ACIT(E), circle-1(1), New Delhi V. Delhi Bureau of Text Books, New Delhi

ITA 242/DEL/2018

• Counselvise Citation: [2020] 110 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 1480 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 11 month(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 09-12-2020
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2014-2015
• Appeal Filed On: 09-01-2018
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: JAGDISH SINGH
• Keywords: Business income; Charitable institution; Rule of consistency; Set aside; CHAPTER IV
• Section: 12A; 12; 11

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH B, NEW DELHI BEFORE SH. H. S. SIDHU, JUDICIAL MEMBER DR. B. R. R. KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER (THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCING) ITA NO. 240/DEL/2018 : ASSTT. YEAR : 2011-12 ITA NO. 241/DEL/2018 : ASSTT. YEAR : 2012-13 ITA NO. 242/DEL/2018 : ASSTT. YEAR : 2014-15 ACIT(E), CIRCLE-1(1), NEW DELHI VS DELHI BUREAU OF TEXT BOOKS, 25/2, INSTITUTIONAL AREA, PANKHA ROAD, D-BLOCK, JANAKPURI, NEW DELHI-110058 (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN NO. AA ATD4122G ASSESSEE BY : SH. AMIT KUMAR GUPTA, ADV. REVENUE BY : SH. JAGDISH SINGH, SR. DR DATE OF HEARING: 24.11.2020 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 09.12.2020 ORDER PER DR. B.R.R. KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: THE PRESENT APPEALS HAVE BEEN FILED BY THE REVENUE AGAINST THE ORDERS OF THE LD. CIT(A)-40, DELHI, DAT ED 25.10.2017. 2. SINCE, THE ISSUES INVOLVED IN ALL THESE APPEALS ARE COMMON, THEY WERE HEARD TOGETHER. 3. IN ITA NO. 240/DEL/2018, FOLLOWING GROUNDS HAVE BEEN RAISED BY THE REVENUE: 1. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CA SE AND IN LAW, THE LD. CIT (A) HAS ERRED IN HOLDING TH AT VARIOUS ACTIVITIES OF THE ASSESSEE, LIKE ITA NOS. 240 TO 242/DEL/2018 DELHI BUREAU OF TEXT BOOKS 2 DEVELOPING/PRINTING/PUBLISHING & SALE OF TEXT BOOKS AND OTHER TEACHING MATERIAL, ETC. FALL WITHIN THE EXPRESSION OF EDUCATION READ WITH DEFINITION OF CHARITABLE PURPOSE AS PER SECTION 2(15) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961. 2. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CAS E AND IN LAW, THE LD. CIT (A) HAS ERRED IN HOLDING TH AT THE ASSESSEE IS ENTITLED TO EXEMPTION OF INCOME U/S 11 & 12 PARTICULARLY WHEN ASSESSEES ACTIVITIES ON ACCOUNT OF DEVELOPING/PRINTING/PUBLISHING AND ALSO TEXT BOOKS AND OTHER TEACHING MATERIAL, ETC. CONSTITUTE BUSINESS ACTIVITY AND THE SAME COULD NOT BE CONSIDERED AS CHARITABLE ACTIVITY AS PER LAW. 4. THE ENTIRE FACTS HAVE BEEN TAKEN FROM THE RECORD OF THE LD. CIT (A). 5. THE ASSESSEE IS REGISTERED UNDER SECTION 12A VID E ORDER DATED 27.12.1973. THE SOCIETY WAS NOTIFIED UNDER SECTION 10(23C)(VI) UP TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2002-03. THE SOCIETY IS ENGAGED IN PUBLICATION OF TEXTS BOOKS FROM CLASS I TO VIII OF GOVERNMENT SCHOOLS, M CD SCHOOLS, NDMC SCHOOLS AND DELHI CANTONMENT SCHOOLS. 6. THE SOCIETY IS RUN AND MANAGED BY THE OFFICIALS OF EDUCATION DEPARTMENT OF GOVERNMENT OF DELHI. IT WAS NOTED BY TH E ASSESSING OFFICER THAT THE BOOKS ARE CLAIMED TO BE PUBLISHED AND SOLD AT SUBSIDIZED RATES WITH NOMINAL PROFIT TO SCHOOLS STUDENTS AND WHOLESA LE DEALERS. IT WAS ALSO STATED THAT THE ASSESSEE SOCIETY HAS CLAIMED THAT I T HAS DISTRIBUTED FREE BOOKS/ READING MATERIAL TO NEEDY STUDENTS. THE ASSE SSING OFFICER HELD THAT THE ACTIVITIES OF THE ASSESSEE ARE PRIMA FACIE IN T HE NATURE OF BUSINESS ACTIVITIES BY WAY OF SALE AND PURCHASE OF BOOKS. IT WAS OBSERVED THAT DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION THE ASSESSEE HA D A PROFIT OF RS. 1,00,16,078/- WHICH, AS PER THE ASSESSING OFFICER, MADE IT IS APPARENT THAT THE BOOKS ARE BEING SOLD AT A HUGE PROFIT MARG IN. HENCE THE ASSESSEE WAS HELD TO BE ENGAGED IN THE SAID ACTIVITIES FOR T HE PURPOSE OF EARNING ITA NOS. 240 TO 242/DEL/2018 DELHI BUREAU OF TEXT BOOKS 3 PROFIT. THE ASSESSEE WAS ASKED TO SHOW HOW THE ACTI VITY OF PUBLICATION AND SALE/PURCHASE OF BOOKS WAS COVERED WITHIN THE MEANI NG OF CHARITABLE PURPOSE AS PER THE AMENDED DEFINITION CONTAINED IN 2(15) WHICH IS EFFECTIVE FROM ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10. 7. THE ASSESSEE EXPLAINED THAT THE MAIN OBJECT OF T HE ASSESSEE SOCIETY IS TO PROVIDE, AID AND TO PROMOTE THE ADVANCEMENT O F EDUCATION, PARTICULARLY ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION AND FOR THIS PURPOSE, THE ASSESSEE HAS UNDERTAKEN TO PRODUCE, PUBLISH AND DIS TRIBUTE HIGH QUALITY TEXT BOOKS AND OTHER INSTRUCTIONAL MATERIAL. IT WAS ALSO SUBMITTED THAT IT WAS THE OBJECTIVE OF THE ASSESSEE TO MAKE AVAILABLE TEXT BOOKS AT SUBSIDIZED COST OR EVEN FREE OF COST TO CHILDREN OF ECONOMICALLY WEAKER FAMILIES. THE ASSESSING OFFICER ALSO NOTED THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT MAINTAINING SEPARATE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS OF THIS ACTI VITY. 8. THE ASSESSING OFFICER WHILE RELYING UPON THE DEC ISION OF THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF SOLE TRUSTEE, LOK SHIK SHANA TRUST VS. CIT (101 ITR 234) HELD THAT THE ACTIVITY OF THE ASSESSE E DOES NOT FALL UNDER THE CATEGORY OF EDUCATION. IT WAS ALSO HELD THAT THE WH OLE OF THE ACTIVITY OF THE ASSESSEE SOCIETY DURING THE YEAR HAS BEEN ONLY BUSI NESS ACTIVITY AND THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT CARRIED ON ANY CHARITABLE ACTIVITY . AS REGARDS DISTRIBUTION OF FREE BOOKS/ READING MATERIAL AND SCHOOL BAGS TO NEEDY STUDENTS, IT WAS HELD TO BE BUSINESS PROMOTION. THE ACTIVITY OF THE ASSESSEE WAS HELD TO BE NOT ELIGIBLE FOR EXEMPTION UNDER SECTION 11 AND 12 AND TO BE TAXABLE AS BUSINESS INCOME UNDER CHAPTER IV OF THE INCOME TAX ACT. IT WAS ALSO HELD THAT THE ASSESSEE NOT COMPLIED WITH THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 11 (4A) FOR THE ACTIVITIES OF SALE/PURCHASE OF BOOKS. IT WAS AL SO NOTED THAT APPEAL HAS BEEN PREFERRED BEFORE THE HON'BLE ITAT IN THE ASSES SEE'S OWN CASE FOR ASSESSMENT YEARS 2006-07 TO 2010-11 WHICH WERE YET TO BE DECIDED AT THAT STAGE. INCOME WAS COMPUTED AT RS. 5,13,58,420/ -. ITA NOS. 240 TO 242/DEL/2018 DELHI BUREAU OF TEXT BOOKS 4 9. AGGRIEVED BY THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, THE ASSESSEE FILED APPEAL BEFORE THE LD. CIT (A). 10. SUBMISSIONS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE LD. CIT (A) ARE AS UNDER: 'IT IS KINDLY SUBMITTED THAT APPEALS IN RESPECT OF ASSESSMENT YEARS 2006-07, 2007-08, 2008-09 & 2009-10 WERE PEND ING BEFORE THE HON'BLE DELHI HIGH COURT & FOR THE ASSES SMENT YEAR 2010-11 THE APPEAL WAS PENDING BEFORE ITAT & FOR TH E ASSESSMENT YEARS 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14 ARE PEND ING BEFORE YOURSELF THE ISSUES IN ALL THE CASES ARE SAM E/IDENTICAL. HON'BLE DELHI HIGH COURT HAS SET ASIDE THE COMMON I TAT ORDER DATED 23.04.2015 FOR ASSESSMENT YEARS 2006-07, 2007 -08, 2008-09 & 2009-10 THROUGH AN ORDER DATED 03.05.2017 . THE APPEALS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE HAVE BEEN ALLOWED BY THE HON'BLE DELHI HIGH COURT. FURTHER HON'BLE ITAT HAS ALSO DISMISSED THE APPEAL ITA NO. 674/DEL/2014 FILED BY REVENUE AGAINST THE ORDER OF CIT(A)FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010-11 VIDE ORDER DATED 11.08.2017 . 11. MAJOR ISSUES RAISED BY AO DURING ASSESSMENT PRO CEEDINGS ARE AS UNDER: 1. THE ASSESSEE IS ENGAGED PRIMARILY IN THE BUSIN ESS OF PUBLISHING AND SALE/ PURCHASE OF BOOKS & THE SAME I S NOT COVERED UNDER 2ND LIMB- EDUCATION OF THE DEFINITION OF 'CHARITABLE PURPOSE' AS PER THE DEFINITION CONTAINE D IN SECTION 2(15) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 & HAS CONSIDERED THE ACTIVITY AS A BUSINESS ACTIVITY & FURTHER OBSERVED THAT- ITA NOS. 240 TO 242/DEL/2018 DELHI BUREAU OF TEXT BOOKS 5 2. BOOKS ARE BEING SOLD AT HUGE MARGIN OF PROFIT. 3. SINCE NO SEPARATE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS ARE MAINTAIN ED FOR THE ABOVE ALLEGED BUSINESS ACTIVITY, THE ENTIRE INC OME OF THE ASSESSEE ARE TAXED. 4. ORDERS OF ITAT FOR ASSESSMENT YEARS AS ON THE DA TE OF PASSING THE ASSESSMENT ORDER ARE AGAINST THE ASSESS EE, HENCE ALL THE INCOME NEED TO BE TAXED. 12. ALL THE ISSUES RAISED BY THE A.O. HAS BEEN COVE RED & DISCUSSED AT LENGTH BY THE HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT & ITAT IN TH EIR ORDERS & HAS BEEN DECIDED IN THE FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE. THE ACTIVITY CARRIED ON BY THE ASSESSEE ARE CONSIDERED WITHIN THE PURVIEW OF EDUCA TION & RELIEF HAS BEEN PROVIDED TO DBTB. 13. THE LD. CIT (A) HELD THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS DENIED EXEMPTION BY HOLDING THAT THE ASSESEE IS ENGAGED IN THE BUSIN ESS OF PUBLISHING AND SALE/PURCHASE OF BOOKS WHICH IS NOT COVERED UNDER ' EDUCATION' AS PER THE DEFINITION OF CHARITABLE PURPOSE UNDER SECTION 2(15 ). THE ACTIVITY HAS BEEN CONSIDERED TO BE BUSINESS ACTIVITY SINCE BOOKS WERE BEING SOLD AT HUGE PROFIT. THE APPELLANT HAS SUBMITTED THAT THE HON'BL E DELHI. 14. HIGH COURT VIDE ORDER DATED 03.05.2017 IN ITA N OS. 807, 810 TO 812 OF 2015 AND CM NO. 24170 OF 2015 HAVE ALLOWED EXEMP TION UNDER SECTIONS 11 AND 12. RELIANCE HAS ALSO BEEN PLACED O N THE DECISION OF THE HON'BLE ITAT IN APPELLANT'S OWN CASE FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010-11 IN ITA NO. 674/DEL/2014 WHEREIN ON SIMILAR FACTS IT HAS BEE N HELD THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN ENGAGED IN THE ACTIVITY OF THE ED UCATION WITHIN THE MEANING OF SECTION 2(15) AND IT IS ENTITLED FOR EXE MPTION UNDER SECTION 11. THE LD. CIT (A) HELD THAT THE ASSESSEE IS ELIGIBLE FOR EXEMPTION U/S 11 WITHIN THE MEANING OF 2(15) OF THE I.T. ACT. ITA NOS. 240 TO 242/DEL/2018 DELHI BUREAU OF TEXT BOOKS 6 15. WE HAVE GONE THROUGH THE ENTIRE RECORD. 16. THE MATTER STANDS SQUARELY COVERED BY THE ORDER OF THE CO-ORDINATE BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010- 11 AND THE JUDGMENT OF HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2006-07, 2007-08, 2008-09 & 2009-1 0. 17. THE HON'BLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE ORDER DATED 03.05.2017 IN ITA NOS. 807, 810, 811, 812/2015 CM NO. 24170 OF 2015 H AVE HELD AS UNDER: '27. REVERTING TO THE CASE ON HAND, THE COURT FINDS THAT WHAT THE ITAT HAS HELD IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER IS CONTRARY TO THE SETTLED LAW AS EXPLAINED IN THE ABOVE DECISIONS. TH E ITAT CAME TO THE ERRONEOUS CONCLUSION THAT MERELY BECAUS E THE ASSESSEE HAD GENERATED PROFITS OUT OF THE ACTIVITY OF PUBLISHING AND SELLING OF SCHOOL TEXT BOOKS IT CEASED CARRYING ON THE ACTIVITY OF 'EDUCATION.' THE ITAT FAILED TO ADDRESS THE ISSUE IN THE BACKGROUND OF THE SETTING UP OF THE ASSESSEE, I TS CONTROL AND MANAGEMENT AND THE SOURCES OF ITS INCOME AND TH E PATTERN OF ITS EXPENDITURE. THE ITAT FAILED TO NOTI CE THAT THE SURPLUS AMOUNT URNS AGAIN PLOUGHED BACK INTO THE MA IN ACTIVITY OF 'EDUCATION'. THE QUESTION TO BE ASKED W AS WHETHER THE ACTIVITY OF THE ASSESSEE CONTRIBUTED TO THE TRA INING AND DEVELOPMENT OF THE KNOWLEDGE, SKILL, MIND AND CHARA CTER OF STUDENTS? IN THE CONSIDERED VIEW OF THE COURT, THE ANSWER TO THAT QUESTION HAD TO BE, IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTA NCES OUTLINED ABOVE, IN THE AFFIRMATIVE. 28. THE COURT, ACCORDINGLY, CONCLUDES THAT THE ITA T WAS INCORRECT IN SETTING ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED BY THE CIT (A) AND IN DENYING EXEMPTION TO THE ASSESSEE UNDER SECTION 11 AND ITA NOS. 240 TO 242/DEL/2018 DELHI BUREAU OF TEXT BOOKS 7 SECTION 12 OF THE ACT. THE ITAT ERRED IN HOLDING TH AT THE ACTIVITIES CARRIED OUT BY THE ASSESSEE FELL UNDER T HE 4TH LIMB OF SECTION 2 (15) OF THE ACT, I.E., 'THE ADVANCEMENT O F ANY OTHER OBJECT OF GENERAL PUBLIC UTILITY' AND THAT ITS ACTI VITIES WERE NOT SOLELY FOR PURPOSE OF ADVANCEMENT OF 'EDUCATION'. Q UESTIONS (I) AND (II) FRAMED BY THE COURT ARE, THEREFORE, ANSWER ED IN THE NEGATIVE, I.E., IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE AND AGAIN ST THE REVENUE. CONSISTENCY 29. ON THE ISSUE OF CONSISTENCY, THE COURT NOTES T HAT IN THE PRESENT CASE, CONTINUOUSLY FROM AYS 1971-72 TILL 20 05-06, EXEMPTION HAD BEEN GRANTED TO THE ASSESSEE UNDER SE CTIONS 11 AND 12 OF THE ACT. WHEN FOR AYS 1975-76 AND 1976 -77 THE AO SOUGHT TO TAKE A DIFFERENT VIEW, THE ITAT REVERS ED THAT VIEW AND THE DECISION OF THE ITAT WAS NOT CHALLENGE D FURTHER BY THE REVENUE. APART FROM THE FACT THAT THE ASSESS EE WAS EARNING MORE PROFITS FROM ITS ESSENTIAL ACTIVITY OF EDUCATION, THERE WAS NO CHANGE IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES CONCERNING THE SAID ACTIVITY SINCE AY 2005- 06 TO WARRANT A DIFFERENT A PPROACH IN THE AYS IN QUESTION. 33. THE DECISIONS RELIED UPON BY MR. KAUSHIK APPEAR TO HAVE TURNED ON THEIR PECULIAR FACTS. THE QUESTION THAT A ROSE WAS WHETHER MERELY BECAUSE THE REVENUE DID NOT FILE APP EALS AGAINST THE DECISIONS AGAINST IT IN SOME OF THE AYS , IT COULD BE PRECLUDED FROM CHALLENGING THE DECISIONS ON THE ISS UE AGAINST IT IN THE SUBSEQUENT AYS. THE FACTS HERE ARE STARK, THOUGH. HAVING ADOPTED A CONSISTENT STAND FOR OVER 34 YEARS , AND WITH ITA NOS. 240 TO 242/DEL/2018 DELHI BUREAU OF TEXT BOOKS 8 THERE BEING NO CHANGE IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES, THERE W AS NO JUSTIFICATION FOR THE REVENUE TO TAKE A DIFFERENT V IEW IN THE MATTER ONLY BECAUSE IT WAS POSSIBLE TO DO SO.' 18. FOR ASSESSMENT ORDER 2010-11, IN ASSESSEE'S OWN CASE, SUBSEQUENT TO THE ORDER OF THE HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COU RT, THE CO-ORDINATE BENCH OF ITAT DELHI IN ITA NO. 674/DEL/2014 HELD AS U NDER: '6. WE HAVE CAREFULLY GONE THROUGH THE RECORD. THER E IS NO DENIAL OF THE FACT, AS OBSERVED BY THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT, THAT FOR ABOUT 34 YEARS THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN ENGAGED IN THE FIELD OF EDUCATION WITHIN THE MEANING OF SECTION 2(15) OF THE ACT AND CONSEQUENTLY ELIGIBLE THE EXEMPTION U/S 11 OF THE A CT. VIDE PARAGRAPH NOS. 20 TO 28 OF THE ORDER IN ASSESSEE'S OWN CASE FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2006-07 TO 2009-10 THE HON 'BLE HIGH COURT, WHILE REFERRING TO THE DECISIONS IN SOLE TRU STEE (1975) 101 ITR 234 (SC), ASSAM TEXT BOOK PRODUCTION & PUBL ICATION CORPORATION LIMITED VS. CIT (2009) 319 ITR 317 (SC) , C1T VS. RAJASTHAN STATE TEXT BOOK BOARD (2000) 244 CTR 667 (RAJ), SECONDARY BOARD OF EDUCATION VS. ITO (1972) 86 ITR 408 (ORI), INSTITUTION OF CHARTERED ACCOUNTANTS OF INDIA VS. D IRECTOR GENERAL OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS) (2012) 347 ITR 9 9 (DEL), COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX VS. M.P. RAJYA PATHYA PU STAK NIGAM (2009) 226 CTR 497 (MP), GENERAL OF INCOME TA X (EXEMPTIONS) (2014) 362 ITR 436 (DEL), EXAMINED THE QUESTION OF INTERPRETATION PLACED ON THE WORD 'EDUC ATION' OCCURRING IN SECTION 2(15) OF THE AD, AND REACHED T HE CONCLUSION THAT MERELY BECAUSE THE ASSESSEE HAD GEN ERATED PROFITS OUT OF THE ACTIVITY OF PUBLISHING AND SELLI NG OF SCHOOL TEXT BOOKS, IT CANNOT BE SAID THAT THEY CEASED TO C ARRY ON THE ACTIVITY OF EDUCATION AND BY FOLLOWING THE RULE OF CONSISTENCY, AS EXPLAINED IN PARASHURAM POTTERY WORKS LTD. VS. I NCOME TAX OFFICER (1977) 106 ITR 1 (SC), RADHASOAMI SATSANG S AOMI BAGH VS. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (1992) 193 ITR 321 (SC), HOYSTEAD VS. COMMISSIONER OF TAXATION (1926) AC 155 (PC), CIT VS. EXCEL INDUSTRIES (2013) 262 CTR 261 ( SC) THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT HELD THAT THE REVENUE IN THE ABS ENCE OF ANY ITA NOS. 240 TO 242/DEL/2018 DELHI BUREAU OF TEXT BOOKS 9 CHANGE OF CIRCUMSTANCES CANNOT TAKE A DIFFERENT VIE W FROM THAT TAKEN IN THE EARLIER YEARS. NOW TURNING TO THE CASE ON HAND IT IS NOT THE CASE OF REVENUE THAT ANY CHANGE IN THE CIRC UMSTANCES HAD TAKEN PLACE. WE, THEREFORE, WHILE RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF THE HON'BLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT A GREE WITH THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BY THE LD. AR AND RETURN A FINDING THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN ENGAGED IN THE ACTIVITY OF EDUCAT ION WITHIN THE MEANING OF SECTION 2(15) OF THE ACT AND CONSEQU ENTLY THEY ARE ENTITLED FOR AN EXEMPTION U/S 11 OF THE ACT. WI TH THIS VIEW OF THE MATTER, WE DISMISSED THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL O F THE REVENUE.' 19. SINCE THE FACTS OF THE CASE ARE SIMILAR TO THOS E FOR ASSESSMENT YEARS 2006-07, 2007-08, 2008-09 AND 2010-11, RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF THE HON'BLE DELHI HIGH COURT, WE HEREBY HOLD THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN ENGAGED IN THE ACTIVITY OF THE EDUCATION W ITHIN THE MEANING OF SECTION 2(15) EVEN FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2011-12 , 2012-13 & 2014-15 AND CONSEQUENTLY IT IS ENTITLED FOR EXEMPTION UNDER SECTION 11. THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS DIRECTED TO ALLOW EXEMPTION UN DER SECTION 11 WITH ALL CONSEQUENTIAL BENEFITS. 20. IN THE RESULT, ALL THE APPEALS OF THE REVENUE A RE DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 09/12/2020. SD/- SD/- (H. S. SIDHU) (DR. B . R. R. KUMAR) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTAN T MEMBER DATED: 09/12/2020 *SUBODH* COPY FORWARDED TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(APPEALS) 5. DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR