Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + HC Income Tax - 2020 (1) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2020 (1) TMI 223 - HC - Income TaxRejection of the applications filed seeking approval in terms of section 10(23C)(vi) - petitioner has set up and manages several Universities, Schools and Educational campuses in different parts of the Country and sought an approval for exemption - HELD THAT:- The scope of enquiry when granting approval in terms of Section 10(23C)(vi) of the Act has been considered by the Supreme Court in two Judgments, viz., Queen's Education Society V. Commissioner of Income Tax [2015 (3) TMI 619 - SUPREME COURT] and American Hotel and Lodging Association, Educational Institute V. CBDT (2008 (5) TMI 17 - SUPREME COURT ). The Bench has specifically noted the distinction between satisfaction in regard to prima facie conditions required for the grant of approval and the monitoring conditions relating to application/accumulation/deployment of income as well as other compliances. The Bench has stated that the grant of approval would only require a satisfaction of the Officer in regard to the existence of the University and the avowed objects. The question of whether the Society has, in fact, complied with the statutory provisions strictly is a matter of assessment and would be dealt with by the Assessing Officer in the course of assessment itself. Respondent has, in the impugned orders adopted a view that is premature and Writ Petitions are allowed. Delay in filling application for Section 10(23C) - HELD THAT:- The 14th proviso to Section 10(23) was amended by Finance (No.2) Act, 2009 with effect from 01.04.2009. The notes and clauses to the Finance Bill (see 314 ITR 130 (ST.)) state that the insertion of the proviso was to permit applications to be filed upto 30th September of the relevant assessment year, instead of restricting the date to 31st of March of the financial year. The purpose was thus to expand the time for filing till 30.9.2012 and not restrict it to only the six months between 1.4.2012 and 30.9.2012. In the present case, the application has been filed in November, 2011 itself and in the light of the object of the amendment noticed above, the application is well within time. Society did not exist solely for 'educational purpose' as required under Section 10(23C) - HELD THAT:- The purpose of the aforesaid clauses is, in my view, only to enable the acquisition of assets by the petitioner. This does not, in my view, lead to the inference that the Society is engaging in other commercial ventures apart from dissemination of education. As stated elsewhere, the monitoring of the activities of the petitioner is a matter of assessment by the Assessing Officer and the Commissioner has, in my view, overstepped in assuming that the mere mention of the aforesaid two activities disentitles the petitioner to the approval and exemption sought.
|