THE INDIAN INSTITUTE OF BANKING & FINANCE ( FORMERLY KNOWN AS THE INDIAN INSTITUTE OF BANKERS), MUMBAI V. DDIT (E) -II (1), MUMBAI

ITA 5725/MUM/2012

• Counselvise Citation: 572519914 RSA 2012
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 5 month(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 11-02-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: I
• Next Hearing Date: 01-12-2014
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 11-09-2012
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: KISHAN VYAS
• Assessee Lawyers: NITESH JOSHI
• Keywords: Business income; Charitable institution
• Section: 11; 260A; 12A

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH I, MUMBAI . , ! '!! !# , $ BEFORE SHRI RAJENDRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI VIVEK VARMA, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO. : 5725/MUM/2012 (ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2008-09) THE INDIAN INSTITUTE OF BANKING & FINANCE, TOWER-I, KOHINOOR CITY COMMERCIAL-II, 3 RD FLOOR, KIROL ROAD, KURLA(WEST), MUMBAI-400 070 % .: PAN: AAATT 3309 D VS DDIT(EXEMPTION)- RANGE II(1), PIRAMAL CHAMBERS, LALBAUG, PAREL, MUMBAI -400 012 %' (APPELLANT) ()%' (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI NITESH JOSHI RESPONDENT BY : SHRI KISHAN VYAS *! + ,- /DATE OF HEARING : 01-12-2014 ./0 + ,- / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 11-02-2015 ORDER , , , , : :: : PER VIVEK VARMA, JM : THE APPEAL IS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER OF CIT(A) 1, MUMBAI, DATED 29.03.2012, WHEREIN THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS HAVE BEEN RAISED: 1. THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL THAT FOLLOW ARE ALL INDEP ENDENT AND WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO EACH OTHER, 2. RE: EXEMPTION UNDER SECTION 11: 2.1 THAT, ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) ERRED IN UPHOLDING THE ASSESSING OFFI CER'S ACTION IN REJECTING THE APPELLANT'S CLAIM FOR EXEMP TION UNDER SECTION 11 ON THE GROUND THAT THAT THE APPELL ANT'S PRIMARY ACTIVITIES WERE NOT FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE PUBLIC AT LARGE AND WERE ALSO NOT OF CHARITABLE NATURE. 3. RE: DEDUCTION OF EXPENSES: 3.1 THAT, ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) ERRED IN UPHOLDING THE ACTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN NOT REDUCING THE EXPENSES INCU RRED BY THE APPELLANT BY WAY OF AMORTIZATION OF PREMIUM ON INVESTMENTS AND PURCHASE OF FIXED ASSETS. 4. RE: OTHER STATUTORY DEDUCTIONS: 4.1 THAT, ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME THE INDIAN INSTITUTE OF BANKING & FINANCE ITA NO. 5725/MUM/2012 2 TAX (APPEALS) ERRED IN UPHOLDING THE ACTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN NOT GRANTING THE STATUTORY DEDUCTIONS ON ACCOUNT OF AMOUNT SET ASIDE BY APPELL ANT FOR FUTURE REQUIREMENTS TO THE EXTENT OF RS. 34,573 ,450 (150/C OF INCOME) AND ON ACCOUNT OF AND ON ACCOUNT OF THE SUM OF RS. 23,599,690 ACCUMULATED BY THE APPELL ANT FOR SPECIFIED PURPOSES IN CONFORMITY WITH THE PROVI SIONS OF SECTION 11(2). 5. YOUR APPELLANTS CRAVE LEAVE TO ADD, ALTER, AMEND , VARY, OMIT OR SUBSTITUTE THE AFORESAID GROUNDS OF A PPEAL OR ADD A NEW GROUND OR GROUNDS OF APPEAL AT ANY TIM E BEFORE OR AT THE TIME OF HEARING OF THE APPEAL AS T HEY MAY BE ADVISED. 2. THE FACTS ARE, THE ASSESSEE IS AN INDIAN COMPANY INCORPORATED U/S 26 OF THE INDIAN COMPANIES ACT, 1913 ON 30.04.1928. INITIALLY, THE COMPANY WAS AN ASSOCIATION CALLED T HE INDIAN INSTITUTE OF BANKERS AND SUBSEQUENTLY THE ASSES SEE'S NAME WAS CHANGED TO INDIAN INSTITUTE OF BANKING AND FINA NCE. THE PRINCIPLE OBJECTS OF THE ASSESSEE AS PER THE MEMORA NDUM OF ASSOCIATION ARE: (I) TO ENCOURAGE THE STUDY OF THE THEORY OF BANKING AND FOR THAT PURPOSE TO INSTITUTE A SCHEME OF EXAMINATIONS AND TO GIVE CERTIFICATES, SCHOLARSHIPS AND PRIZES. (II) TO PROMOTE INFORMATION ON BANKING AND KINDRED SUBJECTS BY LECTURES, DISCUSSIONS, BOOKS, CORRESPONDENCE WITH PUBLIC BODIES AND INDIVIDUALS OR OTHERWISE (III) TO COLLECT AND CIRCULATE STATISTICS AND OTHER INFORMATION RELATING TO THE BUSINESS OF BANKING IN INDIA. (IV) TO ACQUIRE BY PURCHASE, DONATION OR OTHERWISE AND TO MAINTAIN EXTEND AND IMPROVE A LIBRARY CONSISTING OF WORKS ON BANKING, COMMERCE, FINANCE, POLITICAL ECONOMY AND KINDRED SUBJECTS. 3. WE FIND THAT IN ASSESSMENT YEARS 1996-97, 1997-98 AN D 1998-99, THE INSTITUTE HAS CLAIMED EXEMPTION U/S 10(22) AS INCOME OF A UNIVERSITY OR OTHER EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTION EX ISTING SOLELY FOR EDUCATIONAL PURPOSES AND NOT FOR PURPOSES OF PROFIT. THE THEN AO, HOWEVER, CONCLUDED THAT THE INSTITUTE WAS S ET UP TO ENCOURAGE THE STUDY OF THE THEORY OF BANKING AND FOR THAT PURPOSE IT INSTITUTED A SCHEME OF EXAMINATION WHICH IS CLEARLY BY ITSELF NOT AN EDUCATIONAL ACTIVITY. THE ASSESSEE COMPANY IS NOT THE INDIAN INSTITUTE OF BANKING & FINANCE ITA NO. 5725/MUM/2012 3 IMPARTING ANY FORMAL EDUCATION BUT CONDUCTING EXAMS TO MEMBERS FOR VARIOUS DIPLOMAS AND CERTIFICATES. THE BENEFITS O F PASSING THE EXAMINATIONS ARE THAT THE BANKS AND FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS IN THE COUNTRY GIVE ADDITIONAL INCREMENT/CASH/WEIGHTAGE FOR PROMOTION TO THEIR EMPLOYEES ON PASSING VARIOUS EXAMINATIONS OF THE INSTITUTE. THUS, THE ASSESSEE IN NO WAY PROMOTES ANY CHARITABLE ACTIVITIES FOR PUBLIC AT LARGE. 3. ACCORDINGLY, THE THEN AO DISALLOWED THE CLAIM U/S 10(22) FOR THE ABOVE ASSESSMENT YEARS. 4. THE INSTITUTE WAS TREATED AS COMPANY PROVIDING SERVICE/PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AND INCOME WAS THEREFORE TAX ED AS BUSINESS INCOME. THIS ISSUE REACHED THE ITAT AND THE COORDINATE BENCH OF THE ITAT AT MUMBAI DECIDED THE MAT TER IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE. AGAINST THIS ORDER OF THE ITAT, DEPARTMENT HAS PREFERRED APPEALS U/S 260A BEFORE THE H ON'BLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT. THESE APPEALS, THOUGH ADMITTED ARE ST ILL LYING PENDING. WE FIND THAT IN THE SUBSEQUENT PERIOD, I.E. ASSESSMENT YEARS 1999-2000 TO 2001-02, THE ASSESSEE HAS APPLIED TO THE CENTRAL BOARD OF DIRECT TAXES FOR APPROVAL OF NOTIFICATION U/S 10(23C)(VI). IT WAS INFORMED THAT NO COMMUNICATION HAS BEEN RECEIVED FROM THE BOARD. HOWEVER, DRAWING INFERENCES FROM THE LETTER ADDRESSED BY THE D.G. (EXEMPTION), CALCUTTA DATED 28.05.2002 TO THE ASSESSEE, WHER EIN THE D.G. HAS REMARKED AS UNDER: 'AS THE ACTIVITIES OF YOUR ORGANIZATION ARE NOT SOLELY FOR EDUCATIONAL PURPOSES AND DOES NOT SERVE THE OF INTEREST OF PUBLIC AT LARGE. YOUR CASE IS REPORTED TO BE UNFIT FOR NOTIFICATION U/S. 10(23C)(VI) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961. TO ARRIVING AT ABOVE CONCLUSION, THE FOLLOWING OBSERVATIONS HAVE BEEN MADE: THE INDIAN INSTITUTE OF BANKING & FINANCE ITA NO. 5725/MUM/2012 4 (I) THE INSTITUTE HAS GENERATED HUGE SURPLUS; (II) THE INSTITUTE IS NOT OPEN TO PUBLIC AT LARGE; 5. MEANWHILE, THE ASSESSEE HAS NOW MADE AN APPLICATION FO R EXEMPTION U/S 10(23C)(VI) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 FOR FURTHER PERIOD BEYOND ASSESSMENT YEAR 2001-02 WHICH IS PENDING BEFORE THE CCIT, MUMBAI. THIS APPLICATION OF THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT YET BEEN DECIDED BY THE CCIT, MUMBAI TILL DATE. 6. WHILE DECIDING THE APPEAL FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2001-02, THE COORDINATE BENCH OF THE ITAT HAD DIRECTED AO TO WR ITE TO THE CENTRAL BOARD OF DIRECT TAXES REQUESTING TO DISPOSE OF TH E APPLICATION OF ASSESSEE AND THEN FINALIZE THE ASSESSMENT FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2001-02. THE POWERS FOR GRANTING EXEMP TION U/S 10(23C)(VI) IN RESPECT OF THE PENDING APPLICATIONS ARE NOW VESTED WITH THE RESPECTIVE CCITS. 7. AGGRIEVED, THE ASSESSEE APPROACHED THE CIT(A), WHO SUSTAINED THE DECISION OF THE AO AND REJECTED THE CLAIM O F THE ASSESSEE. 8. AGAINST THIS ORDER OF THE CIT(A), THE ASSESSEE IS NOW B EFORE THE ITAT. 9. BEFORE US, THE AR FAIRLY SUBMITTED THAT IN SO FAR AS CLAIM OF EXEMPTION U/S 10(23C)(VI) IS CONCERNED, IT HAS BEEN REJECTED BY THE CCIT, MUMBAI. BUT THE CLAIM OF SECTION 11 IS STILL ALIVE AND HAS BEEN DENIED BECAUSE OF AMORTIZATION OF PREMIUM ON INVESTMENT AND PURCHASE OF FIXED ASSETS AND IN NOT ALLOWIN G STATUTORY DEDUCTIONS FOR FUTURE REQUIREMENTS SET APART AS PER SECTION 11(2). THE AR SUBMITTED THAT ITS CLAIM FOR EXEM PTION UNDER SECTION 11 OF THE ACT HAS BEEN DENIED FOR THE FOLLOW ING THREE REASONS I.E. THE ASSESSEE IS NOT PURSUING AN EDUCATIONAL ACTIVITY, IT HAS GENERATED HUGE SURPLUS AND THE INDIAN INSTITUTE OF BANKING & FINANCE ITA NO. 5725/MUM/2012 5 IT IS NOT FOR THE PUBLIC AT LARGE. 10. THE ASSESSEE MADE ITS SUBMISSIONS WITH RESPECT TO EACH OF THE AFORESAID ISSUES. 11. WITH RESPECT TO THE REASONING GIVEN BY THE AO T HAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT PURSUING AN EDUCATIONAL ACTIVITY, THE ASSE SSEE PLACED RELIANCE UPON THE DECISION OF THE COORDINATE B ENCH OF THE ITAT IN ITS OWN CASE IN ASSESSMENT YEARS 1996-9 7 TO 1998-99 (APB 205 TO 219), ALLOWING THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST WITHDRAWAL OF REGISTRATION UNDER SECTION 12A (APB 231 TO 236). IN THESE DECISIONS THE TRIBUNAL AFTER CONSIDERING THE FACTS PERTAINING TO ITS OBJECTS AS PER IT S MEMORANDUM OF ASSOCIATION, THE COURSES CONDUCTED BY IT AND ITS MANNER OF FUNCTIONING, CONCLUDED THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS PURSUING EDUCATIONAL ACTIVITIES. THE AR THEREFORE, SUBMITTED THAT, IN SO FAR THE ISSUE PERTAINING TO CONDUCT OF EDUCATIONAL ACTIVITIES IS CONCERNED, THE SAME IS COVERED AND CONCLUDED IN ITS FAVOUR BY THE ITAT. 12. WITH RESPECT TO THE ABOVE, THE AR DREW OUR ATTENT ION TO THE DETAILED SUBMISSIONS FILED BY IT BEFORE THE CIT(A), WHEREIN SPECIFIC REFERENCE WERE MADE IN PARAGRAPHS (APB 22 TO 29). THE AR ALSO PLACED RELIANCE ON THE FOLLOWING DECISIONS: CITY MONTESSORI SCHOOL VS UOI, REPORTED IN 315 ITR 48 (ALL); DIT (E) VS AHMEDABAD MANAGEMENT ASSOCIATION, ORDER DATED 13.06.2014, BY THE HONBLE GUJARAT HIGH COURT, ITA NO. 707 OF 2013; DIT VS SAMUDRA INSTITUTE OF MERITIME STUDIES TRUST, REPORTED IN (2014) 49 TAXMAN.COM 510 (BOM) (COPIES ENCLOSED), WHEREIN THE RATION HAS BEEN LAID THAT THE ASSOCIATIONS HA D BEEN RUNNING EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTIONS AND HAVING EDUCATIONAL ACTIVITY. 13. THE PRIMARY REASON FOR DENIAL OF EXEMPTION U/S 11 ARE, THAT THE INSTITUTE HAS GENERATED HUGE SURPLUS AND THE INSTITUTE THE INDIAN INSTITUTE OF BANKING & FINANCE ITA NO. 5725/MUM/2012 6 IS NOT OPEN TO PUBLIC AT LARGE. 14. THE MEMORANDUM OF ASSOCIATION WHEN READ OUT, WE FIND THAT THE INSTITUTE HAD BEEN BROUGHT UP ONLY FOR THE P URPOSE OF DEVELOPMENT OF BAKING PERSONNEL FOR/IN THE BANKING INDUSTR Y. THE INSTITUTE IMPARTS EDUCATION TO THE CANDIDATES WHO AR E CONNECTED WITH THE BANKING INDUSTRY. IT HAS LIBRARY FACILITY , ORGANIZES LECTURES, SEMINARS AND UNDERTAKE EXAMINATIONS FO R PROMOTING BANK OFFICERS. 15. IN SO FAR AS ITS INVESTMENTS ARE CONCERNED IT WAS EXPLAINED, THE SURPLUS, IF ANY, ARISING OUT OF THE ACTIVITIES OF THE INSTITUTE IS NOT DISTRIBUTED BY WAY OF DIVIDEND, BONUS OR B Y WAY OF PROFITS TO THE MEMBERS OF THE INSTITUTE. THIS IS EVIDENT FROM CLAUSE 4 OF THE MOA, WHICH IS REPRODUCED HEREIN BELOW FOR Y OUR HONOR'S READY PERUSAL. 16. THE INCOME AND PROPERTY OF THE INSTITUTE, WHENSOEVER DERIVED, SHALL BE APPLIED SOLELY TOWARDS THE PROMOTION OF TH E OBJECTS OF THE INSTITUTE AS SET FORTH IN THIS MEMORANDUM OF ASSOCIATION; AND NO PORTION THEREOF SHALL BE PAID OR TRANSFE RRED, DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY, BY WAY OF DIVIDEND, BONUS OR OTHERW ISE HOWSOEVER BY WAY OF PROFIT, TO THE MEMBERS OF THE INSTITU TE. PROVIDED THAT NOTHING HEREIN SHALL PREVENT THE PAYMENT, IN GOOD FAITH, OF REMUNERATION TO ANY OFFICER OR SERVANT OF THE INSTITUTE, OR TO ANY MEMBER OF THE INSTITUTE OR OTHER P ERSON, IN RETURN FOR ANY SERVICES ACTUALLY RENDERED TO THE INSTITUTE. 17. THAT THE MEMBERS ARE ALSO NOT ENTITLED TO ANY SHAR E IN THE SURPLUS THAT MAY ARISE ON WINDING UP OR DISSOLUTION OF THE INSTITUTE. SUCH SURPLUS, IF ANY, HAS TO BE HANDED OVER TO OTHER INSTITUTIONS HAVING SIMILAR OBJECTS AND IF THIS IS NOT FEASIBLE APPROPRIATED, SHALL BE ADVANCED FOR SOME CHARITABLE OBJECT S. THIS IS EVIDENT FROM CLAUSE 8 OF THE MEMORANDUM, WHICH IS THE INDIAN INSTITUTE OF BANKING & FINANCE ITA NO. 5725/MUM/2012 7 REPRODUCED BELOW: IF UPON THE WINDING UP OR DISSOLUTION OF THE INSTIT UTE THERE REMAINS, AFTER THE SATISFACTION OF ALL ITS DEBTS AN D LIABILITIES, ANY PROPERTY WHATSOEVER, THE SAME SHALL NOT BE PAID TO OR DISTRIBUTED AMONG THE MEMBERS OF THE INSTITUTE, BUT SHALL BE GIVEN OR TRANSFERRED TO SOME OTHER INSTITUTION OR I NSTITUTIONS HAVING OBJECTS SIMILAR TO THE OBJECTS OF THIS INSTIT UTE, AND WHICH SHALL PROHIBIT THE DISTRIBUTION OF ITS PART O F THEIR INCOME AND PROPERTY AMONG ITS OR THEIR MEMBERS TO A N EXTENT AT LEAST AS GREAT AS IS IMPOSED ON THE INSTI TUTE OR BY VIRTUE OF CLAUSE 4 THEREOF, SUCH INSTITUTION OR INS TITUTION TO BE DETERMINED BY THE MEMBERS OF THE INSTITUTE AT OR BEFORE THE TIME OF DISSOLUTION, AND IN DEFAULT THEREOF BY SUCH JUDGE OF THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY OR OTHER JUDGE AS MAY HAVE OR ACQUIRE JURISDICTION, THE MATTER, AN D IF AND SO FAR AS EFFECT CANNOT BE GIVEN TO THE AFORESAID P ROVISION THEN TO SOME CHARITABLE OBJECT. HELD FOLLOWING EXAMINATION : (A) ASSOCIATE EXAMINATION (CAIIB); (B) DIPLOMA IN INTERNATIONAL BANKING; (C) DIPLOMA IN FINANCIAL SERVICES; (D) DIPLOMA IN BANK MANAGEMENT; (E) CERTIFICATE IN BANKING ORIENTED PAPER IN HINDI; (F) CERTIFICATE EXAMINATION FOR THE EMPLOYEES OF UNIT TRUST OF INDIA. 15 . A DETAILED LIST OF THE ASSESSEES ACTIVITIES IS FOUND IN THE RECORDS, WHICH WAS PLACED BEFORE THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES AS WELL AS US. 16. FOR ADVANCEMENT IN BANKING INDUSTRY, THE NUMBER OF STUDENTS ENROLLING FOR VARIOUS COURSES OFFERED BY THE INST ITUTE INCREASED STEADILY OVER THE YEARS, THEREBY REFLECTING THE GROWING POPULARITY OF THE INSTITUTES COURSES IN THE BANKING AREN A. THE LIST OF THE VARIOUS COURSES OFFERED BY THE INSTITUTE IS ON RECORD. 17. REVERTING OUR ATTENTION TO THE REASONING GIVEN BY THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES, THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS GENERATING H UGE SURPLUS, IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT AS PER SECTION 11 OF THE A CT THE ASSESSEE COULD SPEND 85% OF ITS INCOME TOWARDS CHARITABLE OBJECTS. IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT IF THERE WAS A SURPLUS, IT COULD BE LEGALLY ACCUMULATED UNDER SECTION 11(2) OF THE ACT. THE AR SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS ALWAYS COMPLIED WITH TH E SAID THE INDIAN INSTITUTE OF BANKING & FINANCE ITA NO. 5725/MUM/2012 8 REQUIREMENT IN EACH OF THE YEARS. THE ACCUMULATION OF THE CORPUS, IF ANY, HAS BEEN SPENT IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 11(2) OF THE ACT. ACCEPT FOR THIS FACT, T HE AR SUBMITTED, THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES, DID NOT HAVE ANY ARGUMENT, WHICH COULD RENDER THE BENEFIT OF SECTION 11 UNAVAILABLE TO THE ASSESSEE. 18. THE AR FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT LOOKING FROM THE POINT OF VIEW OF DISPOSAL OF ITS FUNDS, I.E. THE ENTIRE EXPENSES INCURRE D TOWARDS THE EDUCATIONAL ACTIVITY HAS BEEN DONE OUT OF TH E EDUCATIONAL RECEIPTS ONLY, WHICH RESULTED IN A DEFICIT IN FINANCIAL YEARS 1999-2000 TO 2007-08 (APB 72). ANY INTEREST AND/OR WRITE BACK HAS BEEN EXCLUDED FROM THE GROSS REC EIPT, MEANING THAT RECEIPTS AS SHOWN ARE PURE, OUT OF THE EDUCATIONAL ACTIVITY. 19. SINCE THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO PROVIDED DETAILS OF THE COURSES BEING RUN BY IT, ALONG WITH THE FEE STRUCTURE IN R ESPECT OF EACH OF THE COURSES, THIS FEES, BY NO STRETCH OF IMAGINAT ION, COULD BE REGARDED ON THE HIGHER SIDE. HENCE THE ARGUME NT OF THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD ACCUMULA TED HUGE FUNDS, ALSO STANDS DEMOLISHED. 20. ON THE ISSUE OF EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTION, WE ARE ALSO BENEFITTED BY THE DECISION OF HONBLE GUJARAT HIGH COURT, BESIDES THE DECISIONS REFERRED TO BY US EARLIER IN THE OR DER, TO COME TO A FAIR CONCLUSION THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS AN EDU CATIONAL ASSOCIATION. THE DECISIONS AS REFERRED EARLIER WERE NOT AG ITATED AGAINST BY THE DR, WHICH ARE CITY MONTESSORI SCHOOL VS UO I (SUPRA), DIT(E) VS AHMEDABAD MANAGEMENT ASSOCIATION (SUPRA) AND DIT VS SAMUDRA INSTITUTE OF MERITIME STUDIES TRUST (SUPRA). ALSO PLACING RELIANCE ON THE DECISION OF AHMEDABAD RANA CASTE ASSOCIATION VS CIT, REPORTED IN 82 ITR 704, WHEREIN IT WAS HELD, IT IS WELL-SETTLED THAT AN OBJECT BENEFICIAL THE INDIAN INSTITUTE OF BANKING & FINANCE ITA NO. 5725/MUM/2012 9 TO A SECTION OF THE PUBLIC IS AN OBJECT OF GENERAL P UBLIC UTILITY. TO SERVE A CHARITABLE PURPOSE IT IS NOT NECESSARY THAT T HE OBJECT SHOULD BE TO BENEFIT THE WHOLE OF MANKIND OR ALL PERSONS IN A COUNTRY OR STATE. IT IS SUFFICIENT IF THE INTENTION T O BENEFIT A SECTION OF THE PUBLIC AS DISTINGUISHED FROM A SPECI FIED INDIVIDUAL IS PRESENT. THE SECTION OF THE COMMUNITY SOUGHT TO BE BENEFITTED MUST BE SUFFICIENTLY DEFINITE AND IDENTIFIABLE BY SO ME COMMON QUALITY OF A PUBLIC OR IMPERSONAL NATURE . THE AR SUBMITTED THAT SINCE THE ASSESSEE WAS GIVING BENEFIT TO PERSONS P ERUSING BANKING INDUSTRY, IS NOT ONLY EDUCATION BUT BY NOT MAKING ANY PROFIT, IT WAS CHARITABLE IN NATURE. 21. SINCE THE INSTITUTE DOES NOT UNDERTAKE ANY OTHER ACTIVITIES OTHER THAN WHAT IS STATED ABOVE. THE ACTIVITIES AS SEEN ARE EDUCATIONAL IN NATURE, WHICH LEAVES NO APPREHENSIONS. IN OU R VIEW THE ACTIVITIES WOULD SQUARELY BE COVERED BY THE DEFIN ITION OF CHARITABLE PURPOSE, AS DEFINED IN SECTION 2(15) OF THE ACT, AS THESE ACTIVITIES ARE MEANT FOR GENERAL PUBLIC UTILITY, I.E. WHOEVER WANTS TO ADVANCE HIS/HER QUALIFICATIONS IN THE BAN KING INDUSTRY. FROM THE ABOVE DETAILS AND DESCRIPTION, WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT THE ASSESSEE IS A CHARITABLE ORGANIZATION AND ELIGIBLE FOR DEDUCTION U/S 11 OF THE ACT. 22. GROUND NO. 2.1 IS THEREFORE ALLOWED. 23. GROUNDS 3 & 4 ARE CONNECTED TO GROUND NO. 2.1 AND COVERED IN OUR OBSERVATION AS MADE IN THE PRE PARA, AN D THEREFORE, ARE ALSO ALLOWED. 24. GROUND NO. 5 IS GENERAL. 25. THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO RAISED ADDITIONAL GROUNDS OF APP EAL VIDE LETTER DATED 15.04.2014, WHICH READ AS FOLLOWS: 1. THE GROUND OF APPEAL IS INDEPENDENT AND WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO OTHER GROUNDS OF APPEAL FILED EARLIER PENDING DISPOSAL. THE INDIAN INSTITUTE OF BANKING & FINANCE ITA NO. 5725/MUM/2012 10 2. RE: CLAIM FOR EXEMPTION UNDER SECTION 10(23C)(VI ): THAT, ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE APPELLANT OUGHT TO BE GRANTED EXEMP TION UNDER SECTION 10(23C)(VI) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 19 61 AS AN EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTION IN RESPECT OF SURPLUS OF INCOME OVER EXPENDITURE. 3. YOUR APPELLANTS CRAVE LEAVE TO ADD, ALTER, AMEND , VARY, OMIT OR SUBSTITUTE THE AFORESAID GROUND OF AP PEAL OR ADD A NEW GROUND OR GROUNDS OF APPEAL AT ANY TIME BEFORE OR AT THE TIME OF HEARING OF THE APPEAL AS T HEY MAY BE ADVISED. 26. AT THE TIME OF HEARING, THE AR SUBMITTED THAT THE ADDITIONAL GROUNDS AS RAISED ARE NOT PRESSED. SINCE THE GROUNDS ARE NOT PRESSED, THE SAME ARE REJECTED. 27. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL AS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS T REATED AS PARTLY ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 11 TH FEBRUARY, 2015. SD/- SD/- (RAJENDRA) ( VIVEK VARMA ) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER J UDICIAL MEMBER MUMBAI, DATE: 11 TH FEBRUARY, 2015 (,/ COPY TO:- 1) %' / THE APPELLANT. 2) ()%' / THE RESPONDENT. 3) THE CIT(A) -1, MUMBAI. 4) THE DIT(EXEMPTIONS)/CIT- CONCERNED____, MUMBAI. 5) '!23 (,* , , / THE D.R. I BENCH, MUMBAI. 6) 34# 5 COPY TO GUARD FILE. 6* / BY ORDER / / TRUE COPY / / 7 / 8 , DY. / ASSTT. REGISTRAR I.T.A.T., MUMBAI