TMI Blog2014 (2) TMI 180X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... art from the activities associated with educational purposes. Relying upon Aditanar Educational Institution v. Addl. CIT [1997 (2) TMI 3 - SUPREME Court] - The Tribunal has not done anything wrong by pronouncing that during the relevant years, the assessee was not entitled to the benefit of section 10(22) of the Act - The case of the assessee under section 11 is applicable in relation to the assessment year 2000-01. The fact remains that the assessee, when went before the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), it had taken a plea that it is entitled to the benefit of section 11 of the Act, if it is held that it is not so entitled under section 10(22) of the Act – the matter remitted back to the CIT(A) for consideration of the case of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... re placed in the hands of the father of the chartered accountant of the appellant-assessee. The Assessing Officer felt that the said transaction established that the appellant-assessee did not exist solely for educational purpose during the relevant assessment years. The matter went before the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals). Before the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), the appellant contended that the educational institution of the appellant-assessee is a large institution having a large number of students and it, being a residential institution, the amount of money spent during the relevant years, is normal in the matter of maintenance of such a huge infrastructure. It was contended that though the money trail ultimately found it ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ality. During those assessment years, similar payments were made to similar persons. The Tribunal, while deciding the matter in connection with those assessment years, looked into the bills and, while discussing the issue, expressed its view as to the genuineness thereof. While dealing with the matters pertaining to the assessment years in respect whereof, we are concerned in these appeals, the Tribunal did not go into the facts reflected in the bills, which were produced by the appellant-assessee. This is one of the contentions, which has been highlighted before us. The other contention is, as was urged before the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), that it is not the contention of the Department that repair works, reflected in those b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ar Educational Institution v. Addl. CIT [1997] 224 ITR 310 (SC) held as follows (page 318) : "We may state that the language of section 10(22) of the Act is plain and clear and the availability of the exemption should be evaluated each year to find out whether the institution existed during the relevant year solely for educational purposes and not for purposes of profit . . . The decisive or acid test is whether on an overall view of the matter, the object is to make profits." Therefore, it may be possible that for one assessment year, an educational institution existed solely for educational purpose and the self-same institution may exist in some other financial years not solely for educational purpose. In the event for a part ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... efit him. The words "not for the purpose of profit" come after the words "existing solely for educational purpose". Because of the unexplained payment, thus made, it will be presumed that, during the relevant years, the assessee was not existing solely for educational purpose and, accordingly, the presumption will be, it was existing during the relevant years for the purpose of profit and how the money travelled to the father of the chartered accountant of the assessee reached the managers of the institution is within the special knowledge of the assessee. Despite such knowledge, if the assessee refuses to disclose the same, an adverse inference can always be taken against the assessee. We would, therefore, conclude that the Tribunal has ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the assessee under section 11 of the Act was not considered by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) for the reason he allowed the appeal by granting the benefit of section 10(22) of the Act, the Tribunal did not bother to address its mind in that regard. In the present appeal, it is being contended that it was unjust on the part of the Revenue authorities in not deciding on the merits the claim of the appellant to obtain the benefit under section 11 of the Act. We agree to the same. We, accordingly, uphold the judgment of the Tribunal in so far as the same relates to the claim for benefit under section 10(22) of the Act, but remit the matter back to the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) for consideration of the case of the appell ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
