ITO (E), New Delhi V. M/s Society for Driver Training Institute, Delhi

ITA 5110/DEL/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2015] 121 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 1757 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 2 month(s) 26 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 30-11-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: G
• Next Hearing Date: 07-09-2015
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 04-09-2013
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Depreciation; Charitable institution; Maximum Marginal Rate
• Section: 12A; 12; 11

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCHES: G NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI J.SUDHAKAR REDDY ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA, JUDI CIAL MEMBER ITA NO: 5110/DEL/2013 AY: - 2010-11 INCOME TAX OFFICER(E) VS. SOCIET Y FOR DRIVER TRAINING INSTITUTE TRUST WARD-II, DELHI. NEA R TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, BURARI, DELHI 110 002. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI SUJIT KUMAR, SR. DR RESPONDENT BY : SHRI RAKESH GUPTA, ADVOCATE SHRI TARUN KUMAR, ADVOCATE DATE OF HEARING : 7.9.2015 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : .11.2015 O R D E R PER SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA JUDICIAL MEMBER THIS APPEAL OF THE DEPARTMENT IS DIRECTED AGAINST O RDER DATED 13.6.2013 PASSED BY THE LD. CIT (A)-XXI, NEW DELHI. THE GROUN DS OF APPEAL ARE AS UNDER:- 1. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE A ND IN LAW, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN HOLDING THAT THE ACTIVITIES OF THE ASSESSEE ARE CHARITABLE IN NATURE AND NOT IN THE NATURE OF T RADE, BUSINESS OR COMMERCE SPECIFICALLY WHEN THE ASSESSEE IS CHARG ING FEE ON ACCOUNT OF DIFFERENT COURSES AND TRAINING CONDUCTED DURING THE PERIOD UNDER CONSIDERATION. 2. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE A ND IN LAW, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN APPLYING THE RATIO OF JUDGM ENT OF HON'BLE HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF BUREAU OF INDIAN STANDARD AND ALLOWING THE RELIEF TO THE ASSESSEE BY HOLDING THAT THE ACTI VITIES OF THE ITA NO.5110/DEL/2013 ITO VS SOCIETY FOR DRIVER TRAINING INSTITUTE 2 ASSESSEE ARE CHARITABLE IN NATURE WITHIN THE MEANIN G OF SECTION 2(15) OF THE ACT. 3. IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN L AW THE LD. CIT (A) ERRED IN HOLDING THAT THE ACTIVITY CARRIED OUT BY THE ASSESSEE FALLS UNDER THE LIMB EDUCATION AS THE ASS ESSEES CASE IS SQUARELY COVERED BY THE DECISION GIVEN IN THE CASE OF ADDL. CIT VS. ASSOCIATION OF SOUTHERN INDIA (1981) 127 ITR 73 0 (MAD.) WHERE IT HAS BEEN HELD THAT THE IMPARTING LESSONS A ND INSTRUCTIONS FOR AUTOMOBILE DRIVING CANNOT BE AN ED UCATIONAL OBJECT BUT CAN ONLY BE CONSIDERED AS GENERAL PUBLIC UTILITY. 2. THE ASSESSEE SOCIETY IS REGISTERED U/S 12A A OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 VIDE ORDER DATED 28.07.2006. RETURN FOR THE ASSESSMENT Y EAR UNDER CONSIDERATION WAS EARLIER PROCESSED U/S 143(1) OF THE ACT AT NIL INCO ME AND THE CASE WAS LATER SELECTED FOR SCRUTINY. DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEE DINGS U/S 143(3), THE AO WHILE DENYING THE ASSESSEES CLAIM OF EXEMPTION U/S 11 OB SERVED ON PAGES 6 & 7 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AS UNDER: IN THE INSTANT CASE, DURING THE PERIOD UNDER CONSI DERATION THE SOCIETY WAS INVOLVED TO IMPART TRAINING TO DRIVERS OF BUSES & T RUCKS INCLUDING DTC BUSES AND IN LIEU THEREOF CHARGING FEES FROM THE PA RTICIPANTS, THE RECEIPTS SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE ARE IN THE NATURE OF FEES FOR RENDERING SERVICES. AS DISCUSSED ABOVE THE ACTIVITY CARRIED OUT BY THE ASS ESSEE IS COMMERCIAL IN NATURE AND SQUARELY FALLS UNDER THE LIMB 'ADVANCEME NT OF ANY OTHER OBJECT OF GENERAL PUBLIC UTILITY' WITH REFERENCE TO DEFINI TION OF 'CHARITABLE PURPOSE' U/S. 2(15) OF THE IT ACT, 1961. THE AGGREGATE VALUE OF RECEIPTS ARE MORE THAN 10 LACS, HENCE CONDITIONS STIPULATED IN BOTH T HE ABOVE MENTIONED PROVISIONS TO SECTION 2(15) STAND SATISFIED AND ASS ESSEE IS HIT BY THE PROVISO TO SECTION 2(15). IT IS EVIDENT THAT THE DOMINANT ACTIVITIES CARRIED ON BY THE ASSESSEE HAVE TO BE CONSIDERED UNDER 'ADVANCEMENT OF ANY OTHER OB JECT OF GENERAL PUBLIC ITA NO.5110/DEL/2013 ITO VS SOCIETY FOR DRIVER TRAINING INSTITUTE 3 UTILITY' AS PER THE DEFINITION OF 'CHARITABLE PURPO SE' CONTAINED U/S. 2(15) OF THE IT ACT, 1961. FROM THE FACT MENTIONED ABOVE, IT IS GATHERED THAT THE ASSESSEE IS IN RECEIPT OF FEES FROM RENDERING SERVI CES. IN VIEW OF ABOVE DISCUSSION, IRRESPECTIVE OF USE OF FEE, CHARGING OF FEE FOR RENDERING SERVICES WILL LEAD TO INVOCATION OF PROVISO TO SECTION 2(15) . SUCH ACTIVITIES ARE IN NATURE ACTIVITY OF RENDERING ANY SERVICES IN RELATI ON TO ANY TRADE, COMMERCE OR BUSINESS, FOR A CESS OR FEE. SUCH BUSINESS CANNO T BE INCIDENTAL TO THE OBJECTS AS PROVIDED IN SECTION 2(15) SINCE ASSESSEE IS HIT BY THE PROVISO TO SECTION 2(15). IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, IT IS INFERRED THAT THE ACTIV ITY, CARRIED OUT BY THE ASSESSEE DURING THE PERIOD UNDER CONSIDERATION IS N OT CHARITABLE, THEREFORE, THE ASSESSEE WOULD NOT BE ENTITLE FOR EXEMPTION OF INCOME U/S. 11 & 12 OF THE IT ACT AND THE WHOLE OF THE SURPLUS GENERATED F ROM BUSINESS ACTIVITIES OF THE ASSESSEE IS LIABLE TO TAX UNDER SECTION 164 AT MMR (MINIMUM MARGINAL RATE) ONLY DEPRECIATION ON THE FIXED ASSETS PURCHAS ES DURING THE YEAR WILL BE ALLOWED. 3. HOWEVER, THE LD. CIT (A ALLOWED THE ASSESSEE S APPEAL BY OBSERVING AS UNDER: IN THIS REGARD I HAVE GONE THROUGH THE WRITTEN SUB MISSION OF THE ID. AR OF THE APPELLANT AND FINDING OF THE AO IN THE AS SESSMENT ORDER. THE RELIANCE ON THE CASE OF BUREAU OF INDIAN STANDARDS VS. DGIT (EXEMPTION), 212 TAXMAN 210 (DEL) IS APPRECIATED, B ECAUSE IN THE CASE OF BUREAU OF INDIAN STANDARDS HON'BLE DELHI HI GH COURT HAS HELD THAT BY PRESCRIBING OF STANDARDS OF GOODS/ARTICLES AND ENFORCING THOSE STANDARDS THROUGH ACCREDITATION AND CONTINUING SUPE RVISION THROUGH INSPECTION, ETC. CANNOT BE CONSIDERED AS TRADE, BUS INESS OR COMMERCIAL, MERELY BECAUSE TESTING PROCEDURE INVOLVES CHARGING OF FEES. THE RATIO OF THE ABOVE MENTIONED JUDGMENT IS CLEARLY ATTRACTE D ON THE FACTS OF THE CASE, BECAUSE THE APPELLANT IS CHARGING THE FEE FOR TRAINING THE DRIVERS OF DIFFERENT CATEGORIES. SO, IT DOES NOT IN VOLVE TRADE, COMMERCE ITA NO.5110/DEL/2013 ITO VS SOCIETY FOR DRIVER TRAINING INSTITUTE 4 OR BUSINESS AS ASSESSEE IS IN RECEIPT OF FEE FROM R ENDERING SERVICES FOR TRAINING THE DRIVERS OF BUSES AND TRUCKS AND IT FAL LS UNDER THE LAST LIMB OF THE SEC. 2(15) WHICH IS ADVANCEMENT OF ANY OTHER OBJECT OF GENERAL PUBLIC UTILITY. IN THIS REGARD WHILE DECIDING THE I SSUE, THE RELIANCE IS PLACED ON THE C.B.D.T. CIRCULAR NO. 1112008 DATED 1 9-11-2008, WHEREIN, IN THE RELEVANT PARAGRAPH IT HAS BEEN MEN TIONED UNDER:- '3.2 IN THE FINAL ANALYSIS' HOWEVER, WHETHER THE ASSESSEE HAS FOR ITS OBJECT 'THE ADVANCEMENT OF ANY OTHER OBJECT OF GENERAL PUBLIC UTILITY' IS A QUESTION OF FACT. IF SUCH ASSESSEE IS ENGAGED IN ANY ACTIVITY IN THE NATURE OF TRADE, COMMERCE OR BUSINESS OR REN DERS ANY SERVICE IN RELATION TO TRADE COMMERCE OR BUSINESS, IT WOULD NO T BE ENTITLED 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 D EVICE TO HIDE THE TRUE PURPOSE WHICH IS TRADE, COMMERCE OR BUSINESS OR THE RENDERING OF ANY SERVICE IN RELATION TO TRADE, COMMERCE OR BUSINESS. EACH CASE WOULD, THEREFORE, BE DECIDED ON ITS OWN FACTS AND NO GENER ALIZATION IS POSSIBLE. ASSESEES, WHO CLAIM THAT THEIR OBJECT IS 'CHARITABLE PURPOSE WITHIN THE MEANING OF SECTION 2(15) WOULD BE WELL A DVISED TO ENCHEW ANY ACTIVITY WHICH IS IN THE NATURE OF TRADE, COMME RCE OR BUSINESS OR THE RENDERING OF ANY SERVICE IN RELATION TO ANY TRA DE, COMMERCE OR BUSINESS. ' AS NO GENERALIZATION IS POSSIBLE AND EACH CASE HAS TO BE DECIDED ON ITS OWN MERIT, SO, IT IS HELD THAT ACTIVITIES FALL UNDE R THE LAST LIMB, I.E., ANY OTHER OBJECT OF GENERAL PUBLIC UTILITY, BUT, RELYIN G ON THE RATIO OF THE JUDGMENT IN THE CASE OF BUREAU OF INDIAN STANDARDS, AS DISCUSSED ABOVE, IT IS HELD THAT ITS ACTIVITY DO NOT HAVE ELE MENT OF TRADE, COMMERCE OR BUSINESS. ACCORDINGLY, GROUNDS NO. 1,2 AND 6 ARE ALLOWED. GROUND NO. 3:-THE APPELLANT HAS TAKEN THE GROUND T HAT ITS ACTIVITY FALLS UNDER THE CATEGORY OF EDUCATION. FOR THIS APPELLANT HAS RELIED ON THE ITA NO.5110/DEL/2013 ITO VS SOCIETY FOR DRIVER TRAINING INSTITUTE 5 JUDGMENT OF HONBLE GUJARAT HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF GUJARAT STATE CO-OPERATIVE UNION VS. CIT, 195 ITR 279.,(GUJ), WHE REIN, JUDGMENT OF HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF SOLE TRUSTEE, LOKA SHIKSHANA TRUST VS. CIT I01-ITR-234 HAS BEEN RELIED. IN THE A BOVE MENTIONED JUDGMENT THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT HAS OBSERVED THA T THAT THE WORD 'EDUCATION' ALSO CONNOTES THE WHOLE COURSE OF SCHOL ASTIC INSTRUCTION WHICH A PERSON HAS RECEIVED. THIS CLEARLY INDICATES THAT THE OBSERVATIONS OF HON'BLE SUPREME COURT WERE NOT INTE NDED TO GIVE A ARROW OR PEDANTIC SENSE TO THE WORD 'EDUCATION'. IN THE INSTANT CASE, THE APPELLANT IS GIVING TRAINING TO DRIVERS TO DRIV E THE VEHICLES IN A VERY SYSTEMATIC MANNER TO INCREASE THE SKILL WHICH IS IN THE NATURE OF INCREASING THE CAPABILITY AND PERFECTION. THIS ACTI VITY FALLS UNDER THE PURVIEW OF 'EDUCATION', AS HAS BEEN CONTENDED BY TH E APPELLANT AND RELIANCE ON THE JUDGMENT OF THE HON'BLE GUJARAT HIG H COURT AND HON'BLE SUPREME COURT, AS DISCUSSED ABOVE, IS APPRE CIATED. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, GROUND NO. 3 OF THE APPEAL IS ALSO ALLOW ED. 4. NOW, IN THIS PRESENT APPEAL, THE DEPARTMENT HAS CHALLENGED THE FINDING OF THE LD. CIT (A). THE LD. DR DREW OUR ATTENTION TO PAGES 2 & 3 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AND POINTED OUT THAT FOR THE PERIOD UNDER CONSIDERA TION THE GROSS RECEIPTS OF THE ASSESSEE AMOUNTED TO RS. 1,17,07,050/- AND THE SURP LUS GENERATED FOR THE LAST THREE ASSESSMENT YEARS WAS AS UNDER :- AY SURPLUS 2010 11 RS. 50,82,846/- 2009 10 RS. 45,92,661/- 2008 - 09 RS. 43,29,681/- ITA NO.5110/DEL/2013 ITO VS SOCIETY FOR DRIVER TRAINING INSTITUTE 6 THE LD. DR EMPHASISED THAT THESE FIGURE PROVE THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS GENERATING HUGE PROFITS / SURPLUS EVERY YEAR AND HENCE IT CANN OT BE SAID THAT THERE IS NO PROFIT MOTIVE. THE LD. DR FURTHER EMPHASISED THAT AFTER TH E AMENDMENT TO THE PROVISO TO SECTION 2(15) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 W.E.F. 01 .04.2009, THE PROFIT MOTIVE WAS NO MORE IMPORTANT. THE LD. DR FURTHER SUBMITTED THA T CHARITABLE TRUSTS WITH GENERAL OBJECT OF PUBLIC UTILITY ARE REQUIRED TO ESCHEW ANY ACTIVITY WHICH IS IN THE NATURE OF TRADE, COMMERCE OR BUSINESS OR THE RENDERING OF ANY SERVICE IN RELATION TO ANY TRADE, COMMERCE OR BUSINESS TO REMAIN CHARITABLE TO CONTIN UE REGISTRATION U/S 12A OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961. HE SUBMITTED THAT THE END USE OF BUSINESS PROFIT FOR CHARITABLE PURPOSES IS OF NO RELEVANCE DUE TO AMEND MENT IN SECTION 2 (15). HE SUBMITTED THAT THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT (A) SHOULD BE SET ASIDE. 5. THE LD. AR ON THE OTHER HAND SUBMITTED THAT THE CONCEPT OF EDUCATION HAS UNDERGONE A COMPLETE CHANGE. HE EMPHASISED THAT THE CASE OF ASSESSEE FALLS UNDER EDUCATION AND NOT UNDER OBJECT OF GENERAL PUBLIC UTILITY. HE SUBMITTED THAT THE PROVISO TO SECTION 2(15) IS NOT APPLICABLE TO THE A SSESSEEES CASE AT ALL. HE PLACED RELIANCE ON THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT IN GUJARAT STATE CO- OPERATIVE UNION VS. CIT 195 ITR 279 (GUJ). HE SUBMI TTED THAT IN VIEW OF THE JUDGMENT OF THE HONBLE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT THE A SSESSEE SOCIETY IS A PURELY EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY AND THE PROVISO TO SECTION 2(15 ) IS NOT APPLICABLE TO THE ASSESEE SOCIETY. 6. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND HAVE AL SO PERUSED THE RECORDS. A REFERENCE MAY BE MADE AT THIS JUNCTURE TO THE DECIS ION OF HONBLE HIGH COURT OF ITA NO.5110/DEL/2013 ITO VS SOCIETY FOR DRIVER TRAINING INSTITUTE 7 GUJARAT IN THE CASE OF GUJARAT STATE CO-OPERATIVE U NION VS. CIT (SUPRA) WHEREIN THE HONBLE HIGH COURT HAS DEALT WITH THE JUDGMENT OF S OLE TRUSTEE, LOKA SHIKSHANA TRUST V. CIT (1975) 101 ITR 234 IN WHICH THE HONBL E APEX COURT, WHILE DEALING WITH THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 11 READ WITH SECTION 2(15 ) OF THE ACT WHICH DEFINES 'CHARITABLE PURPOSE' OBSERVED AS UNDER (AT PAGE 241 ):- 'THE SENSE IN WHICH THE WORD 'EDUCATION' HAS BEEN U SED IN SECTION 2(15) IN THE SYSTEMATIC INSTRUCTION, SCHOOLING OR TRAINING G IVEN TO THE YOUNG IS PREPARATION FOR THE WORK OF LIFE. IT ALSO CONNOTES THE WHOLE COURSE OF SCHOLASTIC INSTRUCTION WHICH A PERSON HAS RECEIVED. THE WORD 'EDUCATION' HAS NOT BEEN USED IN THAT WIDE AND EXTENDED SENSE, ACCO RDING TO WHICH EVERY ACQUISITION OF FURTHER KNOWLEDGE CONSTITUTES EDUCAT ION. ACCORDING TO THIS WIDE AND EXTENDED SENSE, TRAVELLING IS EDUCATION, BECAUS E AS A RESULT OF TRAVELLING YOU ACQUIRE FRESH KNOWLEDGE...... BUT THAT IS NOT THE SENSE IN WHICH THE WORD 'EDUCATION' IS USED IN CLAUSE (15) OF SECTION 2. W HAT 'EDUCATION' CONNOTES IN THAT CLAUSE IS THE PROCESS OF TRAINING AND DEVELOPI NG THE KNOWLEDGE, SKILL, MIND AND CHARACTER OF STUDENTS BY NORMAL SCHOOLING. THE SUPREME COURT, IN THE ABOVE OBSERVATIONS, BY RE FERRING TO THE SYSTEMATIC INSTRUCTION, SCHOOLING OR TRAINING GIVEN TO THE YOU NG HAS ONLY CITED AN INSTANCE IN 'ORDER TO INDICATE AS TO WHAT THE WORD 'EDUCATIO N' APPEARING IN SECTION 2(15) OF THE ACT WHICH DEFINES 'CHARITABLE PURPOSES ' IS INTENDED TO MEAN. WE ARE CERTAIN THAT THESE OBSERVATIONS WERE NOT INTEND ED TO KEEP OUT OF THE MEANING OF THE WORD 'EDUCATION', PERSONS OTHER THAN 'YOUNG'. THE EXPRESSION 'SCHOOLING' ALSO MEANS 'THAT SCHOOLS, INSTRUCTS OR EDUCATES' (THE OXFORD ENGLISH DICTIONARY, VOL. IX, PAGE 217). THE SUPREME COURT HAS OBSERVED THAT THE WORD 'EDUCA TION' ALSO CONNOTES THE WHOLE COURSE OF SCHOLASTIC INSTRUCTION WHICH A PERS ON HAS RECEIVED. THIS CLEARLY INDICATES THAT THE OBSERVATIONS OF THE SUPR EME COURT WERE NOT INTENDED TO GIVE A NARROW OR PEDANTIC SENSE TO THE WORD 'EDUCATION'. BY GIVING ITA NO.5110/DEL/2013 ITO VS SOCIETY FOR DRIVER TRAINING INSTITUTE 8 FURTHER ILLUSTRATIONS OF A TRAVELLER GAINING KNOWLE DGE, VICTIMS OF SWINDLERS AND THIEVES BECOMING WISER, THE VISITORS TO NIGHT CLUBS ADDING TO THEIR KNOWLEDGE OF THE HIDDEN MYSTERIES OF LIFE, THE SUPREME COURT HAS INDICATED THAT THE WORD 'EDUCATION' IS NOT USED IN A LOOSE SENSE SO AS TO I NCLUDE ACQUISITION OF EVEN SUCH KNOWLEDGE. THE OBSERVATIONS OF THE SUPREME COU RT ONLY INDICATE THE PROPER CONFINES OF THE WORD 'EDUCATION' IN THE CONT EXT OF THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 2(15) OF THE ACT. IT WILL NOT BE PROPER TO CONSTRUE THESE OBSERVATIONS IN A MANNER IN WHICH THEY ARE CONSTRUED BY THE TRIB UNAL WHEN IT INFERS FROM THESE 'OBSERVATIONS, IN PARA 17 OF ITS JUDGMENT, TH AT THE WORD 'EDUCATION IS LIMITED TO SCHOOLS, COLLEGES AND SIMILAR INSTITUTIO NS AND DOES NOT EXTEND TO ANY OTHER MEDIA FOR SUCH ACQUISITION OF KNOWLEDGE. THE OBSERVATIONS OF THE SUPREME COURT DO NOT CONFINE THE WORD 'EDUCATION' O NLY TO SCHOLASTIC INSTRUCTIONS BUT OTHER FORMS OF EDUCATION ALSO ARE INCLUDED IN THE WORD 'EDUCATION'. AS NOTICED ABOVE; THE WORD 'SCHOOLING' ALSO MEANS INSTRUCTING OR EDUCATING. IT, THEREFORE, CANNOT BE SAID THAT THE W ORD 'EDUCATION' HAS BEEN GIVEN AN UNDULY RESTRICTED MEANING BY THE SUPREME C OURT IN THE SAID DECISION. THOUGH, IN THE CONTEXT OF THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 10(22), THE CONCEPT OF EDUCATION NEED NOT BE GIVEN ANY WIDE OR EXTENDED MEANING, IT SURELY WOULD ENCOMPASS SYSTEMATIC DISSE MINATION OF KNOWLEDGE AND TRAINING IN SPECIALIZED SUBJECTS AS I S DONE BY THE ASSESSEE. THE CHANGING TIMES AND THE EVER WIDENING HORIZONS OF KNOWLEDGE MAY BRING IN CHANGES IN THE METHODOLOGY O F TEACHING A SHIFT FOR THE BETTER IN THE INSTITUTION SET UP. ADV ANCEMENT OF KNOWLEDGE BRINGS WITHIN ITS FOLD SUITABLE METHODS O F ITS DISSEMINATION AND THOUGH THE PRIMARY METHODS OF SIT TING IN CLASSROOM MAY REMAIN IDEAL FOR MOST OF THE INITIAL EDUCATION, IT MAY BECOME NECESSARY TO HAVE A DIFFERENT OUTLOOK FOR FU RTHER EDUCATION. IT IS NOT NECESSARY, TO NAIL DOWN THE CONCEPT OF ED UCATION TO A PARTICULAR FORMULA OR TO FLOW IT ONLY THROUGH A DEF INED CHANNEL. ITS PROGRESS LIES IN THE ACCEPTANCE OF NEW IDEAS AND DE VELOPMENT OF ITA NO.5110/DEL/2013 ITO VS SOCIETY FOR DRIVER TRAINING INSTITUTE 9 APPROPRIATE MEANS TO REACH THEM TO THE RECIPIENTS. (EMPHASIS SUPPLIED). EVEN IF IT WERE TO BE HELD THAT THE OBSERVATIONS OF THE SUPREME COURT WOULD APPLY ONLY TO THE SCHOOLS, COLLEGES AND SIMILAR INS TITUTIONS AS HELD BY THE TRIBUNAL, WE ARE SATISFIED FROM THE NATURE OF THE A CTIVITIES OF THE ASSESS- CO- OPERATIVE UNION OF RUNNING COLLEGES AND TRAINING CE NTRES FOR COURSES FOR THE PURPOSES OF IMPARTING TRAINING AND / OR AWARDING DI PLOMAS AND CERTIFICATES THAT THE ASSESSEE IS AN EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTION EX ISTING SOLELY FOR EDUCATIONAL PURPOSES AND NOT FOR THE PURPOSES OF PROFIT. 7. SIMILARLY, THE INSTITUTE OF CHARTERED ACCOUNTAN TS OF INDIA WAS DENIED EXEMPTION BY THE INCOME-TAX AUTHORITIES BUT THE HON BLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF INSTITUTE OF CHARTERED ACCOUNTANTS OF INDIA AND ANOTHER V. DIT (EXEMPTIONS) AND OTHERS (2013) 358 ITR 91 HAS HELD THAT THE INST ITUTE WAS ENTITLED TO INCOME-TAX EXEMPTION. IT WAS HELD BY THE HONBLE DELHI HIGH C OURT THAT AFTER GOING THROUGH THE PROVISIONS OF THE CHARTERED ACCOUNTANTS ACT AND THE REGULATIONS FRAMED THEREIN AS WELL AS VARIOUS ACTIVITIES CARRIED ON BY THE INSTIT UTE, IT WAS CLEAR THAT THE INSTITUTE DID NOT CARRY ON ANY BUSINESS, TRADE OR COMMERCE. THE ACTIVITY OF IMPARTING EDUCATION IN THE FIELD OF ACCOUNTANCY AND CONDUCTING COURSES BOTH AT PRE-QUALIFICATION AS WELL AS POST-QUALIFICATION LEVEL WERE ACTIVITIES IN FURT HERANCE OF THE OBJECT FOR WHICH THE INSTITUTE HAD BEEN ESTABLISHED. 8. IT IS SEEN THAT THE ASSESSEE SOCIETY WAS FORMED BY ASHOK LEYLAND LTD., AN AUTOMOBILE CONGLOMERATE, ON THE REQUEST OF GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI TO IMPART TRAINING TO DRIVERS OF BUSES & TRUCKS INCLUDING DTC BUSES TO MAKE DELHI ROADS SAFE. THE VARIOUS TRAINING COURSES ARE DESIGNED AND PRESCRIBE D BY GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, ITA NO.5110/DEL/2013 ITO VS SOCIETY FOR DRIVER TRAINING INSTITUTE 10 MINISTRY OF SHIPPING, ROAD-TRANSPORT & HIGHWAYS. TH E COURSE CONTENT COMPRISES OF CLASSROOM INSTRUCTION, TRAINING ON SIMULATOR MODELS , FIELD INSTRUCTIONS, PRACTICAL TRAINING AND EXAMINATION. THE FEE TO BE RECOVERED F OR DIFFERENT COURSES IS DETERMINED AND PRESCRIBED BY THE TRANSPORT DEPARTME NT. FOR EACH COURSE CERTIFICATE IS AWARDED TO THE SUCCESSFUL CANDIDATES ON COMPLETI ON OF THE COURSE WHICH IS SIGNED BY THE AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY OF THE TRANSPORT DEPART MENT, GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI, THE INSTRUCTOR & THE PRINCIPAL OF THE DRIVING INSTITUTE . THE CERTIFICATE ISSUED IS THE STATUTORY BASIS ON WHICH DRIVING LICENSE AND PSV BA DGES ARE ISSUED/RENEWED BY THE TRANSPORT AUTHORITY. A MAJOR PART OF THE ACTIVITY OF THE SOCIETY IS TRAINING OF DTC DRIVERS FROM GRANTS RECEIVED FROM MINISTRY OF SHIPP ING, ROAD TRANSPORT & HIGHWAYS, GOVT. OF INDIA (MORTH). INDISPUTABLY, SUBSTANTIAL A CTIVITY OF THE ASSESSEE REVOLVES AROUND PROVIDING TRAINING TO DRIVERS OF BUSES AND T RUCKS. THE TRAINING PROGRAMMES ARE DESIGNED/ APPROVED BY THE MINISTRY OF SHIPPING, ROAD TRANSPORT AND HIGHWAYS WHICH ALSO GIVES GRANTS TO THE ASSESSEE SOCIETY FRO M TIME TO TIME. AS SUCH, THE ASSESSEE CANNOT BE EQUATED WITH A PRIVATE DRIVERS TRAINING INSTITUTE. THERE IS NO FINDING BY THE DEPARTMENT THAT ANY BENEFIT OF ANY K IND HAS ACCRUED TO ANY INDIVIDUAL MEMBER INVOLVED IN THE ACTIVITIES OR DAY TO DAY RUN NING OF THE SOCIETY. THEREFORE, IN OUR CONSIDERED OPINION AND RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING T HE RATIO OF THE JUDGMENTS AS LAID DOWN BY THE HONBLE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT IN GUJARA T STATE CO-OPERATIVE UNION VS. CIT (SUPRA) AND THE HONBLE HIGH COURT OF DELHI IN INSTITUTE OF CHARTERED ACCOUNTANTS OF INDIA AND ANOTHER V. DIT (EXEMPTIONS ) AND OTHERS (SUPRA) WE FIND NO REASON TO INTERFERE WITH THE IMPUGNED ORDER OF T HE LD. CIT (A). ITA NO.5110/DEL/2013 ITO VS SOCIETY FOR DRIVER TRAINING INSTITUTE 11 9. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE DEPARTMENT IS D ISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 30 TH NOVEMBER, 2015. SD/- SD/- (J. SUDHAKAR REDDY) (SUDHANSHU SRIVASTA VA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED: THE 30 . 11. 2015 VEENA COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR 6. GUARD FILE BY ORDER DY. REGISTRAR SL. NO. DESCRIPTION DATE 1. DATE OF DICTATION BY THE AUTHOR 23.11.2015 2. DRAFT PLACED BEFORE THE DICTATING MEMBER 23.11. 2015 3. DRAFT PLACED BEFORE THE SECOND MEMBER 4. DRAFT APPROVED BY THE SECOND MEMBER 5. DATE OF APPROVED ORDER COMES TO THE SR. PS 6. DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDER 7. DATE OF FILE SENT TO THE BENCH CLERK 8. DATE ON WHICH FILE GOES TO THE HEAD CLERK 9. DATE OF DISPATCH OF ORDER