TMI Blog2017 (6) TMI 10X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . The assessee has been running three schools that are affiliated to CBSE and admittedly, this would not have been permissible in case the assessee did not exist solely for educational purposes and/or if the assessee was found to be pursuing the profit motive. The surpluses generated by the assessee were necessarily to be applied towards its charitable objects and, therefore, in view of the aforesaid, exemption cannot be denied by the assessee only for the reason that it had been generating surpluses. The fact that certain advances had been made to Col. Satsangi and some of his family members who were also involved in running the school cannot be construed as diluting the predominant object of the assessee which was managing schools and th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ral Circle-11, New Delhi. The regular assessment for assessment year 1999-2000 was made on 27.03.2002 on a total income of ₹ 1,57,48,783/-. In this assessment, the claim of the assessee for exemption u/s 10(23C)(vi) was denied. Against the assessment order, the assessee went in appeal and the CIT(A)-1 in Appeal No. 113/02-03, vide his order dated 10.07.2003, partially allowed the assessee's appeal. Against the order of the CIT(A), both the assessee and department filed appeals before the ITAT. Subsequently, the cases of the group were decentralized and the case of the above assessee was transferred to DDIT(Exemption), Investigation Circle-I, Delhi. The ITAT restored the assessment to the file of the Assessing Officer for fresh adj ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... aised the following grounds of appeal:- 1. That the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred on facts and in law in upholding the assessment order dated 31.12.2010, passed by the assessing officer under section 143(3) of the Act, without appreciating that the same having been passed without affording adequate opportunity of being heard to the appellant, is violative of the principles of natural justice and is, therefore, illegal and bad in law. 2. That the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred on facts and in law in upholding the action of the assessing officer, holding that the appellant is not eligible for exemption under section 10(23C)(vi) of the Act on the basis of rejection order dated 29.12.2010 passed by the DGIT ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n of the assessing officer in levying interests under sections 234A and 234B of the Act. The appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend or vary from the aforesaid grounds of appeal before or at the time of hearing. 6. At the outset, the ld. AR submitted that the Hon ble Delhi High Court in a writ petition filed by the assessee in Director of Income Tax (Exemption) vs All India Personality Enhancement Cultural Centre for Scholars (AIPECSS) 379 ITR 464 (Del) has set aside the order dated 29th December 2010 passed by the DGIT(E) dismissing the assessee s application for approval u/s 10 (23C) (vi) and has restored the same to the file of the DGIT(E) for considering the application afresh in light of the observations contained in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... haritable objects and, therefore, in view of the aforesaid, exemption cannot be denied by the assessee only for the reason that it had been generating surpluses. In para 73, the Hon'ble Delhi High Court has further observed that the activities of the assessee must be viewed in the overall perspective of its nature and its principal object and it was not disputed that the surpluses generated by the assessee could not be distributed to its members and there was also no allegation that funds of the assessee had been so distributed. The Hon'ble High Court further observed that the fact that certain advances had been made to Col. Satsangi and some of his family members who were also involved in running the school cannot be construed as d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
