Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, RAJKOT BENCH, RAJKOT
Before: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Waseem Ahmed
आदेश/ORDER PER : SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JUDICIAL MEMBER:-
These two appeals are filed against the orders dated 28-10- 2020 & 06-03-2020 passed by CIT(Exemption), Ahmedabad for assessment year 2020-21.
2. The grounds of appeals are as under:- “1. The learned CIT(Exemption) erred in rejecting in the application for registration by order dated 28.10.2020 by treating it as filed.
164/Rjt/2022 A.Y. 2020-21 Page No
2. Without prejudice to Ground No.1 the rejection of the application without giving opportunity to the appellant of being heard is against the rules of natural justice & therefore bad in law.
3. The learned CIT(A)(exemption) erred in not considering the petition dated 28.11.2020 for restoration of the application.
3. The learned CIT(A) erred in not taking into consideration various submissions & judgements holding that an assessee can have more than one object other than the educational institution but it would be entitled to exemption u/s 10 vide Madras High Court judgement reported in 135ITR Pg. 485 & also Delhi High Court WP (C) No. 5311 of 2008.” “1. The learned CIT(Exemption) erred in rejecting in the application for registration by order dated 28.10.2020 by treating it as filed.
Without prejudice to Ground No.1 the rejection of the application without giving opportunity to the appellant of being heard is against the rules of natural justice & therefore bad in law.
3. The learned CIT(A) (exemption) erred in not considering the petition dated 28.11.2020 for restoration of the application.
4. The learned CIT(A) erred in not taking into consideration various submissions & judgements holding that an assessee can have more than no object other than the educational institution but it would be entitled to exemption u/s 10 vide Madras High Court judgement reported in 135 ITR pg. 485 & also Delhi High Court WP (C) No. 5311 of 2008.”
The assessee trust made an application in form 56D seeking approval u/s. 10(23C)(vi)(via) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 accompanied by the various documents and the same was rejected by the CIT(E) on 28-10-2020 on the ground that the institution is engaged in the multi-objects apart from education. The assessee further made an application dated 28-10-2020 which was rejected by the CIT(E) on 06-03-2020.
164/Rjt/2022 A.Y. 2020-21 Page No
Being aggrieved by the order dated 28-10-2020 and 06-03- 2020, the assessee has filed two appeals before us. The core issue in both the appeals are that of rejection of the assessee’s application approval u/s. 10(23C)(vi)(via) on the ground that institution is engaged in multiple objects apart from education.
At the time of hearing, the ld. A.R. submitted that the Hon’ble Apex Court of New Noble Society Education vs. CIT (Civil Appeal No. 3795 of 2014 order dated 19-10-2022) has not considered the aspect of person and institution cannot be equated. The ld. A.R. submitted assessee’s application should not have been rejected as the assessee is also engaged in the educational institutions as required u/s. 10(23C)(VI) of the Act. The ld. A.R. also submitted written submissions as follows: “Date: 11 12 2023 Sadhu Vaswani Centre (Saurashtra) 3/8 Gayakwadi Plot Rajkot Appellant Vs The CIT (Exemptions) Ahmedabad Respondent I.T.A. No. : 145/RJT/2020 I.T.A. No : 164/RJT/2022 Assessment Year : 2020-21 Against Order : U/S 10(23C)(vi)
164/Rjt/2022 A.Y. 2020-21 Page No
2. The Appellant has various institutions that carry out its 4 main charitable objects.
3. That education is one of the objects.
4. That for the purpose of carrying on its object of education the appellant rum various schools, where education is the sole objective.
5. The appellant applied for a certificate for exemption u/s 10(23C)(vi)
6. The CIT had rejected the application stating that education is not the sole object of the trust.
7 The Appellant submits that [a] The provisions of section 10 apply to a person
Incomes not included in total income in computing the total income of previous year of any person, any income falling within any of the following clauses shall not be included- [b] The provisions of section 10(2 3Clivil state as under:-
Any university or other education institution existing solely for education purposes and not for purposes of profit, other than those mentioned in sub-clause (iiiab) or sub-clause (iiiab) and which may be approved by the [Principal Commissioner or Commissioner];
8. Thus, reading of the two sections and sub sections we submit that Section 10 supposes that a person will have various incomes, but the incomes that fall in section out of the Total income will not be liable to be taxed.
9 The section 10(23C)(vi) supposes income out of total income.
10 Our educational institution imparts solely education. There is no profits purpose and it also solely carries on educational activities.
11 The Hon'ble Supreme Court has decided a matter in the case of New Noble Education Society. In this judgement The Hon’ court has decided the meaning of the word "Solely "Education" "Incidental". A 164/Rjt/2022 A.Y. 2020-21 Page No synopsis of the decision and the pages in ITR 448 where they have discussed the terms before coming to their conclusion is enclosed.
12 The appellant submits that the Hon'ble Court has not discussed or decided the submission that the person (Trust) can be different from the institution that carries on the educational work.
13 The Appellant therefore submits that his case is not covered by the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court.
The ld. D.R. relied upon the order of the ld. CIT(E) and the Hon’ble Apex Court in case of New Noble Education (supra).
We have heard both the parties and perused all the relevant materials available on record. It is pertinent to note that the distinguishing facts which have been pointed out by the ld. A.R. does not stand in toto in light of decision of Hon’ble Apex Court in New Noble Education Society supra and in fact after verifying the 164/Rjt/2022 A.Y. 2020-21 Page No objects of the society which is placed before us at page no. 4 of the paper book of the assessee clearly sets out that the assessee is not solely into the activity of education. The ld. A.R. pointed almost 19 decisions, but the same will not be applicable in Assessee’s case as in Assessee’s case, the assessee is doing other activities and not exclusively dealing with education as explained and decided by the latest decision of Hon’ble Apex Court in case of New Noble Education Society (SC). Therefore, there is no need to interfere with the findings of CIT (Exemption). Thus, both the appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed.
In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed.
Order pronounced in the open court on 20-12-2023