Commissioner Of Income Tax Jai v. M/S India Public School Samiti

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH ATJAIPUR D.B. Income Tax Appeal No. 443 / 2011 Commissioner Of Income Tax Jai ----Appellant Versus M/S India Public School Samiti ----Respondent _____________________________________________________ For Appellant(s) : Ms. Mahi Yadav on behalf of Mr. Sameer Jain _____________________________________________________ HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.S. JHAVERI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAY KUMAR VYAS Order 21/04/2017 1. The delay in filing the appeal is condoned. Theapplication under Section 5 of the Limitation Act is allowed.Defects are waived. 2.In view of common judgment dated 25.01.2012 passedby this court in CIT, Jaipur III vs. M/s. Indian Public School Samiti& Ors. ( D.B. Income Tax Appeal No. 423/2011), wherein it has been held as under:- In view of the findings recorded by theITAT it is apparent that merely because there wascertain surplus and advances in hand, it was notenough to deny the exemption under Section 10(23C)(iiad) of the Income Tax Act as laid down by the ApexCourt in Aditanar Education Institution (supra) inwhich the Apex Court has laid down that exemptioncannot be denied merely because there is surplus. Ifafter making the expenditure, any surplus resultsincidentally, from the activity lawfully carried on bythe educational institution which will not cease to oneexisting solely for educational purpose, since theobject is not one to make profit. It has also been laid down in Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax vs.Rajasthan State Text Book Board (supra) that merelybecause certain surplus is left it is not enough to holdthat societies were not for the educational purposes.Surplus may be incidental for the limit for theconstruction of the school building and it could not besaid that societies were existing for earning Profit.Considering the profit and surplus of the institution intwo case it could not be said that it was profitventure. It cannot be said that societies were runningfor the profit venture and it was nowhere satisfactorilyproved that the fund was utilized by the secretary forthe personal purposes. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we are of theopinion that question of advances and surplus hasbeen adequately gone into by the CIT(A) as well asITAT in the excessive details. Material on record hasbeen considered and reasons employed by theAssessing Officer have been gone into. Findings offact recorded by the CIT(A) affirmed by the ITAT arenot having any illegality or perversity; they are notagainst the statutory prerogatives contained in theprovisions of Section 10(23C)(iiiad) of the IncomeTax Act. Consequently, we find that no substantialquestions of law are involved in the appeals.” 3. In view of the above, the present appeal is also dismissed. (VIJAY KUMAR VYAS),J.B. M. Gandhi/21 (K.S. JHAVERI),J.