DDIT (E) I(2), MUMBAI v. SAMUDRA INSTITUE OF MARITIME STUDIES TRUST, MUMBAI

ITA 5760/MUM/2010 | 2006-2007
Pronouncement Date: 30-11-2011 | Result: Dismissed

Appeal Details

RSA Number 576019914 RSA 2010
Assessee PAN AACTS9557L
Bench Mumbai
Appeal Number ITA 5760/MUM/2010
Duration Of Justice 1 year(s) 4 month(s) 14 day(s)
Appellant DDIT (E) I(2), MUMBAI
Respondent SAMUDRA INSTITUE OF MARITIME STUDIES TRUST, MUMBAI
Appeal Type Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date 30-11-2011
Appeal Filed By Department
Order Result Dismissed
Bench Allotted H
Tribunal Order Date 30-11-2011
Date Of Final Hearing 27-03-2012
Next Hearing Date 27-03-2012
Assessment Year 2006-2007
Appeal Filed On 16-07-2010
Judgment Text
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCHES H MUMBAI BEFORE SHIRI D.K. AGARWAL JM AND SHRI R.K. PANDA AM ITA NO. : 5760/MUM/2010 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2007-08 DY. DIT(E) - I(2) R.NO. 504 PIRAMAL CHAMBERS 5 TH FLOOR PAREL MUMBAI-400 012. VS. M/S. SAMUDRA INSTITUTE OF MARITIME STUDIES TRUST 507 5 TH FLOOR SAI COMMERCIAL COMPLEX BKS DEVSHI MARG GOVANDI STATION GOVANDI MUMBAI-400 088. PAN NO: AACTS 9557 L (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI GOLI SRINIWAS RAO RESPONDENT BY : SHRI S.V. PATHAK & SHRI NIKHIL PATHAK DATE OF HEARING : 17.11.2011 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 30.11.2011 ORDER PER R. K. PANDA (AM) : THIS APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE IS DIRECTED AGAINS T THE ORDER DATED 31.03.2010 PASSED BY THE LD. CIT(A)-1 MUMBAI RELAT ING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08. 2. FACTS OF THE CASE IN BRIEF ARE THAT THE ASSES SEE TRUST I.E. SAMUNDRA INSTITUTE OF MARITIME STUDIES TRUST WAS ESTABLISHED ON 06.01.2003 AS A PUBLIC CHARITABLE TRUST UNDER THE BOMBAY CHARITABLE TRUST ACT 1950. IT ITA NO: 5760/MUM/2010 M/S. SAM UDRA INSTITUTE OF MARITIME STUDIES TRUST 2 WAS ESTABLISHED FOR THE PURPOSES OF IMPARTING EDUCA TION IN THE AREA OF POST SEA AND PRE SEA TRAINING TO SEAMEN. THE TRUST IS AL SO REGISTERED WITH THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF SHIPPING GOVERNMENT OF INDIA A ND CHARITY COMMISSIONER OF MUMBAI FOR CONDUCTING TRAINING COUR SES AND AS A CHARITABLE INSTITUTION REGISTERED UNDER SECTION 12A OF THE INCOME TAX ACT 1961. 3. DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS FOR THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT YEAR THE AO ASKED THE ASSESSEE TO SUBMIT THE DETAILS OF THE COURSES CONDUCTED BY THE TRUST. FROM THE DETAILS FU RNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE THE AO NOTED THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS CONDUC TING TWO CATEGORIES OF COURSES I.E. ONE WHICH WERE APPROVED AND RECOGNIZED BY THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF SHIPPING AND ANOTHER SET OF COURSES WHIC H WERE NOT APPROVED AND RECOGNIZED BY THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF SHIPPING. FROM THE VARIOUS DETAILS FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE THE AO NOTED THA T THE NUMBER OF COURSES CONDUCTED BY THE ASSESSEE WHICH WERE APPROV ED BY THE DG SHIPPING ARE MUCH LESS THAN THOSE COURSES CONDUCTED BY THE ASSESSEE WHICH WERE NOT APPROVED BY THE DG SHIPPING. ACCORDI NG TO THE AO THE COURSES WHICH ARE NOT APPROVED AND RECOGNIZED BY TH E DG SHIPPING ARE CONDUCTED BY THE ASSESSEE AS PRIVATE COACHING CLASS ES AND SUCH COURSES BY NO STRETCH OF REASONING AND IMAGINATION CAN BE O F THE CHARACTER OF CHARITABLE PURPOSE AS PROVIDED U/S.2(15) OF THE I NCOME TAX ACT 1961. 4. THE AO ANALYZED THE COURSES ACTUALLY CONDUCTED D URING THE PERIOD RELEVANT TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08. FROM THE VARIOUS DETAILS FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE HE NOTED THAT THE ASSESSE E HAS MADE PROFIT OF `. 99 22 167/- ON ACCOUNT OF DG SHIPPING APPROVED COUR SES CONDUCTED AT LONAVALA AND MADE A PROFIT OF `. 2 08 19 001/- ON ACCOUNT OF NON APPROVED COURSES CONDUCTED AT GOVANDI MUMBAI. THE AO WAS OF THE OPINION THAT ITA NO: 5760/MUM/2010 M/S. SAM UDRA INSTITUTE OF MARITIME STUDIES TRUST 3 THIS IS AN INDICATOR OF THE ASSESSEES INDULGENCE I N THE COMMERCIAL AND PROFIT MAKING ACTIVITIES UNDER THE GARB OF CHARITAB LE INSTITUTION. HE THEREFORE ASKED THE ASSESSEE TO EXPLAIN AS TO WHY THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE FOR EXEMPTION U/S.11 OF THE I.T. ACT SHOUL D NOT BE REJECTED. REJECTING THE VARIOUS EXPLANATION OFFERED BY THE AS SESSEE HE NOTED THAT THE ASSESSEE IS PROJECTING THE COURSES WHICH ARE MORE P ROFITABLE AND PROVIDE MORE EARNING TO THE ASSESSEE RATHER THAN OFFERING EDUCATION THROUGH RECOGNIZED COURSES. THE ENTIRE INSTITUTION IS BEING RUN WITH A SOLE MOTIVE OF EARNING PROFIT. HOWEVER A FEEBLE ATTEMPT HAS B EEN MADE BY THE ASSESSEE OF GIVING THE COLOUR OF CHARITABLE INSTITU TION TO THE TRUST WHOSE ACTIVITIES ARE NOT COVERED WITHIN THE MEANING OF ED UCATION AS CONTEMPLATED U/S.2(15) OF THE I.T. ACT. RELYING ON THE DECISION OF HON'BLE PATNA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF BIHAR INSTITUTE OF MINING AND MINE SURVEYING VS. CIT REPORTED IN 208 ITR 608 AND THE DECISION OF THE HON 'BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF SOLE TRUSTEE LOKA SHIKSHANA TRUST VS. C IT REPORTED IN 101 ITR 234 THE DECISION IN THE CASE OF MAZGAON DOCKS LTD. VS. CIT REPORTED IN 34 ITR 368 AT 376 AND VARIOUS OTHER DECISIONS HE HELD THAT THE ACTIVITIES OF THE ASSESSEE IN CONNECTION WITH THE CONDUCTING OF C OMMERCIAL COURSES ARE CLEARLY BUSINESS ACTIVITIES WITHIN THE MEANING OF SEC.2(13) OF THE I.T. ACT. SINCE ALL THE ELEMENTS OF BUSINESS ARE PRESENT IN THESE COURSES. HE ACCORDINGLY REJECTED THE CLAIM OF EXEMPTION U/S.11 OF THE I.T. ACT. 5. BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) THE ASSESSEE MADE ELABORAT E ARGUMENTS. THE DICTIONARY MEANING OF EDUCATION AS EXPLAINED BY VAR IOUS COURTS WAS BROUGHT TO THE NOTICE OF THE LD. CIT(A). IT WAS SUB MITTED THAT THE REVENUE HAS NEVER ALLEGED THAT THERE HAS BEEN ANY DISTRIBUT ION OF PROFIT OR THAT THE PROFITS MADE ARE NOT BEING UTILIZED FOR THE OBJECTS OF THE TRUST. IT WAS ALSO SUBMITTED THAT IT IS NOT THE CASE OF THE REVENUE TH AT THE COURSES OFFERED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE NOT IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE OBJECTI VES OF THE TRUST. IT WAS ITA NO: 5760/MUM/2010 M/S. SAM UDRA INSTITUTE OF MARITIME STUDIES TRUST 4 SUBMITTED THAT THE TRUST IS REGISTERED U/S.12A OF T HE I.T. ACT. RELYING ON VARIOUS DECISIONS IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THE AO WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN DENYING THE EXEMPTION U/S.11 OF THE I.T. ACT. 5.1 BASED ON THE ARGUMENTS ADVANCED BY THE ASSESSEE THE LD. CIT(A) DIRECTED THE AO TO ALLOW THE EXEMPTION U/S.11 OF TH E I.T. ACT TO THE ASSESSEE TRUST BY HOLDING AS UNDER :- I HAVE CONSIDERED THE A.OS ORDER AND ALSO TAKEN NOTE OF THE REASONS GIVEN BY THE A.O. FOR MAKING DENIAL OF THE CLAIM OF EXEMPTION MADE BY THE APPELLANT. I HAVE ALSO TAKEN NOTE OF THE APPELLANTS SUBMISSION WHICH HAS BEEN DEPICTED ABO VE. HAVING TAKEN NOTE OF THE A.O.S ORDER AND THE APPELLANTS SUBMISSION I AM OF THE CONSIDERED VIEW THAT THE A.O. HAS WRONGLY DENIED THE EXEMPTION CLAIMED BY THE APPELLANT. THE A.OS FINDI NGS IS BASED UPON TWO FOLD THE FIRST ONE IS THAT THE APPE LLANT IS RUNNING COURSES WHICH ARE NOT APPROVED BY THE DG ( SHIPPING). THE APPELLANT TRUST IS ALSO CARRYING OUT NON APPROV ED COURSES I.E. OTHER THAN THE DG (SHIPPING) APPROVED COURSES AND HENCE HE DENIED THE CLAIM OF THE APPELLANT. THE SECOND FO LD FOR DENIAL OF EXEMPTION IS THE A.OS OBSERVATION THAT THE DIFF ERENT COURSES RUN BY THE APPELLANT TRUST ARE NOT FOR CHARITABLE I N NATURE AS ENVISAGED U/S 2(15) OF THE IT ACT BUT ARE CARRIED OUT TO EARN PROFIT. THUS HE ALSO VIEWED THAT THE APPELLANT TRU ST IS RUNNING ITS COURSES FOR THE PURPOSE OF PROFIT AND NOT FOR C HARITABLE PURPOSES. ON THESE TWO REASONS MAINLY THE A.O HAS D ENIED THE EXEMPTION U/S 11 OF THE IT ACT TO THE APPELLANT TRU ST. HAVING TAKEN NOTE OF THE APPELLANTS SUBMISSION AS WELL AS THE PROVISIONS OF LAW I AM OF THE CONSIDERED VI EW THAT THERE IS NO NECESSITY THAT THE APPELLANT TRUST SHOULD ONL Y RUN THE COURSES WHICH ARE APPROVED BY DG (SHIPPING). THE O THER EDUCATIONAL COURSES WHICH ARE CONDUCTED BY THE APPE LLANT TRUST ARE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE OBJECT OF THE TRUST. THE MAIN OBJECT OF THE TRUST IS STATED TO BE PROVIDING THE EDUCATION. AS THE EDUCATION IS CONSIDERED AS CHARITABLE PURPOSES U/ S 2(13) OF ITA NO: 5760/MUM/2010 M/S. SAM UDRA INSTITUTE OF MARITIME STUDIES TRUST 5 THE IT ACT. HENCE PROVIDING EDUCATION BY THE APPELL ANT TRUST IS A CHARITABLE ACTIVITY. IF IN RUNNING THE COURSES RESU LT THE PROFIT IT WILL NOT MAKE THE ACTIVITY OF THE APPELLANT TRUST N ON-CHARITABLE. IT IS NOT THE CASE OF THE A.O. THAT THE APPELLANT TRUST IS UTILIZING THE PROFIT SO EARNED FOR OTHER THAN THE PURPOSE OF OBJECT OF THE TRUST. AS THE WORD EDUCATION HAS NOT BEEN DEFINED A NY WHERE IN THE IT ACT OR IT RULES. HENCE WE HAVE TO TAKE MEANI NG OF THE WORD EDUCATION IN GENERAL COMMON PARLANCE OR JUDI CIAL PRECEDENCE AVAILABLE IN THIS REGARD. THE MAIN OBJEC T OF THE TRUST AS PER THE TRUST DEED IS TO SET UP ADMINISTER AND MAINTAIN TECHNICAL TRAINING INSTITUTES AT VARIOUS PLACES IN INDIA FOR PRE SEA AND POST SEA TRAINING FOR THE SHIPPING AND MARI TIME INDUSTRY AS A PUBLIC CHARITABLE TRUST FOR EDUCATION IN THIS CONNECTION TO PROVIDE ON BOARD AND OFF SHORE TRAINI NG AND CONTINUING TECHNICAL EDUCATION TRAINING FOR OFFICER S BOTH ON DECK AND ENGINE SIDE. THE A.OS THIS OBSERVATION THAT AS THE APPELLANT TRUST IS EARNING PROFIT AND HENCE THE APP ELLANT TRUST CANNOT BE GIVEN EXEMPTION U/S 11 OF THE IT ACT IS C OMPLETELY CONTRARY TO THE PROVISIONS OF LAW. THE APPELLANT TR UST IS RUNNING VARIOUS EDUCATIONAL SHIPPING PROGRAMMES I.E. PRE SE A AND POST SEA TRAINING EVEN IF THE TRUST DERIVED PROFIT FROM RUNNING SUCH COURSES THEN THE SAME HAS BEEN UTILIZED FOR THE OB JECT OF THE TRUST. THE A.O. HAS NO WHERE POINTED OUT THAT THE P ROFIT SO EARNED IS UTILIZED BY THE TRUST OTHER THAN THE OBJE CT OF THE TRUST. THE APPELLANT TRUST HAS UTILIZED ENTIRE INCOME FOR THE PURPOSE OF THE OBJECT OF THE TRUST. IN ADDITION TO THIS THE A .O. HAS ALSO NOT POINTED OUT A SINGLE INSTANCE THAT THE APPELLANT H AS CONTRAVENED THE PROVISIONS OF 11 12 & 13 OF THE IT ACT. THIS IS ALSO A FACT THAT THE APPELLANT TRUST HAS A VALID RE GISTRATION U/S 12A GRANTED BY THE DIT(E) MUMBAI. THUS HAVING CONSIDERED THE APPELLANTS SUBMISSION AND ALSO TAKING NOTE OF THE VARIOUS JUDICIAL PRONOUNCEM ENTS REFERRED BY THE APPELLANT TRUST IN ITS SUBMISSION DEPICTED A BOVE INCLUDING JUDGMENT OF JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT AND THE TRIBUNAL I AM OF THE CONSIDERED VIEW THAT THE AOS ACTION OF DENIAL OF EXEMPTION WAS NOT JUSTIFIED. HENCE HAVING CONSIDERED ALL THESE FACTS AS DISCUSSED ABOVE I CONSIDER IT P ROPER AND ITA NO: 5760/MUM/2010 M/S. SAM UDRA INSTITUTE OF MARITIME STUDIES TRUST 6 APPROPRIATE TO DIRECT THE A.O. TO ALLOW THE EXEMPTI ON U/S.11 OF THE I.T. ACT TO THE APPELLANT TRUST. 6. AGGRIEVED WITH SUCH ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) THE REVENUE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US WITH THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS :- 1. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CA SE AND IN LAW THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS) E RRED IN DIRECTING THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO ALLOW THE EXEMPT ION U/S.11 OF THE I.T. ACT 1961 WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE FACT TH AT THE COURSES WHICH WERE NOT APPROVED BY THE D.G. SHIPPING CANNOT BE CONSIDERED AS FORMAL EDUCATION BY NORMAL SCHOOLING. 2. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CAS E AND IN LAW THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) ERRED IN DIRECTING THE AS SESSING OFFICER TO ALLOW EXEMPTION U/S.11 OF THE I.T. ACT 1961 IGNORING THE LAW LAID DOWN BY THE APEX COURT IN THE CASE OF SOLE TRUSTEES LOK SHIKSHANA TRUST VS. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (1975) 101 ITR 234 (SC). 3. THE APPELLANT PRAYS THAT THE ORDER OF THE COMMIS SIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS)-I MUMBAI BE SET ASIDE AND THAT OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER BE RESTORED. 4. THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO AMEND OR ALTER ANY GROUND OR ADD A NEW GROUND WHICH MAY BE NECESSARY. 7. THE LD. DR REFERRED TO THE FINDINGS GIVEN BY THE AO AT PAGE NO.7 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER WHILE DENYING THE CLAIM OF EXE MPTION U/S.11 OF THE ACT AND SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE IS CONDUCTING T WO TYPES OF COURSES I.E. ONE APPROVED BY THE DG SHIPPING AND THE OTHER SET O F COURSES WHICH WERE NOT APPROVED BY THE DG SHIPPING. THE INCOME FROM NO N APPROVED COURSES IS FAR HIGHER THAN THE APPROVED COURSES. THE NON AP PROVED COURSES CONDUCTED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE OF THE NATURE OF PRIV ATE TUITION AND THEREFORE CANNOT ENTITLE THE ASSESSEE TRUST TO BE TREATED AS AN EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTION. HE ACCORDING SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF TH E AO. ITA NO: 5760/MUM/2010 M/S. SAM UDRA INSTITUTE OF MARITIME STUDIES TRUST 7 8. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE ON THE OTHER HA ND REFERRING TO THE DECISION OF THE HON'BLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN THE CA SE OF DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX(EXEMPTIONS) VS. NATIONAL SAFETY COUNSEL REPORTED IN 305 ITR 257 SUBMITTED THAT THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT IN THE SA ID DECISION HAS UPHELD THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL IN ALLOWING THE CLAIM OF EXEMPTION U/S.10(22) OF THE I.T. ACT TO THE INCOME OF THE SOCIETY WHICH WAS IMPARTING EDUCATION IN REGARD TO THE SAFETY PROTECTION AND HEALTH AMONG I NDUSTRIAL WORKERS TO ORGANIZE AND CONDUCT PROGRAMMES LECTURES CONFEREN CES AND OTHER ACTIVITIES FOR PROMOTING FREE DISCUSSIONS ON ALL MA TTERS AND QUESTIONS RELATING TO SAFETY MEASURES PROCEDURES AND RESEARC H ETC. IN THE SAID DECISION THE HON'BLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT HAS CONSIDE RED THE DECISION OF THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF SOLE TRUS TEE LOKA SHIKSHANA TRUST (SUPRA). 8.1 REFERRING TO THE DECISION OF THE HON'BLE CALCUA TTA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. DOON FOUNDATION REPORTED IN 154 ITR 208 HE SUBMITTED THAT IN ORDER TO CLAIM THE EXEMPTION IT IS NOT NECE SSARY THAT THE INSTITUTION SHOULD BE AFFILIATED TO ANY UNIVERSITY OR BOARD. 8.2 REFERRING TO THE DECISION OF THE HON'BLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF VANITA VISHRAM TRUST VS. CHIEF CIT REPORTED IN 327 ITR 121 HE SUBMITTED THAT WHEN THE INVESTMENT FROM SURPLUS ACT IVITY APPLIED FOR EDUCATIONAL PURPOSES AND WHEN THE PRIMARY OBJECTIVE OF THE TRUST IS TO PROVIDE EDUCATION FOR WOMEN THE BENEFIT OF EXEMPTI ON U/S.10(23C) WAS HELD TO BE VALID. 8.3 REFERRING TO THE DECISION OF THE DELHI BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF ITO VS. S.R.M FOUNDATION OF INDIA REPORTED IN 21 ITD 598 HE SUBMITTED THAT THE TRIBUNAL IN THE SAID DECISION HA S HELD THAT THERE IS NO ITA NO: 5760/MUM/2010 M/S. SAM UDRA INSTITUTE OF MARITIME STUDIES TRUST 8 REQUIREMENT PRESCRIBED U/S.10(22) THAT THE INSTITUT ION SHOULD BE RECOGNIZED BY AN UNIVERSITY OR STATE OR CENTRAL GOV ERNMENT. THEREFORE THE AOS INSISTENCE ON ANY SUCH RECOGNITION WAS NOT JUS TIFIED. REFERRING TO THE SAID DECISION HE SUBMITTED THAT EVEN YOGA CLASS WAS RECOGNIZED AS EDUCATION BY THE TRIBUNAL IN THE SAID DECISION. REF ERRING TO THE INCOME AND EXPENDITURE A/C. OF THE ASSESSEE TRUST FROM ASS ESSMENT YEAR 2007-08 TO 2011-12 HE DREW THE ATTENTION OF THE BENCH TO T HE HUGE AMOUNT OF CAPITAL EXPENDITURE INCURRED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR IM PARTING EDUCATION BY THE TRUST. 8.4 REFERRING TO THE DECISION OF THE CO-ORDINATE B ENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF INDIAN INSTITUTE OF BANKERS VS. DDIT (E XEMPTIONS) REPORTED IN 74 TTJ 523 HE SUBMITTED THAT THE TRIBUNAL IN THE SA ID DECISION HAS HELD THAT THE ASSESSEE INSTITUTION IMPARTING EDUCATION O F BANKING SUBJECTS BY CONDUCTING TUTORIAL CLASSES SUPPLYING STUDY MATERI AL ORGANIZING AND CONDUCTING PROGRAMMES AND HOLDING EXAMINATIONS WAS AN EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTION ENTITLED TO EXEMPTION U/S. 10(22) MORES O WHEN THE ASSESSEES CLAIM HAD BEEN ACCEPTED SINCE THE INCEPTION. HE SUB MITTED THAT THE TRIBUNAL IN THE SAID DECISION HAS ALSO CONSIDERED T HE DECISION OF THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF SOLE TRUSTEE LOK SHIKSHANA TRUST (SUPRA). HE SUBMITTED THAT THE VARIOUS COURSES COND UCTED BY THE ASSESSEE TRUST ARE BY SPECIALISTS THE TRUST HAS EMPLOYED AB OUT 30 FULL TIME FACULTY MEMBERS 10 INSTRUCTORS AND ABOUT 5 000 STUDENTS WH O HAVE UNDERTAKEN THESE COURSES. THE COURSES OFFERED BY THE TRUST ARE SPECIALIZED COURSES WHICH WERE EARLIER AVAILABLE ONLY IN FOREIGN COUNTR IES. NOW WHEN THE INSTITUTE LIKE THAT OF THE ASSESSEE TRUST ARE ESTAB LISHED THESE COURSES ARE AVAILABLE IN INDIA. RELYING ON VARIOUS OTHER DECISI ONS THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE WHILE SUPPORTING THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) SUBMITTED THAT THE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE REVENUE ARE TO BE DISMISS ED. ITA NO: 5760/MUM/2010 M/S. SAM UDRA INSTITUTE OF MARITIME STUDIES TRUST 9 9. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL ARGUMENTS MADE BY B OTH THE SIDES PERUSED THE ORDERS OF THE AO AND THE LD. CIT(A) AND THE PAPER BOOK FILED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE. WE HAVE ALSO CONSIDERED THE VARIOUS DECISIONS CITED BY BOTH THE SIDES. THERE IS NO DISPUTE TO THE FACT THAT DURING THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT YEAR THE ASSESSEE TRUST HAS CON DUCTED TWO TYPES OF COURSES WHICH COULD BE BROADLY CLASSIFIED INTO TWO TYPES I.E. ONE SET OF COURSES DULY APPROVED AND RECOGNIZED BY DG SHIPPING AND THE OTHER SET OF COURSES WHICH ARE NOT APPROVED AND RECOGNIZED BY TH E DG SHIPPING. ACCORDING TO THE AO THE INCOME FROM THE COURSES NO T APPROVED AND RECOGNIZED BY THE DG SHIPPING IS FAR MORE THAN THE PROFITS FROM THE COURSES APPROVED AND RECOGNIZED BY THE DG SHIPPING. FURTHER THE ENTIRE INSTITUTION ACCORDING TO THE AO IS BEING RUN WITH T HE SOLE MOTIVE OF EARNING PROFIT AND AN ATTEMPT HAS BEEN MADE BY THE ASSESSEE TO GIVE A COLOUR OF CHARITABLE INSTITUTION TO THE TRUST WHOSE ACTIVITIE S ARE NOT COVERED WITHIN THE MEANING OF EDUCATION AS CONTEMPLATED U/S.2(15) OF THE I.T. ACT. 9.1 WE FIND CLAUSE 1 AND 2 OF THE OBJECT CLAUSE OF THE TRUST DEED READ AS UNDER : 1. TO SET UP ADMINISTER AND MAINTAIN TECHNICAL TR AINING INSTITUTES AT VARIOUS PLACES IN INDIA FOR PRE-SEA AND POST-SEA TRAINING FOR THE SHIPPING AND MARITIME INDUSTRY AS A PUBLIC CHARITABLE INSTITUTE FOR EDUCATION IN THIS CONNECTI ON TO PROVIDE FOR ONBOARD AND OFFSHORE TRAINING AND CONTINUING TE CHNICAL EDUCATIONAL TRAINING FOR OFFICERS BOTH ON THE DECK AND ENGINE SIDE. 2. TO REGISTER WITH THE DG SHIPPING AND OBTAIN NECE SSARY APPROVALS FROM OTHER GOVERNMENTAL AGENCIES AT THE S TATE AND CENTRAL LEVEL CONNECTED WITH SUCH MATTERS TO ACHI EVE THE MAIN OBJECTS OF THE TRUST. ITA NO: 5760/MUM/2010 M/S. SAM UDRA INSTITUTE OF MARITIME STUDIES TRUST 10 9.2 THE SUBMISSION OF THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSES SEE THAT THE ASSESSEE TRUST HAS BEEN REGISTERED WIT THE D.G. SHI PPING AND CHARITY COMMISSIONER OF MUMBAI AND GRANTED REGISTRATION U/ S.12A OF THE I.T. ACT BY THE DIT(EXEMPTION) MUMBAI COULD NOT BE CONTROVE RTED BY THE LD. CIT(A) DR. THE FURTHER SUBMISSION OF THE LD. COUNSE L FOR THE ASSESSEE THAT NO PART OF THE PROFIT HAS BEEN UTILIZED FOR OTHER T HAN EDUCATIONAL PURPOSE AND NO PART OF THE PROFIT HAS BEEN DISTRIBUTED COUL D NOT BE CONTROVERTED BY THE LD. DR. WE FIND THE TERM EDUCATION HAS BEEN DEF INED AS UNDER : THE BLACKS LAW DICTIONARY DEFINES THE TERM EDUC ATION AS COMPREHENDS NOT ONLY THE INSTRUCTION RECEIVED AT S CHOOL OR COLLEGE BUT THE WHOLE COURSE OF TRAINING MORAL R ELIGIOUS VOCATIONAL INTELLECTUAL AND PHYSICAL. EDUCATION MA Y BE PARTICULARLY DIRECTED TO EITHER THE MENTAL MORAL PHYSICAL POWERS AND FACULTIES BUT IN ITS BROADEST AND BEST S ENSE IT RELATES TO THEM ALL. ACQUISITION OF ALL KNOWLEDGE T ENDING TO TRAIN AND DEVELOP THE INDIVIDUAL. THE OXFORD ENGLISH DICTIONARY DEFINES THE TERM ED UCATION AS THE PROCESS OF TEACHING OR LEARNING THE THEORY AND PRACTICE OF TEACHING INFORMATION ABOUT OR TRAINING IN A PARTIC ULAR SUBJECT. THE TERM EDUCATION HAS ALSO BEEN A SUBJECT MATTE R OF INTERPRETATION BY VARIOUS COURTS. THE HON'BLE SUPRE ME COURT HAS IN THE CASE OF SOLE TRUSTEE LOK SHIKSHANA TRU ST VS. CIT (101 ITR 234) HAS HELD THAT THE WORD EDUCATION HAS BEEN USED IN SECTION 2(15) OF THE ACT IN THE SENSE OF SYSTEMA TIC INSTRUCTION SCHOOLING OR TAINING AND NOT IN THE W IDE AND EXTENDED SENSE ACCORDING TO WHICH EVERY ACQUISITION OF FURTHER KNOWLEDGE CONSTITUTES EDUCATION. 9.3 WE FIND THE HON'BLE CALCUTTA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF DOON FOUNDATION (SUPRA) HAS HELD THAT IF A SOCIETY PRIMA RILY ENGAGES ITSELF IN EDUCATIONAL ACTIVITIES OR RUNS A SCHOOL OR COLLEGE IT IS ENTITLED TO CLAIM EXEMPTION 10(22). IT IS NOT NECESSARY THAT IN ORDER TO CLAIM THE EXEMPTION THE INSTITUTION SHOULD BE AFFILIATED TO ANY UNIVERS ITY OR BOARD. ITA NO: 5760/MUM/2010 M/S. SAM UDRA INSTITUTE OF MARITIME STUDIES TRUST 11 9.4 WE FIND THE HON'BLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN THE CA SE OF NATIONAL SAFETY COUNCIL HAS HELD AS UNDER (SHORT NOTES) :- THE ASSESSEE WAS A SOCIETY REGISTERED UNDER THE SO CIETIES REGISTRATION ACT 1860 AS WELL AS THE BOMBAY PUBLI C TRUST ACT 1950 WITH THE PRINCIPAL OBJECT OF EDUCATING THE PU BLIC CONCERNING SAFETY ETC. THE MEMORANDUM OF THE ASSES SEE- SOCIETY PROVIDED FOR UTILIZATION OF THE INCOME AND PROPERTY SOLELY FOR THE PROMOTION OF THE AIMS AND OBJECTS OF THE AS SESSEE AND NO PART OF IT WOULD BE TRANSFERRED DIRECTLY OR INDI RECTLY BY WAY OF DIVIDEND BONUS OR PROFIT TO THE MEMBERS OF THE COUNCIL. RULE 2 OF THE RULES AND REGULATIONS OF THE ASSESSEE LAID DOWN THAT THE ASSESSEE WOULD BE AN INDEPENDENT NON-COMMERCIA L NON- PROFIT MAKING NON-POLITICAL AND AUTONOMOUS SOCIETY . THE ASSESSING OFFICER DENIED THE ASSESSEE EXEMPTION UND ER SECTION 10(22) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT 1961 FOR THE ASSESSM ENT YEAR 1993-94. THE COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) AND THE TRIBUNA L ALLOWED EXEMPTION ON THE GROUND THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS COVER ED WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE TERM ANY OTHER EDUCATIONAL INST ITUTION UNDER SECTION 10(22) OF THE ACT. ON APPEAL : HELD DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND AFFIRMING THE DECIS ION OF THE TRIBUNAL THAT THE RETURN FILED FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 1993-94 REVEALED THAT THE ENTIRE INCOME HAD BEEN UTILIZED F OR THE PURPOSE OF ITS OBJECTS. THEREFORE THE FINDING OF T HE TRIBUNAL WAS NOT PERVERSE AND THERE WAS NO SUBSTANTIAL QUESTION OF LAW ARISING FOR CONSIDERATION. 9.5 WE FIND THE CO-ORDINATE BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL I N THE CASE OF INDIAN INSTITUTE OF BANKERS (SUPRA) AFTER CONSIDERING THE DECISION OF HON'BLE APEX COURT IN THE CASE OF SOLE TRUSTEE LOK SHIKSHAN TRU ST (SUPRA) HAS HELD THAT THE ASSESSEE INSTITUTION IMPARTING EDUCATION O F BANKING SUBJECTS BY CONDUCTING TUTORIAL CLASSES SUPPLYING STUDY MATERI AL CONDUCTING PROGRAMMES AND HOLDING EXHIBITION WAS AN EDUCATIONA L INSTITUTION ENTITLED TO EXEMPTION U/S. 10(22). ITA NO: 5760/MUM/2010 M/S. SAM UDRA INSTITUTE OF MARITIME STUDIES TRUST 12 9.6 WE FIND THE DELHI BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF S.R.M FOUNDATION OF INDIA (SUPRA) WHILE DECIDING THE ISSU E U/S.10(22) OF THE I.T. ACT HAS HELD THAT THERE IS NO REQUIREMENT PRESCRIBE D U/S.10(22) THAT THE INSTITUTION SHOULD BE RECOGNIZED BY AN UNIVERSITY O R STATE OR CENTRAL GOVERNMENT. THE TRIBUNAL IN THE SAID DECISION HELD 33 LESSONS OF WHAT IS TERMED AS SCIENCE OF CREATIVE INTELLIGENCE (SCI) WH ICH ARE IN THE NATURE OF YOGA CLASSES AS EDUCATION. THE TRIBUNAL WHILE DECID ING THE ISSUE HAS CONSIDERED THE DECISION OF THE HON'BLE SUPREME COUR T IN THE CASE OF SOLE TRUSTEE LOK SHIKSHAN TRUST (SUPRA). WE FIND THE VA RIOUS OTHER DECISIONS RELIED ON BY THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE ALSO SUPPORT ITS CASE. THE DECISION IN THE CASE OF BIHAR INSTITUTE OF MINING A ND MINE SURVEYING (SUPRA) IN OUR OPINION IS NOT APPLICABLE TO THE FAC TS OF THE PRESENT CASE. IN THAT CASE IT WAS COACHING OF STUDENTS FOR PARTICULA R EXAMINATION FOR WHICH IT WAS HELD THAT COACHING INSTITUTION IS NOT A CHA RITABLE INSTITUTION WITHIN THE MEANING OF SECTION 2(15). HOWEVER IN THE INSTA NT CASE THE ASSESSEE IS GIVING TRAINING IN THE AREA OF PRE SEA AND POST SEA TO SEA MEN. THE VARIOUS OTHER DECISIONS RELIED ON BY THE AO ARE ALSO DISTIN GUISHABLE AND NOT APPLICABLE TO THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE. IN OUR OPINION MERELY BECAUSE THE COURSES ARE NOT APPROVED BY THE DG SHIPPING OR MERELY BECAUSE THERE IS HUGE SURPLUS IN THE NON-APPROVED COURSES THAN TH E APPROVED COURSES CANNOT BE A GROUND FOR DENIAL OF EXEMPTION U/S.11 A S LONG AS THE TRUST IS IMPARTING EDUCATION AS PER THE OBJECTS OF THE TRUST . IN THIS VIEW OF THE MATTER AND IN VIEW OF THE DETAILED OBSERVATIONS GIV EN BY THE LD. CIT(A) ON THIS ISSUE WE DO NOT FIND ANY INFIRMITY IN THE SAME AND ACCORDINGLY THE SAME IS UPHELD. THE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE REVENUE A RE ACCORDINGLY DISMISSED. ITA NO: 5760/MUM/2010 M/S. SAM UDRA INSTITUTE OF MARITIME STUDIES TRUST 13 10. IN THE RESULT THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON THIS 30 TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2011. SD/ - SD/ - ( D.K. AGARWAL ) ( R.K. PANDA ) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTAT MEMBER MUMBAI DT: 30/11/2011 COPY FORWARDED TO : 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE C.I.T. 4. CIT (A) 5. THE DR H- BENCH ITAT MUMBAI //TRUE COPY// BY ORDER ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT MUMBAI BENCHES MUMBAI ROSHANI