld. representative clarified that the receipt of the assessee’s trust exceeded the limit as provided under proviso to Section 2(15) of the Act. However, the proviso is not applicable at all. The assessee being an educational trust, proviso to Section 2(15) of the Act cannot be applied for disallowing the claim of the assessee under Section 11 of the Act.

On the contrary, Shri B. Sahadevan, the Ld. Departmental Representative submitted that the assessee cannot be considered to be an educational trust. The assessee is not running any educational institution. The assessee has not established any educational institution. The assessee is not providing any aid or assistance to facilitate education in the country. The preaching of ideology of Shri Aurobindo and the Mother cannot be construed to be an educational activity. At the best, it may be considered to be a religious trust. In this case, the assessee has established and running three guest houses in Pondicherry. Running of guest house even at a subsidiary rate, at the best be construed as general public utility. Therefore, proviso to Section 2(15) of the Act would come in to operation. Then the Assessing Officer has rightly disallowed the claim of the assessee.

We have considered the rival submissions on either side and perused the material available on record. Admittedly, the assessee has established three guest houses in Pondicherry and made available to pilgrims who visit Aurobindo ashram. The assessee claims that since, promoting the preaching of Shri Aurobindo, it has to be construed as an education. This Tribunal is of the considered opinion, Education as provided under Section 2(15) of the Act, cannot be construed acquisition of knowledge by anyone. An individual may acquire knowledge every day and every minute in participating in some programme or activity that cannot be construed as education at all. Education is a formal schooling which results in confirmation of a degree or diploma by a Government or a Government agency or a University established under law. Acquisition of all kind of knowledge cannot be construed as an education at all. Therefore, preaching of ideology by the trust cannot be construed as engaged in educational activity.

Therefore this Tribunal is of the considered opinion the assessee’s trust cannot be construed to be an educational trust.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands dismissed.