TMI Blog2011 (9) TMI 950X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tional Institution Vs. CBDT and the case of Pinegrove International charitable Trust Vs. UOl and others which were distinguishable on facts. 4. That, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) is not justified in not correctly appreciating the profit motive of the assessee as illustrated in the case of Surat Art Silk cloth Manufacturers Association. 5. That, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) is not justified in treating the activity of the assessee-trust to derive income out of educational activity as a charitable activity. 6. That, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) is not justified in holding that the issue of capitation fees/profiteering as defined by the Apex court in the case of T.M.A Pai Foundation and OPEl Act, 2007 was not applicable to the case of the assessee. The fact that the assessee collected the entire course fee in one year is covered by the definition of capitation fees as per the OPEl Act,2007. 7. That, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) is not justified in holding that to arrive at profit of the assessee, capital expenditure is also to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hed on 21.7.1999. It was registered u/s.12A of the I.T.Act also. The assessee runs an educational institution and the same is affiliated to Utkal University(UU) and affiliated to Biju Patnaik University of Technology (BPUT) with effect from 2003. All the courses are approved by All India Council for Technical Education (AICTE), Ministry of Human Resource Development, Government of India, New Delhi. 6. During the Assessment Year under consideration, the assesse has derived income of ₹7,59,27,745 and applied the income wholly for charitable purpose. The trust, during the assessment year 2007-08, applied ₹ 7,10,06,099 for charitable purpose. Considering the 15% accumulation of income amounting to ₹ 1,13.89,62, the total application of income works out to ₹ 8,23,95,261. Therefore the total income applied for the charitable purpose is more than the income derived by ₹ 64,67.516. 7. The assesse trust was established on 21.7.1999 with a prime object of providing technical education and the object of the trust is described in the trust deed and the assessee was formed. To attain its objects, the assessee runs an institution in the name and style as SILIC ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to study in the institute. This increase trend indicates that the demand is increased every year in the cut of rank in Orissa JEE rank is reduced substantially thereby indicating the preference for the institute. The fee income is disclosed every year to the approving authority, AICTE through Compliance Report and Mandatory Disclosure. The tuition fee of the institute was calculated and fixed by the institute till the academic year 2006-07 and from academic year 2007-08 the tuition fee is fixed by Govt. of Orissa by gazette notification as recommended by the Fee Structure Committee. Up to academic year 2006-07 the tuition fee was fixed based on the various guideline issued by AICTE and the direction of the Honorable Supreme Court of India. As can be seen from the norms issued by the ACITE for fixing up the fee it is evident that an educational institution with AICTE affiliation can collect fees to upkeep and maintain the capital cost of the institution. The said guidelines also contemplates for carrying out random visit of AICTE round the year anytime for verifying the status of the institutions to ensure maintenance of norms and standards prescribed by it. 9. During the Assess ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the assessee was having deficit after application of income for charitable purposes and accordingly deleted the addition of surplus as per income expenditure account and three other additions made by the Assessing Officer. 12. Aggrieved by this order of the learned CIT(A), Revenue has filed the present appeal whereas the assessee has filed the Cross objection supporting the order of the learned CIT(A). 13. During the course of hearing the learned DR has vehemently argued supporting the order passed by the Assessing Officer and assailing the order passed by the learned CIT(A) contending inter alia that the assessee is carrying on literally a business in education in the guise of trust and education institution which is evident from the huge amount of collection made by it as tuition fees from students and investing huge amounts under construction of buildings and thereby the stand taken by the Assessing Officer that the assessee is not a charitable institution and thereby not entitled to benefit u/s.11 is very much correct. The order of the learned CIT(A) not agreeing with the Assessing Officer‟s order is not sustainable for legal scrutiny more so in the light of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... much right having been in accordance with the ratios laid down by various judicial pronouncement which are relied on by the learned CIT(A). Hence, the said order of the learned CIT(A) is not infirm in any way requiring any interference. Apart from that in the case of Income-tax Officer v. M/s.Human Resource Development Management Trust (ASBM Trust) in ITA No.127/CTK/2011 and C.O.No.14/CTK/2011 vide order dt.29.07.2011, on facts as well as the legal aspects similar to the instant case , the ITAT, Cuttack Bench has agreed to the view of the learned CIT(A) who has followed the same judicial pronouncements that are followed in the present appeal. Therefore, in a way the issues in the present appeal are covered by the said order of the Tribunal. Accordingly, he sought for upholding the impugned order of the learned CIT(A) by dismissing the appeal of the Revenue and allowing Cross objection, filed by the assessee in support of the impugned order of the learned CIT(A). 15. On careful analysis of the orders passed by the Departmental Authorities in the light of rival submissions as well as the judicial pronouncements relied on by both the parties, we find that the Assessing Officer w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the assessee is not maintaining any separate books of account for all these things. Therefore, the Assessing Officer has taken this as a ground for disallowing the claim of exemption/s.11.He has also taken the aspect of purchasing the vehicles amounting to ₹7.2 lakhs by the assessee for transportation , has come to the conclusion that the assessee has spent all these amounts and the activities are in contravention of Section 13 of the I.T.Act. Thus observing the Assessing Officer has found that the taxable income in the hands of the assessee is at ₹3,06,53,368 consisting income over expenditure disclosed in the income expenditure account and income diverted to capital funds and capital expenses and depreciation claimed by the assessee. 16. While passing the impugned order, the learned CIT(A) has thread bare considered each and every aspects of the assessment order, wherein the Assessing Officer has noted various angles in which the assessee s claim were negatived by him and after considering majority of the judicial pronouncement as mentioned in the impugned order, he found that the judicial pronouncement relied on by the Assessing Officer are of the minority view ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e entitled for exemption/s.11 of the I.T.Act and the view of the Assessing Officer that there is contravention of Section 13 of the I.T.Act is found to be baseless by the CIT(A) after thread bare considering all the relevant facts. On the overall consideration of the impugned orders, we found that the order of the learned CIT(A) is in accordance of the majority views of judicial pronouncements that were rendered by various judicial forums stated in the impugned order. Hence, we find no infirmity in the order of the learned CIT(A) requiring no interference. Apart from that Hon‟ble Apex Court while considering the acceptance of the CIT(A)'s order by the Tribunal in the case of CIT v. K. Y. Pilliah And Sons (63 ITR 411), has held that the Income tax Appellate Tribunal is the final fact finding authority and normally it should record its conclusion on every disputed question raised before it, setting out its reasons in support of its conclusion. But, in failing to record reasons, when the Appellate Tribunal fully agrees with the view expressed by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner and has no other ground to record in support of its conclusion, it does not act illegally or i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
