MODI UNIVERSITY OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, SIKAR V. PR. CCIT, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

ITA 801/JPR/2015

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 128 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 2013 (ITAT-JAIPUR)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 7 month(s) 21 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 14-07-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2014-2015
• Appeal Filed On: 23-11-2015
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: B K GUPTA CIT DHK
• Assessee Lawyers: MAHENDRA GARGIA
• Section: 80G; 12A; 12AA; 12; 11

Judgement Text

VK;DJ VIHYH; VF/KDJ.K] T;IQJ U;K;IHB] T;IQJ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHE S, JAIPUR JH HKKXPUN] YS[KK LNL; ,OA JH DQY HKKJR] U;KF;D LNL; DS LE{K BEFORE: SHRI BHAGCHAND, AM AND SHRI KUL BHARAT, JM VK;DJ VIHY LA-@ ITA NO. 801/JP/2015 FU/KZKJ.K O'K Z@ ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2014-15. M/S MODY UNIVERSITY OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, LAKSHMANGARH, SIKAR, RAJASTHAN. CUKE VS. THE PR. CCIT, JAIPUR, RAJASTHAN. LFKK;H YS[KK LA-@THVKBZVKJ LA-@ PAN NO. AAAJM 1982 F VIHYKFKHZ@ APPELLANT IZR;FKHZ@ RESPONDENT FU/KZKFJRH DH VKSJ LS@ ASSESSEE BY : SHRI MAHENDRA GARGIA (ADVOCATE) JKTLO DH VKSJ LS@ REVENUE BY : SHRI B.K. GUPTA (CIT) LQUOKBZ DH RKJH[K@ DATE OF HEARING : 10.07.2017. ?KKS'K .KK DH RKJH[K@ DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 14/07/2017. VKNS'K@ ORDER PER SHRI KUL BHARAT, JM. THIS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF PR. CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, RAJASTHAN, DATED 29.09. 2015 PERTAINING TO A.Y. 2014- 15. THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF AP PEAL :- 1. THE LD. PR. CCIT ERRED IN LAW AS WELL AS ON THE FACTS OF THE CASE IN DENYING THE APPROVAL CLAIMED BY THE APPELLANT UNIVE RSITY FOR THE FY 2013-14 (RELATING TO AY 2014-15) UNDER THE PROVISIO NS OF S. 10(23C)(VI) OF THE ACT. THE REJECTION OF THE APPLI CATION AND DENIAL TO THE CLAIMED APPROVAL AS TO EXEMPTION TO ITS INCOME, BEING CONTRARY TO THE PROVISION OF LAW AND FACTS, THE APPELLANT INSTI TUTION KINDLY BE HELD ELIGIBLE AND THE LD. PR. CCIT BE DIRECTED TO ACCORD APPROVAL, AS PRAYED FOR. 2. THE LD. PR. CCIT FURTHER ERRED IN LAW AS WELL AS ON THE FACTS OF THE CASE IN MISINTERPRETING THE LAW AND IN WRONGLY ALLEGING THAT THE APPELLANT INSTITUTION FILED THE APPLICATION PREMATURE I.E. BE FORE THE LAST DATE OF FILING OF SUCH APPLICATION WHICH, BEING A MISCONCEP TION OF LAW AND 2 ITA NO. 801/JP/2015. M/S MODY UNIVERSITY OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, RAJA STHAN. FACTS, HENCE, REJECTION BASED THEREON BEING CONTRAR Y TO THE PROVISION OF LAW AND FACTS, THE LD. PR. CCIT BE DIRECTED TO ACCO RD APPROVAL, AS PRAYED FOR. 3. THE LD. PR. CCIT ALSO ERRED IN LAW AS WELL AS ON THE FACTS OF THE CASE IN PASSING THE IMPUGNED ORDER WITHOUT SPECIFICALLY CON FRONTING THE APPELLANT INSTITUTION ON THE ISSUE ON WHICH THE PRA YER FOR GRANTING APPROVAL, WAS REJECTED AND THUS, VIOLATING THE PRIN CIPLE OF NATURE JUSTICE. THE IMPUGNED ORDER THEREFORE KINDLY BE QU ASHED AND SATISFIED AND THE APPELLANT INSTITUTION KINDLY BE HELD ELIGIB LE FOR THE APPROVAL AS PRAYED FOR. 2. BRIEFLY STATED THE FACTS ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE M ADE AN APPLICATION FOR GRANT OF APPROVAL U/S 10(23C)(VI) OF INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (H EREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS THE ACT) IN THE FINANCIAL YEAR 2013-14. THE SAID APPLIC ATION WAS REJECTED ON THE GROUND THAT THE APPLICANT INSTITUTION STARTED ITS ACTIVITY FROM 1/4/2014 AS A DIFFERENT LEGAL ENTITY. THEREFORE, THE FINANCIAL YEAR 2014-15 IS I TS FIRST YEAR OF OPERATION. HENCE, NOT ELIGIBLE TO FILE APPLICATION U/S 10(23C)(VI) FO R THE FINANCIAL YEAR 2013-14. 3. LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE REITERATED THE SUBM ISSIONS AS MADE IN THE WRITTEN BRIEF. THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE ARE REPRODUCED AS UNDER:- SUBMISSION:- 1.1 FIRSTLY , IT IS SUBMITTED THAT THE APPELLANT UNIVERSITY ADM ITTEDLY CAME INTO EXISTENCE ON 16.9.2013 I.E. IN FY 13-14(AY 14- 15) ITSELF AND HENCE AS PER THE PREVALENT LAW, THE APPELLANT WAS F ULLY ENTITLED TO FILE AN APPLICATION ACCORDINGLY FOR AY 2014-15. THE 14 TH PROVISO TO S. 10(23)(VI) STATES THAT ANY UNIVERSITY SEEKING APPROVAL FOR A P ARTICULAR AY, HA TO FILE THE APPLICATION ON OR BEFORE 30 TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER OF THE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEAR. ACCORDINGLY, WHEN THE UNIVERSITY MUST WAS SEEKIN G APPROVAL FOR FY 13-14 RELEVANT TO AY 14-15, IT IS RIGHTLY FILED THE APPLICATION ON 01.09.2014 . I.E. WELL BEFORE 30.09.2014 AND WELL IN TIME, NEITHER BEFORE NOR DELAYED. 3 ITA NO. 801/JP/2015. M/S MODY UNIVERSITY OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, RAJA STHAN. THE FACT THAT THE APPELLANT UNIVERSITY COMMENCED IT S OPERATION IN THE NEXT YEAR, SHOULD NOT COME IN THE WAY IN AS MUCH AS COMMENCEMENT OF ANY OPERATIONAL ACTIVITY, IS NOT A CONDITION PRECEDENT OR THE APPLICANT UNIVERSITY SEEKING REGISTRATION UNDER THIS PROVISIO N. EVEN AFTER COMING INTO EXISTENCE, AN INSTITUTION CAN SEEK REGISTRATION FOR ANY ASSESSMENT YEAR AND THE ONLY CONDITION I THAT THE APPLICATION HAS TO BE FILED ON OR BEFORE 30 TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER OF THAT RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEAR. HOWEVER, IT APPEARS THAT LD. PR. CCIT HAS READ THE MENTION OF 14-15 IN THE APPLICATION FROM 56D (PB 1-4) AS FY 14-15 RELATING TO AY 15-16 AND ACCORDINGLY ALLEGED THAT SUCH APPLICATION SHOULD HA VE BEEN FILED ON 30.09.2015 WHICH HAS BEEN FILED PREMATURE AND MORE SO, WHEN AS PER INSTITUTIONS ADMISSION, THE INSTITUTION MUST BECAM E OPERATIONAL ONLY IN FY 14- 15 (AY 15-16) HOWEVER HE IGNORED THE FACT THAT THE INSTITUTION MUST HAD ALREADY COME INTO EXISTENCE ON 16.09.2013 I.E. FY 13-14 (AY 14-15) ITSELF AND HENCE AS PER LAW RIGHTLY FILED THE APPLICATION ON 30.9.2014. 1.2 SECONDLY, THE LAW HAS PRESCRIBED ONLY THE LAST/ULTERIOR AND ALSO LUTORES DATE OF FILING THE APPLICATION. IT DOES NO T PROVIDE ANY APPARENT RESTRICTION OR BAR ON THE INSTITUTION APPLICANT, TO FILE AN APPLICATION IN ADVANCE OR DUE DATE. THUS, IN OUR CASE THE INSTITUTION MU ST RIGHTLY FILED THE APPLICATION AS AFORESAID. 1.3 MUST ALREADY OPERATIONAL : THIRDLY, IT IS ALSO WRONG TO SAY THAT INSTITUTION MUST BECAME OPERATIONAL ONLY IN FY 14 -15 IN AS MUCH AS IT WAS ALREADY WORKING THOUGH EARLIER SPONSORING BODY MIS T, WHOSE ENTIRE ASSETS AND LIABILITIES STOOD VESTED IN MIST BY TH E OPERATIONAL OF LAW ON 16.09.2013 ITSELF BECAUSE OF THE STATUTORY REQUIREM ENT AND THIS WAY MUST CAME INTO EXISTENCE ON 16.09.2013 ITSELF THOUGH THE STATUTE. HENCE THE ASSESSEE MUST MUST BE TREATED AS WAS OPERATIONAL NOT ONLY IN F.Y. 14-15 BUT ALSO IN EARLIER YEAR AS WELL. 2. ALTERNATIVE, OTHERWISE ALSO THE REQUIREMENT OF REA CHING THE TOTAL RECEIPTS TO THE PRESCRIBED EXTENT OF RS. 1CR., IS C ONCERNED, THE EARLIER MIST WAS ALREADY OPERATIONAL (THROUGH ITS DEEMED UNIVERSITY) AND WAS 4 ITA NO. 801/JP/2015. M/S MODY UNIVERSITY OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, RAJA STHAN. HAVING RECEIPTS OF AROUND RS. 45.31 CRORE AS ON (PB-143). FURTHER DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING (THROUGH THE ITO) FOR THE PUR POSE OF THIS APPROVAL, THE APPELLANT MUST ALSO FILED THE AUDITED INCOME AND E XPENDITURE ACCOUNT ET. FOR THE YEAR ENDING 31.03.2015 (PB 164-181 ) SHOWING RECEIPTS OF RS. 46.18 CR (PB-176) THEREFORE, RECEIPTS OF MUST AS ALSO OF MITS BOTH E XCEEDED RS. 1 CR. 3.1 IN ANY CASE , THERE APPEARS NO BAR ON SEEKING (AND GRANTING) APPROVAL EITHER U/S 12A OR U/S 10(23)(VI) EVEN IF T HE APPLICANT INSTITUTION HAS NOT BECOME OPERATION BY THE TIME IF FILES THE APPLI CATION. KINDLY REFER: 3.2.1 DIT (EXEMPTION) VS. PANNA LALBHAI FOUNDATION (2013) 216 TAXMAN 0148 (GUJ.) REGISTRY ONCE GRANTED CAN ALWAYS BE CANCELLED IF T HE ACTIVITIES OF THE TRUST ARE FOUND TO BE DUBIOUS OR NON-GENUINE OR CON TRARY TO OBJECTIVES OF THE ACT. COMMISSIONER HAS POWER TO SATISFY HIMSELF ABOUT OBJECTS AND THE GENUINENESS OF THE ACTIVITIES, HOWE VER, COMMISSIONER WOULD HAVE NO AUTHORITY TO IPSO FACTO REJECT THE APPLICATION FOR REGISTRATION ON THE GROUND THAT TRU ST HAS NOT COMMENCED THE ACTIVITIES. 3.2.2 HONBLE ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF HARDAYAL CHARITABLE & EDUCATIONAL TRUST VS. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX RE PORTED IN 355 ITR 534(ALL) WHEREIN THE HONBLE HIGH COURT HAS HELD AS UNDER:- AT THE TIME OF REGISTRATION U/S 12AA OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, WHICH IS NECESSARY FOR CLAIMING EXEMPTION U/S 11 & 12 OF THE ACT, THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX IS NOT REQUIRED TO LOOK INTO THE ACTIVITIES, WHERE SUCH ACTIVITIES HAVE NOT OR ARE I N THE PROCESS OF ITS INITIATION. WHERE A TRUST, SET UP TO ACHIEV E ITS OBJECTS OF ESTABLISHING EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTION, IS IN THE PROCESS OF ESTABLISHING SUCH INSTITUTION, AND RECEIVES DONATIO NS, THE REGISTRATION U/S 12AA CANNOT BE REFUSED, ON THE GROUND THAT THE TRUST HAS NOT YET COMMENCED THE CHARITABLE OR RELIGIOUS ACTIVITY. AN Y ENQUIRY OF THE NATURE WOULD AMOUNT TO PUTTING THE CART BEFORE THE HORSE. AT THIS STAGE ONLY GENUINENESS OF THE OBJECTS HAS TO BE TES TED AND NOT THE ACTIVITIES, WHICH HAVE NOT COMMENCED. THE ENQUIRY OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX AT SUCH PRELIMINARY STAG E SHOULD BE RESTRICTED TO GENUINENESS OF THE OBJECTS AND NOT TH E ACTIVITIES UNLESS SUCH ACTIVITIES HAVE COMMENCED. THE TRUST OF SOCIE TY CANNOT CLAIM EXEMPTION, UNLESS IT IS REGISTERED U/S 12AA OF THE ACT AND THUS AT THAT 5 ITA NO. 801/JP/2015. M/S MODY UNIVERSITY OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, RAJA STHAN. SUCH INITIAL STAGE THE TEST OF THE GENUINENESS OF T HE ACTIVITY CANNOT BE GROUND ON WHICH THE REGISTRATION MAY BE REFUSED. 3.3.1 ON THIS ASPECT, A USEFUL REFERENCE CAN BE MADE TO A DECISION IN THE CASE OF AMERICAN HOTEL AND LODGING ASSOCIATION EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTE V/S CBDT (2008) 301 ITR 086/216 CTR 377 (DPB 9-25) WHEREIN IT WAS HELD THAT: EXEMPTION UNDER S. 10(23C)(VI)- EDUCATIONAL INSTIT UTION- APPLICATION OF INCOME IN INDIA VIS--VIS SCOPE OF ENQUIRY BY PRESC RIBED AUTHORITY- THRESHOLD CONDITIONS FOR EXEMPTION UNDER S. 10(23C) (VI) ARE ACTUAL EXISTENCE OF AN EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTION AND APPROVA L OF THE PRESCRIBED AUTHORITY- IT IS ONLY IF THE PREREQUISITE CONDITION OF ACTUAL EXISTENCE OF THE EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTION IS FULFILL ED THAT THE QUESTION OF COMPLIANCE OF THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE P ROVISOS WOULD ARISE - THERE IS A DIFFERENCE BETWEEN STIPULATION OF COND ITIONS AND COMPLIANCE THEREOF-TO MAKE S. 10(23C)(VI) WORKA BLE ALONG WITH THE PROVISO, THE MONITORING CONDITIONS LAID DOWN IN THE THIRD PROVISO. VIZ., APPLICATION/UTILIZATION OF INCOME, PATTERN OF INVESTMENTS, ETC CAN BE STIPULATED AS CONDITION BY THE PRESCRIBED AUTHOR ITY MAY INSIST ON CERTAIN PERCENTAGE OF ACCOUNTING INCOME TO BE UTILI ZED/APPLIED FOR IMPARTING EDUCATION IN INDIA- COMPLIANCE OF THE TER MS AND CONDITION STIPULATED BY THE PRESCRIBED AUTHORITY WOULD BE A M ATTER OF DECISION AT THE TIME OF ASSESSMENT- THIS VIEW NAMELY, THAT THE PRESCRIBED AUTHORITY CAN STIPULATE CONDITION WHILE GRANTING AP PROVAL FINDS SUPPORT FROM CL. (II) (B)OF THE THIRTEENTH PROVISO. 3.3.2 FOLLOWING THE SAME THE CBDT ISSUED A CIRCULAR (CLAR IFICATION) F.NO. 197/38/2015- ITA-I DATED 17.8.2015 (PB 182-185), WHERE FROM THE (RELEVANT EXTRACTS) ARE REPRODUCED HEREUNDER:- 1.2 IN THIS CONNECTION, ATTENTION IS DRAWN TO THE DECISION OF HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN CASE OF AMERICAN HOTEL AND LODGING ASSOCIATION EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTE VS. CBDT (301 ITR 086 ) IN WHICH IT HAS BEEN HELD THAT AT THE TIME OF GRANTING APPROVAL U/S 10(23C)(VI), THE PRESCRIBED AUTHORITY IS TO BE SATISFIED THAT THE INSTITUTION EXISTED DURING THE RELEVANT YEAR SOLELY FOR EDUCATIONAL PU RPOSE AND NOT FOR PROFIT. ONCE THE PRESCRIBED AUTHORITY IS S ATISFIED ABUT FULFILLMENT OF THIS CRITERIA I.E. THE THRESHOLD PRE-CONDITION O F ACTUAL EXISTENCE OF AN EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTION UNDER SECTION 10(23)(VI), I T WOULD NOT BE JUSTIFIABLE, IN DENYING APPROVAL ON OTHER GROUNDS, ESPECIALLY WHERE THE COMPLIANCE DEPENDS ON EVENTS THAT HAVE NO T TAKEN PLACE ON THE DATE ON WHICH THE APPLICATION FOR GRAN T OF APPROVAL HAS BEEN MADE. 6 ITA NO. 801/JP/2015. M/S MODY UNIVERSITY OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, RAJA STHAN. 3.3.3 ALSO KINDLY REFER ALLAHABAD YOUNG MENS CHRISTIAN ASSOCIATION VS. CCIT & ANR. (2015) 371 ITR 0023 (ALL) (DPB 1-8) HELD THAT: EXEMPTION U/S 10(23C)(VI)----INCOME OF CERTAIN TRU STS OF NATIONAL IMPORTANCE, UNIVERSITIES, EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTIONS, ETC.---- DENIAL--- VALIDITY--- ASSESSEE A REGISTERED SOCIETY RUNNING A SCHOOL--- ASSESSEE APPLIED FOR REGISTRATION U/S 10(23C)(VI)---CCIT RE FUSED REGISTRATION- HELD, SOCIETY CAME INTO EXISTENCE IN 1910 AND ON LA ND TAKEN FOR 99 YEARS LEASEASSESSEE HAD CONSTRUCTED A BUILDING FOR SCHOOLASSESSEE IS AN EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTIONS, WHO IS PROVIDING ED UCATIONNO OTHER ACTIVITY WAS PROVED BY DEPARTMENT CCIT HAD ALREADY GRANTED EXEMPTED U/S 12A/12AA W.E.F. 1.4.2007IN AMERICAN H OTEL & LODGING ASSOCIATION, EDUCATION INSTITUTE VS. CBDT 2008(301) ITR 86 SC, IT WAS HELD THAT THRESHOLD CONDITIONS ARE ACTUAL EXISTENCE OF AN EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTION AND APPROVAL OF PRESCRIBED AUTHORITYON LY IF PRE-CONDITIONS OF ACTUAL EXISTENCE OF AN EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTION I S FULFILLED THAT QUESTION OF COMPLIANCE WITH THE STIPULATIONS SET OUT IN THE PROVISOS WOULD ARISE-- -MERELY BECAUSE THERE ARE OTHER OBJECTS OF SOCIETY DOES NOT MEAN THAT THE EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTION IS NOT EXISTING SOLELY OR SOCIETY DOES NOT MEAN THAT THE EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTION IS NOT EXISTI NG SOLELY FOR EDUCATIONAL PURPOSEIT WAS HELD THAT AUTHORITY IS O NLY REQUIRED TO EXAMINE THAT ASSESSEES INSTITUTION COMES WITHIN PH RASE EXISTS SOLELY FOR EDUCATIONAL PURPOSES AND NOT FOR PROFITOTHER C ONDITIONS LIKE APPLICATION OF INCOME IS NOT BE EXAMINED AT THIS ST AGE---MERELY BECAUSE SOME PROFIT ARISES FROM ITS ACTIVITY WILL N OT MEAN THAT PREDOMINANT OBJECT OF ACTIVITY IS TO EARN PROFIT AN D THAT IT IS NOT AN EDUCATIONAL ACTIVITY ---FACTS WERE NOT ANALYZED BY AUTHORITIES BELOW IN A PROPER MANNERFROM DOCUMENTS PRODUCED, PRIMA FACI E FACTS APPEARED CONTRADICTORY WHICH REQUIRE FURTHER INVEST IGATIONMATTER REMANDED TO CCIT---WRIT PETITION ALLOWED. 1.3--------.IT IS THEREFORE, CLARIFIED THAT THE PRI NCIPLE LAID DOWN BY THE APEX COURT IN AMERICAN HOTELS CASE (SUPRA) MUST BE FOLLOWED WHILE CONSIDERING THE APPLICATIONS FILED SEEKING APPROVAL FOR EXEMPTION U/S 10(23C)(VI). 4. FURTHER THE OBJECTION OF THE PR. CCIT AT PAGE 2 OF TOP PARA THAT THE INSTITUTION VIOLATED THE 10 TH PROVISO TO S. 10(23C)(VI) IS IRRELEVANT SO FAR AS THE GRANT OF APPROVAL UNDER THAT PROVISION IS CONCERNED . THE PROVISION, FOR GRANTING APPROVAL DO NOT REQUIRE THE FILING OF THE AUDITED ACCOUNTS AS A CONDITION PRECEDENT AND THE ONLY REQUIREMENT TO BE SEEN IS THAT THE APPLICANT INSTITUTE MUST EXISTS SOLELY FOR EDUCATION AND NOT FOR THE PURPOSE OF PROFIT 7 ITA NO. 801/JP/2015. M/S MODY UNIVERSITY OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, RAJA STHAN. WHICH CAN BE GATHERED FROM THE MAIN OBJECTS. SUCH REQUIREMENT IS TO BE SEEN ONLY POST GRANT APPROVAL. 5. ANOTHER OBJECTION RAISED BY THE PR. CCIT AT PAGE 2 PARA 2.2 IS THAT THE UNIVERSITY HAS VIOLATED A CONDITION PUT IN THE REGI STRATION ORDER U/S 12A GRANTED TO MIST. IT IS SUBMITTED THAT FIRSTLY, S UCH A RESTRICTION WAS PLACED ONLY ON MIST AND NOT IN THE ORDER U/S 12A IN CASE OF MUST. SECONDLY, STRICTLY LEGALLY SPEAKING, IT IS NOT AT ALL A CASE OF TRANSFER OF ASSETS AND LIABILITIES FROM ONLY ENTITY TO OTHER ENTITY IN AS MUCH AS ALL THE ASSETS AND LIABILITIES STOOD VESTED IN THE APPELLANT UNIVERSIT Y MUST (KINDLY REFER AUDITED BALANCE SHEET PB-175) WHICH WAS A REQUIREMENT OF TH E MUST ACT-2013 DATED 16-9-2013 (KINDLY REFER S. 3(2) (PB-56) & SCH EDULE-1 (PB-79-84) AND IN ACCORDANCE THERE WITH ONLY, THE ASSETS STOOD VESTED . THEREFORE, THERE WAS ONE AND THE ONLY PERSON I.E. MIST THE EARLIER BOD Y WHICH, NOT STOOD TRANSFORMED/GOT RESTRICTED AS MUST. THERE HAD BE EN NO TRANSFEROR OR TRANSFEREE. THERE COULDNT HAVE BEEN ANY QUESTION OF TRANSFER OTHERWISE AND HENCE THERE WAS NO VIOLATION. 6. WE MAY CLARIFY THAT THE FILLING OF THE SEPARATE AP PLICATION U/S 12A AND NOW U/S 10(23C)(VI), ARE ONLY FOR THE SIMPLE REASON THAT THE PRESENT INSTITUTION WAS CREATED THROUGH A SEPARATE ENACTMEN T AND THEREFORE, THE DEPARTMENT COULD HAVE CONTENDED THAT THE EXEMPTION ALREADY GRANTED U/S 12A AND OR /10(23C)(VI) TO THE EARLIER INSTITUTION BEING THE MIST CANNOT BE CARRIED FORWARD AND BE AVAILED BY THE PRESENT INSTI TUTION MUST AND IT IS ONLY UNDER THIS BACKGROUND, THE APPELLANT MUST HAD TO FILE THE APPLICATION U/S 10(23C) 7. ON MERITS : THE LD. PR. CIT MADE AND GOT CONDUCTED DETAILED ENQUIRIES AS EVIDENT FROM THE FACTS THAT THE VARIOU S QUERIES (PB 157-159) WERE RAISED WHICH WERE REPLIED TIME TO TIME (PB 160 -163) FROM WHICH HE WAS FULLY SATISFIED. THERE APPEARS NO ADVERSE FINDING SO FAR AS THE MERITS OF THE CASE IS CONCERNED. THE APPELLANT ADMITTEDLY EXISTE D SOLELY FOR EDUCATIONAL AND NOT FOR THE PURPOSE OF PROFIT. SIMILAR OTHER I NSTITUTIONS HAVE BEEN GRANTED APPROVAL HENCE THE AUTHORITIES KINDLY BE DIRECT TO GRANT APPROVAL/EXEMPTION. 8 ITA NO. 801/JP/2015. M/S MODY UNIVERSITY OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, RAJA STHAN. 8. NOTABLY, RECENTLY APPROVAL U/S 80G HAS ALSO BEEN GRANTED VIDE CERTIFICATE NO. 4. ON THE CONTRARY, LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE S OPPOSED THE SUBMISSIONS. 5. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS, PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. AS PER THE RELEVANT PROVISO TO SECTION 10(2 3C)(VI) OF THE ACT THAT READS AS UNDER:- [ PROVIDED ALSO THAT IN CASE THE FUND OR TRUST OR INS TITUTION OR ANY UNIVERSITY OR OTHER EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTION OR ANY HOSPITAL OR OTHER ME DICAL INSTITUTION REFERRED TO IN THE FIRST PROVISO MAKES AND APPLICATION ON OR AFTER THE 1ST DAY OF JUNE, 2006 FOR THE PURPOSE OF GRANT OF EXEMPTION OR CONTINUANCE THEREO F, SUCH APPLICATION SHALL BE [MADE ON OR BEFORE THE 30TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER OF THE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEAR] FROM WHICH THE EXEMPTION IS SOUGHT.] 5.1 FROM THE ABOVE PROVISION, IT IS EVIDENT THAT TH E APPLICATION IS REQUIRED TO BE MADE ON BEFORE THE 30 TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER OF THE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEAR F ROM WHICH THE EXEMPTION IS SOUGHT. THE APPLICATION WAS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE TRUST ON 1 ST SEPTEMBER 2014, THE SEEKING APPROVAL FOR THE FINAN CIAL YEAR 2013-14. IT WAS NOTICED BY THE LD. PR. CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX THAT AS PER THE INFORMATION SUPPLIED BY THE ASSESSEE, THE FIRST YEAR OF OPERATI ON OF UNIVERSITY OF FINANCIAL YEAR IS 2014-15. IT IS THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THIS MODI UNIVERSITY OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY THAT THE APPLICANT TRUST HAD ALREADY CAM E INTO EXISTENCE IN THE FINANCIAL YEAR 2013-14. EVEN PRIOR TO THIS EDUCATIONAL ACTIV ITY WAS BEING CARRIED OUT. AFTER CONSIDERING THE TOTALITY OF THE FACT THAT AFTER MAK ING APPLICATION A CONSIDERABLE PERIOD HAS ELAPSED. THEREFORE, WE RESTORE THIS APP LICATION TO THE FILE OF THE LD. PR. CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAIPUR TO RECONSI DER THE APPLICATION AND GRANT 9 ITA NO. 801/JP/2015. M/S MODY UNIVERSITY OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, RAJA STHAN. EXEMPTION FROM THE DATE WHEN THIS ASSESSEE TRUST BE COMES ELIGIBLE. THUS, GROUNDS OF THE ASSESSEES APPEAL ARE ALLOWED FOR STATISTICA L PURPOSES. 6. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IN ITA NO. 801/JP/2015 IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER IS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON FRIDAY, THE 14 TH DAY OF JULY 2017. SD/- SD/- ( HKKXPUN ( DQY HKKJR ) ( BHAGCHAND) ( KUL BHARAT ) YS[KK LNL;@ ACCOUNTANT MEMBER U;KF;D LNL;@ JUDICIAL MEMBER JAIPUR DATED:- 14/07/2017. POOJA/ VKNS'K DH IZFRFYFI VXZSF'KR@ COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. THE APPELLANT- M/S MODY UNIVERSITY OF SCIENCE A ND TECHNOLOGY, RAJASTHAN. 2. THE RESPONDENT THE PR. CCIT, JAIPUR, RAJASTHAN. 3. THE CIT(A). 4. THE CIT, 5. THE DR, ITAT, JAIPUR 6. GUARD FILE (ITA NO. 801/JP/2015) VKNS'KKUQLKJ@ BY ORDER, LGK;D IATHDKJ@ ASSISTANT. REGISTRAR 10 ITA NO. 801/JP/2015. M/S MODY UNIVERSITY OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, RAJA STHAN.