Ahmedabad Management Association, Ahmedabad V. The Jt.DIT(Exem.), Ahmedabad

ITA 159/AHD/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2013] 120 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 0460 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 month(s) 5 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 22-03-2013
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: D
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 16-01-2013
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: T SHANKAR
• Assessee Lawyers: MUKESH M PATEL
• Keywords: Charitable institution
• Section: 11; 15

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, D BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE SHRI D. K. TYAGI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI A. K. GARODIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. NO.159 / AHD/2013 (ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10) AHMEDABAD MANAGEMENT ASSOCIATION, C/O MUKESH M PATEL & CO., 3-4, VITHALBHAI BHAVAN, NR. S P COLONY RLY. CROSSING, AHMEDABAD VS. JT. DIT (EXEMPTION) AHMEDABAD PAN/GIR NO. : AAATA5881D (APPELLANT) .. (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY: SHRI MUKESH M PATEL, AR RESPONDENT BY: SHRI T SHANKAR, SR. DR DATE OF HEARING: 11.03.2013 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 22.03.2013 O R D E R PER SHRI A. K. GARODIA, AM:- THIS IS ASSESSEES APPEAL DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORD ER OF LD. CIT(A) XXI, AHMEDABAD DATED 02.01.2013 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10. THE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE AS UNDER: THE APPELLANT RESPECTFULLY SUBMITS AS UNDER: 1. THAT THE LEARNED CIT (APPEALS) ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN DISMISSING THE APPEAL OF THE APPELLANT IN AN EX-PAR TE MANNER, ALLEGING THAT, 'THE APPELLANT HAD BEEN GIVEN OPPORT UNITIES ON VARIOUS DATES BUT THERE HAS BEEN NO COMPLIANCE AT A LL.' IT IS MOST RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED THAT THIS CHARGE OF THE LEARNED CIT (APPEALS) AGAINST THE APPELLANT IS CLEARLY NOT JUSTIFIED, AS DULY HIGHLIGHTED IN THE LETTER DATED 07/01/2013 ADD RESSED TO HIM. I.T.A.NO.159 /AHD/2013 2 2. THAT THE LEARNED CIT (APPEALS) FURTHER ERRED IN LAW AND IN FACTS IN CONFIRMING THE ACTION OF THE LEARNED A.O. IN ASSESSING THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE APPELLANT AT RS.1,68,49,629 AS AGAINST THE RETURNED INCOME OF RS,62,523. 3. THAT THE LEARNED CIT (APPEALS) FURTHER ERRED IN LAW AND IN FACTS IN CONFIRMING THE ACTION OF THE LEARNED A.O. IN HOLDING THAT THE ACTIVITIES OF THE APPELLANT WERE OF A NATU RE WHICH COULD NOT BE TREATED AS A CHARITABLE PURPOSE. 2. BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT IT IS NOTED BY THE A.O. IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER THAT THE RETURN OF INCOME DECLARIN G TOTAL INCOME OF R.62,523/- WAS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ON 29.09.2009. IN THE COURSE OF SCRUTINY ASSESSMENT PROCEEDING, THE A.O. ASKED THE ASSESSEE TO FILE A NOTE OF ACTIVITIES OF THE TRUST AND REGARDING THE ASSESS EES ENTITLEMENT TO EXEMPTION U/S 11 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 IN VIE W OF THE AMENDED DEFINITION OF SECTION 2(15). REPLY WAS SUBMITTED B Y THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE A.O. AND THE RELEVANT PORTION HAS BEEN REPRODUC ED BY THE A.O. IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. AS PER THE REPLY, IT WAS SUBMIT TED BY THE ASSESSEE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS CONDUCTED VARIOUS COURSES DURING T HE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION AND SUBMITTED A LIST OF MORE THAN 800 PROGRAMS CONDUCTED DURING THE YEAR AND ALSO SUBMITTED A DETAILED CHART ABOUT EXPENSES INCURRED IN RESPECT OF EACH OF SUCH PROGRAMME, INCO ME EARNED THERE-FROM AND RESULTANT SURPLUS OR DEFICIT. THIS IS ALSO REP RODUCED BY THE A.O. IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER ITSELF. THEREAFTER THE A.O. HAS SUMMARIZED SUCH CHART AND BIFURCATED THE SAME INTO 4 CATEGORIES BEING (A ) CONTINUING EDUCATION DIPLOMA & CERTIFICATE PROGRAMS, (B) MANAGEMENT DEVE LOPMENT PROGRAMS, (C) PUBLIC TALKS & SEMINARS AND (D) WORKS HOPS & CONFERENCES. OUT OF THE TOTAL RECEIPT OF THE ASSES SEE OF RS.411.91 LACS, THE RECEIPT ON ACCOUNT OF FIRST PROGRAMME I.E. CONT INUING EDUCATION DIPLOMA & CERTIFICATE PROGRAMME, WAS TO THE EXTENT OF RS.332.51 LACS AND THERE WAS NO RECEIPT ON ACCOUNT OF PUBLIC TALK AND SEMINARS. RECEIPT ON ACCOUNT OF MANAGEMENT DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMME WAS OF RS.65.74 LACS I.T.A.NO.159 /AHD/2013 3 AND IN RESPECT OF WORKSHOP AND CONFERENCES RS.13.66 LACS. THE A.O. WAS OF THE OPINION THAT ON GOING THROUGH THE NATURE OF COURSES AND DURATION, THE RESULTANT SURPLUS FOR EACH ACTIVITY, THE ACTIVI TY OF THE ASSESSEE IS NOT EDUCATIONAL AS DEFINED BY HONBLE APEX COURT IN THE CASE OF SOLE TRUSTEE, LOKA SHIKSHANA TRUST VS CIT AS REPORTED IN 101 ITR 234 (S.C.). BY FOLLOWING THIS JUDGEMENT OF HONBLE APEX COURT, IT WAS HELD BY THE A.O. THAT THE ASSESSEES ACTIVITIES ARE NOT EDUCATI ONAL AND SINCE THE RECEIPTS ARE MORE THAN RS.10 LACS, THE PROVISIONS O F SECTION 2(15) ARE APPLICABLE AND, THEREFORE, THE ASSESSEE IS NOT ENTI TLED FOR EXEMPTION. HE REFUSED TO GRANT EXEMPTION TO THE ASSESSEE U/S 11 A ND ASSESSED THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE AT RS.1,42,11,129/-. HE FURTHER MA DE ADDITION OF RS.26,38,500/- ON ACCOUNT OF VOLUNTARY CONTRIBUTION AS CORPUS DONATION RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE DURING THE YEAR ON THIS BA SIS AND SINCE THE ASSESSEE IS DENIED EXEMPTION, FOR CORPUS DONATION C LAIM, THE SAME IS ALSO TO BE ADDED BACK. BEING AGGRIEVED WITH THE ASSESS MENT ORDER, THE ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MATTER IN APPEAL BUT THE SAME WAS DISMISSED BY LD. CIT(A) ON THIS BASIS THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT APPE ARED IN SPITE OF VARIOUS OPPORTUNITIES AND HENCE, HE HELD THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NO EVIDENCE/SUBMISSION TO MAKE WITH REGARD TO THE GROU NDS OF APPEAL RAISED. ON THIS BASIS, HE DISMISSED THE APPEAL OF THE ASSES SEE AND NOW, THE ASSESSEE IS IN FURTHER APPEAL BEFORE US. 3. IN THE COURSE OF HEARING BEFORE US, IT WAS SUBMI TTED BY THE LD. A.R. THAT ON PAGES 1-32 OF THE PAPER BOOK IS THE COPY OF MEMORANDUM AND RULES & REGULATIONS OF THE ASSESSEE SOCIETY WHICH W AS REGISTERED UNDER THE SOCIETIES REGISTRATION AC 1860 AND BOMBAY PUBLI C TRUST ACT 1950. HE DRAWN OUR ATTENTION TO CLAUSE (D) OF THE OBJECTS CLAUSE ON PAGE 3 OF THE PAPER BOOK AS PER WHICH ONE OBJECT OF THE ASSESSEE SOCIETY IS TO MAKE EFFORTS TOWARDS THE PROMOTION AND DEVELOPMENT OF MA NAGEMENT IN GUJARAT, TO PROMOTE EDUCATION IN PRACTICE OF MANAGE MENT AND RELATED I.T.A.NO.159 /AHD/2013 4 SUBJECTS THROUGH MEETING, DISCUSSION, LECTURES, RES EARCH PROJECTS, SEMINARS, CONFERENCE, PROGRAMMES OF STUDIES ETC. H E SUBMITTED THAT HIS GOES TO SHOW THAT THE ENTIRE ACTIVITY OF THE ASSESS EE IS ONLY TO PROMOTE EDUCATION AND THEREFORE, THE PROVISO TO SECTION 2(1 5) IS NOT APPLICABLE WHICH IS APPLICABLE ONLY TO THOSE ACTIVITIES WHICH ARE IN RELATION TO THE OBJECT OF GENERAL PUBLIC UTILITY AND NOT THE MAIN T HREE OBJECTS I.E. RELIEF TO POOR, EDUCATION AND MEDICAL RELIEF. HE ALSO SUBMIT TED THAT ALL THROUGH SINCE THE FORMATION OF THE ASSESSEE IN THE YEAR 196 7, THE ASSESSEE WAS GRANTED EXEMPTION U/S 11. HE SUBMITTED THAT THE CO PY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR VARIOUS ASSESSMENT YEARS BEGINNING FROM ASSESSMENT YEARS 1995-96 TO 2008-09 ARE AVAILABLE O N PAGE 63-71 OF THE PAPER BOOK. IT WAS HIS SUBMISSION THAT WHEN THE F ACTS ARE IDENTICAL IN THE CURRENT YEAR, A.O. WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN REJECTING T HE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE FOR EXEMPTION U/S 11. REGARDING RELIANCE PLACED BY THE A.O. ON THE JUDGEMENT OF HONBLE APEX COURT RENDERED IN THE CAS E OF SOLE TRUSTEE, LOKA SHIKSHANA TRUST (SUPRA), IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THIS JUDGEMENT IS NOT APPLICABLE IN THE PRESENT CASE BECAUSE IT IS EXPLAI NED BY HONBLE GUJARAT HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF GUJARAT STATE COOPERATIVE UNION VS CIT AS REPORTED IN 195 ITR 279 (GUJ.) THAT THE OBSERVATION OF THE HONBLE APEX COURT IN THE CASE OF SOLE TRUSTEE, LOKA SHIKSHANA T RUST (SUPRA) WERE NOT INTENDED TO GIVE A NARROW OR PEDANTIC MEANING TO TH E WORD EDUCATION. IT WAS ALSO EXPLAINED THAT HONBLE GUJARAT HIGH COU RT HAS OBSERVED THAT HONBLE SUPREME COURT HAS INDICATED THAT THE WORD EDUCATION IS NOT USED IN A LOOSE SENSE SO AS TO INCLUDE ACQUISITION OF EVERY KNOWLEDGE BY WAY OF TRAVELING, BEING VICTIM OF SWINDLERS AND THI EVES ETC. AND IT IS INTENDED TO APPLY THE WORD EDUCATION TO SCHOOLS, CO LLEGES AND SIMILAR INSTITUTIONS AND EXCLUDING ANY OTHER MEDIA FOR SUCH ACQUISITION OF KNOWLEDGE. HE ALSO PLACED RELIANCE ON THE TRIBUNAL DECISION RENDERED IN THE CASE OF SARDAR PATEL INSTITUTE OF PUBLIC ADMINI STRATION VS JDIT I.T.A.NO.159 /AHD/2013 5 (EXEMPTION) IN I.T.A.NO. 2350/AHD/2012 DATED 04.01. 2013 AND HE SUBMITTED A COPY OF THIS TRIBUNAL DECISION. AS AGA INST THIS, IT WAS THE FIRST CONTENTION OF THE LD. D.R. THAT THIS MATTER S HOULD GO BACK TO THE FILE OF LD. CIT(A) FOR AFRESH DECISION BECAUSE DUE TO NO N APPEARANCE OF THE ASSESSEE BEFORE HIM, NO FINDING HAS BEEN GIVEN BY H IM AND THEREFORE, THE MATTER SHOULD GO BACK TO HIS FILE. 4. ON MERIT, HIS SUBMISSION WAS THIS THAT THE ISSUE IN DISPUTE IN THE PRESENT CASE IS SQUARELY COVERED AGAINST THE ASSESS EE BY THE JUDGEMENT OF HONBLE APEX COURT RENDERED IN THE CASE OF SOLE TRU STEE, LOKA SHIKSHANA TRUST (SUPRA). HE ALSO PLACED RELIANCE O N THE JUDGEMENT OF HONBLE GUJARAT HIGH COURT RENDERED IN THE CASE OF CIT VS SORABJI NUSSERWANJI PAREKH AS REPORTED IN 66 TAXMAN 411 (GU J.) AND GUJARAT STATE COOPERATIVE UNION VS CIT AS REPORTED IN 195 I TR 279 (GUJ.). 5. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS, PERUSE D THE MATERIAL ON RECORD AND HAVE GONE THROUGH THE ORDERS OF AUTHORIT IES BELOW AND THE JUDGEMENTS CITED BY BOTH THE SIDES. REGARDING THE OBJECTION OF THE LD. D.R. THAT THE MATTER SHOULD GO BACK TO THE FILE OF LD. CIT(A) FOR AFRESH DECISION BECAUSE NO DECISION HAS BEEN GIVEN BY HIM BECAUSE OF NON APPEARANCE OF THE ASSESSEE BEFORE HIM, WE ARE OF TH E CONSIDERED OPINION THAT IN THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE, THE LIMITED DISPUTE IS AS TO WHETHER THE ACTIVITY OF THE ASSESSEE IS IN THE FIELD OF EDU CATION OR NOT AND THE FACTS ARE NOT IN DISPUTE. RELIANCE HAS BEEN PLACED BY BO TH THE SIDES ON SEVERAL JUDGEMENTS OF HONBLE APEX COURT AS WELL AS THE JUR ISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT AND HENCE, WE FEEL THAT SENDING THE MATTER BA CK TO THE FILE OF LD. CIT(A) WILL BE A FUTILE EXERCISE AND HENCE, WE PROC EED TO DECIDE THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE ON MERIT AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSIONS OF BOTH SIDES. 6. WE FIND THAT IN THE PRESENT CASE, THE ONLY DISPU TE IS THAT AS TO WHETHER THE ACTIVITY OF THE ASSESSEE, WHICH INCLUDE CONTINUING EDUCATION I.T.A.NO.159 /AHD/2013 6 OF DIPLOMA CERTIFICATE PROGRAMME, MANAGEMENT DEVELO PMENT PROGRAMME, PUBLIC TALK AND SEMINARS AND WORKSHOP AND CONFERENC ES CAN BE SAID TO BE EDUCATION WHICH IS INCLUDED IN SECTION 2(15) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 OR IT CAN BE COVERED IN THE 4 TH OBJECT OF SECTION 2(15) I.E. THE OBJECT OF GENERAL PUBLIC UTILITY. IN THIS REGARD, WE FIND TH AT THE FIRST JUDGEMENT AVAILABLE IS THE JUDGEMENT OF HONBLE APEX COURT RE NDERED IN THE CASE OF SOLE TRUSTEE, LOKA SHIKSHANA TRUST (SUPRA). WE ALS O FIND THAT THIS JUDGEMENT WAS EXPLAINED BY HONBLE GUJARAT HIGH COU RT IN THE CASE OF GUJARAT STATE COOPERATIVE UNION (SUPRA). WE ALSO F IND THAT IN THE CASE OF SOLE TRUSTEE, LOKA SHIKSHANA TRUST (SUPRA), THE OBS ERVATION OF HONBLE APEX COURT WAS THIS THAT THE FACTS OF THAT CASE WER E THESE THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS ENGAGED IN PUBLISHING AND SELLING ACTIVITY OF N EWS PAPERS AND JOURNALS AND IT WAS THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS EDUCATING THE KANNAD SPEAKING PEOPLE THROUGH NEWS P APERS AND JOURNALS. UNDER THESE FACTS, THIS OBSERVATION WAS MADE BY HON BLE APEX COURT THAT THE SENSE IN WHICH THE WORD EDUCATION HAS BEEN US ED IN SECTION 2(15) IS THE SYSTEMATIC INSTRUCTIONS, SCHOOLING AND RESULTIN G GIVEN TO THE MINDS PREPARING FOR THE WORK OF LIFE. IT IS ALSO OBSERVE D BY HONBLE APEX COURT THAT THE WORD EDUCATION HAS NOT BEEN USED IN THE WI DE AND EXTENDED SENSE ACCORDING TO WHICH EVERY ACTION OF FURTHER KNOWLEDG E CONSTITUTE EDUCATION. HONBLE APEX COURT OBSERVED THAT ACCORD ING TO THIS WIDE AND EXTENDED SENSE, TRAVELING IS EDUCATION, BECAUSE AS A RESULT OF TRAVELING YOU ACQUIRE FRESH KNOWLEDGE BUT THIS IS NOT THE SEN SE IN WHICH THE WORD EDUCATION IS USED IN CLAUSE 15 OF SECTION 2. IT WAS ALSO OBSERVED THAT THE WORD EDUCATION IN THAT CLAUSE IS REFERRING TO THE P ROCESS OF TRAINING AND DEVELOPING THE KNOWLEDGE, SKILL, MIND AND CHARACTER OF STUDENTS BY NORMAL SCHOOLING. WHILE PERUSING THIS JUDGEMENT OF HONBLE APEX COURT, HON GUJARAT HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF GUJARA T STATE COOPERATIVE LTD. (SUPRA) HAS OBSERVED THAT THE OBSERVATION WAS NOT INTENDED TO KEEP I.T.A.NO.159 /AHD/2013 7 OUT THE MEANING OF THE WORD EDUCATION, PERSONS OT HER THAN YOUNG. REGARDING THE EXPLANATION OF SCHOOLING, IT WAS OBSE RVED THAT THIS ALSO MEANS THAT SCHOOLS INSTRUCT AND EDUCATE. THEREFORE , THE MEANING OF THE WORD SCHOOLING, TAKEN BY HONBLE GUJARAT HIGH COURT FORM THE OXFORD ENGLISH DICTIONARY VOL IX PAGE 217. THEREAFTER, IT WAS OBSERVED BY HONBLE GUJARAT HIGH COURT THAT THE OBSERVATION OF HONBLE APEX COURT WAS NOT INTENDED TO GIVE A NARROW OR PEDANTIC SENSE TO THE WORD EDUCATION. THEY HAVE ALSO OBSERVED THAT BY GIVING FURTHER ILLUSTRATIONS OF A TRAVELER GAINING KNOWLEDGE, BEING VICTIM OF SWIND LER AND THIEVES BECOMING WISER, VISITOR OF NIGHT CLUB ADDING TO THE KNOWLEDGE OF HIDDEN MYSTERIES OF LIFE, THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT HAD IN DICATED THAT THE WORD EDUCATION IS NOT USED IN A LOOSE SENSE SO AS TO INC LUDE ACQUISITION OF SUCH KNOWLEDGE. IN THE PRESENT CASE, THUS IS NOT THE OB JECTION OF THE REVENUE THAT THE ACTIVITY OF THE PRESENT ASSESSEE IS LIKE O F AN ACTIVITY WHICH ARE NOTED BY HONBLE APEX COURT SUCH AS TRAVELER GAININ G KNOWLEDGE, VICTIM OF SWINDLER AND THIEVES BECOMING WISER AND VISITOR OF NIGHT CLUB ADDING TO THE KNOWLEDGE OF HIDDEN MYSTERIES OF LIFE ETC. IT IS ALSO OBSERVED BY HONBLE GUJARAT HIGH COURT THAT THE WORD SCHOOL ALS O MEANS INSTRUCTION OR EDUCATION. IN THE PRESENT CASE, THIS IS NOT THE CASE THAT BY WAY OF ACTIVITY OF THE PRESENT ASSESSEE, THE ASSESSEE IS N OT ENGAGED IN THE ACTIVITY OF INSTRUCTION OF EDUCATION OF THE PEOPLE/PERSONS W HO ARE ATTENDING THE PROGRAMMES. IN FACT THE ASSESSEE IS GRANTING DIPLO MA ALSO AND AS HAS BEEN NOTED BY THE A.O. HIMSELF ON PAGE 11 OF THE AS SESSMENT ORDER, MORE THAN 80% OF THE RECEIPTS ARE ON ACCOUNT OF CONTINUI NG EDUCATION, DIPLOMA AND CERTIFICATE PROGRAMMES. ALL THE FOUR ACTIVITIE S NOTED BY THE A.O. ON THIS PAGE OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER ARE NOT LIKE THOS E ACTIVITIES WHICH WERE NOTED BY HONBLE APEX COURT TO SAY THAT THOSE ACTIV ITIES CANNOT BE COVERED BY THE TERM EDUCATION IN SECTION 2(15). IN THE LIGHT OF THE JUDGEMENT OF HONBLE GUJARAT HIGH COURT RENDERED IN HE CASE OF GUJARAT I.T.A.NO.159 /AHD/2013 8 STATE COOPERATIVE UNION (SUPRA), WHERE THE HONBLE GUJARAT HIGH COURT HAS EXPLAINED THE JUDGEMENT OF HONBLE APEX COURT R ENDERED IN THE CASE OF SOLE TRUSTEE, LOKA SHIKSHANA TRUST (SUPRA), WE A RE OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT IN THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE, IT C ANNOT BE SAID THAT THE ACTIVITIES OF THE ASSESSEE IS NO IN THE FIELD OF ED UCATION AND, THEREFORE, NOT ELIGIBLE FOR EXEMPTION U/S 11. 7. NOW, WE CONSIDER THE APPLICABILITY OF THE TWO JU DGEMENTS CITED BY LD. D.R.:- - THE FIRST JUDGEMENT IS THE JUDGEMENT OF HONBLE G UJARAT HIGH COURT RENDERED IN THE CASE OF CIT VS SORABJI NUSSER WANJI PAREKH (SUPRA). WE FIND THAT IN THAT CASE, THIS IS THE JUDGEMENT OF HONBLE GUJARAT HIGH COURT THAT IN THE FACT OF THAT CASE, IT CAN BE SAID THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT AN EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTION AND THUS, WAS NOT ENTITL ED TO TOTAL EXEMPTION U/S 10(22) ALTHOUGH ITS INCOME WOULD BE EXEMPT U/S 11(1 ) TO THE EXTENT IT WOULD APPLY FOR ITS OBJECTS. THERE IS A WIDE DIFFE RENCE BETWEEN THE PROVISION OF SECTION 2(15) AND 10(22) REGARDING THE TERM EDUCATION. IN SECTION 2(15), THE TERM USED IS CHARITABLE PURPOSE INCLUDES EDUCATION WHEREAS IN SECTION 10(22), THE TERM USED IS THIS TH AT ANY INCOME OF A UNIVERSITY OR OTHER EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTION LISTED/ REGISTERED FOR EDUCATION PURPOSE AND NOT FOR THE PURPOSE OF PROFIT. THE FAC TS OF THAT CASE WERE THAT THE SOCIETY OUT OF ITS INCOME HAD GIVEN OUTRIGHT GR ANT TO SOME OF THE SCHOOLS AND UNDER THESE FACTS, IT WAS HELD BY HONB LE GUJARAT HIGH COURT THAT SIMPLY BY GIVING GRANT TO INSTITUTION TO ENABL E THEM TO PURSUE THEIR EDUCATIONAL ACTIVITIES WITHOUT ANY CONTROL WHATSOEV ER ON SUCH STUDENTS, AN INSTITUTION CANNOT BE SAID TO BE EDUCATIONAL INSTIT UTION. THIS GOES TO SHOW THAT THIS JUDGEMENT OF HONBLE GUJARAT HIGH COURT I S NOT APPLICABLE AT ALL IN THE PRESENT CASE BECAUSE THE RATIO LAID DOWN BY HONBLE GUJARAT HIGH COURT IS THIS THAT IN THE FACTS OF THAT CASE, THE A SSESSEE WAS NOT CONSIDERED AS EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTION AND IT IS NOT ELIGIBLE F OR EXEMPTION U/S 10(22) I.T.A.NO.159 /AHD/2013 9 ALTHOUGH IT WAS HELD THAT THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSE E WOULD BE EXEMPT U/S 11(1) TO THE EXTENT IT WAS APPLIED FOR ITS OBJECTS AND, THEREFORE, IN THE PRESENT CASE, THIS JUDGEMENT IS NOT OF ANY HELP TO THE REVENUE BECAUSE IN THE PRESENT CASE, THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE IS NOT THIS THAT THE ASSESSEE IS AN EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTION AND HENCE, ELIGIBLE FOR EXEMPTION U/S 10(22) OR 10(23)C. BECAUSE THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE IS REGA RDING EXEMPTION U/S 11 AND FOR THIS CLAIM, IT WAS HELD BY HONBLE GUJARAT HIGH COURT IN THAT CASE ALSO THAT THE INCOME WOULD BE EXEMPT U/S 11(1) TO T HE EXTENT IT WOULD APPLY FOR ITS OBJECTS HENCE, IN OUR CONSIDERED OPIN ION, THIS JUDGEMENT IS OF NO HELP TO THE REVENUE IN THE PRESENT CASE. - THE 2 ND JUDGEMENT OF HONBLE GUJARAT HIGH COURT ON WHICH RELIANCE HAS BEEN PLACED BY LD. D.R. IS THE JUDGEME NT RENDERED IN THE CASE OF SAURASHTRA EDUCATION FOUNDATION VS CIT AS R EPORTED IN 141 TAXMAN 26 (GUJ.). IN THAT CASE, THE ASSESSEE CONDU CTED VARIOUS CLASSES FOR STUDENTS OF CLASS 10, 11 & 12 TH AND FOR C.A. ENTRANCE EXAMINATION. THE ASSESSEE ALSO HELD REFRESHER COURSES FOR TEACHE RS TEACHING IN VARIOUS SCHOOLS. THE ASSESSEE ALSO HELD LECTURES, MEETINGS , EXHIBITIONS AND RELEVANT EDUCATIONAL TOPICS. IN VIEW OF THESE ACTI VITIES, THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED EXEMPTION U/S 10(22) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961. THE RELEVANT PARA OF THIS JUDGEMENT OF HONBLE GUJARAT HIGH COUR T IS PARA 8 WHICH IS REPRODUCED BELOW FOR THE SAKE OF READY REFERENCE: IT IS SIGNIFICANT TO NOTE THAT WHILE A TRUST HOLDI NG PROPERTY FOR A CHARITABLE PURPOSE OF EDUCATION AS DEFINED BY SECTI ON 2(75) MAY ALSO BE AN EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTION EXISTING SOLELY FOR THE PURPOSE OF EDUCATION, THE TWO INSTITUTIONS CANNOT BE TREATED A S BELONGING TO THE SAME CLASS. AN INSTITUTION MAY BE CARRYING ON EDUCA TIONAL ACTIVITIES AS ARE BEING CARRIED ON BY THE ASSESSEE HEREIN WITH OUT IMPARTING FORMAL EDUCATION AND WITHOUT BEING AFFILIATED TO OR ACCOUNTABLE TO ANY AUTHORITY. SUCH A TRUST CAN CERTAINLY BE CONSID ERED AS QUALIFYING FOR EXEMPTION UNDER SECTION 11(1)(A) REA D WITH SECTION 2(15), BUT THE TERM 'THE EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTION' C ONTEMPLATED BY SECTION 10(22) IS A NARROWER CONCEPT. THOUGH 'EDUCA TIONAL I.T.A.NO.159 /AHD/2013 10 INSTITUTION' AND THE EDUCATIONAL ACTIVITIES ARE CLO SELY INTERCONNECTED: IN SECTION LL(L)(A), READ WITH SECT ION 2(15) IT IS THE ACTIVITIES WHICH ARE IN FOCUS, WHEREAS IN SECTION 1 0(22) BOTH THE INSTITUTION AND THE ACTIVITIES ARE IN FOCUS. AN EDU CATIONAL INSTITUTION UNDER SECTION 10(22) IS THEREFORE, MORE THAN A BODY CARRYING ON CHARITABLE ACTIVITIES IN THE FIELD OF EDUCATION AS CONTEMPLATED BY SECTION 2(15 ). - FROM THE ABOVE PARA OF THIS JUDGEMENT OF HONBLE GUJARAT HIGH COURT, WE FIND THAT IT WAS HELD BY HONBLE GUJARAT HIGH COURT IN THAT CASE THAT A TRUST WHO IS CARRYING OUT EDUCATIONAL ACTIVI TIES WITHOUT IMPARTING FORMAL EDUCATION AND WAS NOT AFFILIATED TO OR ACCOU NTABLE TO ANY AUTHORITY, CAN CERTAINLY BE CONSIDERED AS QUALIFYING FOR EXEMP TION U/S 11(1)(A) READ WITH SECTION 2(15) BUT THE TERM EDUCATIONAL INSTITU TION CONTEMPLATED BY SECTION 10(22) IS A NARROWER CONCEPT. THEREAFTER, HONBLE GUJARAT HIGH COURT ALSO CONSIDERED THE JUDGEMENT OF HONBLE APEX COURT RENDERED IN THE CASE OF SOLE TRUSTEE, LOKA SHIKSHNA TRUST (SUPR A). HONBLE GUJARAT HIGH COURT HAS ALSO CONSIDERED ITS OWN EARLIER JUDG EMENT RENDERED IN THE CASE OF GUJARAT STATE COOPERATIVE UNION (SUPRA) AND IT WAS OBSERVED THAT IN THAT CASE, THE ASSESSEE WAS CONDUCTING EMPLOYEES TRAINING AND RUNNING FOUR TRAINING CENTERS WHICH CONDUCT SPECIAL COURSES FOR EMPLOYEES AND URBAN COOPERATIVE BANK, DISTRICT COOPERATIVE BANK A ND ALSO EMPLOYERS. THE ASSESSEE ALSO CONDUCTED COOPERATIVE EDUCATION P ROGRAMMES, CONSUMER EDUCATION PROGRAMMES, WOMEN COOPERATIVE ED UCATION PROGRAMMES, SPECIAL TRAINING CLASSES IN THE DISTRIC T UNDER COOPERATIVE EDUCATION AND INDUSTRIAL PROJECTS AND CENTERS AS ME NTIONED IN THE LIST OF ITS ACTIVITIES. IT WAS FURTHER OBSERVED BY HONBLE GUJ ARAT HIGH COURT THAT IT WAS IN THE CONTEXT OF THESE ACTIVITIES, IT WAS HELD IN THAT CASE, THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS EXISTING FOR EDUCATIONAL PURPOSE. IN OUR CONSIDERED OPINION, THIS JUDGEMENT OF HONBLE GUJARAT HIGH COURT CITED BY THE LD. D.R. IS IN FACT SUPPORTING THE CASE OF HE ASSESSEE AND NOT THE REVENUE. IT WAS I.T.A.NO.159 /AHD/2013 11 OBSERVED BY HONBLE GUJARAT HIGH COURT IN THAT CASE THAT THE AS PER THE EARLIER JUDGEMENT OF THE SAME COURT, IT WAS HELD TH AT EDUCATION IS NOT CONFINED TO TEACHING OF YOUNG BUT THE COURT DID NOT DRAW AWAY WITH THE TEST OF SYSTEMATIC INSTRUCTION AND TRAINING EVOLVED BY THE HONBLE APEX COURT. IN THE PRESENT CASE ALSO, THE ACTIVITY OF T HE ASSESSEE FULFILLS THE SATISFACTION OF THIS TEST OF SYSTEMATIC INSTRUCTION AND TRAINING EVOLVED BY HONBLE APEX COURT. IT COULD NOT BE ESTABLISHED BY THE REVENUE THAT THE PROGRAMMES UNDERTAKEN BY THE ASSESSEE WERE NOT INVO LVING SYSTEMATIC EDUCATION OR TRAINING AND HENCE, WE HOLD THAT IN OU R CONSIDERED OPINION, THIS JUDGEMENT OF HONBLE GUJARAT HIGH COURT IS ALS O NOT RENDERING ANY HELP TO THE REVENUE. 8. AS PER ABOVE DISCUSSION, WE HAVE FOUND THAT THE ISSUE INVOLVED IN THE PRESENT CASE IS SQUARELY COVERED IN FAVOUR OF T HE ASSESSEE BY THE JUDGEMENT OF HONBLE GUJARAT HIGH COURT CITED BY TH E LD. A.R. HAVING BEEN RENDERED IN THE CASE OF GUJARAT STATE COOPERAT IVE UNION (SUPRA) AND THE JUDGEMENT OF HONBLE APEX COURT FOLLOWED BY THE A.O. HAS BEEN EXPLAINED AND CONSIDERED BY HONBLE GUJARAT HIGH CO URT IN THAT CASE. BOTH THE JUDGEMENTS OF HONBLE GUJARAT HIGH COURT C ITED BY THE LD. D.R. ARE NOT RENDERING ANY HELP TO THE REVENUE IN THE PR ESENT CASE AND HENCE, BY RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE JUDGEMENT OF HONBLE GUJARAT HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF GUJARAT STATE COOPERATIVE UNION (SUPRA) , WE DECIDE THE ISSUE IN DISPUTE IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE AND WE HOLD TH AT THE ACTIVITIES OF THE ASSESSEE ARE IN THE FIELD OF EDUCATION AND THE ASSE SSEE IS ELIGIBLE FOR EXEMPTION U/S 11(1) IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY OTHER OBJ ECTION OF THE A.O. IN THIS REGARD. 9. REGARDING THE ADDITION MADE BY THE A.O. OF RS.26 ,38,500/- IN RESPECT OF CORPUS DONATION, WE WOULD LIKE TO OBSERV E THAT THIS ADDITION WAS MADE BY THE A.O. ON THIS BASIS THAT ALLOWANCE O F EXEMPTION WERE DENIED AND HENCE, CORPUS DONATION HAS TO BE ADDED T O THE INCOME OF THE I.T.A.NO.159 /AHD/2013 12 ASSESSEE. SINCE, WE HAVE HELD THAT THE ASSESSEE IS ELIGIBLE FOR EXEMPTION U/S 11, THIS ADDITION ALSO DOES NOT SURVIVE. 11. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWE D. 12. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THE DATE MENTIONED HEREINABOVE. SD./- SD./- (D. K. TYAGI) (A. K. GARODIA) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SP COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. THE APPLICANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CIT CONCERNED 4. THE LD. CIT (APPEALS) 5. THE DR, AHMEDABAD BY ORDER 6. THE GUARD FILE AR,ITAT,AHMEDABAD 1. DATE OF DICTATION 15/03/2013 2. DATE ON WHICH THE TYPED DRAFT IS PLACED BEFORE THE DICTATING MEMBER 19/20.03.2013.OTHER MEMBER 3. DATE ON WHICH THE APPROVED DRAFT COMES TO THE SR. P .S./P.S. 4. DATE ON WHICH THE FAIR ORDER IS PLACED BEFORE THE D ICTATING MEMBER FOR PRONOUNCEMENT 22/03/2013 5. DATE ON WHICH THE FAIR ORDER COMES BACK TO THE SR. P.S./P.S.1/4 6. DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE BENCH CLERK 1/04/2013 7. DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE HEAD CLERK .. 8. THE DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE ASSISTANT RE GISTRAR FOR SIGNATURE ON THE ORDER . 9. DATE OF DESPATCH OF THE ORDER. .