Commissioner Of Income Tax, Rohtak v. M/S Mahasabha Gurukul Vidyapeeth Haryana

I.T.A. No. 519 of 2007 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..........RespondentBhainswal & Khanpur Kalan District Sonepat CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE DAYA CHAUDHARY Present:-Mr. Aman Bansal, Advocatefor the appellant. **** ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, J. (Oral) 1.The revenue has preferred this appeal under Section 260A ofthe Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short, “the Act”) against the order of IncomeTax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench 'A' dated 27.04.2007 passed in ITANo.1422 & 1423/DEL/2004 for the assessment year 2000-01, proposing toraise following substantial question of law:- “Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case,the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal has erred in law inallowing the exemption of income of an EducationalSociety, which is not notified under section 10(23C) (vi)of the Income Tax Act, 1961?” 2.The assessee is running an educational institution and claimedexemption under Section 11 of the Act in respect of its income. TheAssessing Officer did not accept this plea on the ground that the assesseefailed to file notification under Section 10(23C) (vi). The CIT(A) upheld thestand of the assessee. It was observed that absence of registration underSection 10(23C) (vi) was no bar to exemption under Section 11. This viewhas been affirmed by the Tribunal relying upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in CIT Vs. Bar Council of Maharashtra(1981) 130 ITR78. It was also noticed that the assessee was duly registered underSection 12A and exemption had been granted for the assessment years1997-98, 1998-99 and 2002-03. 3.It is patent that the assessee has been granted exemptionbefore the assessment year in question as well as after the assessmentyear in question. 4.Only contention put forward by the learned counsel for therevenue is that conditions of Section 10(23C) (vi) having not been compliedwith, exemption could not be granted under Section 11. He relies upon thejudgment of Hon'ble the Apex Court in American Hotel and LodgingAssociation Educational Institute Vs. Central Board of Direct Taxesand others (2008) 301 ITR 86. 5.We do not find any merit in the submission. Once it is heldthat 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 judgmentrelied upon has no application to the present case as therein the questionwas as to the scope of enquiry under Section 10 (23C) (vi) read with 3[rd]proviso thereto. The view taken in Bar Council of Maharashtra (supra) isnot shown to have been affected. The CIT (A) as well as the Tribunalhave categorically held that all conditions of Section 11 were fulfilled andjudgment 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 (DAYA CHAUDHARY)JUDGE Note:-Whether this case is to be referred to the Reporter .......Yes/No