Satya Education Society, Haryana vs Commissioner Of Income Tax (Exemptions), Chandigarh

PER SANJAY AWASTHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:

In this case, the Ld. CIT(Exemptions), Chandigarh, vide order dated 09.12.2025 has rejected the application for registration filed by the assessee u/s 12A(1)(ac)(ii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereafter as “the Act”). It is seen from the impugned order that the Ld. CIT(E) has held that the assessee-society is not carrying out activities which are educational in nature. It is seen that there is some fact finding on pages 8 to 12 of the impugned order through which it has been held that the assessee is conducting computer courses at a small level and charging fees for the same. Thereafter, the Ld. CIT(E) has held that “education” would imply systematic instruction, school or training by an Institution which is affiliated to Boards & Universities, etc. (para 4.1 at page 12 of the impugned order). It is also seen that the assessee has not found to be conforming to this particular interpretation of “education” and thereby the application has been rejected.

The aggrieved assessee has approached the ITAT with grounds challenging this action on merit as also the fact that the order is not speaking, was passed with inadequate opportunity of being heard and was also passed ignoring the fact that the assessee already had a registration u/s 12AB of the Act dated 06.10.2021.

The Ld. AR stated that the Ld. CIT(Exemption) had not understood the concept of “education” and thereafter had adversely dealt with the matter before him in spite of the fact that some documents were provided to him. It was the submission that the assessee needed another opportunity to establish the facts of his case and therefore it was prayed that the matter may be remanded back to the file of Ld. CIT(Exemption).

We have carefully considered the rival submissions and have gone through the records before us. It is seen that the Ld. CIT(Exemption) has understood the term “education” as mentioned in section 2(15) of the Act in a narrow sense. We find that in spite of there being considerable judicial literature available on what constitutes “education”, the Ld. CIT(Exemption) has chosen to substitute his own understanding of the concept on the facts of the present case. It is felt that the assessee needs to present all the facts that are available with him so that the Ld. CIT(Exemption) is able to appreciate the extent of activities being performed by the assessee and thereafter a reasonable view would be possible to adopt. For this purpose, we set aside the impugned order and remand this matter back to the file of Ld. CIT(Exemption) for fresh adjudication. The Ld. CIT(Exemption) would give adequate opportunity of being heard and the assessee would avail of such opportunities to make an extensive representation before him.

In the result, appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes.