I.T.A. No. 519 of 2007 (1)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
I.T.A. No. 519 of 2007
DATE OF DECISION: 20.8.2009
Commissioner of Income Tax, Rohtak ..........Appellant
Versus
M/s Mahasabha Gurukul Vidyapeeth Haryana ..........Respondent
Bhainswal & Khanpur Kalan District Sonepat
CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL
HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE DAYA CHAUDHARY
Present:- Mr. Aman Bansal, Advocate
for the appellant.
****
ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, J. (Oral)
1. The revenue has preferred this appeal under Section 260A of
the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short, “the Act”) against the order of Income
Tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench ‘A’ dated 27.04.2007 passed in ITA
No.1422 & 1423/DEL/2004 for the assessment year 2000-01, proposing to
raise following substantial question of law:-
“Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case,
the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal has erred in law in
allowing the exemption of income of an Educational
Society, which is not notified under section 10(23C) (vi)
of the Income Tax Act, 1961?”
2. The assessee is running an educational institution and claimed
exemption under Section 11 of the Act in respect of its income. The
Assessing Officer did not accept this plea on the ground that the assessee
failed to file notification under Section 10(23C) (vi). The CIT(A) upheld the
stand of the assessee. It was observed that absence of registration under
Section 10(23C) (vi) was no bar to exemption under Section 11. This view
has been affirmed by the Tribunal relying upon the judgment of the Hon’ble
I.T.A. No. 519 of 2007 (2)
Supreme Court in CIT Vs. Bar Council of Maharashtra (1981) 130 ITR
78. It was also noticed that the assessee was duly registered under
Section 12A and exemption had been granted for the assessment years
1997-98, 1998-99 and 2002-03.
3. It is patent that the assessee has been granted exemption
before the assessment year in question as well as after the assessment
year in question.
4. Only contention put forward by the learned counsel for the
revenue is that conditions of Section 10(23C) (vi) having not been complied
with, exemption could not be granted under Section 11. He relies upon the
judgment of Hon’ble the Apex Court in American Hotel and Lodging
Association Educational Institute Vs. Central Board of Direct Taxes
and others (2008) 301 ITR 86.
5. We do not find any merit in the submission. Once it is held
that all requisite conditions for exemption under Section 11 have been met,
even if conditions under Section 10 (23C) (vi) have not been complied with,
there will be no bar to seek exemption under Section 11. The judgment
relied upon has no application to the present case as therein the question
was as to the scope of enquiry under Section 10 (23C) (vi) read with 3rd
proviso thereto. The view taken in Bar Council of Maharashtra (supra) is
not shown to have been affected. The CIT (A) as well as the Tribunal
have categorically held that all conditions of Section 11 were fulfilled and
judgment in Bar Council of Maharashtra was applicable We are, thus,
unable to hold that any substantial question of law arises.
6. The appeal is dismissed.
(ADARSH KUMAR GOEL)
JUDGE
August 20, 2009 (DAYA CHAUDHARY)
pooja JUDGE
I.T.A. No. 519 of 2007 (3)
Note:-Whether this case is to be referred to the Reporter …….Yes/No