Chanakya Mandal Parivar, Pune V. CIT-I, Pune

ITA 238/PUN/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2015] 134 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 0775 (ITAT-PUNE)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 10 month(s) 15 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 07-12-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 01-07-2015
• Assessment Year: 2013-2014
• Appeal Filed On: 23-01-2013
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: S K RASTOGI
• Assessee Lawyers: HARI KRISHAN; SANTOSH M PETHE
• Keywords: Reopening of assessment; Charitable institution; Additional evidence; Capital expenditure
• Section: 143(3); 80G; 12A; 147; 263; 12; 11; 92

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL A BENCH, PUN E , , !'!! # , $ % BEFORE SHRI R.K. PANDA, AM AND SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY, JM / ITA NO. 238/PN/2013 $& ' !(' / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2013-14 CHANAKYA MANDAL PARIVAR, 1576, SADASHIV PETH, NEAR NAVI PETH VITTAL MANDIR, PUNE 411030 PAN : AAATC6391G ....... / APPELLANT )& / V/S. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-I, PMT BLDG., SHANKAR SHETH ROAD, SWARGATE, PUNE 4110337 / RESPONDENT ASSESSEE BY : SHRI HARI KRISHAN AND SHRI SANTOSH M. PETHE REVENUE BY : SHRI S.K. RASTOGI / DATE OF HEARING : 08-10-2015 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 07-12-2015 * / ORDER PER VIKAS AWASTHY, JM : THE APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE OR DER OF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-I, PUNE DATED 24-12-2012 WHE REBY THE APPLICATION OF THE ASSESSEE FOR GRANT OF APPROVAL U/S. 80G OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS THE ACT) HAS BEEN REJEC TED. 2 ITA NO. 238/PN/2013, A.Y. 2013-14 2. THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE AS EMANATING FROM RECORDS ARE : THE ASSESSEE IS A TRUST CONSTITUTED VIDE TRUST DEED DATED 27-12-1996. THE ASSESSEE TRUST IS REGISTERED UNDER THE BOMBAY PUBLIC TR UST ACT, 1950. THE ASSESSEE WAS GRANTED REGISTRATION U/S. 12A OF THE ACT BY THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, PUNE ON 28-07-1997. THE AS SESSEE WAS ALSO GRANTED APPROVAL U/S. 80G OF THE ACT VIDE ORDER DAT ED 06-07-1999. THE SAID APPROVAL WAS VALID FROM 01-04-1999 TO 31-03-200 2. AFTER THE EXPIRY OF THE ORIGINAL APPROVAL GRANTED U/S. 80G, THE ASSES SEE FILED APPLICATION FOR RENEWAL OF APPROVAL ON 19-03-2002. THE SA ID APPLICATION OF THE ASSESSEE WAS REJECTED ON THE GROUND THAT THE ACTIVITIES OF THE TRUST ARE NOT CHARITABLE IN NATURE. THE ASSESSEE IS RUNNING COACHING CLASSES FOR THE COMPETITIVE EXAMINATIONS LIK E UPSC/ MPSC BY CHARGING FEE. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX H ELD THAT SUCH ACTIVITIES OF THE ASSESSEE CANNOT BE SAID TO BE THE ACTIVITY OF GENERAL PUBLIC UTILITY AND THEREFORE, THE TRUST CANNOT BE S AID TO BE EXISTING FOR CHARITABLE PURPOSE. AGAINST THE SAID ORDER O F COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, THE ASSESSEE DID NOT FILE APPEAL. THE ASSES SEE TRUST FILED FRESH APPLICATION FOR GRANT OF APPROVAL U/S. 80G OF THE AC T ON 29-03-2006. ON THE SAID APPLICATION NO ACTION WAS TAKEN BY THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX. OSTENSIBLY ON 12-07-2006 T HE ASSESSEE TRUST ENTERED INTO AN AGREEMENT WITH YASHWANT RAO CHA VAN MAHARASHTRA OPEN UNIVERSITY (HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS T HE YCMOU) FOR CONDUCTING GUIDANCE PROGRAMME FOR THE ASPIRANT OF THE UPSC/ MPSC COMPETITIVE EXAMINATION. UNDER THE AGREEMENT, THE A SSESSEE WAS REQUIRED TO DELIVER 250 EDUSAT LECTURES AND ARRA NGE FOR EXPERT FACULTY. THE FEE CHARGED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR PROVIDING LEC TURES UNDER THE PROGRAMME WAS TO BE SHARED BETWEEN THE ASSESSEE TRUST AND YCMOU. THEREAFTER, ON 20-07-2006 YCMOU APPROVED THE A SSESSEE AS ITS STUDY CENTER FOR VARIOUS DEGREE COURSES (B.A./B.COM .). ON 13-07-2007 YCMOU GRANTED RECOGNITION TO THE ASSESSEE AS STUDY 3 ITA NO. 238/PN/2013, A.Y. 2013-14 CENTRE FOR ITS BBA (INSURANCE & BANKING), MBA (GENERAL) AN D MBA (INSURANCE & BANKING) COURSE. THE ASSESSEE AGAIN FILED AN APPLICATION FOR GRANT OF APPROVAL U/S. 80G OF THE ACT ON 13-07-200 7. ALLEGEDLY, NO ORDER WAS PASSED BY THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ON THE SAID APPLICATION. IN AUGUST, 2008 YCMOU FURTHER GRANTED RECOGNITION TO TH E ASSESSEE FOR ITS B.SC. (BIO-TECHNOLOGY) COURSE AND IN MARCH, 2009 A COLLABORATION AGREEMENT WAS ENTERED INTO BETWEEN YCMOU AND THE ASSESSEE FOR DESIGNING, DEVELOPMENT AND IMPLEMENTATION OF SO FT SKILLS PROGRAMME. ON 13-03-2012 THE ASSESSEE ONCE AGAIN FILED AN APPLICATION FOR GRANT OF APPROVAL U/S. 80G OF THE ACT. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX VIDE IMPUGNED ORDER REJECTED THE SAME, AGAINST WHICH THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. 3. SHRI HARI KRISHAN AND SHRI SANTOSH M. PETHE APPEARING ON BEHA LF OF THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOM E TAX HAS ERRED IN HOLDING THAT THE MAIN ACTIVITY OF THE ASSESSEE, MA NAGING STUDY CENTER AND CONDUCTING CLASSES FOR UPSC/MPSC EXAMINATION DOES NOT FALL WITHIN THE REALM OF EDUCATION. THE LD. AR CONTENDED THA T THE ASSESSEE IS PROVIDING SYSTEMATIC EDUCATION AND COACHING TO THE ASPIRANTS WHO WANT TO APPEAR IN THE EXAMINATION CONDUCT ED BY THE UPSC/MPSC. APART FROM THE SAID COURSES THE ASSESSEE IS DULY APPROVED AND AUTHORIZED STUDY CENTER OF YCMOU. THE SA ID OPEN UNIVERSITY IS ESTABLISHED BY THE ACT XX (1989) OF MAHARA SHTRA STATE LEGISLATURE AND IS RECOGNIZED U/S. 12(B) OF THE UNIVERSITY GR ANTS COMMISSION ACT, 1956. THE ASSESSEE IS PROVIDING CLASSROOM/ EDUCATION FACILITY FOR VARIOUS UNDER GRADUATE AND POST GRADUATE COU RSES OF YCMOU. THE ASSESSEE HAS CONSTRUCTED A NEW EDUCATIONA L BUILDING WITH HOSTEL FACILITIES WITH AN INVESTMENT OF ABOUT RS.6.94 CROR ES. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX HAS ERRED IN COMING TO THE CO NCLUSION THAT THE ACTIVITIES OF THE ASSESSEE ARE NOT CHARITABLE IN NATURE. THE 4 ITA NO. 238/PN/2013, A.Y. 2013-14 ASSESSEE WAS GRANTED REGISTRATION U/S. 12A OF THE ACT W AY BACK IN THE YEAR 1997 AND HAS NOT BEEN WITHDRAWN TILL DATE. THIS IN IT SELF IS SUFFICIENT TO SHOW THAT THE OBJECTS OF THE ASSESSEE ARE CHARITABLE IN NATURE AND THE ASSESSEE IS CARRYING ON CHARITABLE ACTIVIT IES. THE LD. AR CONTENDED THAT IT IS A WELL SETTLED LAW THAT ONCE REGISTRA TION U/S. 12A HAS BEEN GRANTED NO FURTHER ENQUIRY IS REQUIRED TO BE M ADE TO ASCERTAIN THE NATURE OF ACTIVITIES OF THE ASSESSEE FOR GRANT OF APP ROVAL U/S. 80G OF THE ACT. IN SUPPORT OF HIS SUBMISSIONS THE LD. AR OF THE A SSESSEE PLACED RELIANCE ON THE FOLLOWING DECISIONS: I. HIRALAL BHAGWATI VS. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, 246 ITR 188 (GUJ); II. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX VS. RAJMALA EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY, 65 DTR (P&H) 307; III. SONEPAT HINDU EDUCATIONAL & CHARITABLE SOCIETY VS. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX & ANR., 278 ITR 262 (P&H); IV. N.N. DESAI CHARITABLE TRUST VS. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, 246 ITR 452 (GUJ); V. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX VS. ARVINDBHAI MANIAR CHARITABLE FOUNDATION, 53 TAXMANN.COM 295 (GUJ). 3.1 THE LD. AR FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA IN THE CASE OF ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX VS. SURAT CITY GYMKHANA REPORTED AS 300 ITR 214 (SC) HAS APPROVE D THE DECISION OF TRIBUNAL THAT REGISTRATION U/S. 12A IS A FAIT ACCO MPLI TO HOLD THE ASSESSING OFFICER BACK FROM FURTHER PROBE INTO THE OBJ ECTS OF THE ASSESSEE. THE LD. AR FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT HYDERABAD B ENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX (E XEMPTIONS) VS. HYDERABAD STUDY CIRCLE REPORTED AS 38 ITR (TRIB) 293 (ITAT-HYD) HAS HELD THAT COACHING/TRAINING OF STUDENTS FOR UPSC/APPS C BY AN EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTE IS ELIGIBLE FOR EXEMPTION U/S. 10(23C)(IIIAD) O F THE 5 ITA NO. 238/PN/2013, A.Y. 2013-14 ACT. THE LD. AR FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE DECISIONS REN DERED IN THE CASE OF BIHAR INSTITUTE OF MINING AND MINE SURVEYING VS. CIT REPORTED AS 208 ITR 608 (PATNA) AND THE DECISION OF HON'BLE SUPREM E COURT OF INDIA IN THE CASE OF LOKA SHIKSHAN TRUST VS. CIT REPORTE D AS 101 ITR 234 (SC) ARE DISTINGUISHABLE IN THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CAS E. THE JUDGMENT OF THE HON'BLE PATNA HIGH COURT IS APPLICABLE ON LY TO THE PRIVATE COACHING CLASSES WHICH ARE NOT RECOGNIZED OR AUT HORIZED BY THE AUTHORITY AND ARE CHARGING SPECIFIED FEE. THE ASSESSEE IS NOT A PRIVATE COACHING CLASS. THE ASSESSEE IS A REGISTERED TRUST AND IS ALSO REGISTRATION U/S. 12A OF THE ACT. THE ASSESSEE HAS TO UTILIZE ITS INCOME AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 13 OF THE ACT. WHILE REFER RING TO THE FEE STRUCTURE OF THE VARIOUS COURSES AT PAGE 57 OF THE PAP ER BOOK FILED ON 02-09-2015 THE LD. AR SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE IS CH ARGING VERY NOMINAL FEE FOR ITS UNDER GRADUATE, POST-GRADUATE AND VAR IOUS OTHER COURSES CONDUCTED IN COLLABORATION WITH YCMOU. THE LD. AR FILED PAPER BOOK CONTAINING 65 PAGES AS ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE IN S UPPORT OF HIS SUBMISSIONS. REFERRING TO THE ORDER OF CUSTOMS EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (CESTAT) DATED 10-10-2014 AT PAGES 1 TO 6 OF THE SAID PAPER BOOK THE LD. AR SUBMITTED THAT THE CESTAT VID E ORDER DATED 26-09-2014 HAS HELD THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT PROVIDING SERVICE UNDER THE CATEGORY OF COMMERCIAL COACHING AND TRAINING CENTRE. 4. ON THE OTHER HAND SHRI S.K. RASTOGI REPRESENTING THE DEPARTMENT VEHEMENTLY SUPPORTED THE FINDINGS OF COMMISSIONER OF INCOM E TAX IN REJECTING THE APPLICATION OF THE ASSESSEE FOR GRANT OF APP ROVAL U/S. 80G OF THE ACT. THE LD. DR SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE IS N OT PROVIDING EDUCATION AS ENVISAGED BY THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA IN THE CASE OF LOKA SHIKSHAN TRUST VS. CIT (SUPRA). THE STUDY C ENTRE RUN BY THE ASSESSEE IS MERELY HELPING THE STUDENTS FOR PREPARIN G FOR UPSC/ MPSC AND OTHER COMPETITIVE EXAMINATIONS. THIS CANNOT BE EQUATED 6 ITA NO. 238/PN/2013, A.Y. 2013-14 WITH THE NORMAL SCHOOLING. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TA X AFTER THREADBARE DISCUSSION ON ACTIVITIES CARRIED ON BY THE ASS ESSEE HAS RIGHTLY CONCLUDED THAT RUNNING OF STUDY CENTRE AND COND UCTING CLASSES CANNOT BE TREATED AS EDUCATION. IF AT ALL THE ACTIVITY O F THE ASSESSEE IS CONSIDERED TO BE AS CHARITABLE IN NATURE IT WOULD FALL WITHIN THE SCOPE OF GENERAL PUBLIC UTILITY. THE ASSESSEE IS IMPARTING TRAINING TO THE STUDENTS BY CHARGING FEE, THEREFORE, THE PROVISO TO SECTIO N 2(15) WOULD APPLY AND THUS, THE ASSESSEE CANNOT BE GRANTED THE B ENEFIT OF APPROVAL OF SECTION 80G OF THE ACT. THE LD. DR FURTHER SUBMITTED TH AT THE DECISION ON WHICH THE LD. AR HAS PLACED RELIANCE ARE DISTINGU ISHABLE ON THE FACTS. THE HON'BLE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF DIT (EXEMPTIONS) VS. JAIN EDUCATIONAL SOCIAL CULTURAL WELFARE CHARIT ABLE TRUST REPORTED AS 50 TAXMANN.COM 199 HAS HELD THAT SE CTION 80G AND SECTION 12A ARE EXCLUSIVE AND THEREFORE IN ORDER TO GET APPROVAL U/S. 80G MERE REGISTRATION U/S. 12A IS NOT SUFFICIENT. THE LD. DR VEHEMENTLY DEFENDED THE IMPUGNED ORDER OF COMMISSIONER O F INCOME TAX AND PRAYED FOR DISMISSING THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE. 5. WE HAVE HEARD THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BY THE REPRESEN TATIVES OF RIVAL SIDES AND HAVE PERUSED THE ORDERS OF AUTHORITIES BE LOW. WE HAVE ALSO CONSIDERED THE DECISIONS ON WHICH THE REPRESENTATIVE S OF RIVAL SIDES HAVE PLACED RELIANCE. IT IS AN UNDISPUTED FACT THAT THE A SSESSEE IS REGISTERED U/S. 12A OF THE ACT SINCE, 1997 AND THE SAID REGISTRATION HAS NOT BEEN CANCELLED OR WITHDRAWN TILL DATE. THE ASSESSEE W AS ALSO GRANTED APPROVAL U/S. 80G IN THE YEAR 1999 WHICH WAS VA LID TILL 31-03- 2002. THEREAFTER, THE ASSESSEE FILED APPLICATION FOR RENEWA L/FRESH APPROVAL U/S. 80G ON 19-03-2002, 29-03-2006, 13-07-2007 AND 13-03-2012. THE FIRST APPLICATION FOR RENEWAL I.E. DATED 19-0 3-2002 WAS REJECTED BY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX VIDE ORDER D ATED 11-02-2003. AGAINST THAT ORDER THE ASSESSEE DID NOT FILE D APPEAL. ON 7 ITA NO. 238/PN/2013, A.Y. 2013-14 THE SUBSEQUENT APPLICATIONS DATED 29-03-2006 AND 13-0 7-2007 FILED BY THE ASSESSEE, NO ACTION WAS TAKEN BY THE COMMISSIONER O F INCOME TAX. APPARENTLY, THE ASSESSEE DID NOT PURSUE THE SAID APPLICA TIONS. THE ORDER IMPUGNED BY THE ASSESSEE IN PRESENT APPEAL IS ARIS ING OUT OF THE APPLICATION FILED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR GRANT OF APPROVAL U/S. 80G FILED ON 13-03-2012. 6. ONE OF THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE IS THAT LOT OF N EW DEVELOPMENTS HAVE TAKEN PLACE SINCE THE TIME THE FIRST AP PLICATION FOR RENEWAL OF APPROVAL U/S. 80G HAS BEEN DISMISSED BY THE CO MMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX IN THE YEAR 2003. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCO ME TAX IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER HAS STATED THAT THE EARLIER APPLICATIO N OF THE ASSESSEE FOR APPROVAL WAS REJECTED ON THE GROUND THAT THE PREDOMINANT ACTIVITY OF THE TRUST WAS RUNNING OF COACHING FOR COMPETITIV E EXAMINATION LIKE UPSC/MPSC BY CHARGING FEES WHICH CANNOT BE SAID TO BE THE ACTIVITY OF THE GENERAL PUBLIC UTILITY. THEREFORE, T HE TRUST CANNOT BE SAID TO BE EXISTING FOR CHARITABLE PURPOSE. THERE HAS BEEN NO FUNDAMENTAL CHANGE IN THE ACTIVITIES OF THE ASSESSEE. TO S UM UP HIS FINDINGS THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX REJECTED THE APP LICATION OF ASSESSEE FOR GRANT OF APPROVAL U/S. 80 HOLDING AS UNDER: 5. FOR THE DETAILED REASONS STATED IN THIS ORDER, IT HAS TO BE HELD THAT A) THE APPLICANTS MAIN ACTIVITY OF RUNNING STUDY CENT RES AND CONDUCTING CLASSES CANNOT BE TREATED AS EDUCATION , B) THE PRE-DOMINANT ACTIVITY OF THE APPLICANT WOULD FA LL WITHIN THE SCOPE OF GENERAL PUBLIC UTILITY, AND, C) THE PROVISO TO SECTION 2(15) WOULD PATENTLY APPLY T O THE APPLICANTS CASE. AS A RESULT, AND BY VIRTUE OF THE PROVISO TO SECTIO N 2(15), THE APPLICANTS ACTIVITY CANNOT BE REGARDED AS A CHARIT ABLE SO S TO ENTITLE IT TO APPROVAL U/S. 80G(5) OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961. 8 ITA NO. 238/PN/2013, A.Y. 2013-14 7. THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED PAPER BOOK AS AN ADDITIONAL EV IDENCE CONTAINING 65 PAGES WHICH INCLUDES THE ORDER OF CESTAT D ATED 26-09-2014, RECOGNITIONS/APPROVALS GRANTED BY YCMOU, IN FORMATION ABOUT FACILITIES PROVIDED BY THE ASSESSEE, THE DETAILS OF THE STUDENTS ENROLLED WITH THE ASSESSEE AND FEE CHARGED FROM THEM AND SOME OTHER MISCELLANEOUS INFORMATION ABOUT YCMOU AND THE ACTIVITIES BE ING CARRIED OUT BY THE ASSESSEE. 8. WE HAVE ALSO PERUSED THE TRUST DEED VIDE WHICH THE ASSESSEE WAS CONSTITUTED IN THE YEAR 1996. THE OBJECTS OF THE TRUST ARE GIVEN IN PARA 5 OF THE SAID DEED. A CLOSE SCRUTINY OF THE OBJECTS SHO W THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN ESTABLISHED TO ACQUIRE, CONSTRUCT, MAIN TAIN PRIMARY SCHOOLS, HIGH SCHOOLS, COLLEGE, STUDY CENTERS, MEDICAL TECHNICA L COLLEGES AND OTHER INSTITUTIONS FOR IMPARTING EDUCATION AND TRAINING. (CLAUSE 5.3 OF OBJECTS OF THE TRUST). IT IS NOT DISPUTED BY THE REVE NUE THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT CONDUCTING UNDER GRADUATE AND POST GR ADUATE CLASSES IN COLLABORATION WITH YCMOU. THE ASSESSEE FOR PROVIDING CLAS S ROOM FACILITIES HAS CONSTRUCTED BUILDING AND HAS ENGAGED TEACHER S. THE LD. AR OF THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO REFERRED TO FEE STRUCTURE A ND THE NUMBER OF STUDENTS ENROLLED UNDER VARIOUS COURSES CONDUCTED BY T HE ASSESSEE IN COLLABORATION WITH YCMOU, INCLUDING COACHING CLASSES FOR UPSC/ MPSC EXAMINATIONS. THE LD. AR HAS ALSO REFERRED TO THE DECISIO N OF CESTAT DATED 26-09-2014 WHEREIN IT HAS BEEN HELD THAT THE ASS ESSEE IS NOT PROVIDING SERVICE UNDER THE CATEGORY OF COMMERCIAL COACH ING AND TRAINING CENTRE. THESE DOCUMENTS WERE NOT FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX AND HAVE BEEN FILED AS A DDITIONAL EVIDENCE. 9. THE LD. AR HAS PLACED RELIANCE ON THE DECISION OF HON'BLE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX VS. 9 ITA NO. 238/PN/2013, A.Y. 2013-14 RAJMALA EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY (SUPRA). IN THE SAID CASE THE ASSESSEE WAS GRANTED REGISTRATION U/S. 12A AND THE APPLICATION FOR GRA NT OF APPROVAL U/S. 80G WAS REJECTED BY THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX . ON THE GROUND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS GENERATED HUGE SURPLUS YEAR AFTER YEAR AND IS MAKING CAPITAL EXPENDITURE FOR THE ASSETS OF THE SC HOOL OUT OF THE SAID INCOME. THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT HELD THAT MERELY BEC AUSE THERE IS SOME SURPLUS WITH THE ASSESSEE IT SHOULD NOT BE A GROUN D TO DENY REGISTRATION U/S. 80G(5) OF THE ACT. 10. IN THE CASE OF SONEPAT HINDU EDUCATIONAL & CHARITABLE SOCIETY VS. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX & ANR. (SUPRA) THE HON'BLE H IGH COURT HELD THAT WHILE DEALING WITH THE APPLICATION U/S. 80G(5) THE S COPE OF ENQUIRY BY THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX EXTENDS TO ELIG IBILITY OF THE APPLICANT TO EXEMPTION UNDER VARIOUS PROVISIONS REFERRED T O THAT SUB- SECTION BUT NOT TO ACTUAL COMPUTATION OF INCOME UNDER TH E ACT. REGISTRATION OF AN INSTITUTION U/S. 12A BY ITSELF IS A SUFFICIENT PROVE THAT THE INSTITUTION IS CREATED OR ESTABLISHED FOR CHARITABLE OR RELIGIOUS PURPOSES. THE RELEVANT EXTRACT OF THE FINDINGS OF THE HON 'BLE HIGH COURT ARE AS UNDER: 16. WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT, IN VIEW OF THE FAC T THAT THE PETITIONER HAD ENJOYED APPROVAL UNDER SECTION 80G OF THE ACT F ROM THE YEAR 1991 TO MARCH 31, 1999, I.E., EVEN AFTER THE AMENDMENT OF I TS OBJECTS ON SEPTEMBER 17, 1999, AND AFTER THE INSERTION OF CLAU SE (VI) WITH EFFECT FROM OCTOBER 1, 1991, THE COMMISSIONER WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN HOLDING THAT EITHER FRESH REGISTRATION UNDER SECTION 12A(A) OF T HE ACT WAS REQUIRED OR THE MEMORANDUM SHOULD HAVE BEEN AMENDED AS PER THE PROCEDURE LAID DOWN IN SECTION 92 OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE. IN RADHASOAMI SATSANG V. CIT [1992] 193 ITR 321 THEIR LORDSHIPS O F THE SUPREME COURT, INTER ALIA, OBSERVED THAT THOUGH STRICTLY SPEAKING, RES JUDICATA DOES NOT APPLY TO INCOME-TAX PROCEEDINGS, WHERE A FUNDAMENTA L ASPECT PERMEATING THROUGH THE DIFFERENT ASSESSMENT YEARS H AS BEEN FOUND AS A FACT ONE WAY OR THE OTHER AND PARTIES HAVE ALLOWED THAT POSITION TO BE SUSTAINED BY NOT CHALLENGING THE ORDER, IT WOULD NO T BE, AT ALL, APPROPRIATE TO ALLOW THE POSITION TO BE CHANGED IN A SUBSEQUENT YEAR. WE 10 ITA NO. 238/PN/2013, A.Y. 2013-14 FEEL THAT THESE OBSERVATIONS ARE QUITE APPOSITE IN THE PRESENT CASE. THE RATIO OF THE DECISION OF THE APEX COURT IN NIZAM'S CASE [2000] 243 ITR 676 IS NOT ATTRACTED IN THIS CASE. 17. AS REGARDS THE QUESTION WHETHER THE PETITIONER' S INCOME WOULD BE LIABLE TO BE INCLUDED IN ITS TOTAL INCOME UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTIONS 11 AND 12 OF THE ACT, A BARE PERUSAL OF THE SAID PR OVISIONS WOULD SHOW THAT THERE ARE VARIOUS FACTORS, LIKE THE NATURE OF CONTRIBUTIONS ; THE QUANTUM OF INCOME SET APART AND ACCUMULATED FOR APP LICATION IN FUTURE FOR SPECIFIED PURPOSES WHICH WOULD REQUIRE CONSIDER ATION TO DETERMINE WHETHER THE INCOME DERIVED BY SUCH TRUST OR SOCIETY WOULD BE LIABLE TO BE INCLUDED IN THE TOTAL INCOME. IT WILL THUS BE NOT P OSSIBLE, TO DETERMINE ON THE DATE WHEN A DONATION IS MADE FOR DEDUCTION UNDE R SECTION 80G, AS TO WHAT WILL BE THE POSITION AS ON THE END OF THE RELE VANT PREVIOUS YEAR OF THE SOCIETY OR THE TRUST, WHO HAD SOUGHT APPROVAL U NDER SECTION 80G OF THE ACT. WE HAVE NO HESITATION IN HOLDING THAT THE SCOPE OF ENQUIRY BY THE COMMISSIONER, WHILE DEALING WITH THE APPLICATION UND ER SECTION 80G(5)(VI) OF THE ACT, EXTENDS TO ELIGIBILITY TO EX EMPTION UNDER VARIOUS PROVISIONS OF THE ACT, REFERRED TO IN THAT SUB-SECT ION, BUT NOT TO ACTUAL COMPUTATION OF INCOME UNDER THE ACT, PARTICULARLY W HEN A SOCIETY OR A TRUST IS CLAIMING EXEMPTIONS UNDER SECTIONS 11 AND 1 2 AND NOT UNDER SECTION 10 OF THE ACT. IT NEEDS LITTLE EMPHASIS THA T THE ENQUIRY FOR THE SAID PURPOSE RELATES TO WHETHER THE APPLICANT IS REGISTE RED UNDER SECTION 12A ; WHETHER IT IS A TRUST WHOLLY FOR CHARITABLE PURPOSE S AND WHETHER THE INCOME RECEIVED BY IT IS LIABLE TO BE CONSIDERED UN DER SECTION 11 OF THE ACT. THE ENQUIRY WHETHER AT THE END OF THE PREVIOUS YEA R, THE DONOR WILL BE ABLE TO SUSTAIN A CLAIM BECAUSE OF NON-FULFILMEN T OF SOME CONDITIONS BY HIM WOULD DEPEND AT THE CLOSE OF THE RELEVANT PR EVIOUS YEAR, AS IT IS NOT POSSIBLE TO PREDICATE THESE CONDITIONS IN PRAES ENTI WHEN THE DONATION IS MADE. 18. IN SO FAR AS EXEMPTION UNDER SECTION 10(23C) OF THE ACT IS CONCERNED, FOR THE VIEW WE HAVE TAKEN ABOVE ON THE APPLICATION OF SECTIONS 11 AND 12 OF THE ACT, EXEMPTION UNDER THE SAID PROVISION WOULD NOT BE NECESSARY TO MAKE THE PETITIONER ELIGIBLE FO R APPROVAL UNDER SECTION 80G. NONE THE LESS, IT IS STATED THAT THE A PPLICATION FOR CLAIMING EXEMPTION UNDER THE SAID PROVISION IS ALSO PENDING FOR THE PAST FEW YEARS. 19. FOR THE FOREGOING REASONS, WE ARE OF THE VIEW T HAT THE IMPUGNED ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER REFUSING APPROVAL TO THE PETITIONER-SOCIETY UNDER SECTION 80G OF THE ACT IS FOUNDED ON IRRELEVA NT CONSIDERATIONS AND, THEREFORE, CANNOT BE SUSTAINED. CONSEQUENTLY, WE AL LOW THE WRIT PETITION ; MAKE THE RULE ABSOLUTE, QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER AN D DIRECT THE 11 ITA NO. 238/PN/2013, A.Y. 2013-14 COMMISSIONER TO TAKE A FRESH DECISION ON THE PETITIO NER'S APPLICATION IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW. THERE WILL, HOWEVER, BE NO ORD ER AS TO COSTS. 11. THE HON'BLE GUJARAT HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF COMMIS SIONER OF INCOME TAX VS. ARVINDBHAI MANIAR CHARITABLE FOUNDATION (SUP RA) HAS HELD THAT AT THE TIME OF GRANTING APPROVAL U/S. 80G, WHAT IS TO BE EXAMINED IS THE OBJECT OF THE TRUST AND SO FAR THE ASPE CT OF INCOME IS CONCERNED, THE SAME CAN BE WELL EXAMINED BY THE ASSESSIN G OFFICER AT THE TIME OF FRAMING ASSESSMENT. 12. THE LD. AR HAS ALSO PLACED RELIANCE ON THE HYDERABAD BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF INCOME T AX (EXEMPTIONS) VS. HYDERABAD STUDY CIRCLE (SUPRA). IN THE SA ID CASE THE OBJECTS OF THE ASSESSEE SOCIETY WAS TO PROMOTE LITERACY , SCIENTIFIC AND OTHER EDUCATIONAL ACTIVITIES TO UNDERTAKE RESEARCH PROGR AMMES AND TO ARRANGE TRAINING FOR BOYS AND GIRLS APPEARING FOR COMPET ITIVE EXAMINATION HELD BY UPSC, APPSC ETC. THE MAIN OBJECT OF THE ASSESSEE SOCIETY WAS TO ENCOURAGE YOUNG MEN AND WOMEN ESPECIALL Y FROM ANDHRA PRADESH TO TAKE-UP CIVIL SERVICES AS A CAREER. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HELD THAT THE COACHING STUDENTS AND PREPARING THE M FOR PARTICULAR COMPETITIVE EXAMINATION IS NOT IN THE NATURE OF IMPARTING EDUCATION AND THE ASSESSEE IS NOT A CHARITABLE INSTITUTION U/S. 2(15) OF THE ACT AND DISALLOWED EXEMPTION. IN FIRST APPEAL THE COMM ISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) REVERSED THE FINDINGS OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER HOLDING THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS ENGAGED IN PROVIDING TRAIN ING AND SKILLS FOCUSED AT ENABLING ITS STUDENTS TO OBTAIN JOBS THROUGH COMETITIVE EXAMINATIONS AND WAS DOING IT IN A SYSTEMATIC AND STRUCTU RED MANNER. THEREFORE, THE ACTIVITIES OF THE ASSESSEE FALL WITHIN THE REA LM OF EDUCATION AND THAT IT WAS ELIGIBLE FOR EXEMPTION U/S. 10(23C)(IIIA D) OF 12 ITA NO. 238/PN/2013, A.Y. 2013-14 THE ACT. THE REVENUE CARRIED THE MATTER IN APPEAL BEFOR E THE TRIBUNAL. THE TRIBUNAL DISMISSED THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE AND HELD AS UNDER : 10. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE PART IES AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD AS WELL AS ORDERS OF THE REV ENUE AUTHORITIES. WE HAVE ALSO APPLIED OUR MIND TO THE DECISIONS PLACED BEFORE US. UNDISPUTED FACTS ARE, ASSESSEE WAS ESTABLISHED AS A SOCIETY AS EARLY AS IN DECEMBER, 1976 AND IS REGISTERED UNDER THE SOCIETIE S ACT. IT IS ALSO NOT IN DISPUTE THAT ASSESSEE HAS BEEN GRANTED REGISTRAT ION UNDER SECTION 12A OF THE ACT BY THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX VI DE ORDER DATED 23.09.1978 WHICH PRE-SUPPOSES THAT ASSESSEE'S OBJEC TS BEING OF CHARITABLE NATURE, ASSESSEE WAS GRANTED REGISTRATIO N AS A CHARITABLE INSTITUTION. KEEPING IN VIEW THE AFORECITED FACTUAL POSITION, LET US EXAMINE THE FACTS OF THE CASE. THE OBJECTS OF THE ASSESSEE SOCIETY AS PER ITS BYE LAWS ARE AS UNDER : 'THE AIMS AND OBJECTIVES OF THE SOCIETY ARE AS FOLL OWS: A. TO PROMOTE LITERARY, SCIENTIFIC AND OTHER EDUCAT IONAL ACTIVITIES AMONG LOCAL YOUNG MEN AND WOMEN. B. TO BE A CENTRE FOR RESEARCH IN ACADEMIC, ADMINIS TRATIVE, EDUCATIONAL AND MANAGEMENT FIELDS WITH A VIEW TO CO NTRIBUTING TO IMPROVEMENT IN THE SYSTEMS, METHODS THEREOF. C. TO PROMOTE, INTEGRATION AND DISSEMINATION OF KNO WLEDGE IN VARIOUS FIELDS OF HUMAN ACTIVITY RELATED TO ACADEMI C, EDUCATION, MANAGEMENT AND ADMINISTRATIVE FIELDS AND OTHER PROG RAMMES. D. TO UNDERTAKE RESEARCH, ORGANISATIONAL AND DEVELO PMENTAL PROGRAMMES ON CONTRACT WITH GOVERNMENT, PUBLIC OR P RIVATE AGENCIES. E. TO ORGANISE AND PROMOTE SUCH OTHER RELATED ACTIV ITIES AS WOULD HELP THE ACHIEVEMENT OF ITS OBJECTIVES; AND F. TO ARRANGE FOR THE TRAINING OF LOCAL BOYS AND GI RLS APPEARING AT THE COMPETITIVE EXAMINATION HELD BY THE UNION PUBLI C SERVICE COMMISSION, THE ANDHRA PRADESH PUBLIC SERVICE COMM ISSION, THE PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSIONS OF OTHER STATES, NATIONA L OR REGIONAL BODIES FOR APPOINTMENT TO THE BANKING INSTITUTIONS AND OTHER ORGANISATIONS. G. TO MAKE DONATIONS, CONTRIBUTIONS AND GIVE SUBSCR IPTIONS TO CHARITABLE INSTITUTIONS PROMOTING EDUCATIONAL OR LI TERACY ACTIVITIES. H. TO ESTABLISH, MAINTAIN, RUN, DEVELOP, IMPROVE, E XTEND, GRANT DONATE, FOR AND TO AID IN THE ESTABLISHMENT, MAINTE NANCE, IMPROVEMENT AND EXTENSION OF SCHOOLS, COLLEGES, POL YTECHNICS AND OTHER EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTIONS, INCLUDING VOCATIONA L TRAINING 13 ITA NO. 238/PN/2013, A.Y. 2013-14 CENTERS, RESEARCH CENTERS, FOUNDATIONS AND ADULT ED UCATION CENTERS AND HOSTELS FOR STUDENTS. 11. THE ASSESSING OFFICER WHILE EXAMINING THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS AND OTHER INFORMATION AVAILABLE ON RECORD HAS NOT FOUND ANY MATERIAL TO SUGGEST THAT ASSESSEE HAS UNDERTAKEN ACTIVITIES CON TRARY TO ITS AIMS AND OBJECTS. THE ONLY REASON ON WHICH THE A.O. HAS COME TO CONCLUSION THAT IT IS NOT ELIGIBLE FOR EXEMPTION UNDER SECTION 10(23C) (IIIAD) IS THAT SINCE THE ASSESSEE IS ENGAGED IN COACHING STUDENTS FOR COMPET ITIVE EXAMINATION, THE SAID ACTIVITY DOES NOT PARTAKE THE NATURE OF IM PARTING EDUCATION. HENCE, IS NOT WITHIN THE MEANING OF CHARITABLE PURP OSE UNDER SECTION 2(15) OF THE ACT. THE A.O. HAS ALSO OBSERVED THAT A SSESSEE CANNOT BE CLASSIFIED AS CHARITABLE INSTITUTION FOR THAT VERY REASON. HOWEVER, ON EXAMINATION OF THE DEFINITION 'CHARITABLE PURPOSE', IT IS CLEAR THAT EDUCATION IS ONE OF THE ACTIVITY COMING WITHIN THE MEANING OF CHARITABLE PURPOSE. THOUGH IT IS A FACT THAT THE HON'BLE SUPRE ME COURT IN THE CASE OF SOLE TRUSTEE, LOKA SHIKSHANA TRUST VS. CIT (SUPR A) HAS OBSERVED THAT 'EDUCATION' AS USED IN SECTION 2(15) OF THE ACT CAN NOT BE CONSTRUED TO BE IN A VERY WIDE AND EXTENDED SENSE BUT THE SAID DECI SION CANNOT BE INTERPRETED IN A MANNER TO MEAN THAT THE EXPRESSION EDUCATION ENVISAGED UNDER SECTION 2(15) HAS TO BE GIVEN A RESTRICTED ME ANING AND WOULD ONLY MEAN THE EDUCATION AS IMPARTED IN SCHOOLS AND COLLEGES. THEREFORE, IF EDUCATION IS CONSIDERED TO MEAN TRAINING AND DEV ELOPING THE SKILL, KNOWLEDGE, MIND AND CHARACTER OF STUDENTS, THEN THE ACTIVITY OF THE ASSESSEE CAN BE TERMED TO BE COMING WITHIN THE EXPR ESSION 'EDUCATION' AS USED IN SECTION 2(15) OF THE ACT. MOREOVER, THE PRO VISION CONTAINED UNDER SECTION 10(23C)(IIIAD)USED THE WORDS 'ANY UNI VERSITY OR OTHER EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTION' SOLELY FOR EDUCATIONAL PUR POSE AND NOT FOR THE PURPOSE OF PROFIT. IF WE CONSIDER THE ACTIVITIES OF THE ASSESSEE AS ENUMERATED IN THE AIMS AND OBJECTS THEN IT HAS TO BE CONSIDERED AS OTHER EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTION EXISTING SOLELY FOR EDUCATI ONAL PURPOSE AND WITHOUT PROFIT MOTIVE. THEREFORE, CONSIDERED IN THE AFORECITED PERSPECTIVE AND KEEPING IN VIEW THE RATIO LAID DOWN IN THE DECI SIONS REFERRED TO BY THE LEARNED A.R. AND RELIED UPON BY THE LEARNED CIT (A), THE ASSESSEE WOULD BE ELIGIBLE FOR EXEMPTION UNDERSECTION 10(23C )(IIIAD). FURTHER, FROM THE FACTS AND MATERIALS PLACED ON RECORD, IT IS VER Y MUCH EVIDENT THAT FROM ITS INCEPTION ASSESSEE HAS BEEN CLAIMING EXEMPT ION AND THE DEPARTMENT HAS ALSO ACCEPTED SUCH CLAIM OF THE ASSE SSEE IN SUCCESSIVE ASSESSMENT YEARS. PERUSAL OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDERS PASSED UNDER SECTION 143(3) OF THE ACT FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 1997-98 AND 1999-2000 CLEARLY ESTABLISHES THIS FACT. MOREOVER, EVEN IN THE SUCCEEDING ASSESSMENT YEAR ALSO I.E., ASSESSMENT YEARS 2010-20 11 AND 2011-2012, A.O. HAS ALLOWED CLAIM OF EXEMPTION UNDER SECTION 1 0(23C)(IIIAD) AFTER 14 ITA NO. 238/PN/2013, A.Y. 2013-14 EXAMINING THE ISSUE IN DETAIL. THEREFORE, WHEN THE DEPARTMENT HAS OVER THE YEARS ACCEPTED ASSESSEE'S CLAIM OF EXEMPTION UN DER SECTION 10(23C)(IIIAD), THERE IS NO REASON WHY A DIFFERENT VIEW SHOULD BE TAKEN IN THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT YEAR. THOUGH, PRINCIPLES OF RES JUDICATA DOES NOT APPLY TO TAX PROCEEDINGS AS EACH ASSESSMENT YEA R IS A INDEPENDENT UNIT, BUT AS HELD BY THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN T HE CASE OF RADHASOAMI SATSANG (193 ITR 321) WHERE A FUNDAMENTAL ASPECT PERMEATING THROUGH THE DIFFERENT ASSESSMENT YEARS H AS BEEN FOUND AS A FACT ONE WAY OR THE OTHER AND PARTIES HAVE ALLOWED THAT POSITION TO BE SUSTAINED BY NOT CHALLENGING THE ORDER IT WOULD NOT AT ALL BE APPROPRIATE TO ALLOW THE POSITION TO CHANGE IN A SUBSEQUENT YEA R. THE HON'BLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT WHILE FOLLOWING THE AFORE CITED PRINCIPLE LAID DOWN BY THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN CASE OF SPECTR A SHARES AND SCRIPS VS. CIT (SUPRA) HELD AS UNDER : 'IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, WE HOLD THAT THE RESPONDENT CANNOT UNDER SECTION 263 INTERFERE ON AN ISSUE WHICH HAS B EEN ACCEPTED BY THE REVENUE FOR A NUMBER OF YEARS PARTICULARLY, WHEN THE A.O. IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER FOR THE A.Y. 2006-07 TAKES THE SAME VIEW BY TERMING IT ERRONEOUS' 12. THOUGH THE SAME VIEW HAS BEEN EXPRESSED IN OTH ER DECISIONS REFERRED TO BY THE LEARNED A.R. IT IS NOT NECESSARY TO REFER TO ALL OF THEM AS THE PRINCIPLE IN THIS REGARD IS A WELL KNOWN. AT THIS JUNCTURE, IT WILL BE PERTINENT TO MENTION HERE THAT IN A.Y. 2004-05 ALSO WHILE COMPLETING THE ASSESSMENT UNDERSECTION 143(3), THE A.O. HAD ACCEPT ED ASSESSEE'S CLAIM OF EXEMPTION. SUBSEQUENTLY, ON THE BASIS OF AUDIT R EPORT, THE A.O. REOPENED THE ASSESSMENT UNDER SECTION 147 AND PASSE D THE ASSESSMENT ORDER HOLDING THAT ASSESSEE IS NOT ELIGI BLE FOR EXEMPTION UNDER SECTION 10(23C)(IIIAD). HOWEVER, WHEN THE ASS ESSEE CARRIED AN APPEAL TO THE TRIBUNAL, THE TRIBUNAL VIDE ORDER DAT ED 13.05.2011 IN ITA.NO.1468/HYD/2010 HELD REOPENING OF ASSESSMENT T O BE INVALID AS THE A.O. IN ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT HAS EXAMINED THE IS SUE RELATING TO CLAIM OF EXEMPTION AND THERE WAS NO CHANGE IN CIRCUMSTANC ES OR FRESH MATERIAL BEFORE THE A.O. FOR REOPENING THE ASSESSMENT. IT IS INTERESTING TO NOTE THAT NOT ONLY THE A.O. WHO REOPENED THE ASSESSMENT, IS T HE SAME WHO HAS PASSED THE ASSESSMENT ORDER FOR THE IMPUGNED ASSESS MENT YEAR, BUT THE ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED FOR THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT YEAR IS ALMOST A REPLICA OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED UNDER SECTIO N 143(3) READ WITH SECTION 147 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2004-05 A COPY OF WHICH HAS BEEN PLACED IN ASSESSEE'S PAPER BOOK. IN THESE CIRC UMSTANCES, IT IS NOT DIFFICULT TO UNDERSTAND WHY THE A.O. IN THE IMPUGNE D ASSESSMENT YEAR HAS TAKEN SUCH A VIEW. HOWEVER, WHEN DEPARTMENT HAS ACCEPTED 15 ITA NO. 238/PN/2013, A.Y. 2013-14 ASSESSEE'S CLAIM OF EXEMPTION NOT ONLY IN THE PRECE DING ASSESSMENT YEARS BUT ALSO IN SUBSEQUENT ASSESSMENT YEARS, LATE ST BEING ASSESSMENT YEARS 2010-2011 AND 2011-2012 UNDER SIMILAR FACTS A ND CIRCUMSTANCES, A CONTRARY VIEW SHOULD NOT BE TAKEN. ONE MORE ASPEC T WHICH NEEDS TO BE LOOKED INTO IS, THERE IS NO DISPUTE THAT ASSESSEE I S REGISTERED UNDER SECTION 12A OF THE ACT AND THE REGISTRATION G RANTED ALSO CONTINUES TILL DATE. THAT BEING THE CASE, THERE IS NO JUSTIFI CATION ON THE PART OF THE A.O. TO OBSERVE THAT THE ASSESSEE CANNOT BE TREATED AS A CHARITABLE INSTITUTION. THEREFORE, KEEPING IN VIEW THE FACT TH AT ASSESSEE IS REGISTERED AS A CHARITABLE INSTITUTION UNDER SECTION 12A OF TH E ACT, IT CAN ALTERNATIVELY ALSO CLAIM EXEMPTION UNDER SECTION 11 OF THE ACT. THE A.O. WHILE COMPLETING THE ASSESSMENT HAS TOTALLY IGNORED THIS ASPECT AND HAS FAILED TO EXAMINE WHETHER THE ASSESSEE IS ELIGIBLE FOR EXEMPTION UNDER SECTION 11 OF THE ACT. FOR THE AFORESTATED RE ASONS, WE CANNOT THEREFORE, ACCEPT THE CONCLUSION DRAWN BY THE A.O. WHILE DISALLOWING THE CLAIM OF EXEMPTION. IN THE AFORESAID VIEW OF THE MA TTER, WE HOLD THAT LD. CIT(A) WAS CORRECT IN ALLOWING ASSESSEE'S CLAIM OF OF EXEMPTION UNDER SECTION 10(23C)(IIIAD). ACCORDINGLY, WE UPHOL D THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A). GROUNDS NO. 2, 3, AND 4 OF THE DEPARTMENT A RE DISMISSED. 13. ON THE OTHER HAND THE LD. AR HAS PLACED RELIANCE ON THE DECISION OF HON'BLE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF DIT (EXEMP TIONS) VS. JAIN EDUCATIONAL SOCIAL CULTURAL WELFARE CHARITABLE TRUST (SUPR A) TO SAY THAT IN ORDER TO GET RECOGNITION U/S. 80G, MERE REGIS TRATION U/S. 12A IS NOT SUFFICIENT. THE ASSESSEE HAS TO SATISFY THE RE QUIREMENT MENTIONED U/S. 80G. UNDISPUTEDLY, THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 80G AND SECTION 12 A ARE EXCLUSIVE. FOR GRANT OF APPROVAL U/S. 80G, REGISTRATION U/S . 12A IS ONE OF THE PRECONDITIONS. HOWEVER, AT THE TIME OF GRANT OF APP ROVAL U/S. 80G, THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX HAS TO CONFINE HIS ENQ UIRY TO THE PROVISIONS OF SUB-SECTION (5) OF SECTION 80G. THE SCOPE OF E NQUIRY CANNOT BE ENLARGED TO ACTUAL COMPUTATION OF INCOME AND R E-EXAMINE NATURE OF ACTIVITIES CARRIED OUT BY THE ASSESSEE. PARTICU LARLY WHEN THE ASSESSEE IS ENJOYING THE BENEFIT OF REGISTRATION U/S. 12A OF THE ACT. 16 ITA NO. 238/PN/2013, A.Y. 2013-14 14. BE THAT AS IT MAY, THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED FRESH SET OF DOCUMENTS BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL AS ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE. SOME OF THE DO CUMENTS FILED AS ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE WERE NOT AVAILABLE WITH THE ASSES SEE WHEN THE MATTER WAS PENDING BEFORE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX . WE DEEM IT APPROPRIATE TO REMIT THE FILE BACK TO COMMISSIONER OF INC OME TAX TO CONSIDER THE APPLICATION OF ASSESSEE AFRESH IN THE LIGHT OF A DDITIONAL DOCUMENTS FILED AND VARIOUS CASE LAWS CITED BEFORE US AND THEREAFTER PASS ORDER, IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW. 15. IN THE RESULT, THE IMPUGNED ORDER IS SET ASIDE AND THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSE. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON MONDAY, THE 07 TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2015. SD/- SD/- ( . . / R.K. PANDA) ( ! ' / VIKAS AWASTHY) #' / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER $ % #' / JUDICIAL MEMBER / PUNE; &# / DATED : 07 TH DECEMBER, 2015 RK *+,$-.'/'(- / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. / THE APPELLANT. 2. / THE RESPONDENT. 3. ' / THE CIT-I, PUNE 4. !() %%*+ , *+ , , -./ , / DR, ITAT, A BENCH, PUNE. 5. ) 0 12 / GUARD FILE. // ! % // TRUE COPY// #3 / BY ORDER, %4 */ / PRIVATE SECRETARY, *+ , / ITAT, PUNE