Bethsaida Educational Trust, Trivandrum V. CIT, Trivandrum

ITA 486/COCH/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2013] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 69114 (ITAT-COCHIN)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 month(s) 22 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 20-12-2013
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Next Hearing Date: 09-12-2013
• Assessment Year: misc
• Appeal Filed On: 29-07-2013
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Charitable institution
• Section: 12AA; 12

Judgement Text

1 ITA NO.486/COCH/2013 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL COCHIN BENCH, COCHIN BEFORE SHRI N.R.S. GANESAN (JM) AND SHRI B.R. BASKA RAN(AM) I.T.A NO. 486/COCH/2013 BETHSAIDA EDUCATIONAL TRUST VS C.I.T., TRIVANDRU M PK VI/460, BETHSAIDA PUNLINKUDY, MULLOOR P.O. TRIVANDRUM 695 521 PAN : AABTB8808L (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI BABY JOSEPH / SHRI ANDREW KURUVILLA RESPONDENT BY : SMT. LATHA V KUMAR DATE OF HEARING : 12-12-2013 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 20-12-2013 O R D E R PER N.R.S. GANESAN (JM) THE ASSESSEE FILED THE PRESENT APPEAL CHALLENGING THE CORRECTNESS OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE ADMINISTRATIVE COMMISSIO NER REJECTING THE APPLICATION FOR REGISTRATION OF THE TRUST U/S 12AA OF THE ACT. 2. SHRI BABY JOSEPH, THE LD.REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE TRUST WAS ESTABLISHED TO PROMOTE AND SET UP EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTIONS. IN FURTHERANCE OF ITS OBJECTS, ACCOR DING TO THE LD.REPRESENTATIVE, 2 ITA NO.486/COCH/2013 THE ASSESSEE ESTABLISHED AN INSTITUTION KNOWN AS T RIVANDRUM HOTEL SCHOOL. ACCORDING TO THE LD.REPRESENTATIVE, TRIVA NDRUM HOTEL SCHOOL WAS A STUDY CENTRE FOR BHRAT SEVAK SAMAJ IN RESPECT OF DIPLOMA COURSES CONDUCTED IN HOTEL MANAGEMENT AND CATERING TECHNOLO GY. APART FROM THIS, THE ASSESSEE IS ALSO CONDUCTING STUDY CENTRE FOR KE RALA UNIVERSITY DISTANCE EDUCATION IN B.A.(SOCIOLOGY). ACCORDING T O THE LD.REPRESENTATIVE, WITHOUT CONSIDERING THE ACTIVITY OF THE ASSESSEE, T HE COMMISSIONER REJECTED THE APPLICATION OF THE ASSESSEE ON IRRELEV ANT GROUND. REFERRING TO THE IMPUGNED ORDER OF THE CIT(A), THE LD.REPRESENTA TIVE SUBMITTED THAT HE COULD NOT UNDERSTAND THE REASON ON WHICH THE COMMIS SIONER REJECTED THE APPLICATION. 3. REFERRING TO THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF IN COME-TAX, MORE PARTICULARLY PARAGRAPH 6, THE LD.REPRESENTATIVE SUB MITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS RECEIVED AN AMOUNT OF RS.4,83,051 FROM THE MANA GING TRUSTEE AS LOAN. HOWEVER, THE COMMISSIONER MISCONSTRUED THIS LOAN RE CEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE AS CORPUS DONATION. ACCORDING TO THE LD.R EPRESENTATIVE, THE ASSESSEE HAS NO PROPERTY OR BUILDING. THE MANAGING TRUSTEE OF THE TRUST HAS GIVEN A FREE ACCOMMODATION FOR THE TRUST. THE LD.REPRESENTATIVE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT OWNING A BUILDING IS NOT A PRE-CONDI TION FOR REGISTRATION OF THE TRUST. ON A QUERY FROM THE BENCH, WHETHER COND UCTING A STUDY CENTRE OF BHARAT SEVAK SAMAJ AND KERALA UNIVERSITY DISTANC E EDUCATION WOULD 3 ITA NO.486/COCH/2013 COME WITHIN THE MEANING OF EDUCATION U/S 2(15) OF THE ACT, THE LD.REPRESENTATIVE SUBMITTED THAT THIS WAS NOT CONSI DERED BY THE COMMISSIONER. THE COMMISSIONER HAS REJECTED ON OTH ER GROUND. 4. WE HEARD SMT. LATHA V KUMAR, THE LD.DR ALSO. AC CORDING TO THE LD.DR, CONDUCTING A STUDY CENTRE FOR DISTANCE EDUCA TION COURSE OF A UNIVERSITY CANNOT BE CONSIDERED AS EDUCATION WITH IN THE MEANING OF SECTION 2(15) OF THE ACT. THE LD.DR PLACED HER REL IANCE ON THE JUDGMENT OF THE PATNA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF BIHAR INSTITUTE OF MINING AND MINE SURVEYING VS CIT (1994) 208 ITR 608 (PAT). 5. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS ON EITH ER SIDE AND ALSO PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. THE COMM ISSIONER REJECTED THE APPLICATION OF THE ASSESSEE FOR REGISTRATION U/S 12 AA OF THE ACT ON THE GROUND THAT THE ACTIVITY OF THE TRUST PROPOSED IN T HE TRUST DEED IS INTENDED AS AN ASSOCIATE BUSINESS OF THE EXISTING BUSINESS O F THE TRUSTEES IN THE NAME AND STYLE OF BETHSAIDA HERMITAGE & TOURISM (P) LTD. INCIDENTALLY, THE COMMISSIONER HAS ALSO OBSERVED THAT THE TRUST H AS NO BUILDING OF ITS OWN AND THE MANAGING TRUSTEE HAS ADVANCED A SUM OF RS.4,83,051 WHICH WAS CLAIMED TO BE A LOAN AT THE FIRST INSTANCE. TH E COMMISSIONER HAS ALSO FOUND THAT THE MANAGING TRUSTEE AND TRUSTEE ARE DRA WING A SALARY OF RS.12 LAKHS AND RS.6 LAKHS, RESPECTIVELY FROM BETHSAIDA H ERMITAGE & TOURISM 4 ITA NO.486/COCH/2013 (P) LTD IN THEIR CAPACITY AS DIRECTORS. AT PARAGRA PH 4 OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER, THE COMMISSIONER HAS REPRODUCED THE RECTIFIC ATION MADE IN THE TRUST DEED ENABLING THE TRUSTEES TO SELL THE TRUST PROPER TIES. 6. IT IS NOT IN DISPUTE THAT THE ASSESSEE IS CLAIMI NG REGISTRATION U/S 12AA AS EDUCATIONAL TRUST. FOR THE PURPOSE OF REGISTRAT ION U/S 12AA, THE ASSESSEE HAS TO CONDUCT A REGULAR AND SYSTEMATIC ED UCATION IN THE FORM OF SCHOOLING. IN THIS CASE, THE ASSESSEE ENTERED INTO AN AGREEMENT WITH BHARAT SEVAK SAMAJ FOR CONDUCTING CLASSES FOR THEIR HOTEL MANAGEMENT AND CATERING TECHNOLOGY COURSE. AS PER THE AGREEME NT, THE ENTIRE ADMISSION AND REGISTRATION OF STUDENTS SHALL BE DON E BY BHARAT SEVAK SAMAJ. THE ASSESSEE HAS TO CONDUCT ONLY COACHING C LASSES. THE ASSESSEE HAS NO RIGHT TO ADMIT ANY STUDENT TO THE C OURSE. THE RIGHT OF REGISTRATION / ADMISSION IS EXCLUSIVELY WITH BHARAT SEVAK SAMAJ. THE IDENTITY CARD ISSUED TO THE STUDENTS IS ALSO ISSUED BY BHARAT SEVAK SAMAJ, COPY OF WHICH IS AVAILABLE AT PAGES 53 TO 56 OF THE PAPER BOOK. THEREFORE, IT IS OBVIOUS THAT THE ASSESSEE IS CONDUCTING A COA CHING CLASS FOR HOTEL MANAGEMENT COURSE WHICH WAS CONDUCTED BY BHARAT SEV AK SAMAJ. THE ASSESSEE IS NOT A REGULAR COLLEGE CONDUCTING SYSTEM ATIC EDUCATION TO THE STUDENTS. SIMILARLY, IN RESPECT OF KERALA UNIVERSI TY DISTANCE EDUCATION, THE ASSESSEE IS CONDUCTING COACHING CLASSES FOR THE STU DENTS ENROLLED BY THE UNIVERSITY AT THE DISTANCE EDUCATION CENTRE. THIS IS NOT A REGULAR AND 5 ITA NO.486/COCH/2013 SYSTEMATIC COURSE OF STUDY. THE QUESTION ARISES FO R CONSIDERATION IS WHEN THE ASSESSEE IS CONDUCTING A COACHING CENTRE FOR DI STANCE EDUCATION COURSE HELD BY THE UNIVERSITY OR SOME ORGANIZATION EMPOWERED BY THE GOVERNMENT, WHETHER SUCH ACTIVITY OF THE ASSESSEE C OULD BE TREATED AS EDUCATION WITHIN THE MEANING OF SECTION 2(15) OF THE ACT. THE APEX COURT IN THE CASE OF SOLE TRUSTEE, LOKA SHIKSHANA TRUST VS COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (1975) 101 ITR 234 (SC) HAD AN OCCASION TO CONSIDER THIS ISSUE AND THE APEX COURT FOUND THAT ALL KINDS OF ACQUIRIN G KNOWLEDGE MAY NOT COME WITHIN THE TERM EDUCATION. THE APEX COURT, IN FACT, HAS OBSERVED AS FOLLOWS: THE SENSE IN WHICH THE WORD EDUCATION HAS BEEN USED IN SECTION 2(15) IS THE SYSTEMATIC INSTRUCTION, SCH OOLING OR TRAINING GIVEN TO THE YOUNG IS PREPARATION FOR THE WORK OF LIFE. IT ALSO CONNOTES THE WHOLE COURSE OF SCHOLASTIC INS TRUCTION WHICH A PERSON HAS RECEIVED. THE WORD EDUCATION HAS NOT BEEN USED IN THAT WIDE AND EXTENDED SENSE, ACCORDIN G TO WHICH EVERY ACQUISITION OF FURTHER KNOWLEDGE CONSTITUTES EDUCATION. ACCORDING TO THIS WIDE AND EXTENDED SENSE, TRAVELLI NG IS EDUCATION, BECAUSE AS A TRAVELLING YOU ACQUIRE FRES H KNOWLEDGE. LIKEWISE, IF YOU READ NEWSPAPERS AND MA GAZINES, SEE PICTURES, VISIT ART GALLERIES, MUSEUMS AND ZOOS , YOU THEREBY 6 ITA NO.486/COCH/2013 ADD TO YOUR KNOWLEDGE. AGAIN, WHEN YOU GROW UP AND HAVE DEALINGS WITH OTHER PEOPLE, SOME OF WHOM ARE NOT ST RAIGHT, YOU LEARN BY EXPERIENCE AND THUS ADD TO YOUR KNOWLEDGE OF THE WAYS OF THE WORLD. IF YOU ARE NOT CAREFUL, YOUR WA LLET IS LIABLE TO BE STOLEN OR YOU ARE LIABLE TO BE CHEATED BY SOME U NSCRUPULOUS PERSON. THE THIEF WHO REMOVES YOUR WALLET AND THE SWINDLER WHO CHEATS YOU TEACH YOU A LESSON AND IN THE PROCES S MAKE YOU WISER THOUGH POORER. IF YOU VISIT A NIGHT CLUB, YO U GET ACQUAINTED WITH AND ADD TO YOUR KNOWLEDGE ABOUT SOM E OF THE NOT MUCH REVEALED REALITIES AND MYSTERIES OF LIFE. ALL THIS IN A WAY IS EDUCATION IN THE GREAT SCHOOL OF LIFE. BUT THAT IS NOT THE SENSE IN WHICH THE WORD EDUCATION IS USED IN CLAU SE (15) OF SECTION 2. WHAT EDUCATION CONNOTES IN THAT CLAUSE IS THE PROCESS OF TRAINING AND DEVELOPING THE KNOWLEDGE, S KILL, MIND AND CHARACTER OF STUDENTS BY NORMAL SCHOOLING. 7. THE COURSE CONDUCTED BY THE ASSESSEE MAY BE A SO URCE OF ACQUISITION OF SOME KNOWLEDGE BY THE RESPECTIVE STU DENTS. BUT SUCH A COURSE OR ACQUISITION OF KNOWLEDGE BY THE STUDENTS AT THE COACHING CLASS CONDUCTED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR DISTANCE EDUCATION CA NNOT BE CONSIDERED TO BE EDUCATION WITHIN THE MEANING OF SECTION 2(15) OF THE ACT. NO DOUBT, THE COMMISSIONER HAS NOT CONSIDERED THIS ASPECT. T HE COMMISSIONER SIMPLY REJECTED THE APPLICATION ON THE GROUND TH AT IT IS AN ASSOCIATE BUSINESS OF THE ASSESSEE WHICH IS ALREADY EX ISTING IN THE NAME 7 ITA NO.486/COCH/2013 OF BETHSAIDA HERMITAGE & TOURISM (P) LTD. SINCE TH E COMMISSIONER HAS NOT CONSIDERED THE ACTIVITY OF THE ASSESSEE, UNDER NORMAL CIRCUMSTANCES, WE WOULD HAVE REMANDED BACK THE MATTER TO THE FILE OF THE COMMISSIONER FOR RECONSIDERATION. HOWEVER, IN THIS CASE, REMAND ING BACK THE MATTER MAY NOT SERVE ANY PURPOSE. THIS TRIBUNAL HAD ALREA DY EXAMINED THIS ISSUE ELABORATELY IN THE CASE OF M. STAR CHARITABLE SOCIETY IN ITA NO.605/COCH/2011 ORDER DATED 14-12-2012 AND FOUND T HAT CONDUCTING COACHING CLASSES CANNOT BE CONSIDERED TO BE EDUCAT ION THE COMMISSIONER BEING A LOWER AUTHORITY TO THE TRIBUNA L HE HAS TO FOLLOW THE OBSERVATIONS MADE BY THE TRIBUNAL. THEREFORE, THIS TRIBUNAL IS OF THE OPINION THAT REMANDING BACK THE MATTER FOR RECONSID ERATION BY THE COMMISSIONER MAY NOT SERVE ANY PURPOSE AT ALL. FOR THE PURPOSE OF CONVENIENCE, WE ARE REPRODUCING THE OBSERVATIONS MA DE BY THIS TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF M STAR CHARITABLE SOCIETY (SUPRA): 4. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS ON EITH ER SIDE AND ALSO PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. ADMITTEDLY, THE TAXPAYER IS RUNNING COACHING CLASSES. THE TAXP AYER IS NOT DOING ANY OTHER ACTIVITY. THE QUESTION ARISES FOR CONSIDERATION IS WHETHER CONDUCTING COACHING CLASSES FOR THE STUD ENTS WOULD FALL WITHIN THE MEANING OF EDUCATION AS PROVIDED IN SECTION 2(15) OF THE ACT. THE APEX COURT HAD AN OCCASION T O CONSIDER 8 ITA NO.486/COCH/2013 THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 2(15) OF THE ACT IN SOLE TRUSTEE, LOKA SHIKSHANA TRUST VS COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (1975 ) 101 ITR 234 (SC). AFTER CONSIDERING THE PROVISIONS OF SECT IONS 2(15) OF THE ACT, THE APEX COURT FOUND THAT ALL KINDS OF ACQ UIRING KNOWLEDGE WILL NOT COME WITHIN THE MEANING OF EDUC ATION. WHAT EDUCATION. CONNOTES IN SECTION 2(15) IS THE PROCESSING OF TRAINING AND DEVELOPING THE KNOWLEDGE, SKILL, MI ND AND CHARACTER OF STUDENTS BY NORMAL SCHOOLING. IN FACT , THE APEX COURT HAS OBSERVED AS FOLLOWS AT PAGE 241 OF THE IT R: THE SENSE IN WHICH THE WORD EDUCATION HAS BEEN USED IN SECTION 2(15) IS THE SYSTEMATIC INSTRUCTION, SCH OOLING OR TRAINING GIVEN TO THE YOUNG IS PREPARATION FOR THE WORK OF LIFE. IT ALSO CONNOTES THE WHOLE COURSE OF SCHOLASTIC INS TRUCTION WHICH A PERSON HAS RECEIVED. THE WORD EDUCATION HAS NOT BEEN USED IN THAT WIDE AND EXTENDED SENSE, ACCORDIN G TO WHICH EVERY ACQUISITION OF FURTHER KNOWLEDGE CONSTITUTES EDUCATION. ACCORDING TO THIS WIDE AND EXTENDED SENSE, TRAVELLI NG IS EDUCATION, BECAUSE AS A TRAVELLING YOU ACQUIRE FRES H KNOWLEDGE. LIKEWISE, IF YOU READ NEWSPAPERS AND MA GAZINES, SEE PICTURES, VISIT ART GALLERIES, MUSEUMS AND ZOOS , YOU THEREBY ADD TO YOUR KNOWLEDGE. AGAIN, WHEN YOU GROW UP AND HAVE DEALINGS WITH OTHER PEOPLE, SOME OF WHOM ARE NOT ST RAIGHT, YOU LEARN BY EXPERIENCE AND THUS ADD TO YOUR KNOWLEDGE OF THE WAYS OF THE WORLD. IF YOU ARE NOT CAREFUL, YOUR WA LLET IS LIABLE TO 9 ITA NO.486/COCH/2013 BE STOLEN OR YOU ARE LIABLE TO BE CHEATED BY SOME U NSCRUPULOUS PERSON. THE THIEF WHO REMOVES YOUR WALLET AND THE SWINDLER WHO CHEATS YOU TEACH YOU A LESSON AND IN THE PROCES S MAKE YOU WISER THOUGH POORER. IF YOU VISIT A NIGHT CLUB, YO U GET ACQUAINTED WITH AND ADD TO YOUR KNOWLEDGE ABOUT SOM E OF THE NOT MUCH REVEALED REALITIES AND MYSTERIES OF LIFE. ALL THIS IN A WAY IS EDUCATION IN THE GREAT SCHOOL OF LIFE. BUT THAT IS NOT THE SENSE IN WHICH THE WORD EDUCATION IS USED IN CLAU SE (15) OF SECTION 2. WHAT EDUCATION CONNOTES IN THAT CLAUSE IS THE PROCESS OF TRAINING AND DEVELOPING THE KNOWLEDGE, S KILL, MIND AND CHARACTER OF STUDENTS BY NORMAL SCHOOLING. 5. FROM THE ABOVE JUDGMENT OF THE APEX COURT IT WOU LD BE ABUNDANTLY CLEAR THAT THERE SHOULD BE A SYSTEMATIC INSTRUCTION TO THE STUDENTS BY WAY OF NORMAL SCHOOLING. MERE C OACHING CLASSES MAY PROVIDE SOME KIND OF KNOWLEDGE TO THE S TUDENTS. BUT THAT KIND OF ACQUISITION OF KNOWLEDGE THROUGH C OACHING CLASSES CANNOT FALL WITHIN THE MEANING OF EDUCATIO N AS PROVIDED IN SECTION 2(15) OF THE ACT. AS THE APEX COURT OBSERVED, ONE MAY ACQUIRE KNOWLEDGE IN THE COURSE O F TRAVELLING; DURING THE COURSE OF READING NEWSPAPER; ETC. BUT THAT KIND OF KNOWLEDGE CANNOT FALL WITHIN THE TERM EDUCATION AS PROVIDED IN SECTION 2(15) OF THE ACT. THERE SHO ULD BE A NORMAL SCHOOLING BY WAY OF REGULAR AND SYSTEMATIC I NSTRUCTION. 10 ITA NO.486/COCH/2013 7. THE PATNA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF BIHAR INSTIT UTE OF MINING AND MINE SURVEYING VS C.I.T. (1994) 208 ITR 608 (PAT) HELD THAT MERE CONDUCTING OF CLASSES FOR OPEN UNIVE RSITY / DISTANCE EDUCATION CANNOT BE CONSTRUED AS CHARITABL E ACTIVITY WITHIN THE MEANING OF SECTION 2(15) OF THE ACT. TH E PATNA HIGH COURT, AFTER CONSIDERING THE JUDGMENT OF THE APEX C OURT IN COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX VS ANDHRA CHAMBER OF COM MERCE (1965) 55 ITR 722 (SC) AND IN THE CASE OF COMMISSIO NER OF INCOME-TAX VS SOLE TRUSTEE, LOKA SHIKSHANA TRUST (1 970) 77 ITR 61 (MYS) HAS OBSERVED AS FOLLOWS AT PAGE 615 OF THE ITR: IT IS TRUE THAT BY REASON OF THE FINANCE ACT, 198 3, THE QUESTION AS TO WHETHER ANY CHARITABLE INSTITUTION I S BEING RUN WITH A PROFIT MOTIVE OR NOT HAS LOST ITS RELEVANT. HOWEVER, THE WORD CHARITABLE PREFIXING THE WORD INSTITUTION HAS TO BE GIVEN ITS FULL EFFECT. IT APPEARS THAT ONE OF THE PRINCIPAL PROJECTS OF THE PETITIONERS INSTITUTION HAS THE OBJECT OF C OACHING AND PREPARING THE STUDENTS FOR APPEARING IN VARIOUS EXA MINATIONS CONDUCTED BY THE BOARD OF MINING EXAMINATION AND / OR MI(1) SECTION (A)(B) AND THE SAID COACHING OF STUDENTS IN AN INSTITUTE IS NOT, IN OUR OPINION, AN IMPARTING OF EDUCATION W HICH CAN BE SAID TO BE A PROCESS OF TRAINING AND DEVELOPING KNO WLEDGE AND CHARACTER OF STUDENTS BY NORMAL SCHOOLING. A COACH ING INSTITUTE CANNOT BE SAID TO BE AN INSTITUTION WHERE NORMAL 11 ITA NO.486/COCH/2013 SCHOOLING IS DONE. THE DEFINITION OF CHARITABLE P URPOSE IS INCLUSIVE AND NOT EXHAUSTIVE. 8. IT IS FURTHER SEEN THAT THE GUJARAT HIGH COURT A LSO HAD AN OCCASION TO CONSIDER IDENTICAL ISSUE IN THE CASE OF SAURASHTRA EDUCATION FOUNDATION VS C.I.T. (2005) 273 ITR 139 ( GUJ). THE GUJARAT HIGH COURT FOUND THAT ALL KINDS OF EDUCATIO N WOULD NOT FALL WITHIN THE MEANING OF SECTION 2(15) OF THE ACT . THE TRAINING, INSTRUCTION, ETC. WOULD RESULT IN GRANT O F A DIPLOMA OR DEGREE BY A UNIVERSITY OR A GOVERNMENTAL AGENCY. I N THE CASE BEFORE US, ADMITTEDLY, THE TAXPAYER IS CONDUCTING C OACHING CLASSES. THEREFORE, IT CANNOT BE TREATED AS A CHAR ITABLE INSTITUTION AS PROVIDED IN SECTION 2(15) OF THE ACT . THIS TRIBUNAL IS OF THE OPINION THAT THE TAXPAYER IS NOT ELIGIBLE FOR REGISTRATION U/S 12AA OF THE ACT. ACCORDINGLY, THE ORDER OF THE LOWER AUTHORITY IS CONFIRMED. 8. WE HAVE ALSO CAREFULLY GONE THROUGH THE JUDGMENT OF THE PATNA HIGH COURT IN BIHAR INSTITUTE OF MINING AND MINE SURVEYI NG (SUPRA). THE PATNA HIGH COURT HAS OBSERVED AS FOLLOWS AT PAGE 615 OF T HE ITR: IT IS TRUE THAT BY REASON OF THE FINANCE ACT, 1983 , THE QUESTION AS TO WHETHER ANY CHARITABLE INSTITUTION I S BEING RUN WITH A PROFIT MOTIVE OR NOT HAS LOST ITS RELEVANCE. HOWEVER, THE WORD CHARITABLE PREFIXING THE WORD INSTITUTION HAS TO BE 12 ITA NO.486/COCH/2013 GIVEN ITS FULL EFFECT. IT APPEARS THAT ONE OF THE PRINCIPAL PROJECTS OF THE PETITIONERS INSTITUTION HAS THE OBJECT OF C OACHING AND PREPARING THE STUDENTS FOR APPEARING IN VARIOUS EXA MINATIONS CONDUCTED BY THE BOARD OF MINING EXAMINATION AND / OR MI (1) SECTION (A)(B) AND THE SAID COACHING OF STUDENTS IN AN INSTITUTE IS NOT, IN OUR OPINION, AN IMPARTING OF EDUCATION W HICH CAN BE SAID TO BE A PROCESS OF TRAINING AND DEVELOPING KNO WLEDGE AND CHARACTER OF STUDENTS BY NORMAL SCHOOLING. A COACHI NG INSTITUTE CANNOT BE SAID TO BE AN INSTITUTION WHERE NORMAL SC HOOLING IS DONE. THE DEFINITION OF CHARITABLE PURPOSE IS IN CLUSIVE AND NOT EXHAUSTIVE. 9. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, THIS TRIBUNAL IS OF THE CO NSIDERED OPINION THAT THE ASSESSEE CANNOT BE CONSIDERED TO BE AN EDUCATI ONAL TRUST WITHIN THE MEANING OF SECTION 2(15) OF THE ACT. THEREFORE, IT IS NOT ENTITLED FOR REGISTRATION U/S 12AA OF THE ACT. ACCORDINGLY, THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER IS CONFIRMED ON THE REASONS GIVEN BY T HIS TRIBUNAL ABOVE. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THIS 20 TH DECEMBER, 2013. SD/- SD/- (B.R. BASKARAN) (N.R.S. GANESAN) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER COCHIN, DT : 20 TH DECEMBER, 2013 PK/- 13 ITA NO.486/COCH/2013 COPY TO: 1. BETHSAIDA EDUCATIONAL TRUST, PK VI/460, BETHSAID A, PULINKUDY, MULLOOR P.O., TRIVANDRUM 695 521 2. C.I.T., AAYAKAR BHAVAN, KOWDIAR, TRIVANDRUM-695 003 3. THE DR (TRUE COPY) BY ORDER ASSTT. REGISTRAR, INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, COCHIN BENCH