TMI Blog2022 (3) TMI 1288X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... been reenacted as Section 10 (23C) (vi) of the Act with effect from 1st April, 1999. This is not to say that reliance is placed on the re-enacted provisions. Consequently, as far as Question No.(ii) is concerned, the Court finds nothing erroneous in the order of either the CIT (A) or the ITAT. The issue is decided in favour of the Assessee and against the Department. Approval to the Institution u/s 10(23C)(vi) - whether the income earned by the Trust was exclusively from educational activities? - HELD THAT:- Present case does not involve grant of approval by the CCIT, the general proposition in law that the word solely appearing in Section 10(23C)(vi) of the Act emphasizes that the income of the Institution has to be from activities ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of 2007 - - - Dated:- 23-3-2022 - THE CHIEF JUSTICE DR. S. MURALIDHAR And JUSTICE R. K. PATTANAIK For the Appellant : Mr. R. Chimanka, Senior Standing Counsel along with Mr. A. Kedia, Junior Standing Counsel for the Revenue Department For the Respondent : Mr. Jagabandhu Sahoo, Senior Advocate ORDER Dr. S. Muralidhar, CJ. 1. The present appeal by the Revenue is directed against an order dated 1st December, 2006 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Cuttack Bench, Cuttack (ITAT) dismissing the Revenue s IT(SS)A No.31/CTK/2001 for the Block Assessment Year (BAY) 1st April 1998 to 25th February, 1999. 2. While admitting this appeal on 20th April 2017, this Court framed the following questions of law for conside ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... AT as well as this Court, the Revenue sought to project the reliance placed on the above provision by the CIT (A) as being erroneous since the provision came into effect only on 1st April 1999 whereas the block assessment was for a period of six years up to 28th February,1999. 6. The Court notes that prior to its re-enactment as Section 10 (23C) (vi) of the Act, the very same provision existed in the statute book as Section 10 (22) of the Act. In other words, what was in fact referred to both by the Assessing Officer (AO) and the CIT (A) as far as the present case is concerned, was Section 10 (22) of the Act and not Section 10 (23C) (vi) of the Act. The latter provision was mentioned as Section 10(22)/10(23C) (vi) only to indicate that t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n its order for reversal of the assessment order of the AO. The short question that had to be addressed was whether the income earned by the Trust was exclusively from educational activities. The reasons that weighed that the CITA for coming to its conclusion were as under: (i) The Trust was created for the purposes of imparting training in computers and management education. It had received recognition from the Department of Electronics, Government of India as well as approval from the AICTE. The State Government had also granted its recognition and the Utkal University had granted affiliation to the Institutes of the Trust. (ii) It had received commendation certificates from the Government of India and one of its branches was ent ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f surmise and conjuncture and not based on any factual determination. 12. Mr. Chimanka, learned Senior Standing Counsel for the Revenue, referred to the observations in the order of the AO, but was unable to point out any serious error in the order of the CIT (A) or the ITAT. In fact the CIT (A) has discussed elaborately the materials on record including the submissions of the Revenue. Likewise, the ITAT has discussed both the submissions of the Revenue as well as the Assessee. Apart from the fact that the issue involves pure questions of fact, the Court finds that no serious legal infirmities have been pointed out in the order either of the CIT (A) or the ITAT. 13. Mr. Chimanka placed reliance on certain observations of this Court in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
