The Income Tax Officer vs Shri Rao Bahadur AKD Dharmaraj, Education Charity Trust

P.D. Dinakaran, J.—The revenue has preferred the above appeal against the order dated 24.10.2000 made in I.T.A. No. 1925/Mds/1995

on the file of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras ''B'' Bench, under the following facts and circumstances of the case.

2.1. The respondent/assessee is a Trust engaged in the activities of running educational institutions. While filing Nil return for the assessment year

1992-93, the respondent/assessee claimed exemption u/s 10(22) and 11 of the Income Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as the ''Act'') and the

same was accepted by the Income Tax Officer u/s 143(1)(a) of the Act.

2.2. The case of the respondent/assessee (Trust) was taken up for scrutiny and the assessment was completed u/s 143(3) of the Act on 20.3.1995

by taxing the income and held that the respondent/assessee (Trust) was not eligible for exemption u/s 11 and 12 of the Act, as the assessment

officer has violated Section 11(4A) of the Act.

2.3. An appeal was preferred by the respondent/assessee (Trust) before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), who, by order dated

13.6.1995, allowed the appeal, which was confirmed by the Income Tax Tribunal, by order dated 24.10.2000, holding that Section 11(4A) of the

Act is not attracted to the case of the respondent/assessee (Trust) and therefore, the respondent/assessee (Trust) could not be denied exemption

u/s 11 of the Act.

2.4. Aggrieved by the said order, the above appeal has been preferred, raising the following substantial questions of law:

(i) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Income Tax Tribunal is right in law in confirming the order of the Commissioner of

Income Tax Appeals especially when the TCPs were pending before the Hon''ble High Court for the assessment years 1984-85 & 1985-86 and

the Hon''ble High Court has directed the Tribunal to state a case and refer the question of law?

(ii) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in law in confirming the order of CIT(A) especially when the assessee

is not a University or other educational institution existing solely for educational purposes and as such is not entitled to claim the benefit of Section

10(22)? and

(iii) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in law in holding that the provisions of Section 11(4A) were not

attracted in the present case and as such the assessee was entitled to the exemption as an educational institution u/s 10(22)?

The learned counsel for the petitioner restricts his arguments only with regard to substantial questions of law (ii) and (iii) referred to above.

4.1. In this regard, it is apt to refer Section 10(22) and 11(4A) of the Act, which read as follows:

Section 10:

In computing the total income of a previous year of any person, any income falling within any of the following clauses shall not be included -

...

(22) any income of a university or other educational institution, existing solely for educational purposes and not for purposes of profit;

...

Section 11:

Income from property held for charitable or religious purposes.

...

(4A) Sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) or sub-section (3) or sub-section (3A) shall not apply in relation to any income of a trust or an institution,

being profits and gains of business, unless the business is incidental to the attainment of the objectives of the trust or, as the case may be, institution,

and separate books of account are maintained by such trust or institution in respect of such business.

...

4.2. Under the above undisputed facts and circumstances of the case, the pivotal issue that arises for consideration is whether or not the

respondent/assessee (Trust) is an educational institution entitled to the benefit of Section 10(22) of the Act and if so, to what extent Section

11(4A) of the Act is attracted?

4.3. Even though the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) as well as the Tribunal proceeded on the basis that the respondent/assessee (Trust)

was alleged to have involved in carrying on business during the assessment year 1992-93, no where in the order, the authorities concerned have

stated the nature of business said to have carried on by the respondent/assessee (Trust) is in violation to the provision of Section 11(4A) of the

Act.

4.4. Concededly, the object of the respondent/assessee (Trust) is to establish, run, manage and assist Colleges, Schools and other educational

institutions solely for educational purpose and in that regard to raise or collect funds, donations, gifts etc. We are, therefore, of the considered

opinion that the respondent/assessee (Trust) is certainly entitled to the benefit of Section 10(22) of the Act referred to above. In such event, as

rightly held by the Tribunal, Section 11(4A) of the Act is not at all attracted to the instant case.

4.5. The Apex Court in Aditanar Educational Institution Vs. Additional Commissioner of Income Tax, , interpreting the scope and applicability of

Section 10(22) of the Act to the Charitable institutions, held as follows:

It would be unreal and hypertechnical to hold that the assessee-society was only a financing body and would not come within the scope of ""other

educational institution"" as specified in Section 10(22) of the Act. The object of the society was to establish, run, manage or assist colleges or

schools or other educational institutions solely for educational purposes and in that regard to raise or collect funds, donations, gifts, etc. Colleges

and Schools were the media through which the assessee imparted education and effectuated its objects. In substance and reality, the sole purpose

for which the assessee had come into existence was to impart education at the levels of colleges and schools and so, such an educational society

should be regarded as an ""educational institution"" coming within Section 10(22) of the Act.

4.6. We have no hesitation to hold that the ratio laid down in Aditanar Educational Institution v. Additional Commissioner of Income Tax, referred

supra, is squarely applicable to the facts and circumstances of this case. In that view of the matter, the substantial questions of law, referred to

above, are answered against the revenue.

4.7. Finding, therefore, no reason to interfere with the order of the Tribunal, the appeal stands dismissed.