TMI Blog2009 (2) TMI 827X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... -Trust is running a college, viz. Institute of Advanced Computer and Research, Rayagada, at : Prajukti Vihar, P.O./Distt: Rayagada, which is imparting technical education. The petitioner has got approval from different authorities for running its technical institutions. For the assessment years 2003-04 and 2004-05, the petitioner filed its returns of income before the Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, Berhampur Circle, Berhampur (O.P. No. 5) declaring the net income as 'nil'. The said returns were processed under section 143(1) of the IT Act. The petitioner has made applications to the CCIT for grant of exemption under section 10(23C)(vi ) for the assessment year 2003-04 on 19-6-2006 and for the assessment year 2004-05 on 16-9-2005. The learned CCIT-O.P. No. 3 in course of hearing of the applications for grant of exemption made query regarding payment made to Shriram Chits (P.) Ltd. amounting to ₹ 2,03,000 in assessment year 2003-04 and ₹ 5,97,760 in the assessment year 2004-05. In response to said query, the petitioner submitted his explanation before the learned CCIT. The learned CCIT on 17-7-2006 has passed an order disallowing exemption under section ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... st case can be taxed but in no circumstance, the entire receipt of the institution for these two assessment years can be taxed. It is further submitted that as per the All India Council for Technical Education Rules, the minimum infrastructure has to be provided for approved admission intake irrespective of the fact as to whether there is less or no admissions at all. With a view to bridge the gap in funds requirement, the trust has contributed to Shriram Chits Pvt. Ltd. so that the Trust can bid money to meet the funds requirement in emergency. 4. Mr. Akhila Kumar Mohapatra, learned counsel for the Revenue vehemently argues that the petitioner having violated the condition stipulated in 3rd proviso to section 10(23C)( vi) by not investing the surplus funds in accordance with provisions of section 11(5) of the IT Act is not entitled to avail exemption under section 10(23C)( vi) for the assessment years 2003-04 and 2004-05. The learned CCIT is fully justified in rejecting the petitioner's claim for exemption under section 10(23C)( vi) for these two years. Therefore, the petition is liable to be dismissed. 5. At this juncture, it is necessary to take note of the relevant pr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n a case where more than fifteen per cent of its income is accumulated on or after the 1st day of April, 2002, the period of the accumulation of the amount exceeding fifteen per cent of the income shall in no case exceed five years; and (b) does not invest or deposit its funds, other than- (i) any assets held by the fund, trust or institution or any university or other educational institution or any hospital or other medical institution where such assets form part of the corpus of the fund trust or institution or any university or other educational institution or any hospital or other medical institution as on the 1st day of June, 1973; (ia) any asset, being equity shares of a public company, held by any university or other educational institution or any hospital or other medical institution where such assets form part of the corpus of any university or other educational institution or any hospital or other medical institution as on the 1st day of June, 1998; (ii) any assets (being debentures issued by, or on behalf of, any company or corporation), acquired by the fund, trust or institution or any university or other educational institution or any hospital or ot ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ation of 3rd proviso to section 10(23C)( vi) and disentitles an applicant for grant of exemption or continuance thereof under section 10(23C)( vi) of IT Act. 8. The moot question here is whether the petitioner is entitled for grant of exemption under section 10(23C)( vi) of the IT Act. In the present case, the petitioner-Trust came into existence under a deed of trust dated 17-8-1998. The main object of the Trust is to render education in the field of science, engineering, MCA under the name and style of Institute of Advanced Computer and Research at Rayagada. The petitioner filed its return for the assessment years 2003-04 and 2004-05 declaring total income as 'nil'. The petitioner made applications for grant of exemption under section 10(23C)(vi ) for the said two assessment years. On scrutiny of the accounts, it was found that the petitioner made payments amounting to ₹ 2,03,000 in the assessment year 2003-04 and ₹ 5,97,760 in the assessment year 2004-05 to Shriram Chits Pvt. Ltd. Admittedly, the petitioner made investment in Shriram Chit Funds Pvt. Ltd. during the financial years 2003-04 and 2004-05, which is certainly not in accordance with the provis ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... clearly said. There is no room for any intendment. There is no equity about a tax. There is no presumption as to a tax. Nothing has to be read in, nothing is to be implied. One can only look fairly at the language used. In a case of reasonable doubt, the construction most beneficial to the subject is to be adopted. But even so, the fundamental rule of construction is the same for all statutes, whether fiscal or otherwise. The underlying principle is that the meaning and intention of the statute must be collected from the plain and unambiguous expression used therein rather than from any notions, which may be entertained by the Court as to what is just or expedient. The expressed intention must guide the Court. 11. Thus, while interpreting the exemption clause of a taxing statute, utmost care should be taken to give appropriate meaning to words of the statute and the same should be construed strictly. Its construction cannot be extended beyond the language used in the statute. 12. In view of the above, the petitioner is not entitled for grant of exemption under section 10(23C) of the IT Act and we do not find any infirmity in the orders passed by the learned CCIT to be inte ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
