M/S GURUKUL VIDHYA PEETH, JAIPUR V. INCOME TAX OFFICER (EXEMPTION), ALWAR

ITA 996/JPR/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 118 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7979 (ITAT-JAIPUR)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 13 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 31-12-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2012-2013
• Appeal Filed On: 18-12-2017
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: ASHOK KHANNA
• Assessee Lawyers: NIKHILESH KATARIA
• Keywords: Principle of natural justice; Question of law
• Section: 143(3); 10; 2

Judgement Text

VK;DJ VIHYH; VF/KDJ.K] T;IQJ U;K;IHB] T;IQJ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHE -B, JAIPUR JH FOT; IKY JKO] U;KF;D LNL; ,OA JH FOE FLAG ;KNO] YS[KK LNL; DS LE{K BEFORE: SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, JM & SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, AM VK;DJ VIHY LA-@ ITA. NO. 996 & 995/JP/2017 FU/KZKJ.K O'K Z@ ASSESSMENT YEARS : 2012-13 & 2013-14 M/S GURUKUL VIDHYA PEETH SHIKSHA SAMITI, VILLAGE- LATE KA BAS, SHAHPURA, JAIPUR CUKE VS. ITO (EXEMPTION) WARD-ALWAR LFKK;H YS[KK LA-@THVKBZVKJ LA-@ PAN/GIR NO.: AAAAG9400B VIHYKFKHZ@ APPELLANT IZR;FKHZ@ RESPONDENT FU/KZKFJRH DH VKSJ L S@ ASSESSEE BY : SHRI NIKHILESH KATARIA (CA) JKTLO DH VKSJ LS @ REVENUE BY : SHRI ASHOK KHANNA (JCIT) LQUOKBZ DH RKJH[ K@ DATE OF HEARING : 18/12/2018 MN?KKS'K.KK DH RKJH[ K@ DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 31/12/2018 VKNS'K@ ORDER PER: VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, A.M. THESE ARE TWO APPEALS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINS T THE ORDERS OF THE LD. CIT(A), ALWAR DATED 16.07.2017 & 18.10.2017 FOR AY 2012-13 & 2013-14 RESPECTIVELY. 2. IN ITS GROUNDS OF APPEAL, THE ASSESSEE HAS TAKEN VARIOUS GROUNDS OF APPEAL, HOWEVER, THE ONLY GROUND OF APPEAL WHICH WAS PRESSED DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING RELATES TO DENIAL OF E XEMPTION ITA NO. 996 & 995/JP/2017 M/S GURUKUL VIDHYA PEETH, JAIPUR VS. ITO(E), ALWAR 2 U/S 10 (23C)(IIIAD) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961. HE NCE, REST ALL GROUNDS OF APPEAL ARE DISMISSED AS NOT PRESSED. 3. BRIEFLY STATED, THE FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE IS A SOCIETY REGISTERED WITH REGISTRAR OF SOCIETY, JAIPU R AND IS RUNNING A SCHOOL AT VILLAGE LAT KA BASS, SHAHPURA (DISTT.- JA IPUR). IT FILED ITS RETURN OF INCOME DISCLOSING TOTAL INCOME OF RS. 135,010 FO R AY 2012-13 WHICH WAS ASSESSED TO TAX AT INCOME OF RS. 278,990/- U/S 143(3) OF THE ACT. 4. DURING THE COURSE OF APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS BEFOR E THE LD. CIT(A), THE ASSESSEE TOOK THE ADDITIONAL GROUND OF APPEAL R ELATING TO CLAIM OF EXEMPTION U/S 10(23C)(IIIAD) OF THE ACT. HOWEVER, T HE LD. CIT(A) DISMISSED THE SAID GROUND STATING THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NEITHER FILED ANY DETAILS IN SUPPORT OF ITS CLAIM U/S 10(23C)(III AD) DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS OR DURING THE APPELLATE PROC EEDINGS. 5. DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING, THE LD. AR SUBMIT TED THAT THE COMPLETE DETAILS WERE FILED BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) A ND NO FURTHER DETAILS WERE REQUIRED BY THE LD. CIT(A). IT WAS ACCORDINGLY SUBMITTED THAT IT IS INCORRECT ON THE PART OF THE LD. CIT(A) TO STATE TH AT NO DETAILS WERE FILED BEFORE HIM. IT WAS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT WHERE THE LD. CIT(A) REQUIRE ANY FURTHER DETAILS, HE COULD HAVE ASKED THE ASSESS EE AND GIVEN AN APPROPRIATE OPPORTUNITY TO FILE SUCH DETAILS TO MEE T THE PRINCIPLE OF NATURAL JUSTICE. 6. ON MERITS, THE LD AR SUBMITTED THAT ALL THE COND ITIONS LAID DOWN U/S 10(23C)(IIIAD) HAVE BEEN FULFILLED BY THE ASSES SEE SOCIETY. IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT IT IS AN EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTION DUL Y APPROVED BY THE ITA NO. 996 & 995/JP/2017 M/S GURUKUL VIDHYA PEETH, JAIPUR VS. ITO(E), ALWAR 3 DEPARTMENT OF SCHOOL EDUCATION AND IT EXISTS SOLELY FOR EDUCATIONAL PURPOSES AND NOT FOR THE PURPOSES OF PROFIT. IN SUP PORT RELIANCE WAS PLACED HONBLE SUPREME COURT DECISION IN CASE OF QU EENS EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY VS. CIT 275 CTR 449 (SC). IT WAS FURTHER S UBMITTED THAT ITS RECEIPTS FOR THE YEAR IS BELOW RS. 1 CRORE WHICH IS NOT DISPUTED BY THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES. IT WAS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THOUGH THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT MADE THE CLAIM FOR EXEMPTION IN THE RETURN OF INCOME. HOWEVER, SUCH MISTAKE WAS BONA FIDE AND THEIR REMAI N NO ADVANTAGE WITH THE ASSESSEE IN NOT MAKING CLAIM IN THE RETURN OF INCOME OR BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER. IT WAS FURTHER SUBMITTED THA T ALL THE RELEVANT INFORMATION WAS BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND TH E ASSESSING OFFICER WAS DUTY BOUND TO ALLOW ALL THE DEDUCTION AND EXEMP TION TO THE ASSESSEE AND THE DEPARTMENT CANNOT TAKE ADVANTAGE O F ANY IGNORANCE OR OMISSION ON THE PART OF ASSESSEE AND IN SUPPORT, RELIANCE WAS PLACED ON CBDTS CIRCULAR NO. 14(XL-35) DT. 11.04.1955. FU RTHER RELIANCE WAS PLACED ON THE HONBLE ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT IN CASE OF CIT VS. LUCKNOW PUBLIC EDUCATION SOCIETY 318 ITR 223 (ALL) AND IN C ASE OF CIT VS. MUZAFFARNAGAR DISTRICT CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD. 100 C CH 91 (ALL) (HC). IT WAS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT EVEN WHERE THE CLAIM WAS NOT MADE BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER, THE CLAIM OF EXEMPTION U/S 1 0(23C)(IIIAD) IS PURELY A QUESTION OF LAW AND THE TERM EDUCATION H AS BEEN HELD TO BE WORDED WIDELY AS HELD BY THE KERALA HIGH COURT IN C ASE OF CIT VS. ST. MARYS MALANKARA SEMINARY 348 ITR 69 (KER) (HC) AND THE CLAIM OF EXEMPTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN ENTERTAINED BY THE LD. C IT(A). FURTHER RELIANCE WAS PLACED ON THE DECISION OF HONBLE RAJA STHAN HIGH COURT IN CASE OF CIT VS. RAJASTHAN FASTENERS PVT. LTD. 363 I TR 271 (RAJ.). ITA NO. 996 & 995/JP/2017 M/S GURUKUL VIDHYA PEETH, JAIPUR VS. ITO(E), ALWAR 4 7. THE LD. DR IS HEARD WHO HAS RELIED ON THE ORDER OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES. THE LD DR DRAWN OUR REFERENCE TO THE A SSESSMENT ORDER FOR AY 2013-14 WHEREIN BESIDES RECEIPTS FROM SCHOOL, TH E ASSESSEE HAS ALSO SHOWN RECEIPTS IN FORM OF GRANTS FROM M/S ILFS CLUS TER DEVELOPMENT LIMITED SANCTIONED BY THE MINISTRY OF RURAL DEVELOP MENT, GOVERNMENT OF INDIA FOR RUNNING A TRAINING PROGRAMME. PER CONTRA , THE LD AR SUBMITTED THAT SUCH TRAINING PROGRAMME FALLS WITHIN THE BROAD DEFINITION OF EDUCATION AND SO LONG AS THE ASSESSEE SOCIETY IS RUNNING THE SCHOOL AND ALSO SUCH EDUCATIONAL PROGRAMMES, RUNNING OF SU CH TRAINING PROGRAMMES CANNOT BE HELD AGAINST THE ASSESSEE SOCI ETY AS NOT FALLING WITHIN THE DEFINITION OF EDUCATION. 8. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. WE FIND THAT IN RESPECT OF CL AIM OF EXEMPTION UNDER SECTION 10(23C)(IIIAD), THE ASSESSEE HAS RAIS ED AN ADDITIONAL GROUND BEFORE THE LD CIT(A) AND CERTAIN INFORMATION HAS BEEN FILED DURING THE COURSE OF APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS IN FORM OF COPY OF REGISTRATION CERTIFICATES ISSUED BY THE REGISTRAR O F SOCIETY AND BY THE DEPARTMENT OF SCHOOL EDUCATION, JAIPUR, COPY OF INC OME AND EXPENDITURE ACCOUNT, ETC. IT WOULD HAVE BEEN APPRO PRIATE WHERE THE LD CIT(A) HAVE EXAMINED SUCH A CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE S OCIETY U/S 10(23C)(IIAD) AND SOUGHT FURTHER INFORMATION/CLARIF ICATION AS MAY BE DESIRED. HOWEVER, GIVEN THAT THERE IS NO FINDING R ECORDED BY THE LD CIT(A) ON MERITS, WE ARE CONSTRAINED TO REMAND THE MATTER BACK TO THE FILE OF THE LD CIT(A) WHO SHALL EXAMINE THE SAID CL AIM OF THE ASSESSEE SOCIETY ON MERITS AS PER LAW AFTER PROVIDING REASON ABLE OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE AND THE LATTER SHALL BE FREE TO RAISE THE CONTENTIONS BEFORE HIM AS SO RAISED BEFORE US. ITA NO. 996 & 995/JP/2017 M/S GURUKUL VIDHYA PEETH, JAIPUR VS. ITO(E), ALWAR 5 IN THE RESULT, BOTH THE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE ARE ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 31/12/2018. SD/- SD/- FOT; IKY JKO FOE FLAG ;KNO (VIJAY PAL RAO) (VIKRAM SINGH YADAV) U;KF;D LNL;@ JUDICIAL MEMBER YS[KK LNL;@ ACCOUNTANT MEMBER TK;IQJ@ JAIPUR FNUKAD@ DATED:- 31/12/2018 * GANESH KR. VKNS'K DH IZFRFYFI VXZSFKR@ COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. VIHYKFKHZ@ THE APPELLANT- M/S GURUKUL VIDHYA PEETH, JAIPUR 2. IZR;FKHZ@ THE RESPONDENT- ITO (EXEMPTION), ALWAR 3. VK;DJ VK;QDR@ CIT 4. VK;DJ VK;QDR@ CIT(A) 5. FOHKKXH; IZFRFUF/K] VK;DJ VIHYH; VF/KDJ.K] T;IQJ@ DR, ITAT, JAIPUR. 6. XKMZ QKBZY@ GUARD FILE { ITA NO. 996 & 995/JP/2017} VKNS'KKUQLKJ@ BY ORDER, LGK;D IATHDKJ@ ASST. REGISTRAR