MARITIME TRAINING & RESEARCH FOUNDATION,MUMBAI vs. ADIT (E) 1(1), MUMBAI

Accordingly, the AO issued show cause notice to the assessee dated 14.10.2011 which was replied on 21.12.2011 and the detailed reply of the assessee is reproduced in para 3.12 of the assessment year. After perusing the reply of the assessee, the AO held that the assessee was engaged in the activities of training and not education as contemplated within the meaning of section 2(15) of the Act and thus the trust was doing the activities of commercial nature and clearly business activities and accordingly, the AO completed the assessment u/s 143(3) of the Act vide assessment order dated 24.12.2011 at an income of Rs.2,62,94,895/-. Aggrieved by the order of the AO, the assessee has preferred appeal

The ld.AR vehemently submitted that the case of the assessee is fully covered by the decision of Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in IT Appeal no.465 of 2012 in Director of Income tax V/s Samudra Institute of Maritime Studies Trust, order dated 7.8.2014 wherein an identical issue has been decided in favour of the assessee and prayed that following the ratio laid down in the said decision the order of the ld.CIT(A) be set aside and AO be directed to allow the deduction as claimed by the assessee under section 11 of the Act.

On the contrary, the ld.DR reiterated the facts of the case as submitted before the ld.CIT(A) and heavily relied on the order of ld.CIT(A).

We have carefully considered the submissions of the parties, perused the material placed before us including the orders of authorities below and case laws relied upon by the parties. We find that the assessee was denied exemption under section 11 of the Act on the ground that the assessee was engaged in imparting training to cadets and not education within the meaning of section 2(15) of the Act and motive of the assessee was earning profit from the said activities. We find that the similar issue has been considered by the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Samudra Institute of Maritime Studies Trust,(supra)/ The operative part of the said judgment is reproduced below : “3. We have perused the orders passed by the authorities including the Tribunal. We have also perused the two decisions, one of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and relied upon by both the counsel and equally a short judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of DIT (Exemptions) v. National Safety Council [2008] 305 ITR 257 (Bom). We are of the opinion that the Tribunal has applied the correct test in concluding that the exemption under section 11 can be availed of by the Respondent - Assessee. In doing so, the Tribunal referred to the objects as set out in the Trust Deed of the Respondent - Assessee. They are to set up, administer and maintain technical training institution at various places in India for pre-sea and post-sea training for the ships and maritime industry as a Public Charitable Institute for education. That is to provide on-board and offshore training and continuing technical education for Officers, both on the deck and engine side. One of the object was to register with the Director General of Shipping and obtain other necessary approvals at the State and Central levels. We do not find that the ratio of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court or of this Court, which may be dealing with section 10(22), has been applied to such an extent as complained by Mr Malhotra. In the present case, the Tribunal in paragraph 9.6 of the impugned order concludes that the Assessee is giving training in the above area to seamen. All the 6 7247/Mum/2012 courses may not be approved by the Director General of Shipping but that by itself is no ground to hold that the purpose is not charitable. The exemption under section 11 can be claimed and bearing in mind the object of the Trust. We are of the opinion that the Tribunal and the CIT (Appeals) have approached the issue correctly and in the light of the definition so also the tests laid down came to a factual conclusion that the Respondent is entitled to exemption under section 11 of the Act. This is not a case where the purpose can be said to run a coaching class or a centre. This is an institution which imparts education in the area of pre-sea and post-sea training to seamen so as to prepare them for all duties. In such circumstances, we do not find that the concurrent findings of fact are vitiated by error of law apparent on the face of the record or perversity enabling us to entertain this Appeal. There is no substantial question of law. The Appeal is therefore dismissed with no order as to costs.”

On perusal of the above judgement it is revealed that the assessee trust was set up to administer and maintain technical training institution at various places in India for pre-sea and post-sea training for the ships and maritime industry and was engaged to provide on-board and offshore training and also seems to be education and accordingly, held that there is no substantial question of law and dismissed the appeal of the revenue. We find that the case of assessee is squarely covered by the ratio laid down by the jurisdictional High Court in the case of Samudra Institute of Maritime Studies Trust,(supra). Respectfully following the above mentioned judgment of Hon’ble High Court we set aside the order of the ld.CIT(A) and direct the AO to allow the benefit an enumerated under section 11 of the Act by deleting the addition.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on 22.08.2016.