Income Tax Officer-1, Pilibhit V. M/s Chironji Lal Virendrapal Saraswati Shiksha Parishad, Pilibhit

ITA 713/LKW/2014

• Counselvise Citation: 71323714 RSA 2014
• Duration Of Justice: 6 month(s) 20 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 31-03-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 16-02-2015
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 10-09-2014
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: ARE BEING DISPOSED OF
• Keywords: Business income; Charitable institution; Wrong claim; Capital expenditure
• Section: 12A; 10

Judgement Text

1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL LUCKNOW BENCH A, LUCKNOW BEFORE SHRI SUNIL KUMAR YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI A.K. GARODIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NOS.713 & 714/LKW/2014 A.YRS.:2010 - 11 & 2011 - 12 INCOME TAX OFFICER - 1, PILIBHIT. VS. M/S CHIRONJI LAL VIRENDRAPAL SARASWATI SHIKSHA PARISHAD, MADHO TANDA ROAD, PILIBHIT. PAN:AAATC8209R (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) O R D E R PER A. K. GARODIA, A.M. BOTH THESE APPEALS ARE FILED BY THE REVENUE, WHICH ARE DIRECTED AGAINST TWO SEPARATE ORDERS OF LEARNED CIT(A), BAREILLY DATED 02/06/2014 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2010 - 11 AND 2011 - 12. BOTH THE APPEALS WERE HEARD TOGETHER AND ARE BEING DISPOSED OF BY WAY OF THIS COMMON ORDER FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE. 2. THE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE REVENUE IN ITS APPEAL FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010 - 11 I.E. I.T.A. NO.713/LKW/2014 ARE AS UNDER: 1. THAT THE LD. CIT (APPEALS) HAD ERRED UNDER THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, AS PHRASE 'SEPARATE INSTITUTE' FOR THE PURPOSE OF AVAILING EXEMPTION U/S 10 IS NOWHERE DEFINED IN THE ACT. THE ASSESSEE CITED JUDGMENT IN CASE OF CIT V. CHILDREN EDUCATION SOCIETY (2014) 264 CTR (KAR.) WHERE THE ASSESSEE SOCIETY WAS RUNNING AS MUCH AS 22 EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTES SEPARATELY WHICH WERE MILES APPELLANT BY SHRI PUNEET KUMAR D. R. RESPONDENT BY SHRI DHARMENDRA KUMAR, C. A. DATE OF HEARING 16/02/2015 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 3 1 /03/2015 2 AWAY FROM THE FACT OF THIS CASE WHERE ASSESSEE IS RUNNING A SINGLE SCHOOL ON SINGLE LOCATION, IN SINGLE AND DISTINCT BUILD ING WITH SINGLE PLAYGROUND AND OTHER FACILITIES CLAIMING TO BE TWO SEPARATE EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTE. 2. THAT THE LD. CIT (APPEALS) HAD ERRED, UNDER THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, AS THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN HIS ORDER RECORDED THAT 'TAKING RECOG NITION OF JUNIOR AND SENIOR SECTION IS NORMAL ADMINISTRATIVE PROCESS......IT NEVER CONNOTES THAT THERE ARE TWO SCHOOLS....' FURTHER AT PAGE 3 OF THE LD. CIT (APPEALS)'S ORDER, THE ASSESSEE, IN SUPPORT OF HIS CLAIM OF BEING TWO SCHOOLS, QUOTED THE USE OF P REFIX 'COMBINED' ON BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OF SOCIETY BUT IN THIS REGARD THE LD. C I T(A) DID NOT APPRECIATE THE FACT OF USING OF PREFIX JUNIOR SECTION/SENIOR SECTION NOT JUNIOR / SENIOR SCHOOL IN DIFFERENT BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS OF THE ASSESSEE WHICH CLEARLY INDICATES THAT THESE ARE MERELY TWO SECTIONS OF A SINGLE SCHOOL WHICH WERE MAINTAINED FOR ADMINISTRATIVE EASE AND BETTER MONITORING. 3. THE LD. CIT (APPEALS) HAD ERRED, UNDER THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, AS THE ASSESSEE FOR THE FIRST TIME MOVED REQUEST FOR APPROVAL U/S 10(23C)(VI) IN THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2013 - 14 WHEREAS FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION THE ASSESSEE WAS NEITHER REGISTERED U/S 12A NOR GOT APPROVAL U/S 10(23C)(VI) OF THE L.T. ACT., 1961 IN SPITE OF THE FACT THAT IN A.Y. 2009 - 10, 2010 - 11 AND 2011 - 12 TOTAL RECEIPT OF SOCIETY EXCEEDED RS. ONE CRORE. THE A.O. IN HIS ORDER NOTED THAT 'ALL THE ARGUMENTS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE SEEMS AN EFFORT TO COVER UP ITS CARELESSNESS AND INACTION IN FOLLOWING STATUTORY PROVISIONS..' AND RIGHTLY DENIED THE EXEMPTI ON AND TREATED THE SURPLUS OF INCOME OVER EXPENDITURE AS BUSINESS INCOME. FINDINGS OF THE LD. AO WERE BASED ON MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORDS AND NOT ON PRESUMPTION. THE TWO SCHOOL THEORY OF THE ASSESSEE IS A BOGUS CLAIM AS THERE NEVER EXISTED TWO SCHOOLS A ND MERE ONLY TWO SECTIONS WHICH IS ALSO EVIDENT FROM THE COPY OF BALANCE SHEET AND OTHER ANNEXURES THEREOF WHICH CLEARLY INDICATED THAT THERE EXISTED ONLY TWO SEPARATE SECTIONS. 4. THAT THE, LD. C I T (APPEALS) HAD ERRED, UNDER THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES O F THE CASE, AS HE WRONGLY ACCEPTED 3 THE BREAKUP OF RECEIPT OF JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOL AND SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL IN THE IMPRESSION THAT IT WAS DONE BY A.O. , CONTRARY TO THE FACT THAT IT WAS MERE SUBMISSION BY THE ASSESSEE SOCIETY. FURTHER PLAIN READING OF RULE 2BC (I) WHICH IS AS UNDER: - 2BC (1) FOR THE PURPOSE OF SUB - CLAUSE (IIIAD) OF CLAUSE (23C) OF SECTION 10, THE AMOUNT OF ANNUAL RECEIPTS ON OR AFTER THE 1 ST DAY 1998, OF ANY UNIVERSITY OR OTHER EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTION, EXISTING SOLELY FOR EDUCATIONAL PURP OSES AND NOT FOR PURPOSES OF PROFIT, SHALL BE ONE CRORE RUPEES'' 5. HENCE IT IS QUITE EVIDENT THAT THE RULE CLEARLY GUIDES FOR ANNUAL RECEIPTS AND NOT ABOUT AGGREGATE RECEIPTS WHICH INCLUDES INCOME FROM ALL THE SOURCES, HENCE THE AO WAS JUSTIFIED IN TAXING THE SURPLUS OF THE INCOME OVER EXPENDITURE. OUR VIEW POINT GETS CEMENTED BY THE JUDGMENT IN THE CASE OF MANAS SEVA SAMITI ALIGARH, IN ITA NO. 229/AGRA/2011 WHEREBY HON'BLE ITAT AGRA HAS VERY CLEARLY HELD THAT SEGREGATION OF INCOME IS NOT ALLOWED AN D IN ABSENCE OF APPROVAL U/S 10(23C)(VI) AND REGISTRATION U/S 12AA, ASSESSEE SOCIETY IS NOT ELIGIBLE FOR EXEMPTION. 6. THAT THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) MAY BE CANCELLED AND THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER MAY BE RESTORED. 3 . SIMILARLY, THE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE REVENUE IN ITS APPEAL FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2011 - 12 I.E. I.T.A. NO.714/LKW/2014 ARE AS UNDER: 1. THAT THE LD. CIT (APPEALS) HAD ERRED UNDER THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, AS PHRASE 'SEPARATE INSTITUTE' FOR THE PURPOSE OF AVAILING EXEMPTION U/S 10 IS NOWHERE DEFINED IN THE ACT. THE ASSESSEE CITED JUDGMENT IN CASE OF CIT V. CHILDREN EDUCATION SOCIETY (2014) 264 CTR (KAR.) WHERE THE ASSESSEE SOCIETY WAS RUNNING AS MUCH AS 22 EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTES SEPARATELY WHICH WERE MILES AWAY FROM THE FACT OF THIS CASE WHERE ASSESSEE IS RUNNING A SINGLE SCHOOL ON SINGLE LOCATION, IN SINGLE AND DISTINCT 4 BUILD ING WITH SINGLE PLAYGROUND AND OTHER FACILITIES CLAIMING TO BE TWO SEPARATE EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTE. 2. THAT THE LD. CIT (APPEALS) HAD ERRED, UNDER THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, AS THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN HIS ORDER RECORDED THAT 'TAKING RECOG NITION OF JUNIOR AND SENIOR SECTION IS NORMAL ADMINISTRATIVE PROCESS......IT NEVER CONNOTES THAT THERE ARE TWO SCHOOLS....' FURTHER AT PAGE 3 OF THE LD. CIT (APPEALS)'S ORDER, THE ASSESSEE, IN SUPPORT OF HIS CLAIM OF BEING TWO SCHOOLS, QUOTED THE USE OF P REFIX 'COMBINED' ON BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OF SOCIETY BUT IN THIS REGARD THE LD. C I T(A) DID NOT APPRECIATE THE FACT OF USING OF PREFIX JUNIOR SECTION/SENIOR SECTION NOT JUNIOR / SENIOR SCHOOL IN DIFFERENT BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS OF THE ASSESSEE WHICH CLEARLY INDICATES THAT THESE ARE MERELY TWO SECTIONS OF A SINGLE SCHOOL WHICH WERE MAINTAINED FOR ADMINISTRATIVE EASE AND BETTER MONITORING. 3. THE LD. CIT (APPEALS) HAD ERRED, UNDER THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, AS THE ASSESSEE FOR THE FIRST TIME MOVED REQUEST FOR APPROVAL U/S 10(23C)(VI) IN THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2013 - 14 WHEREAS FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION THE ASSESSEE WAS NEITHER REGISTERED U/S 12A NOR GOT APPROVAL U/S 10(23C)(VI) OF THE L.T. ACT., 1961 IN SPITE OF THE FACT THAT IN A.Y. 2009 - 10, 2010 - 11 AND 2011 - 12 TOTAL RECEIPT OF SOCIETY EXCEEDED RS. ONE CRORE. THE A.O. IN HIS ORDER NOTED THAT 'ALL THE ARGUMENTS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE SEEMS AN EFFORT TO COVER UP ITS CARELESSNESS AND INACTION IN FOLLOWING STATUTORY PROVISIONS..' AND RIGHTLY DENIED THE EXEMPTI ON AND TREATED THE SURPLUS OF INCOME OVER EXPENDITURE AS BUSINESS INCOME. FINDINGS OF THE LD. AO WERE BASED ON MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORDS AND NOT ON PRESUMPTION. THE TWO SCHOOL THEORY OF THE ASSESSEE IS A BOGUS CLAIM AS THERE NEVER EXISTED TWO SCHOOLS A ND MERE ONLY TWO SECTIONS WHICH IS ALSO EVIDENT FROM THE COPY OF BALANCE SHEET AND OTHER ANNEXURES THEREOF WHICH CLEARLY INDICATED THAT THERE EXISTED ONLY TWO SEPARATE SECTIONS. 4. THAT THE, LD. C I T (APPEALS) HAD ERRED, UNDER THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES O F THE CASE, AS HE WRONGLY ACCEPTED THE BREAKUP OF RECEIPT OF JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOL AND SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL IN THE IMPRESSION THAT IT WAS DONE BY 5 A.O. , CONTRARY TO THE FACT THAT IT WAS MERE SUBMISSION BY THE ASSESSEE SOCIETY. FURTHER PLAIN READING OF RULE 2BC (I) WHICH IS AS UNDER: - 2BC (1) FOR THE PURPOSE OF SUB - CLAUSE (IIIAD) OF CLAUSE (23C) OF SECTION 10, THE AMOUNT OF ANNUAL RECEIPTS ON OR AFTER THE 1 ST DAY 1998, OF ANY UNIVERSITY OR OTHER EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTION, EXISTING SOLELY FOR EDUCATIONAL PURPOSES AND NOT FOR PURPOSES OF PROFIT, SHALL BE ONE CRORE RUPEES'' 5. HENCE IT IS QUITE EVIDENT THAT THE RULE CLEARLY GUIDES FOR ANNUAL RECEIPTS AND NOT ABOU T AGGREGATE RECEIPTS WHICH INCLUDES INCOME FROM ALL THE SOURCES, HENCE THE AO WAS JUSTIFIED IN TAXING THE SURPLUS OF THE INCOME OVER EXPENDITURE. OUR VIEW POINT GETS CEMENTED BY THE JUDGMENT IN THE CASE OF MANAS SEVA SAMITI ALIGARH, IN ITA NO. 229/AGRA/20 11 WHEREBY HON'BLE ITAT AGRA HAS VERY CLEARLY HELD THAT SEGREGATION OF INCOME IS NOT ALLOWED AND IN ABSENCE OF APPROVAL U/S 10(23C)(VI) AND REGISTRATION U/S 12AA, ASSESSEE SOCIETY IS NOT ELIGIBLE FOR EXEMPTION. 6. THAT THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INC OME TAX (APPEALS) MAY BE CANCELLED AND THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER MAY BE RESTORED. 4. LEARNED D.R. OF THE REVENUE SUPPORTED THE ASSESSMENT ORDER IN BOTH THE YEARS WHEREAS LEARNED A.R. OF THE ASSESSEE SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF LEARNED CIT(A). HE AL SO PLACED RELIANCE ON A TRIBUNAL DECISION RENDERED IN THE CASE OF DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF INCOME - TAX (EXEMPTIONS) - III VS/ MADARASA E - BAKHIYATH - US - SALIHATH ARABIC COLLEGE 2013 - (ID1) - GJX - 4852 - TMAD. 5. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS. WE FIND THAT THE I SSUE IN DISPUTE WAS DECIDED BY LEARNED CIT(A) BY MAKING FOLLOWING OBSERVATIONS ON PAGE NO. 10 & 11 OF HIS ORDER FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010 - 11, WHICH IS REPRODUCED BELOW FOR THE SAKE OF READY REFERENCE: - 6 I HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE DETAILED WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS MADE BY THE COUNSEL AND HAVE ALSO GONE THROUGH THE VARIOUS PAPERS/ DOCUMENTS FILED ALONG WITH THE SUBMISSIONS. THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS OF THE VIEW THAT THE APPELLANT HAS NEITHER TAKEN EXEMPTION U/S 10(23C)(VI) NOR REGISTRATION U/S 12A OF THE I .T. ACT 1961. THE BREAK - UP OF TOTAL RECEIPT FOR BOTH THE SCHOOLS AS WORKED OUT BY THE AO IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER IS AS FOLLOWS: - 1. JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOL 46,12,186/ 2. SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL 83,24,055/ - TOTAL 1,29,36,241/ - ON THE HAND THE AR FOR THE APPELLANT VIDE WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS CONTENDED THAT TURNOVER OF EACH INSTITUTION IS TO BE TAKEN SEPARATELY AND NOT AGGREGATE OF ALL THE INSTITUTIONS. THE AR FOR THE APPELLANT ALSO REFERRED THE JUDGMENT IN THE CASE OF CIT V. CHILDRE N EDUCATION SOCIETY REPORTED IN (2014) 264 CTR (KAR.) 389 WHERE HON'BLE COURT CONCLUDED, AGGREGATE ANNUAL RECEIPTS OF OTHER EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTIONS REFERRED TO IN SECTION 10(23C) (IIIAD) MEANS TOTAL ANNUAL RECEIPTS OF EACH EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTIONS AND NOT THE AGGREGATE OF THE ANNUAL RECEIPTS OF ALL THE EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTIONS RUN BY THE ASSESSEE'S SOCIETY PUT TOGETHER''. IT IS ALSO NOTICED THAT THE APPELLANT SOCIETY WAS RUNNING TWO SCHOOLS, NAMELY M/S CHIRONJI LAL VIRENDRA PAL SARASWATI VIDYA MANDIR JUNIO R HIGH SCHOOL AND M/S CHIRONJI LAL VIRENDRA PAL SARASWATI VIDYA MANDIR INTER COLLEGE, AND GROSS RECEIPTS OF EACH INSTITUTION RUN BY THE APPELLANT IS LESS THAN ONE C RORE. I HAVE ALSO TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION THE FOLLOWING CASES CITED BY THE AR FOR THE APPEL LANT. ST. LAWRENCE EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY (REGD.) & ANOTHER VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX DELHI (CENTRAL) & ANOTHER W.P.(C)2463/2010 THE BAPTIST EDUCATIONAL SOCY & ANR. VERSUS CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA, IN THE CASE OF: PINEGROVE INTERNATIONAL CHARITABLE TRUST V. UNION OF INDIA. 7 APPEAL NO: CWP NO.6031 OF 2009, DECIDED ON: JANUARY 29. 2010. THE COURT PRONOUNCED AS FOLLOWS - 'WE ARE FURTHER OF THE VIEW THAT CAPITAL EXPENDITURE HAS TO BE DEDUCTED FROM THE GROSS INCOME OF THE EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTION LIKE THE PETITIONER - SOCIETY AND THE CHIEF COMMISSIONER HAS COMMITTED GRAVE ERROR IN LAW BY REFUSING TO DO SO. THE VIEW OF THE CHIEF COMMISSIONER IS CONTRARY TO THE THIRD PROVISO TO SECTION 10(23C) OF THE ACT'. ' THE METHODOLOGY ADOPTED BY THE CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, WHILE COMPUTING SURPLUS BY NOT DEDUCTING THE CAPITAL EXPENDITURE INCURRED BY THE PETITIONER - SOCIETY FROM THE GROSS INCOME IS CONTRARY TO THE UN - NUMBERED THIRD PROVISO TO SECTION 10(23C)(VI) OF THE ACT. THE WORDS NOT TOR THE PURPOSES OF PROFIT ' ACCOMPANYING THE WORDS ' EXISTING SOLELY FOR EDUCATIONAL PURPOSES 1 HAS TO BE READ AND INTERPRETED IN VIEW OF THIRD PROVISO TO SECTION 10(23C), WHICH PRE SCRIBES T HE, METHODOLOGY FOR THE UTILIZATION AND ACCUMULATION OF INCOME AT THE HANDS OF THE EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTIONS'. IN SURAT ART SILK CLOTH MANUFACTURES ACCOCIATION SC, FIVE JUDGES BENCH HELD THAT - '..... THE TEST WHICH HAS, THEREFORE, NOW TO BE APPLIED IS WHETHER THE PREDOMINANT OBJECT OF THE ACTIVI TY INVOLVED IN CARRYING OUT THE OBJECT OF GENERAL PUBLIC UTILITY IS TO SERVE THE CHARITABLE PURPOSE OR TO EARN PROFIT. WHERE PROFIT - MAKING IS THE PREDOMINANT OBJECT OF THE ACTIVITY, THE PURPOSE, THOUGH AN OBJECT OF GENERAL PUBLIC UTILITY WOULD CEASE TO BE A CHARITABLE PURPOSE BUT WHERE THE PREDOMINANT OBJECT OF THE ACTIVITY IS TO CARRY OUT THE CHARITABLE PURPOSE AND NOT TO EARN PROFIT, IT WOULD NOT LOSE ITS CHARACTER OF A CHARITABLE PURPOSE MERELY BECAUSE SOME PROFIT ARISES FROM THE ACTIVITY. THE EXCLUSIONA RY CLAUSE DOES NOT REQUIRE THAT THE ACTIVITY MUST BE CARRIED ON IN SUCH A MANNER THAT IT DOES NOT RESULT IN ANY PROFIT. IT WOULD INDEED BE DIFFICULT FOR PERSONS IN CHARGE OF A TRUST OR INSTITUTION TO SO CARRY ON THE ACTIVITY THAT THE EXPENDITURE BALANCES T HE INCOME - AND THERE IS NO RESULTING PROFIT.' IN CASE OF ANY INCOME' RECEIVED BY ANY PERSON ON BEHALF OF ANY UNIVERSITY OR OTHER EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTION EXISTING SOLELY FOR EDUCATIONAL PURPOSES AND NOT FOR PURPOSES OF PROFIT, IF THE AGGREGATE ANNUAL RECEIPTS OF SUCH UNIVERSITY OR EDUCATIONAL 8 INSTITUTI ON DO NOT EXCEED THE AMOUNT OF ANNUAL RECEIPTS AS MAY BE PRESCRIBED. (AMOUNT PROSCRIBED IS RS. 1 CRORE VIDE RULE 2BC) IS SUCH INCOME WHICH DOES NOT FORM PART OF TOTAL INCOME AND IS EXEMPT FROM TAX. THUS IN THE TOTALITY OF THE FACTS; AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF TH E EASE, AND DETAILED DISCUSSION MADE IN FOREGOING PARAS OF THIS ORDER, I FIND NO CASE TO SUSTAIN THE ADDITIONS/ DISALLOWANCES MADE BY THE AC IN THE ORDER UNDER APPEAL. ALL THE DISALLOWANCES/ ADDITIONS ARE ACCORDINGLY DELETED. 6. FROM THE ABOVE PARAS FRO M THE ORDER OF CIT(A), WE FIND THAT IT IS NOTED BY HIM THAT THE BREAK - UP OF TOTAL RECEIPT OF BOTH THE SCHOOLS IS RS.46.12 LAC IN RESPECT OF JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOL AND RS.83.24 LAC IN RESPECT OF SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL. HE HAS REFERRED TO A JUDGMENT OF HON'BLE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT RENDERED IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. CHILDREN EDUCATION SOCIETY [2014] 264 CTR (KAR) 389 WHEREIN IT WAS HELD THAT AGGREGATE ANNUAL RECEIPTS OF OTHER EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTIONS REFERRED TO IN SECTION 10(23C) (IIIAD) MEANS TOTAL ANNUAL RECEIPT S OF EACH EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTIONS AND NOT THE AGGREGATE OF THE ANNUAL RECEIPTS OF ALL THE EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTIONS RUN BY THE ASSESSEE'S SOCIETY PUT TOGETHER . WE ALSO FIND THAT AS PER THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, THE RECEIPT OF THE ASSESSEE ON ACCOUNT OF THIS I S RS.94,28,829/ - AS NOTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON PAGE 2 AND THERE IS OTHER RECEIPT OF RS.7,93,401/ - ON ACCOUNT OF INTEREST ETC. AND THE TOTAL OF BOTH THE RECEIPTS HAS BEEN WORKED OUT AT RS.102.22 LAC. IT WAS THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE ASSES SING OFFICER THAT SINCE THE RECEIPT FROM FEES IS LESS THAN RS. ONE CRORE, THERE IS NO REQUIREMENT OF GETTING PERMISSION U/S 10(23C)(VI) OF THE ACT. 7. AS PER THE BRIEF FACTS AVAILABLE ON RECORD, IT IS SEEN THAT THE ASSESSEE IS A SOCIETY REGISTERED ON 07/0 9/92 WITH THE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR OF SOCIETIES, BAREILLY UNDER THE SOCIETIES REGISTRATION ACT, 1860 AND FOR THE LAST OVER THREE DECADES, HAS BEEN ENGAGED IN PROVIDING EDUCATIONAL SERVICE TO ALL SECTIONS OF THE SOCIETY THROUGH ITS EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTIONS N AMELY M/S 9 CHIRONJI LAL VIRENDRA PAL SARASWATI VIDYA MANDIR JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOL (CL VPSVM JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOL AND M/S CHIRONJI LAL VIRENDRA PAL SARASWATI VIDYA MANDIR INTER COLLEGE (CL VPSVM INTER COLLEGE). AS PER THE REGISTRATION CERTIFICATE AVAILABLE ON PA GE 36 OF THE PAPER BOOK, THERE IS GOVERNMENT ORDER NO.912/15 - 7 - 11 - 1(6)/2011 IN RESPECT OF JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOL FOR CLASSES 6 TO 10. AS PER THE MINUTES AVAILABLE ON PAGE NO. 38 OF THE PAPER BOOK, IT WAS APPROVED ON 14 TH JULY 2012 TO START INTER MEDIATE COLLEGE. AS PER THE ORDER U/S 10(23C)(VI) DATED 18/12/2014, AVAILABLE ON PAGES 41 TO 44, THIS APPROVAL HAS BEEN GRANTED IN RESPECT OF M/S CHIRONJI LAL VIRENDRA PAL SARASWATI VIDYA MANDIR INTER COLLEGE SEPARATELY AND NOT F OR JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOL. HENCE, IT IS SEEN THAT WHILE GRANTING THIS APPROVAL ON 18/02/2014 ALSO, BOTH THE INSTITUTIONS OF JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOL AND INTER COLLEGE HAS BEEN TREATED SEPARATELY AND THE PERMISSION WAS GRANTED FOR INTER COLLEGE. CONSIDERING ALL TH ESE FACTS, WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT FOR THE PURPOSE OF LIMIT PRESCRIBED IN SECTION 10(23C)(IIIAD), RS. ONE CRORE LIMIT HAS TO BE CONSIDERED FOR EACH INSTITUTION SEPARATELY AND NOT FOR THE ASSESSEE AS A WHOLE. THIS IS VERY IMPORTANT TO MENTION THAT AS PER SECTION 10(23C)(IIIAD) ALSO, THE TERM USED IS ANY UNIVERSITY OR OTHER EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTION EXISTING SOLELY FOR EDUCATIONAL PURPOSES AND NOT FOR PURPOSES OF PROFIT, IF THE AGGREGATE ANNUAL RECEIPTS OF SUCH UNIVERSITY OR EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTI ON DO NOT EXCEED THE AMOUNT OF ANNUAL RECEIPTS AS MAY BE PRESCRIBED AND THE RECEIPTS SO PRESCRIBED IS RS. ONE CRORE AS PER RULE 2BC. HENCE, IT IS SEEN THAT THE REFERENCE IS TO THE EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTION AND NOT THE ASSESSEE AS A WHOLE. CONSIDERING THESE FACTS, WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT WHEN THE ANNUAL RECEIPT OF EACH INSTITUTION IS BELOW RS. ONE CRORE, THE ASSESSEE IS ELIGIBLE FOR EXEMPTION IN RESPECT OF BOTH THE INSTITUTIONS HAVING ANNUAL RECEIPT OF BELOW RS. ONE CRORE EACH. HENCE, WE DECLI NE TO INTERFERE IN THE ORDER OF CIT(A) ON THIS ISSUE. 10 8. NOW WE TAKE UP THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2011 - 12 I.E. I.T.A. NO.714/LKW/2014. IN THIS YEAR, IT IS NOTED BY CIT(A) ON PAGE NO. 8 OF HIS ORDER THAT THE RECEIPT OF JUNIOR HIGH SCH OOL IN THIS YEAR IS RS.46.12 LAC AND RECEIPT OF SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL WAS RS.83.24 AND HENCE, IT IS SEEN THAT IN THIS YEAR ALSO, THE RECEIPT OF BOTH THE INSTITUTIONS INDIVIDUALLY WAS BELOW RS. ONE CRORE AND THEREFORE, IN THIS YEAR ALSO, WE DECLINE TO INT ERFERE IN THE ORDER OF CIT(A) ON THE SAME LINE AS PER OUR DECISION IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010 - 11. 9. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE STANDS DISMISSED. 10. IN THE COMBINED RESULT, BOTH THE APPEALS OF THE REVENUE ARE DISMISSED. (ORDER WAS PRONOUNC ED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THE DATE MENTIONED ON THE CAPTION PAGE) SD/. SD/. (SUNIL KUMAR YADAV) ( A. K. GARODIA ) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED: 3 1 /03/2015 *C.L.SINGH COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT. 3. CONCERNED CIT 4. THE CIT(A) 5. D.R., I.T.A.T., LUCKNOW ASSTT. REGISTRAR