ASST CIT (E) 1(1), MUMBAI V. JEEVAN VIJAY MISSION, MUMBAI

ITA 5446/MUM/2015

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 126 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 9589 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 9 month(s) 16 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 13-09-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: Not Allotted
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Appeal Filed On: 27-11-2015
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: ARJU GARODIA
• Keywords: Charitable institution; Benefit of exemption
• Section: 10B

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL J , BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI R.C.SHARMA, AM & SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN , JM ITA NO. 5446 / MUM/20 1 5 ( ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2011 - 12 ) ASST. CIT (E) 1(1) R.NO.506, 5 TH FLOOR, PIRAMAL CHAMBERS, LALBAUG, MUMBAI 400 012 VS. JEEVAN V IDYA MISSION SHRI HANUMAN MANDIR NEAR ABHUDHAYA BANK 28 - A, DL PATH KALACHLOWKI, MUMBAI 400 043 PAN/GIR NO. AAATN2486R APPELLANT ) .. RESPONDENT ) REVENUE BY MS. ARJU GARODIA ASSESSEE BY SHRI ANIL SATHE DATE OF HEARIN G 31 / 08/ 201 7 DATE OF PRONOUNCEME NT 13 / 09 /201 7 / O R D E R PER R.C.SHARMA (A.M) : THIS IS AN APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE AGAINST THE ORDER OF CIT(A) - 1, MUMBAI DATED 24/09/2015 FOR A.Y. 2011 - 12 IN THE MATTER OF ORDER PASSED U/S.143( 3) OF THE IT ACT. 2. ONLY GRIEVANCE OF REVENUE RELATES TO ALLOWING EXEMPTION U/S.11 TO THE ASSESSEES TRUST. 3. RIVAL CONTENTIONS HAVE BEEN HEARD AND RECORD PERUSED. BRIEFLY, FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE IS A TRUST REGISTERED WITH DIT (E), MUMBA I U/S.12A. THE ASSESSEE FILED ITS RETURN OF INCOME ON 30.09.2011 ALONGWITH THE INCOME AND EXPENDITURE ACCOUNT, BALANCE SHEET AND AUDIT REPORT IN FORM 10B DECLARING TOTAL INCOME AT RS.1,00,470/ - . IN THE COURSE OF ITA NO. 5446/MUM/2015 JEEVAN DIDYA MISSION 2 SCRUTINY ASSESSMENT, AO DECLINED CLAIM OF EX EMPTION U/S.11 BY HOLDING THAT INCOME FROM PUBLISHING AND SELLING BOOKS AND CASSETTES ARE IN THE NATURE OF REGULAR BUSINESS ACTIVITY, AND NO SEPARATE ACCOUNTS ARE MAINTAINED FOR THE SAME, HENCE AS PER SEC 2(15) OF THE IT ACT, 1961 ASSESSEE IS NOT ENTITLED FOR COMPUTATION OF INCOME UNDER PROVISIONS OF SEC 11, 12 AND 13 OF THE IT ACT. 4. BY THE IMPUGNED ORDER , CIT(A) ALLOWED EXEMPTION BY FOLLOWING HIS ORDER FOR THE A.Y. 2010 - 11 DATED 20/07/2015 . 5. AT THE OUTSET, LEARNED AR PLACED ON RECORD THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL FOR THE A.Y. 2009 - 10 AND 2011 - 12, WHEREIN ISSUE OF THE EXEMPTION HAS BEEN DECIDED BY TRIBUNAL IN ASSESSEES FAVOUR AFTER HAVING THE OBSERVATION AS UNDER: - 7. WE HAVE GONE THROUGH THE SUBMISSION MADE BY BOTH THE SIDES AND THE MATERIAL PLACED BEFOR E US FOR OUR CONSIDERATION AND ALSO GONE THROUGH VARIOUS JUDGMENTS RELIED BY BOTH THE PARTIES AS WELL AS BY THE LD. CIT(A) WHILE ADJUDICATING THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE ON THE ISSUES INVOLVED. IN OUR CONSIDERED OPINION, FIRST ISSUE TO BE DECIDED HERE IS WHE THER THE ASSESSEE IS ENGAGED IN THE ACTIVITY OF IMPARTING EDUCATION. IF IT IS SO, WHETHER THE NEWLY INSERTED FIRST PROVISO TO SECTION 2(15) OF THE INCOME - TAX ACT, CAN BE APPLIED TO THE FACTS OF THIS CASE, AND, IF THIS PROVISO CANNOT BE APPLIED TO THE FACTS OF THIS CASE, THEN WHETHER THE AFORESAID ACTIVITY OF DISTRIBUTION OF BOOKS, CASSETTES AND CDS BY THE ASSESSEE TRUST CAN BE SAID TO BE THE TRADE, COMMERCE OR BUSINESS, IN THE GIVEN FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE OR NOT. 8. WE HAVE PONDERED OVER ALL T HE ISSUES. IT IS NOTICED THAT THE CIT(A) HAS MADE DETAILED ANALYSIS IN DECIDING ALL THESE THREE ISSUES. 8.1 IN OUR CONSIDERED OPINION, BASED UPON ANALYSIS OF THE FACTS OF THIS CASE, THE ASSESSEE TRUST IS ENGAGED IN THE FIELD OF EDUCATION. IN OUR CONSIDE RED VIEW, BASED UPON OUR UNDERSTANDING OF LAW, THERE IS NO MERIT IN THE ORDER OF ASSESSING OFFICER TO GIVE A RESTRICTED MEANING TO THE SCOPE OF MEANING OF TERM EDUCATIONAL ACTIVITIES. IT IS NOT NECESSARY THAT THERE SHOULD BE HOLDING OF REGULAR CLASSES OR W HOLESOME EDUCATIONAL ACTIVITIES TO BE ONLY ELIGIBLE TO BE CALLED EDUCATIONAL ACTIVITIES ELIGIBLE FOR BENEFITS UNDER SECTION 11 AND 12. AS PER OUR UNDERSTANDING, THE TERM EDUCATION IS OF WIDE SCOPE AND AMPLITUDE, ITA NO. 5446/MUM/2015 JEEVAN DIDYA MISSION 3 ESPECIALLY IN THE CONTEXT OF SECTION 2(15) . IN THIS FAST EVOLVING SOCIETY, THE TERM EDUCATION HAS ASSUMED GREATER ROLE AND SIGNIFICANCE, THEN EVER. EDUCATION HAS GOT PIVOTAL ROLE IN EVOLUTION OF A SOCIETY. THEREFORE, KEEPING THIS CRUCIAL ASPECT IN MIND, THE LEGISLATURE IN ITS WISDOM HAD DECIDED TO PLACE THIS ACTIVITY WITHIN THE DEFINITION CLAUSE OF THE TERM CHARITABLE PURPOSE, AS PER SECTION 2(15) OF THE INCOME - TAX ACT, WHEREIN IT HAS BEEN SPECIFICALLY MENTIONED THAT THE TERM CHARITABLE PURPOSE INCLUDES . EDUCATION . THUS, THE VERY ACTIVI TY OF EDUCATION ITSELF HAS BEEN INCLUDED WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE TERM CHARITABLE PURPOSE. IT MAY FURTHER BE SEEN THAT ACTIVITY OF IMPARTING EDUCATION HAS BEEN SPECIFICALLY INCLUDED IN THE DEFINITION, THUS SHOWING THAT THE INTENTION OF THE LEGISLATURE , VERY CLEARLY, IS TO PROMOTE EDUCATION, WHICH IS FURTHER FORTIFIED BY THE FACT THAT WHEN THE FIRST PROVISO WAS INSERTED TO SECTION 2(15), THE ACTIVITY OF EDUCATION WAS NOT COVERED THEREIN AND ONLY OTHER OBJECT OF GENERAL PUBLIC UTILITY ALONE WAS COVERED THEREIN. THE FIRST PROVISO WAS BROUGHT IN TO CURTAIL THE SCOPE OF CHARITABLE PURPOSE WITH RESPECT TO THE ACTIVITIES OF GENERAL PUBLIC UTILITY, BY EXCLUDING THE SAME FROM THIS DEFINITION, IF IT INVOLVED CARRYING ON OF ANY ACTIVITY IN THE NATURE OF TRADE, COMMERCE OR BUSINESS. FURTHER, EVEN AFTER HUGE LITIGATION WITH RESPECT TO BLANKET EXEMPTION TO EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTIONS, WHEN THE AMENDMENT WAS MADE BY THE FINANCE ACT, 2009, THE ACTIVITY OF THE EDUCATION WAS KEPT OUTSIDE THE PURVIEW OF NEWLY INSERTED PRO VISO. THUS, IMPLIEDLY, IT CAN BE SAID THAT, IT IS CLEAR THAT THE LEGISLATURE HAS GIVEN GREAT SIGNIFICANCE TO THE UTILITY OF EDUCATION IN OUR COUNTRY. 9. NOW, KEEPING AFORESAID DISCUSSION ON CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK IN MIND, LET US ANALYSE THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE AND DECIDE THE REMAINING ISSUES INVOLVED HERE. IN OUR CONSIDERED VIEW, SINCE THE ASSESSEE IS ENGAGED IN IMPARTING EDUCATION, IN THAT CASE IF THE BOOKS, CASSETTES ETC. HAVE BEEN DISTRIBUTED AS INTEGRAL PART OF THAT ACTIVITY, TO ATTAIN THE MAIN OBJECT AND WITHOUT ANY PROFIT MOTIVE, IN THAT CASE IT CANNOT BE SAID THAT THIS ACTIVITY HAS BEEN CARRIED OUT IN THE NATURE OF TRADE, COMMERCE OR BUSINESS, AND ACCORDINGLY, FIRST PROVISO TO SECTION 2(15) SHALL NOT BE APPLICABLE AND THE EXEMPTION GRANTED TO THE ASSESSEE TRUST CANNOT BE WITHDRAWN ON THAT REASON ALONE. 9.1 IN THIS REGARD, WE SHALL TAKE FIRST GUIDANCE FROM THE JUDGMENT OF HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF CST VS SAI PUBLICATION FUND 258 ITR 70 (SC). THE BRIEF FACTS IN THIS CASE WERE THAT TH IS TRUST WAS SET UP BY SOME DEVOTEES OF SAI BABA OF SHIRDI FOR SPREADING HIS MASSAGES. IN PURSUANCE TO THIS OBJECT, THE ASSESSEE TRUST PUBLISHED AND DISTRIBUTED BOOKS, PAMPHLETS AND OTHER LITERATURES CONTAINING MASSAGES OF SAI BABA UNDER THE AEGIS OF SAI PUBLICATION, DISTRIBUTED BY THE TRUST TO THE DEVOTEES OF SAI BABA, AT COST PRICE. UNDER THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, A QUESTION AROSE WHETHER THIS ACTIVITY WOULD AMOUNT TO CARRYING ON THE BUSINESS BY THE ASSESSEE TRUST. IN THAT ITA NO. 5446/MUM/2015 JEEVAN DIDYA MISSION 4 CONTEXT, HONBLE APEX COURT HELD TH AT IF THE MAIN ACTIVITY IS NOT BUSINESS, THEN ANY TRANSACTIONS INCIDENTAL OR ANCILLARY WOULD NOT NORMALLY AMOUNT TO BUSINESS, UNLESS AN INDEPENDENT INTENTION TO CARRY ON BUSINESS IN THE INCIDENTAL OR ANCILLARY ACTIVITY IS ESTABLISHED. IT WAS FURTHER HELD THAT PUBLICATION FOR THE PURPOSE OF SPREADING MESSAGES IS INCIDENTAL TO THE MAIN ACTIVITY WHICH TRUST DOES NOT CARRY AS BUSINESS, AND THAT ACTIVITY OF TRUST IN BRINGING OUT PUBLICATIONS AND SELLING THEN AT COST PRICE TO SPREAD MASSAGES OF SAI BABA DOES NO T MAKE IT A BUSINESS ACTIVITIES, AND THAT THE QUESTION OF PROFIT MOTIVE OR NO PROFIT MOTIVE WOULD BE RELEVANT ONLY WHEN A PERSON CARRIES ON TRADE, COMMERCE, MANUFACTURE OR ADVENTURE IN THE NATURE OF TRADE, COMMERCE, OR BUSINESS ETC. 9.2. FURTHER, WE FIND THAT EVEN AFTER THE AMENDMENT HAS BEEN MADE UNDER THE LAW, BY INSERTING PROVISO TO SECTION 2(15), THE POSITION OF LAW, AS WAS LAID DOWN BY HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF SAI PUBLICATION FUND, SUPRA, REMAINS THE SAME. IN SUPPORT OF OUR VIEW, WE RELY UPON THE JUDGMENT OF HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN GS1 VS DIRECTOR GENERAL OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS) 360 ITR 138, WHEREIN IT WAS HELD THAT THE PROVISO TO SECOND LIMB WILL NOT APPLY IN THE CASE OF A RENDITION OF A SERVICE PER SE, FOR A CESS, FEE OR ANY OTHER CONSIDERATION, OR TO A TRADE, COMMERCE OR BUSINESS, BUT THAT THIS CLAUSE CAN COME INTO PLAY FOR THE PURPOSE OF EXCLUDING AN ASSESSEE WHO CARRIES ON BUSINESS, TRADE OR COMMERCE TO FEED THE CHARITABLE ACTIVITIES. IN OTHER WORDS, THE SCOPE OF SECOND LIMB, AS HELD BY HIGH COURT, EXTENDS ONLY TO SUCH CASES IN WHICH A BUSINESS IS CARRIED OUT TO FEED THE CHARITABLE ACTIVITIES. IT WOULD THUS FOLLOW THAT EVEN FOR INVOKING SECOND LIMB OF FIRST PROVISO TO SECTION 2(15), IT IS SINE QUA NON THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS EXTE NDED SERVICES TO BUSINESS, TRADE OR COMMERCE AND SUCH SERVICES HAVE BEEN EXTENDED IN THE COURSE OF BUSINESS CARRIED ON BY THE ASSESSEE. IT IS THUS CLEAR THAT EVEN IN A SITUATION IN WHICH AN ASSESSEE RECEIVES A FEES OR CONSIDERATION FOR RENDITION OF A SERVI CE TO THE BUSINESS, TRADE OR COMMERCE, AS LONG AS SUCH A SERVICE IS SUBSERVIENT TO THE CHARITABLE CAUSE AND IS NOT IN THE NATURE OF BUSINESS ITSELF, THE DISABILITY UNDER SECOND LIMB OF FIRST PROVISO TO SECTION 2(15) WILL NOT COME INTO PLAY; 9.3. SIMILARL Y, IN THE INSTITUTE OF CHARTERED ACCOUNTANTS OF INDIA VS DGIT (EXEMPTIONS) 358 ITR 9, HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT HAS HELD THAT, EVEN THOUGH FEES ARE CHARGED BY THE PETITIONER INSTITUTE FOR PROVIDING COACHING CLASSES AND FOR HOLDING INTERVIEWS WITH RESPECT T O CAMPUS PLACEMENT, THE SAID ACTIVITIES CANNOT BE STATED TO BE RENDERING SERVICE IN RELATION TO ANY TRADE, COMMERCE OR BUSINESS AS SUCH ACTIVITIES ARE UNDERTAKEN BY THE PETITIONER INSTITUTE IN FURTHERANCE OF ITS MAIN OBJECT WHICH AS HELD EARLIER ARE NOT TR ADE, COMMERCE OR BUSINESS. IN THIS CASE ALSO, THE RENDITION OF SERVICES BY THE ASSESSEE IS VIEWED IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE OVERALL OBJECTIVES OF THE ASSESSEE AND ITA NO. 5446/MUM/2015 JEEVAN DIDYA MISSION 5 ONCE IT IS SEEN THAT THESE SERVICES ARE NOT IN THE NATURE OF TRADE, COMMERCE OR BUSINESS PER S E, THE MERE CHARGING OF FEES FOR SERVICES SO RENDERED, WHICH WERE HELD TO SUBSERVIENT TO THE CHARITABLE OBJECTIVES, IS HELD TO HAVE NO EFFECT ON THE OVERALL CHARITABLE OBJECTS OF THE ASSESSEE; 10. COMING BACK TO THE FACTS OF THE CASE, IT IS NOTED THAT LD . CIT(A) HAS EXAMINED THE FACTS IN DETAIL AND HAS GIVEN DETAILED FINDINGS WITH RESPECT TO NATURE OF ACTIVITIES CARRIED OUT BY THE ASSESSEE AND ELIGIBILITY OF THE ASSESSEE FOR AVAILING EXEMPTION U/S 11 & 12, KEEPING IN VIEW NATURE OF THESE ACTIVITIES AND LA TEST POSITION OF LAW APPLICABLE. IT IS SEEN THAT, AS NOTED BY LD. CIT(A) IN PARA 8.1, ONE OF THE OBJECTS OF THE TRUST READS AS FOLLOWS : - TO PUBLISH AND MARKET IN THE FORM OF BOOKS OR OTHERWISE THE DISCOURSES OF SADGURU SHRI WAMANRAO PAI, THE PHILOSOPHY OF JEEVAN VIDYA AND SADGURUS SAYINGS 10.1. IT HAS BEEN RIGHTLY OBSERVED BY LD. CIT(A) THAT WHEN AN ACTIVITY IS INTEGRATED TO THE OBJECT ITSELF, THEN THE SAID ACTIVITY CANNOT BE CALLED AS BUSINESS, PARTICULARLY IN VIEW OF THE FACT THAT THERE DOES NOT A PPEAR TO BE ANY INTENTION TO MAKE A SURPLUS OUT OF THE SAID ACTIVITY. THE PUBLICATION OF BOOKS IS ONE OF THE OBJECTS AND INTIMATELY CONNECTED WITH THE MAIN OBJECT OF THE ASSESSEE TRUST I.E. TO SPREAD AWARENESS AND EDUCATE THE PEOPLE WITH RESPECT TO JEEVAN VIDYA AND THE PHILOSOPHY ATTACHED THERETO. IT HAS BEEN NOTED FROM THE FACTS MENTIONED IN THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A) THAT THERE ARE NEARLY 43 PUBLICATIONS RANGING BETWEEN RS. 5/ - PER PUBLICATION TO RS. 60/ - PER PUBLICATION WHICH HAVE BEEN SOLD BY THE ASSESSEE TRUST. THERE IS NO DOUBT THAT SAID ACTIVITY IS ANCILLARY AND INCIDENTAL TO THE MAIN OBJECT, RATHER IT CAN BE SAID THAT THIS IS ONE OF THE OBJECT IN ITSELF. 11. FURTHER, WITH RESPECT TO THE SUBMISSIONS OF ASSESSEE TRUST THAT ITS AFORESAID ACTIVITY CANNOT BE SAID TO BE IN THE NATURE OF TRADE, COMMERCE OR BUSINESS IN THE CONTEXT OF WORDS USED IN SECTION 2(15), IT IS NOTED THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS GIVEN PROPER ANALYSIS AND DETAILED FINDINGS AFTER ANALYZING THE FACTS OF THE CASE. WE DEEM IT APPROPRIATE TO REPRO DUCE THESE FINDINGS FOR THE SAKE OF READY REFERENCE : - 8.5 I HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE FACTS OF THE APPELLANTS CASE AS WELL AS THE ARGUMENTS OF THE LEARNED A/R AS WELL AS THE VARIOUS JUDICIAL PRONOUNCEMENTS CITED BY THE AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE. F OR THE REASONS AND AS PER FACTS OF THE CASE, IN FOREGOING PARAGRAPHS, IT IS HELD THAT ACTIVITY OF PUBLICATION OF BOOKS, WAS ONE OF THE CHARITABLE OBJECTS OF THE TRUST. IT IS IN PURSUANCE OF THOSE OBJECTS THAT THE APPELLANT UNDERTOOK THE ACTIVITY OF DISTRIB UTION OF BOOKS. ITA NO. 5446/MUM/2015 JEEVAN DIDYA MISSION 6 8.6 IT IS ALSO ABUNDANTLY CLEAR THAT THE APPLICATION OF THE PROVISO AND THE DECISION AS TO WHETHER A PARTICULAR ACTIVITY CAN BE TREATED AS TRADE BUSINESS OR COMMERCE WILL DEPEND ON THE FACT OF THE CASE. NO GENERALIZATION IN THIS REGARD CA N BE MADE. THE LEARNED A/R HAS SUBMITTED THAT EVEN THOUGH, THERE MAY HAVE BEEN A SURPLUS IN THE INCOME AND EXPENDITURE ACCOUNT OF THE APPELLANT TRUST THAT WAS ON ACCOUNT OF THE DONATIONS WHICH WERE CREDITED TO THE INCOME AND EXPENDITURE ACCOUNT. IF THOSE D ONATIONS ARE EXCLUDED THEN THE TRUST WOULD HAVE SUFFERED A DEFICIT. THIS IS AN INDICATOR OF THE FACT THAT THE ACTIVITY UNDERTAKEN WAS NOT WITH INTENT TO MAKE A PROFIT. 8.7 FURTHER THE PRICING OF THE BOOKS AS WELL AS THE CD (BOOKS PRICED AT RS. 5 TO RS. 60 AND CD AT RS. 50) WOULD INDICATE THAT THE INTENT WAS PROPORTION OF THE TEACHINGS OF THE SADGURU AND INTENT WAS NOT TO MAKE A PROFIT. IN FACT THE NUMBER OF JUDICIAL PRONOUNCEMENTS ADVERTED TO BY THE LEARNER REPRESENTATIVE HAVE CLEARLY MADE OUT A CASE THAT P RESENCE OF AN INTENT TO MAKE PROFIT IS OF PARAMOUNT IMPORTANCE AND IT IS A SIGNIFICANT CONDITION THOUGH ONE MAY URGE THAT IT IS NOT THE ONLY CONDITION. 8.8. ON A CAREFUL CONSIDERATION OF FACTS I HAVE COME TO THE CONCLUSION THAT THE SAID ACTIVITY IS INTRINS IC TO THE MAIN OBJECTS OF THE TRUST AND NOT A BUSINESS. THEREFORE, THIS GROUND (GROUND NO. 7) OF THE APPELLANT IS ALSO ALLOWED. THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS DIRECTED TO ALLOW THE EXEMPTION UNDER SECTION 11 TO THE APPELLANT TRUST. 12. WE FIND THAT FINDINGS OF LD CIT(A) ARE FACTUALLY CORRECT AND IN LINE WITH THE LATEST POSITION OF LAW, AS DISCUSSED ABOVE. IT IS FURTHER ANALYZED BY US THAT, ACTIVITY OF DISTRIBUTION OF BOOKS AS WELL AS CDS IS NEITHER AN INDEPENDENT ACTIVITY, NOR A STAND ALONE ACTIVITY. IT CANN OT STAND ON ITS OWN. IT HAS BEEN CARRIED OUT BY THE ASSESSEE TRUST AS PART OF THE MAIN OBJECT OF SPREADING AWARENESS AND IMPARTING EDUCATION ON JEEVAN VIDYA. WHATEVER HAS BEEN DONE, IN THIS REGARD BY THE ASSESSEE, IT WAS FOR THE PURPOSE OF PURSUING THE MAI N OBJECT OF SPREADING AWARENESS ABOUT JEEVAN VIDYA. DISTRIBUTION OF BOOKS, WHETHER BY WAY SALE OR OTHERWISE, COULD HAVE BEEN TERMED AS ACTIVITY IN THE NATURE OF TRADE, COMMERCE OR BUSINESS, IF IT WOULD HAVE BEEN DONE BY THE ASSESSEE TRUST ON A STAND - ALON E BASIS I.E. INDEPENDENT OF ITS MAIN OBJECT; LIKE A BUSINESSMAN DOES. APPARENTLY, FROM THE FACTS GATHERED, IT CAN BE CONCLUDED THAT THERE WAS NO MOTIVE TO EARN PROFIT. THESE CRUCIAL FACTS HAVE NOT BEEN CONTROVERTED BY THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER IN HIS ASSES SMENT ORDER OR BY THE LD. DR BEFORE US. 13. THEREFORE UNDER THESE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES, TAKING HELP FROM THE JUDGMENTS DISCUSSED ABOVE, WE CAN SAFELY HOLD THAT ASSESSEE WAS ENGAGED IN THE ACTIVITY OF IMPARTING EDUCATION, SINCE THERE WAS NO NEED TO GIVE RESTRICTED MEANING TO SCOPE OF MEANING OF THE TERM EDUCATIONAL; AND THAT DISTRIBUTION OF BOOKS AND CDS EVEN BY WAY OF SALE OR OTHERWISE, IN PURSUIT OF THE AFORESAID OBJECT CANNOT BE SAID TO BE AN ACTIVITY IN THE NATURE OF TRADE, COMMERCE OR BUSINESS, E SPECIALLY IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY PROFIT MOTIVE. IN VIEW OF THESE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES, THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS NOT CORRECT IN DENYING THE BENEFIT OF EXEMPTION. ITA NO. 5446/MUM/2015 JEEVAN DIDYA MISSION 7 LD. CIT(A) HAS RIGHTLY REVERSED THE ORDER AND WAS JUSTIFIED IN GRANTING THE BENEFIT OF EXEMP TION TO THE ASSESSEE TRUST, THEREFORE, NO INTERFERENCE IS CALLED FOR THEREIN, THEREFORE, WE UPHOLD THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A). 6. WE HAVE CAREFULLY GONE THROUGH THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL DATED 30/09/2015 FOR THE A.Y.2009 - 10 AND ALSO THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL DATED 26/07/2017 FOR THE A.Y. 2010 - 11, WHEREIN THE ISSUE HAS BEEN DECIDED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE AND ASSESSEES CLAIM OF EXEMPTION U/S.11 WAS ALLOWED. AS THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION ARE SAME, RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING T HE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE, WE DO NOT FIND ANY INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER OF CIT(A). 7. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED. O RDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THIS 13 / 09 /2017 S D/ - ( SANDEEP GOSAI N ) S D/ - ( R.C.SHARMA ) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER MUMBAI ; DATED 13 / 09 /201 7 KARUNA SR. PS COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : BY ORDER, ( ASSTT. REGISTRAR) ITAT, MUMBAI 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT. 3. THE CIT(A), MUMB AI. 4. CIT 5. DR, ITAT, MUMBAI 6. GUARD FILE. //TRUE COPY//