ITO (E), New Delhi V. Society for Development Studies, New Delhi

ITA 2143/DEL/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2014] 120 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7416 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 4 month(s) 15 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 28-08-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: G
• Next Hearing Date: 20-08-2014
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 12-04-2013
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Charitable institution
• Section: 143(3); 80G; 12AA; 12; 11

Judgement Text

ITA NO. 2143/DEL/2013 1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH G, NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI S.V. MEHROTRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI H.S. SIDHU, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. NO. 2143/DEL/2013 A.Y. : 2009-10 INCOME TAX OFFICER(E), TRUST WARD-II, ROOM NO. 2410, 24 TH FLOOR, E-2 BLOCK, DR. SP MUKERJEE CIVIC CENTRE, NEW DELHI 110 002 VS. SOCIETY FOR DEVELOPMENT STUDIES, CORE-6A, 2 ND FLOOR, LODHI ROAD, INDIA HABITAT CENTRE, NEW DELHI 110 003 (PAN: AABAS2815H) (APPELLANT) (APPELLANT) (APPELLANT) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) (RESPONDENT) (RESPONDENT) (RESPONDENT) DEPARTMENT BY : SH. RAKESH KUMAR, SR. DR ASSESSEE BY : SH. K. SAMPATH AND SH. V. RAJ KUMAR, ADVOCATES DATE OF HEARING : 21.8.2014 DATE OF HEARING : 21.8.2014 DATE OF HEARING : 21.8.2014 DATE OF HEARING : 21.8.2014 DATE OF ORDER : DATE OF ORDER : DATE OF ORDER : DATE OF ORDER : 28 2828 28.8.2014 .8.2014 .8.2014 .8.2014 ORDER ORDER ORDER ORDER PER PER PER PER H.S. SIDHU H.S. SIDHU H.S. SIDHU H.S. SIDHU : : : : J JJ JM MM M THIS APPEAL BY THE REVENUE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS-XXI), NEW D ELHI DATED 21.1.2013 PERTAINING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10. 2. THE GROUNDS RAISED READ AS UNDER:- 1) ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CAS E, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN IGNORING THAT THE ACTIVITIES CARRIED ITA NO. 2143/DEL/2013 2 OUT BY THE ASSESSEE ARE PROVIDING SERVICES TO VARI OUS GOVERNMENT AGENCIES BOTH INDIAN & OVERSEAS TO HOLD SEMINARS, TO EDUCATE PEOPLE IN THE AREAS OF URBAN HOUSING DEVELOPMENT FOR POOR AND FOR THEIR UPLIFTME NT AND IT DOES NOT PROVIDE ANY SCHOLASTIC EDUCATION, THEREFORE, THE ACTIVITIES DO NOT FALLS UNDER THE L IMB EDUCATION 2). ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN IGNORING THE JUDGMENT OF HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF SOLE TRUSTY, L OK SHIKSHANA TRUST VS. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (19 75) 10 ITR 234 (SC) WHEREIN, THE HONBLE APEX COURT HAS DEFINED WORD EDUCATION AND OBSERVED THAT THE SENS E IN WHICH THE WORD EDUCATION HAS BEEN USED IN SECTION 2(15) IS THE SYSTEMATIC INSTRUCTION, SCHOOLING OR T RAINING GIVEN TO THE YOUNG IN PREPARATION FOR THE WORK OF L IFE. THE WORD EDUCATION HAS NOT BEEN USED IN THAT WIDE AND EXTENDED SENSE ACCORDING TO WHICH EVERY ACQUISITION OF FURTHER KNOWLEDGE CONSTITUTES EDUCATION. 3). THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD, TO ALTER OR AMEND ANY GROUND OF APPEAL RAISED ABOVE AT THE TIME OF HEARI NG. 3. THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE RETURN OF INCOME FOR A.Y. 2009-10 WAS FILED ON 25.9.2009 DECLARING TOTA L INCOME AT NIL AFTER CLAIMING APPLICATION OF INCOME AS PER PROVISI ONS OF SECTION 11 OF THE ACT. THE RETURN WAS PROCESSED U/S 143(1) OF THE ACT. THE CASE WAS SELECTED FOR SCRUTINY WITH THE PRIOR APPROVAL OF DGIT(E). INITIAL NOTICE WAS SENT U/S. 143(2) DATED 27.9.2010 WAS IS SUED AND DULY ITA NO. 2143/DEL/2013 3 SERVED UPON THE ASSESSEE. THE AO CALLED FOR NECESS ARY DETAILS WHICH WERE SUBMITTED FROM TIME TO TIME. THE BOOKS O F ACCOUNTS WERE PRODUCED AND TEST CHECKED BY THE AO. THE AO OB SERVED THAT ASSESSEE TRUST IS REGISTERED U/S. 12A(A) OF THE IT ACT, 1961 VIDE ORDER OF THE CIT, DELHI-VI DATED 10.9.1985. THE A SSESSEE IS ALSO ENJOYING EXEMPTION U/S. 80G OF THE I.T. ACT, 1961. THE AO NOTICED DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, FROM THE PERUSAL OF INCOME AND EXPENDITURE ACCOUNT, THAT ASSESSEE HAS DECLARED INC OME ON ACCOUNT OF FUNDS FROM GOVT. OF INDIA AND GOVT. AGENCIES, RE IMBURSEMENT OF EXPENDITURE ETC. FROM THE PERUSAL OF THE TDS CERTI FICATE ATTACHED WITH THE RETURN, HE NOTED ASSESSEE HE DECLARED CONT RACTUAL OR COMMERCIAL NATURE INCOME FROM THE FOLLOWING PARTIES :- S.NO. S.NO. S.NO. S.NO. NAME OF THE PARTY NAME OF THE PARTY NAME OF THE PARTY NAME OF THE PARTY GROSS AMOUNT ON GROSS AMOUNT ON GROSS AMOUNT ON GROSS AMOUNT ON WHICH TDS WHICH TDS WHICH TDS WHICH TDS CERTIFICATE IS CERTIFICATE IS CERTIFICATE IS CERTIFICATE IS ATTACHED. ATTACHED. ATTACHED. ATTACHED. SECTION UNDER SECTION UNDER SECTION UNDER SECTION UNDER WHICH THE TAX IS WHICH THE TAX IS WHICH THE TAX IS WHICH THE TAX IS DEDUCTED / DEDUCTED / DEDUCTED / DEDUCTED / NATURE OF NATURE OF NATURE OF NATURE OF PAYMENT PAYMENT PAYMENT PAYMENT CLAIMED TO BE CLAIMED TO BE CLAIMED TO BE CLAIMED TO BE MADE TO THE MADE TO THE MADE TO THE MADE TO THE ASSESSEE ASSESSEE ASSESSEE ASSESSEE 1 THE CHIEF ACCOUNTANT MUMBAI MUNICIPAL CORP. 39,79,312/- CONTRACTUAL PAYMENT 2 MINISTRY OF RURAL DEVELOPMENT 5,84,400/- 194J 3 -DO- 92,500/- 194J 4 - DO - 3,70,000/ - 194J 5 MUNICIPAL CORP., MUMBAI 5,51,687/- CONTRACTOR PAYMENT ITA NO. 2143/DEL/2013 4 3.1 IN THE LIGHT OF THE ABOVE FACTS THE ASSESSEE W AS ASKED TO JUSTIFY THE ACTIVITIES FOR CHARITABLE PURPOSE IN VIEW OF THE AMENDED PROVISIONS OF THE I.T. ACT, 1961 VIDE SHOW CAUSE DA TED 16.12.2011. IN RESPONSE, TO THE SAME THE ASSESSEE TRIED TO JUS TIFY ITS ACTIVITIES AS CHARITABLE ACTIVITIES BY STATING THAT ASSESSEE IS P ROVIDING ADVISORY SERVICES TO CENTRAL AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT WITH NO CO MMERCIAL INTEREST. ALL APPLICATIONS ON ASSESSEES PROGRAMME S ARE ROUTED DIRECTLY BY THE INDIAN MISSION TO GOVT. OF INDIA AN D THE INSTITUTE HAS NO DECISION MAKING POWER IN THE SELECTION OF PARTIC IPANTS AS WELL AS ON THE EXPENSES TO BE REIMBURSED OR FEES TO BE PAI D. MORE THAN 95 PER CENT OF THE PAYMENTS FOR THESE ACTIVITIES IS ON A REIMBURSEMENT BASIS AND THE FEES ARE OF A TOKEN NATURE. THE ASS ESSEE FURTHER INFORMED THAT THERE IS NO PROFIT MOTIVE IN UNDERT AKING THE ACTIVITIES AND THERE IS NO CONTRACT AS SUCH. AFTER GOING THR OUGH THE REPLY FILED BY THE ASSESSEE, THE AO HAS HELD THAT ASSESSEE DOE S NOT FALL WITHIN THE SCOPE OF CHARITABLE PURPOSE DEFINED IN SECTION 2(15) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961, HENCE, BENEFIT OF SECTION 11/ 12 WAS NOT ALLOWED TO THE ASSESSEE FOR ASSTT. YEAR 2009-10 AND A PROPOSAL FOR WITHDRAWAL OF REGISTRATION U/S. 12AA WAS BEING SENT SEPARATELY TO THE DIT(E) VIDE HIS ORDER DATED 29.12.2011 PASSED U/S. 143(3) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961. 4. AGAINST THE ABOVE ORDER THE ASSESSEE APPEALED BE FORE THE LD. CIT(A) WHO AFTER GOING THROUGH THE FINDING OF THE A O IN THE ITA NO. 2143/DEL/2013 5 ASSESSMENT ORDER AND SUBMISSIONS, HELD THAT ASSESSE ES ACTIVITIES FALL UNDER THE 2 ND LIMB OF SECTION 2(15) OF THE ACT. HE ALSO FOUND T HAT THE ACTIVITIES OF THE ASSESSEE TO BE IN THE NATU RE OF EDUCATION WITHIN THE MEANING OF SECTION 2(15) AND BENEFIT OF SECTION 11 AND 12 WAS ALLOWED. WITH REGARD TO WITHDRAW OF REGISTRATIO N, HE STATED THAT NO ACTION HAS BEEN TAKEN TILL DATE IN THIS REGARD, HENCE, THIS GROUND IS NOT ENTERTAINED, HENCE, DISMISSED. THEREFORE, H E PARTLY ALLOWED THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE VIDE IMPUGNED ORDER DATE D 21.1.2013. 5. AGAINST THE ABOVE ORDER THE REVENUE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 6. LD. DR HAS RELIED UPON THE ORDER OF THE AO AND A LSO STATED THAT LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN IGNORING THAT THE A CTIVITIES CARRIED OUT BY THE ASSESSEE ARE PROVIDING SERVICES TO VARIOUS GOVERNMENT AGENCIES BOTH INDIAN & OVERSEAS TO HOLD SEMINARS, TO EDUCATE PEOPLE IN THE AREAS OF URBAN HOUSING DEVELOPMENT FO R POOR AND FOR THEIR UPLIFTMENT AND IT DOES NOT PROVIDE ANY SCHOL ASTIC EDUCATION, THEREFORE, THE ACTIVITIES DO NOT FALL UNDER THE LI MB EDUCATION. HE ALSO STATED THAT LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN IGNORING THE JUDGMENT OF HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF SOLE TRUSTY, L OK SHIKSHANA TRUST VS. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (1975) 10 ITR 234 (SC) WHEREIN, THE HONBLE APEX COURT HAS DEFINED WORD E DUCATION AND OBSERVED THAT THE SENSE IN WHICH THE WORD EDUCATIO N HAS BEEN USED IN SECTION 2(15) IS THE SYSTEMATIC INSTRUCTION , SCHOOLING OR TRAINING GIVEN TO THE YOUNG IN PREPARATION FOR THE WORK OF LIFE. THE WORD EDUCATION HAS NOT BEEN USED IN THAT WIDE AND EXTENDED SENSE ACCORDING TO WHICH EVERY ACQUISITION OF FURTH ER KNOWLEDGE CONSTITUTES EDUCATION. ITA NO. 2143/DEL/2013 6 7. ON THE OTHER HAND, LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS RELIED UPON THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) AND REQUESTED THE SAME MAY BE UPHELD. LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE IN SUPPORT OF HIS ARGUMENTS HAS ALSO FILED A PAPER BOOK HAVING PAGES 1 TO 56 CONSISTING OF RECORDS AND CORRESPONDENCE MADE BEFORE THE LOWER AU THORITIES. HE ALSO FILED THE COPY OF FOLLOWING JUDGMENTS OF THE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT AS WELL AS THE HONBLE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABA D. - BUREAU OF INDIAN STANDARDS VS. DIRECTOR GENERAL OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS) [2012] 27 TAXMANN.COM 127 (DELHI) IN WP (C) NO. 1755 OF 2012 DATED 27.9.2012. - INSTITUTE OF CHARTERED ACCOUNTANTS OF INDIA VS. DIRECTOR GENERAL OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS), DELHI [2013] 35 TAXMANN.COM 140 (DELHI) IN WP NOS. 3147, 3148 AND 7181 OF 2012 DATED 4.7.2013. - CIT, FAIZABAD VS. RAJARSHI RANANJAI SINGH SHIKSHA SANSTHAN, AMETHI [2013] 40 TAXMANN.COM 238 (ALLAHABAD) OF THE HONBLE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD IN ITA APPEAL NOS. 17 & 18 OF 2012 DATED 12.9.2013. 8. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE COUNSEL AND PERUSED THE RECORDS. LD. DR HAS STATED THAT THE ACTIVITIES CARRIED OUT BY THE ASSESSEE ARE ITA NO. 2143/DEL/2013 7 PROVIDING SERVICES TO VARIOUS GOVERNMENT AGENCIES BOTH INDIAN & OVERSEAS TO HOLD SEMINARS, TO EDUCATE PEOPLE IN TH E AREAS OF URBAN HOUSING DEVELOPMENT FOR POOR AND FOR THEIR UPLIFTME NT AND IT DOES NOT PROVIDE ANY SCHOLASTIC EDUCATION, THEREFORE, THE ACTIVITIES DO NOT FALL UNDER THE LIMB EDUCATION. HE ALSO STAT ED THAT LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN IGNORING THE JUDGMENT OF HONBLE SUPR EME COURT IN THE CASE OF SOLE TRUSTY, LOK SHIKSHANA TRUST VS. COMMI SSIONER OF INCOME TAX (1975) 10 ITR 234 (SC) WHEREIN, THE HON BLE APEX COURT HAS DEFINED WORD EDUCATION AND OBSERVED THAT THE SENSE IN WHICH THE WORD EDUCATION HAS BEEN USED IN SECTION 2(15) IS THE SYSTEMATIC INSTRUCTION, SCHOOLING OR TRAINING GIVEN TO THE YOUNG IN PREPARATION FOR THE WORK OF LIFE. THE WORD EDUCATI ON HAS NOT BEEN USED IN THAT WIDE AND EXTENDED SENSE ACCORDING TO W HICH EVERY ACQUISITION OF FURTHER KNOWLEDGE CONSTITUTES EDUCA TION. WE FIND THAT LD. COUNSEL OF THE ASSESSEE ON THE CONTRARY H AS SUBMITTED THAT ITS ACTIVITIES AS CHARITABLE ACTIVITIES BY WAY OF S UBMITTING THAT ASSESSEE IS PROVIDING ADVISORY SERVICES TO CENTRAL AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT WITH NO COMMERCIAL INTEREST. ALL APPLIC ATIONS ON ASSESSEES PROGRAMMES ARE ROUTED DIRECTLY BY THE I NDIAN MISSION TO GOVT. OF INDIA AND THE INSTITUTE HAS NO DECISION MA KING POWER IN THE SELECTION OF PARTICIPANTS AS WELL AS ON THE EXPENSE S TO BE REIMBURSED OR FEES TO BE PAID. MORE THAN 95 PER CEN T OF THE PAYMENTS FOR THESE ACTIVITIES IS ON A REIMBURSEMEN T BASIS AND THE ITA NO. 2143/DEL/2013 8 FEES ARE OF A TOKEN NATURE. THE ASSESSEE FURTHER INFORMED THAT THERE IS NO PROFIT MOTIVE IN UNDERTAKING THE ACTIVI TIES. WE ALSO FIND THAT LD. CIT(A) RIGHTLY DRAW SUPPORT FROM THE CBD T CIRCULAR NO. 11/2008 DATED 19.12.2008, WHEREIN VIDE PARA 3.2 IT WAS SUBMITTED AS UNDER:- 3.2 IN THE FINAL ANALYSIS' HOWEVER, WHETHER THE AS SESSEE HAS FOR ITS OBJECT 'THE ADVANCEMENT OF ANY OTHER OB JECT OF GENERAL PUBLIC UTILITY' IS A QUESTION OF FACT. IF S UCH ASSESSEE IS ENGAGED IN ANY ACTIVITY IN THE NATURE O F TRADE, COMMERCE OR BUSINESS OR ENDERS ANY SERVICE IN RELAT ION TO TRADE COMMERCE OR BUSINESS, IT WOULD NOT BE ENTITLE D TO CLAIM THAT ITS OBJECT IS CHARITABLE PURPOSE. IN SUC H A CASE, THE OBJECT OF 'GENERAL PUBLIC UTILITY' WILL BE ONLY A MASK OR A DEVICE TO HIDE THE TRUE PURPOSE WHICH IS TRADE, COMMERCE OR BUSINESS OR THE RENDERING OF ANY SERVIC E IN RELATION TO TRADE, COMMERCE OR BUSINESS. EACH CASE WOULD, THEREFORE, BE DECIDED ON ITS OWN FACTS AND N O GENERALIZATION IS POSSIBLE. ASSESEES, WHO CLAIM THA T THEIR OBJECT IS 'CHARITABLE PURPOSE' WITHIN THE MEANING O F SECTION 2(15) WOULD BE WELL ADVISED TO ENCHEW ANY ACTIVITY WHICH IS IN THE NATURE OF TRADE, COMMERCE OR BUSINESS OR THE RENDERING OF ANY SERVICE IN RELATIO N TO ANY TRADE, COMMERCE OR BUSINESS.' ITA NO. 2143/DEL/2013 9 8.1 WE ALSO FIND THAT LD. CIT(A) HAS REFERRED AND DISCUSSED THE JUDGMENT OF HON'BLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF BUREAU OF INDIAN STANDARDS VS. DG (E), REPORTED AT 2012-27 TAXMANN.C OM 127 (DEL), WHEREIN, HON'BLE DELHI HIGH COURT HAS DECIDED THE I SSUE VIDE PARA NO. 13 IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE WHICH REDS AS UNDE R:- 13. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE DISCUSSION, IT CANNOT BE SAID THAT THE BIS IS INVOLVED IN ANY CARRYING ON TRADE, COMMERCE OR BUSINESS. BIS IS A STATUTORY BODY ESTABLISHED UNDER THE BIS ACT AND WAS BROUGHT IN TO EXISTENCE 'FOR THE HARMONIOUS DEVELOPMENT OF THE ACTIVITIES OF STANDARDIZATION, MARKING AND QUALITY CERTIFICATION OF GOODS'. THIS WAS, AND HAS BEEN, ITS PRIMARY AND PREDOMINANT OBJECT. EVEN THOUGH IT DOES TAKE LICENSE FEE FOR GRANTING MARKS/ CERTIFICATION, THE SAME CANNOT BE SAID TO BE DONE F OR THE PURPOSE OF PROFIT. IF ANY PROFIT/REVENUE IS EARNED, IT IS PURELY INCIDENTAL. THE BIS PERFORMS SOVEREIGN AND REGULATORY FUNCTION, IN ITS CAPACITY OF AN INSTRUMENTALITY OF THE STATE. THEREFORE, THIS CO URT HAS NO DOUBT IN HOLDING THAT IT IS NOT INVOLVED IN CARRYING ANY ACTIVITY IN THE NATURE OF TRADE, COMMERCE OR BUSINESS. ' ITA NO. 2143/DEL/2013 10 8.2 WE ALSO FIND THAT LD. CIT(A) HAS RIGHTLY OBSER VED THAT THE ACTIVITIES OF THE ASSESSEE ARE IDENTICAL AND IT WAS FOUND THAT ASSESSEE WAS INVOLVED IN HELPING VARIOUS GOVERNMENT AGENCIES OR FOREIGN GOVERNMENT AGENCIES UNDER SARC IN PROVIDING TRAINING TO THE PERSONS IN THE FIELD OF HOUSING FOR POOR SECTIO NS OF THE SOCIETY AND ADVISING THE GOVERNMENT FOR THEIR UPLIFTMENT A ND NO WORK IS UNDERTAKEN FOR ANY PROFIT MOTIVE. WE ALSO FIND THA T LD. CIT(A) HAS OBSERVED THAT VIDE LETTER DATED 28.2.2012 VARIOUS ASSIGNMENTS UNDERTAKEN HAVE BEEN MENTIONED WHICH CLEARLY REVEAL THE FACT THAT APPELLANT'S ACTIVITIES ARE IN THE NATURE OF EDUCATI ON AS IT IS PROVIDING THE TRAINING TO VARIOUS PERSONS OF THE INDIAN GOVER NMENT AND OVERSEAS GOVERNMENTS AND THESE TRAINING PROGRAMS AR E IN THE NATURE OF EDUCATION AND EDUCATION PROGRAMS HAVE BEE N ORGANIZED BY THE INSTITUTE ARE MAINLY FOR THE GOVERNMENT OF I NDIA WHICH ARE NOT OF A COMMERCIAL NATURE. THE ISSUE OF CHARGING THE F EES AND NUMBER OF STUDENTS TO PARTICIPATE IN THE COURSE ARE DECIDE D BY GOVERNMENT OF INDIA. 8.3 WE ALSO FIND THAT BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A), THE AS SESSEE HAS SUBMITTED SOME ADDITIONAL FACTS TO SUBSTANTIATE ITS CLAIM REGARDING THE TRUST IS A CHARITABLE INSTITUTION. THE SOCIETY WITH VARIOUS INSTITUTIONS AND GOVERNMENTS AND ITS AGENCIES, IS MAKING STUDIES IN THE HOUSING AND OTHER SECTORS TO PROVIDE RELIEF TO POOR AND ITS CONTRIBUTION IN THE ADVANCEMENT OF 'OBJECT OF GENER AL PUBLIC UTILITY', ITA NO. 2143/DEL/2013 11 NOT RELATING TO ANY COMMERCE OR TRADE. THE SOCIETY IS ALSO UNDERTAKING TRAINING PROGRAMS FOR UNDP TO PROVIDE I NDIAN KNOWLEDGE AND SKILLS TO FOREIGN GOVERNMENT OFFICIAL S TO STRENGTHEN THEIR SYSTEM OF PLANNING AND GOVERNANCE. THE SOCIET Y IS RENDERING ITS SERVICES IN DIFFERENT FIELDS AND EDUCATIONAL PR OGRAMS BEING CONDUCTED ARE ONLY ONE PART OF ITS ACTIVITY. THESE PROGRAMS ARE CONDUCTED ON BEHALF OF INDIAN GOVERNMENT AND OVERSE AS GOVERNMENT TO TRAIN VARIOUS PERSONS AND IN THE BROA DER SENSE THESE PROGRAMS ARE EDUCATIONAL IN NATURE. WE ALSO FIND T HAT THE CASE LAW CITED BY THE LD. DR OF THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN SOLE TRUSTEE LOK SIKSHAN TRUST VS. CIT, 101 ITR 234 (HC), IS NOT AP PLICABLE TO THE PRESENT CASE, BECAUSE THE ASSESSEE SOCIETY IS NOT H OLDING ANY CLASSES AND PROVIDING COACHING FACILITIES FOR CANDI DATES/ARTICLES AND AUDIT CLERK WHO WANT TO APPEAR IN THE EXAMINATIONS. HENCE, THE ACTIVITIES OF THE SOCIETY ARE QUITE DIFFERENT. IT IS THE CONTENTION OF THE LD. COUNSEL OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE SOCIETY IS NOT ENGAGED IN ANY TRADE, COMMERCE OR BUSINESS. HOWEVER, THE IT SI MPLY PROVIDING THE SERVICES TO VARIOUS GOVERNMENT AGENCIES BOTH IN DIAN & OVERSEAS TO HOLD SEMINARS, TO EDUCATE PEOPLE IN THE AREAS OF URBAN HOSING DEVELOPMENT FOR POOR AND FOR THEIR UPLIFTMEN T. THERE IS NO ELEMENT OF PROFIT INVOLVED IN OUR ACTIVITY AND THE ENTIRE AMOUNT RECEIVED IS SPENT EITHER FOR MEETING EXPENDITURE OR THE BALANCE / SURPLUS KEPT IN THE BANK AS PER THE NORMS FOR FUTUR E UTILIZATIONS. ITA NO. 2143/DEL/2013 12 8.4 IN THE BACKGROUND OF THE AFORESAID DISCUSSIONS, WE FIND CONSIDERABLE COGENCY IN THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE LD. COUNSEL OF THE ASSESSEE AND THE CASE LAWS CITED BY HIM ALSO SUPPOR TS THE CASE OF THE CASE. HOWEVER, THE CASE LAW CITED BY THE LD. DR IS QUITE DISTINGUISHED FROM THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE. THEREFORE, IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT NO INTERFE RENCE IS REQUIRED ON OUR PART, AS THE LD. CIT(A) HAS RIGHTLY HELD TH AT THE ASSESSEES ACTIVITIES FALL UNDER THE 2 ND LIMB OF THE SECTION 2(15). AS THE ACTIVITIES OF THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN FOUND TO BE IN THE NATURE OF EDUCATION WITHIN THE MEANING OF SECTION 2(15), BENEFIT OF SEC TION 11 AND 12 GIVEN BY THE LD. CIT(A) IS UPHELD. 9. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE STANDS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 28/8/2014. SD/- SD/- [ [[ [S. S.S. S.V. MEHROTRA V. MEHROTRA V. MEHROTRA V. MEHROTRA] ]] ] [ [[ [H.S. SIDHU H.S. SIDHU H.S. SIDHU H.S. SIDHU] ]] ] ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL JUDICIAL JUDICIAL JUDICIAL MEMBER MEMBER MEMBER MEMBER SRBHATNAGAR SRBHATNAGAR SRBHATNAGAR SRBHATNAGAR COPY FORWARDED TO: COPY FORWARDED TO: COPY FORWARDED TO: COPY FORWARDED TO: - -- - 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT (A) 5. DR, ITAT TRUE COPY BY ORDER, ASSISTANT REGISTRAR, ITAT, DELHI BENCHES