NAVRATAN VIDHYA MANDIR SHIKSHA SAMITI, Jaipur v. CIT-EXEMPTION, Jaipur

ITA 388/JPR/2016 | 2015-2016
Pronouncement Date: 28-09-2016 | Result: Allowed

Appeal Details

RSA Number 38823114 RSA 2016
Assessee PAN AABAN1164A
Bench Jaipur
Appeal Number ITA 388/JPR/2016
Duration Of Justice 5 month(s) 15 day(s)
Appellant NAVRATAN VIDHYA MANDIR SHIKSHA SAMITI, Jaipur
Respondent CIT-EXEMPTION, Jaipur
Appeal Type Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date 28-09-2016
Appeal Filed By Assessee
Order Result Allowed
Bench Allotted Not Allotted
Tribunal Order Date 28-09-2016
Assessment Year 2015-2016
Appeal Filed On 12-04-2016
Judgment Text
VK;DJ VIHYH; VF/KDJ.K] T;IQJ U;K;IHB] T;IQJ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL JAIPUR BENCHE S JAIPUR JH DQY HKKJR] U;KF;D LNL; OA JH FOE FLAG ;KNO] YS [KK LNL; DS LE{K BEFORE: SHRI KUL BHARAT JM & SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YAD AV AM VK;DJ VIHY LA-@ ITA NO. 388/JP/2016 FU/KZKJ.K O'K Z@ ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2015-16 ONWARDS. M/S. NAVRATAN VIDHYA MANDIR SHIKSHA SAMITI D-103 NEAR WATER TANK SHEKHAWATI CIRCLE AMBABARI JAIPUR. CUKE VS. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS) JAIPUR. LFKK;H YS[KK LA-@THVKBZVKJ LA-@ PAN NO. AABAN 1164 A VIHYKFKHZ@ APPELLANT IZR;FKHZ@ RESPONDENT FU/KZKFJRH DH VKSJ LS@ ASSESSEE BY : SHRI P.C. PARWAL (C.A) JKTLO DH VKSJ LS@ REVENUE BY : SHRI B.K. GUPTA (CIT) LQUOKBZ DH RKJH[K@ DATE OF HEARING : 23.09.2016. ?KKS'K .KK DH RKJH[K@ DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 28/09/2016. VKNS'K@ ORDER PER SHRI KUL BHARAT JM. THE APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF LD. CIT (EXEMPTIONS) JAIPUR DATED 15.02.2016 PERTAINING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2015-16 AND ONWARDS. THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROU NDS OF APPEAL :- THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION S) JAIPUR HAS ERRED ON FACTS AND IN LAW IN REFUSING THE APPROVAL OF EXEMPTION TO THE ASSESSEE U/S 10(23C)(VI) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT 196 1 BY HOLDING THAT ASSESSEE HAS BEEN CONSTITUTED NOT FOR SOLE AND EXCL USIVE PURPOSE OF EDUCATION AND IT HAS PAID INCOME TO CERTAIN SPECIFI ED PERSONS WITH THE SOLE MOTIVE OF BENEFIT TO THE TRUSTEES OF THE SOCIE TY. 2. BRIEFLY STATED THE FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT TH E ASSESSEE FILED AN APPLICATION IN FORM 56D IN THE OFFICE OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOM E TAX (EXEMPTIONS) JAIPUR ON 03.02.2015. THE SAID APPLICATION WAS REJECTED BY T HE LD. CIT (EXEMPTIONS) ON THE 2 ITA NO. 388/JP/2016 NAVRATAN VIDHYA MANDIR SHIKSHA SAMITI BASIS THAT THE OBJECT OF THE SOCIETY IS NOT SOLELY FOR THE PURPOSE OF EDUCATION AND THE BENEFIT TO THE SPECIFIED PERSON IS GIVEN. THE ASSE SSEE AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER FILED THE PRESENT APPEAL BEFORE US. 3. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED THE W RITTEN BRIEF. THE CONTENTION OF THE LD. COUNSEL AS MADE IN THE WRITTEN BRIEF ARE AS UNDER :- FACTS : 1) THE ASSESSEE SOCIETY CONSTITUTED IN THE YEAR 1973 I S REGISTERED WITH THE REGISTRAR OF SOCIETIES JAIPUR VIDE REGISTRATION CERTIFICATE NO. 192/1973-74 DT. 23.12.1973 (PB 1) WITH THE OBJECT OF IMPARTING EDUCATION. IN PURSUAN CE TO THE SAID OBJECT THE SOCIETY IS RUNNING AN EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTION NAMEL Y CENTRAL ACADEMY AT AMBABARI JAIPUR WHICH IS AFFILIATED TO CBSE NEW D ELHI. COPY OF THE CONSTITUTION OF THE SOCIETY IS AT PB 2-10 . THE SOCIETY IS ALSO REGISTERED U/S 12AA OF THE IT ACT 1961 W.E.F. 04.04.2007 VIDE REGISTRA TION CERTIFICATE DT. 23.03.2009 (PB 11) . THE ASSESSEE MOVED AN APPLICATION ON 03.02.2015 F OR APPROVAL U/S 10(23C)(VI) OF THE IT ACT. 2) THE CIT ON PERUSAL OF OBJECT CLAUSES OF THE ASSESSE E (AS MENTIONED AT PAGE 2-3 OF THE ORDER) (PB 2-4) OBSERVED THAT THERE ARE 18 DISTINCT INDEPENDENT A ND DISTRIBUTIVE OBJECTS OF THE SOCIETY. THESE OBJECTS (EXCEPT OBJECT AT S.NO. 12 AND 13) ARE SO WORDED THAT THEY APPEAR INCIDENTAL TO TH E MAIN OBJECT BUT THE OBJECT AT S.NO. 12 AND 13 THOUGH CHARITABLE AND PHILANTHROPIC IN NATURE IS NOT SOLELY EXCLUSIVELY AND STRICTLY FOR EDUCATIONAL PURPOSE AS ENVISAGED U/S 10(23C)(VI) OF THE ACT. THE CIT THUS VIDE HIS LETTER DT. 11.01.2 016 (PB 16-17) REQUIRED THE ASSESSEE TO SHOW CAUSE AS TO WHY ITS APPLICATION FO R EXEMPTION U/S 10(23C)(VI) SHOULD NOT BE REJECTED. IN RESPONSE TO THE SAME TH E ASSESSEE VIDE ITS LETTER DT. 27.01.2016 (PB 19-21) SUBMITTED THAT THE OBJECTS AT S.NO. 12 AND 13 ARE CHARITABLE IN NATURE BUT NO ACTIVITY UNDER THESE CL AUSES HAS BEEN UNDERTAKEN BY IT AND ITS PRIMARY OBJECT IS EDUCATION AND OTHER OBJEC TS WHICH BY ITSELF MAY NOT BE EDUCATIONAL BUT ARE INCIDENTAL TO THE PRIMARY OBJEC T. THE CIT HOWEVER HELD THAT THE OBJECTS AT S.NO. 12 AND 13 ARE NOT RELATED TO T HE EDUCATIONAL ACTIVITIES AS ADMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE ITSELF AND THE LANGUAGE OF THE OBJECTS CLEARLY SPEAKS THAT THESE ARE NEITHER ANCILLARY NOR INCIDENTAL TO THE P RIMARY OBJECT. BY PLACING RELIANCE IN CASE OF SOLE TRUSTEE SIKSHAN TRUST VS. CIT 101 I TR 234 (SC) MAHARAJA SINGH MUSEUM TRUST 169 ITR 379 (RAJ.) CBDT INSTRUCTION D T. 29.10.1977 AND FEW OTHER CASES AS MENTIONED AT PAGE 5 OF THE ORDER TH E CIT CONCLUDED THAT IF THERE ARE SEVERAL OBJECTS OF THE TRUST SOME OF WHICH ARE TOW ARDS EDUCATION AND SOME ARE FOR NON EDUCATION AND THE TRUSTEES HAVE UNFETTER DISCRE TION TO APPLY THE INCOME TO ANY OF THE OBJECTS THE WHOLE TRUST WOULD FAIL AND NO P ART OF THE INCOME CAN BE EXEMPT FROM TAX. 3 ITA NO. 388/JP/2016 NAVRATAN VIDHYA MANDIR SHIKSHA SAMITI 3) THE CIT FURTHER ON PERUSAL OF THE LEDGER ACCOUNT OF SOCIAL WELFARE EXPENSES OBSERVED THAT ON 11.04.2012 THERE IS AN ENTRY AS DELHI TICKET OF SIRS DAUGHTER WHICH SHOWS THAT THE TRUSTEES OF THE SAMITI HAS DER IVED UNDUE BENEFIT FROM THE FUNDS OF THE TRUST. THE ASSESSEE VIDE ITS LETTER DT . 27.01.2016 (PB 19-20) SUBMITTED THAT THE TICKET FOR DAUGHTER OF THE SECRETARY WAS M ADE AVAILABLE FROM SCHOOL FOR WHICH THE AMOUNT WAS TAKEN BACK AND CREDITED IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS. THE CIT HOWEVER HELD THAT ASSESSEE HAS NOT FILED ANY EVIDE NCES IN SUPPORT OF ITS CONTENTION AND THUS THE SOCIETYS MONEY IS USED BY THE PERSON SPECIFIED U/S 13(3) OF THE ACT. IN VIEW OF ABOVE THE CIT REJECTED THE APPLICATION FILED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR GRANT OF APPROVAL OF EXEMPTION U/S 10(23C)(VI) OF THE IT ACT . SUBMISSION:- 1) IT IS SUBMITTED THAT CIT HAS REJECTED THE APPLICATI ON FOR APPROVAL U/S 10(23C)(VI) FOR TWO REASONS. FIRST IS THAT OBJECT CLAUSE 12 AND 13 DO NOT RELATE TO EDUCATION AND SECONDLY THAT CERTAIN AMOUNT ON ACCOUNT OF TRAVEL E XPENSES HAS BEEN EXPENDED FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE RELATIVE OF THE TRUSTEE. SO FAR AS THE FIRST REASON IS CONCERNED MERELY BECAUSE ASSESSEE HAS OBJECTS OTHER THAN EDUC ATION BUT THOSE OTHER OBJECTS WERE NEVER CARRIED OUT BY IT WOULD NOT MEAN THAT AS SESSEE WAS NOT EXISTING SOLELY FOR EDUCATIONAL PURPOSES AND THUS NOT ENTITLED TO EXEMPTION U/S 10(23C)(VI). IN THIS CONNECTION RELIANCE IS PLACED ON THE FOLLOWIN G CASES:- NEERAJ JANHITKARI GRAMIN SEWA SANSTHAN VS. CCIT & O RS. (2014) 360 ITR 168 (ALL.) (HC) ASSESSEE SOCIETY ENGAGED IN RUNNING CO-EDUCATIONAL DEGREE COLLEGE APPLIED FOR APPROVAL U/S 10(23)(VI)CIT REJECTED APPLICATION AS NOT MAINTAINABLE SAME HAVING BEEN FILED BY SOCIETY INSTEAD OF EDUCATIONAL INSTIT UTIONCIT OPINED APPROVAL IS AVAILABLE TO EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTION EXISTING SOLEL Y FOR PURPOSE OF IMPARTING EDUCATIONCIT FOUND THAT MEMORANDUM OF SOCIETY STIP ULATED OTHER OBJECTS AS WELL HELD SUPREME COURT IN ADITANAR EDUCATIONAL INSTITU TION V. ADDITIONAL CIT HELD SOCIETY OR TRUST OR OTHER SIMILAR BODY RUNNING EDUC ATIONAL INSTITUTIONS SOLELY FOR EDUCATIONAL PURPOSES HAVING OVERALL OBJECT OF NOT T O MAKE ANY PROFIT CAN BE REGARDED AS OTHER EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTIONAPPLICATION BY A SSESSEE SOCIETY CANNOT BE REJECTED ON GROUND IT IS NOT AT INSTANCE OF EDUCATI ONAL INSTITUTIONIN PRESENT CASE THERE IS FINDING THAT SOCIETY IS HAVING MANY OBJECT S OTHER THAN EDUCATIONALNO APPLICATION OF MIND TO ASSERTION MADE BY SOCIETY TH AT IT IS ONLY PURSUING EDUCATIONAL ACTIVITY AND NO OTHERIN VIEW DECISION IN CASE OF C .P. VIDYA NIKETAN INTER COLLEGE SHIKSHAN SOCIETY IN CASE SOCIETY IS PURSUING ONLY EDUCATIONAL OBJECTS AND NO OTHER ACTIVITY APPLICATION BY SUCH SOCIETY FOR GRANT OF APPROVAL U/S 10(23C) (VI) CANNOT BE REJECTED ON GROUND THAT ITS AIMS AND OBJECTS CONTAI N SEVERAL OTHER OBJECTS APART FROM EDUCATIONAL GEETANJALI EDUCATION SOCIETY VS. ADIT (2014) 101 DT R 337 (KAR.) (HC) EXCEPT FOR CONDUCTING SCHOOL ASSESSEE SOCIETY DID NOT CARRY ON ANY OTHER ACTIVITIES RIGHT FROM INCEPTION ASSESSEE SOCIETY DI D NOT/IS NOT INVOLVED IN ACTIVITIES 4 ITA NO. 388/JP/2016 NAVRATAN VIDHYA MANDIR SHIKSHA SAMITI REFLECTED IN CLAUSES OF MEMORANDUM OF ASSOCIATION WHICH ARE NOT RELATED TO EDUCATION. AO WHILE CONSIDERING THE CASE HAS TO CL OSELY ANALYSE ACTIVITIES OF INSTITUTE OBJECTS OF INSTITUTE ITS SOURCES OF INCOME AND UTI LIZATION. THERE ARE ADEQUATE SAFEGUARDS THAT IF ACTIVITIES OTHER THAN EDUCATIONA L ACTIVITIES ARE UNDERTAKEN BY SOCIETY EXEMPTION GRANTED CAN BE WITHDRAWN. MERELY BECAUSE THERE EXISTS OBJECT WHICH IS NOT RELATED TO EDUCATIONAL ACTIVITIES IS NOT SUFFI CIENT TO DENY EXEMPTION/BENEFIT OF SECTION 10(23C)(IIIAD). DIGEMBER JAIN SOCIETY FOR CHILD WELFARE VS. DGIT (2 010) 329 ITR 0459 (DEL.) (HC) PETITIONER-SOCIETY HAVING BEEN FORMED MAINLY WITH T HE OBJECTIVE OF CARRYING OUT EDUCATIONAL ACTIVITY WITHOUT ANY PROFIT MOTIVE AND SOLELY CARRYING ON THE ACTIVITY OF RUNNING VARIOUS SCHOOLS IT IS ENTITLED TO CONTINUA TION OF EXEMPTION UNDER S. 10(23C)(VI) DESPITE THE FACT THAT IT HAS MULTIPLE O BJECTS INCLUDING NON-EDUCATIONAL OBJECTS. ITO VS. SHRI BALAJI PREM ASHRAM & NIKHIL VIDYALAYA (2016) 156 ITD 479 (CHD.) (TRIB.) ASSESSEE SOCIETY WAS RUNNING A SCHOOL AND ITS RECEI PTS FROM SAID ACTIVITY WERE BELOW RS.1 CRORES. ASSESSEE FILED ITS RETURN CLAIMI NG EXEMPTION U/S 10(23C)(IIIAD). AO REJECTED ASSESSEES CLAIM ON THE GROUND THAT OBJ ECTS OF ASSESSEE SOCIETY WERE NOT CONFINED TO ADVANCEMENT OF EDUCATION ALONE. IT WAS HELD THAT SINCE ASSESSEE WAS CARRYING ON SOLE ACTIVITY OF EDUCATION DURING RELEV ANT YEAR EXEMPTION COULD NOT BE DENIED TO IT ON BASIS THAT IT HAD OTHER OBJECTS ALS O IN ITS TRUST DEED. HENCE ASSESSEES CLAIM FOR EXEMPTION WAS TO BE ALLOWED. SARASWATI EDUCATIONAL & WELFARE SOCIETY (REGD.) (20 15) 152 ITD 527 (CHAND.) (TRIB) THOUGH THE AIMS AND OBJECTS OF THE ASSESSEE REFLECT S THAT IT AIMS TO ENGAGE ITSELF IN VARIOUS TYPES OF CHARITABLE ACTIVITIES BUT IT H AD ENGAGED ITSELF SOLELY FOR THE PURPOSE OF RUNNING THE EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTE. THUS WHERE T HE ASSESSEE HAD SOLELY ENGAGED IN ENGAGING ITSELF AND PROVIDING EDUCATION THROUGH ITS NURSING INSTITUTE TO GIRLS STUDENTS AND WHERE THE ANNUAL RECEIPTS OF THE SAID INSTITUTE WERE LESS THAN THE PRESCRIBED LIMIT THE ASSESSEE IS ENTITLED TO BENEFIT OF EXEMPTION U/ S 10(23C)(IIIAD) OF ACT. 2) IT IS SUBMITTED THAT OBJECT NO. 12 AND 13 ARE ALSO INCIDENTAL TO THE EDUCATIONAL ACTIVITIES IN AS MUCH AS EDUCATION INSTITUTIONS AS A PART OF THEIR RESPONSIBILITY TOWARDS THE SOCIETY AND THE STUDENTS ARE TO ARRANGE BLOOD CAMPS MEDICAL CAMPS SEND STUDENTS FOR PROVIDING SERVICES IN THE HOSPITA LS AS A PART OF THEIR OVERALL DEVELOPMENT CONDUCT ANNUAL FUNCTIONS CULTURAL FUN CTIONS CELEBRATE INDEPENDENCE/REPUBLIC DAY ETC. THEREFORE THESE OBJ ECTS CANNOT BE SEEN AS DIVORCED FROM THE EDUCATIONAL PURPOSES AND THUS FOR THIS REASON IT CANNOT BE HELD THAT ASSESSEE IS NOT EXISTING SOLELY FOR EDUCATION. 5 ITA NO. 388/JP/2016 NAVRATAN VIDHYA MANDIR SHIKSHA SAMITI 3) THE LD. CIT IN HIS ORDER HAS RELIED ON THE DECISION OF THE SUPREME COURT IN CASE OF SOLE TRUSTEE SIKSHAN TRUST VS. CIT101 ITR 234 AN D THE RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT DECISION IN CASE OF MAHARAJA SINGH MUSEUM TRUST 169 ITR 379. IT IS SUBMITTED THAT THE RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT DECISION IN CASE OF M AHARAJA SINGH MUSEUM TRUST 169 ITR 379 HAS BEEN DISTINGUISHED BY GUJARAT HIGH COURT IN CASE OF GUJARAT STATE CO-OPERATIVE UNION VS. CIT 195 ITR 279 IN PAR A 7 AS UNDER:- IT IS SEEN FROM DECISION IN CASE OF MAHARAJA SINGH MUSEUM TRUST 169 ITR 379 (RAJ.) THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS A PUBLIC CHARI TABLE TRUST HAVING A MUSEUM IN A PORTION OF THE CITY PALACE JAIPUR FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE PUBLIC. SOME PROPERTIES WERE SETTLED ON THE TRUST AND IT WA S TREATED AND ACCEPTED AS A TRUST FOR CHARITABLE PURPOSES WITHIN THE MEANING OF S. 2(15) AND HAD ENJOYED THE EXEMPTION FROM TAX U/S 11 OF THE SAID ACT. THE ASSESSEE LATER ON CONTENDED THAT IT WAS AN EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTION WITHIN THE M EANING OF S.10(22) OF THE ACT. IT IS IN THIS CONTEXT THAT DRAWING UPON THE OBSERVA TIONS OF THE SUPREME COURT IN LOK SHIKSHANA TRUST'S CASE IN WHICH THE SUPREME COURT INDICATED THAT THE WORD EDUCATION' WAS NOT USED IN A WIDE OR EXTENDED SENSE SO AS TO INCLUDE ADDITION TO THE KNOWLEDGE OF A VISITOR TO A ZOO OR MUSEUM THE HIGH COURT HELD THAT THE MUSEUM CANNOT BE TAKEN TO BE AN EDUCATIONA L INSTITUTION EXISTING SOLELY FOR EDUCATIONAL PURPOSES. THE SAID DECISION THEREFORE CANNOT HELD THE REVENUE SINCE IN THE PRESENT CASE WE HAVE FOUND TH AT ASSESSEE HAVING REGARD TO ITS OBJECTS AND NATURE OF ITS ACTIVITIES IS CLE ARLY AN EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTION EXISTING SOLELY FOR EDUCATIONAL PURPOSES. FROM THE ABOVE DISCUSSION IT CAN BE NOTED THAT THE DECISION OF SUPREME COURT AND RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT RELIED BY CIT ARE IN DIFFE RENT CONTEXT AND THE FACTS AND HENCE NOT APPLICABLE. 4) THE LD. CIT HAS ALSO RELIED ON THE DECISION OF MADR AS HIGH COURT IN 213 ITR 733 AP HIGH COURT IN 339 ITR 333 AND 332 ITR 611 AND OR ISSA HIGH COURT IN 66 DTR 169 TO THE PROPOSITION THAT WHERE THE INSTITUTI ON IS HAVING OBJECTS OTHER THAN EDUCATION IT IS NOT ENTITLED TO EXEMPTION. THE DEC ISION OF MADRAS HIGH COURT IN 213 ITR 733 IS IN CONTEXT OF SECTION 80G WHERE IT W AS HELD THAT IF A TRUST IS HAVING BOTH CHARITABLE AND RELIGIOUS OBJECT THEN IT WOULD NOT BE ENTITLED FOR GRANT OF REGISTRATION U/S 80G AS NOT ONLY THE ACTUAL USER BU T LIKELY USER WOULD BE RELEVANT FOR GRANTING REGISTRATION U/S 80G. THE DECISION OF AP HIGH COURT IN 339 ITR 333 AND 332 ITR 611 IS CONSIDERED BY THE SAME HIGH COUR T IN CIT VS. VIJAYA VANI EDUCATIONAL TRUST 349 ITR 0280 WHERE IT WAS HELD TH AT IF PRIMARY OR DOMINANT PURPOSE OF A TRUST IS CHARITABLE ANOTHER OBJECT WH ICH BY ITSELF MAY NOT BE CHARITABLE BUT WHICH IS MERELY ANCILLARY OR INCIDEN TAL TO PRIMARY OR DOMINANT PURPOSE WOULD NOT PREVENT THE TRUST FROM BEING A VA LID CHARITY. ACCORDINGLY ASSESSEE RUNNING EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTIONS AND TO AI D SPREADING OF EDUCATION AND UPDATE SYLLABUS AND OTHER RELATED EDUCATIONAL ASPEC TS ASSESSEE OR THEIR SISTER CONCERN WHEN STARTED TWO MAGAZINES THEY ARE INCIDE NTAL AND ANCILLARY TO THE MAIN ACTIVITIES OF THE TRUST AND THEREFORE IT IS ENTITLE D TO BENEFIT U/S 11. IN 66 DTR 169 THE APPROVAL IS REFUSED BY THE PRESCRIBED AUTHORITY ON THE GROUND THAT PETITIONER- INSTITUTION INVESTED SURPLUS FUNDS IN SHARE MARKET A VERY LARGE AMOUNT OF MONEY HAS BEEN SPENT FOR THE PURPOSE OTHER THAN EDUCATION A SIGNIFICANT AMOUNT OF 6 ITA NO. 388/JP/2016 NAVRATAN VIDHYA MANDIR SHIKSHA SAMITI RECEIPT AND EXPENDITURE ARE RELATED TO THE BUSINESS OF THE INSTITUTION WHICH IS NOT INCIDENTAL TO EDUCATION AND FOR WHICH NO SEPARATE B OOKS OF ACCOUNT ARE MAINTAINED. THEREFORE ALL THESE DECISIONS RELIED B Y CIT ARE DISTINGUISHABLE ON FACTS. OTHERWISE ALSO IF THERE ARE TWO VIEWS POSSI BLE THE VIEW WHICH FAVOURS THE ASSESSEE SHOULD BE ADOPTED AS HELD BY SUPREME COURT IN CASE OF CIT VS. VEGETABLE PRODUCTS LTD. 88 ITR 192 . 5) THE SECOND REASON GIVEN BY THE CIT IS THAT ASSESSEE HAS INCURRED EXPENDITURE ON DELHI TICKET OF THE DAUGHTER OF THE TRUSTEES ON 11. 04.2012. THE AMOUNT INVOLVED IS RS. 800/- ONLY. CONSIDERING SUCH MEAGER AMOUNT IT CANNOT BE SAID THAT IT HAS RESULTED INTO UNDUE BENEFIT OF THE FUNDS OF THE SOC IETY TO THE TRUSTEES. FURTHER THE ASSESSEE HAS SOUGHT THE APPROVAL U/S 10(23C)(VI) FR OM A.Y. 15-16 AND ONWARDS AND THIS EXPENDITURE PERTAIN TO THE EARLIER YEAR. T HE RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT IN CASE OF COSMOPOLITAN EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY 244 ITR 49 4 HAS HELD IF THERE WAS ANY MISUTILISATION OR MISMANAGEMENT ACTION COULD B E TAKEN AGAINST THE MANAGEMENT OF THE SOCIETY BUT IT IS NOT POSSIBLE TO SAY THAT ANY AMOUNT OF THE FUNDS OF THE SOCIETY WAS NOT UTILIZED FOR EDUCATION AL PURPOSE AND FOR THAT REASON EXEMPTION U/S 10(22) CANNOT BE DENIED. THE SLP FILE D BY THE DEPARTMENT AGAINST THIS ORDER IS DISMISSED BY THE SUPREME COURT REPORT ED IN 241 ITR (ST) 132. THEREFORE THIS CANNOT BE A REASON FOR DENYING APPR OVAL U/S 10(23C)(VI). IN VIEW OF ABOVE THE CIT BE DIRECTED TO GRANT APPR OVAL TO THE ASSESSEE U/S 10(23C)(VI). 3.1. HOWEVER THE LD. CIT D/R SUPPORTED THE ORDER O F LD. CIT (EXEMPTIONS) AND SUBMITTED THAT THE REQUIREMENT FOR REGISTRATION UND ER SECTION 10(23C) IS THE OBJECT SOLELY FOR THE PURPOSE OF EDUCATION. 3.2. WE HAVE HEARD RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUSED TH E MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE IS THAT OBJE CT NOS. 12 & 13 OF AMENDED CONSTITUTION ARE ALSO INCIDENTAL TO THE EDUCATIONAL ACTIVITIES IN AS MUCH AS EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTIONS AS A PART OF THEIR RESPONS IBILITY TOWARDS THE SOCIETY AND THE STUDENTS ARE TO ARRANGE BLOOD DONATION CAMPS MEDIC AL CAMPS SEND STUDENTS FOR PROVIDING SERVICES IN THE HOSPITALS AS A PART OF TH EIR OVERALL DEVELOPMENT CONDUCT ANNUAL FUNCTIONS CULTURAL FUNCTIONS CELEBRATE IND EPENDENCE/REPUBLIC DAY ETC. THEREFORE THESE OBJECTS CANNOT BE SEEN AS DIVORCED FROM THE EDUCATIONAL PURPOSES 7 ITA NO. 388/JP/2016 NAVRATAN VIDHYA MANDIR SHIKSHA SAMITI AND THUS FOR THIS REASON IT CANNOT BE HELD THAT ASS ESSEE IS NOT EXISTING SOLELY FOR EDUCATION. THEREFORE IT CAN BE SAFELY INFERRED THA T THE MAIN OBJECTS OF THE SOCIETY IS EDUCATION. THE JUDGMENT RELIED UPON BY THE LD. COU NSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE OF THE HONBLE ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT RENDERED IN THE C ASE OF CIT VS. VIJAYA VANI EDUCATIONAL TRUST 349 ITR 280 (AP) HAS HELD AS UND ER :- HELD THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER DID NOT GIVE ANY CLEAR FINDING REGARDING VIOLATION OF SECTION 11(5) EXCEPT MAKING SUCH A COMMENT. INVESTING MONIES IN THE TWO ORGANIZATIONS PUBLISHIN G MAGAZINES COULD NOT BE SAID TO BE COMMERCIAL VENTURES. THE CONTENTI ON THAT THE TRUST EXISTED FOR THE BENEFIT OF A FEW MEMBERS COULD NOT BE ACCEPTED S THERE HAD BEEN AN AMENDMENT IN THE MEMORANDUM OF ASSOCIAT ION. THE ASSESSEE WAS RUNNING EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTIONS AND T O AID SPREADING OF EDUCATION ND TO UPDATE THE SYLLABUS AND OTHER RELAT ED EDUCATIONAL ASPECTS TWO MAGAZINES WERE STARTED BY THE ASSESSEE OR ITS SISTER CONCERN. THEY WERE INCIDENTAL AND ANCILLARY TO THE MAIN ACTIVITIES OF THE TRUST. THE ASSESSEE WAS ENTITLED TO EXEMPTION UNDER SECTION 11. RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE JUDGMENT OF THE HONBLE HIGH COURT (SUPRA) WE HEREBY DIRECT THE LD. CIT (EXEMPTIONS) TO GRANT REGISTRATI ON TO THE APPELLANT SOCIETY. 4. IN THE RESULT APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED . ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 28/09/2016 . SD/- SD/- FOE FLAG ;KNO ( DQY HKKJR ) (VIKRAM SINGH YADAV) ( KUL BHARAT ) YS[KK LNL;@ ACCOUNTANT MEMBER U;KF;D LNL;@ JUDICIAL MEMBER JAIPUR DATED:- 28/09/2016. DAS/ VKNS'K DH IZFRFYFI VXZSF'KR@ COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. THE APPELLANT- M/S. NAVRATAN VIDHYA MANDIR SHIK SHA SAMITI JAIPUR. 2. THE RESPONDENT- THE CIT (EXEMPTIONS) JAIPUR. 3. THE CIT 4. THE CIT (A) 5. THE DR ITAT JAIPUR VKNS'KKUQLKJ@ BY ORDER 6. GUARD FILE (ITA NO. 388/JP/2016) LGK;D IATHDKJ@ ASSISTANT. REGISTRAR 8 ITA NO. 388/JP/2016 NAVRATAN VIDHYA MANDIR SHIKSHA SAMITI