D.b. Income Tax Appeal v. Jawahar Shikshan Avam Prashikshan Sansthan

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHANBENCH AT JAIPUR. D.B. Income Tax Appeal No. 277/2016.(CIT Vs. Jawahar Shikshan Avam Prashikshan Sansthan) DATE OF ORDER ::: 14.12.2016 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.S. JHAVERIHON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA Mr. Sameer Jain, for the appellant. By way of this appeal, the appellant has challenged thejudgment and order of the Tribunal whereby the Tribunal hasallowed the appeal preferred by the assessee. Counsel for the appellant has raised the followingsubstantial questions of law: i. Whether on the facts and in the circumstancesof the case the Ld. ITAT was justified in law inallowing the benefit of section 10 (23C) (iiiad) ofthe I.T Act by not including the receipt from allsources within the meaning of “AggregateAnnual Receipts”.of the case the Ld. ITAT was justified in law inallowing the benefit of section 10 (23C) (iiiad) ofthe I.T Act by not including the receipt from allsources within the meaning of “AggregateAnnual Receipts”. ii. Whether on the facts and in the circumstancesof the case the Ld. ITAT was justified in law ingiving its own interpretation to the term“Aggregate Annual Receipts” as income derivedfrom that activity only which is not the intentionof the statute.of the case the Ld. ITAT was justified in law ingiving its own interpretation to the term“Aggregate Annual Receipts” as income derivedfrom that activity only which is not the intentionof the statute. iii. Whether on the facts and in the circumstancesof the case the Ld. ITAT was justified in law inholding the amount of subsidy received byassessee as not forming part of the AggregateAnnual Receipts u/s 10 (23C) (iiiad) of the Act?of the case the Ld. ITAT was justified in law inholding the amount of subsidy received byassessee as not forming part of the AggregateAnnual Receipts u/s 10 (23C) (iiiad) of the Act? In our opinion, the Tribunal while considering the caseof the respondent assessee, in paragraph 6 rightly observedas under: “We have heard the rival contentions of boththe parties and perused the material available onthe record. It is undisputed fact that the assesseeis a charitable institution covered U/s 10 (23C)(iiiab) as well as 10 (23C) (iiiad) of the Act. Theassessee substantially financed by the StateGovt., which is also not part of the total receiptsas held by the various ITATs as well as Hon'bleHigh Courts. The actual receipt for the purposesof Section 10 (23C) (iiiad) is to be earned outfrom the educational activity. The case lawreferred by the assessee are squarely applicable.We have considered view that the capital subsidyreceived from the State Govt. is not part of totalreceipts. The assessee wrongly claimed deductionU/s 11 as he did not have registration U/s 12AAof the Act but the Id Assessing Officer has tocalculate the real income on the basis of materialavailable with him and is duty bound to assessthe correct income as per law. Accordingly, weallow the assessee's appeal.” We are in complete agreement with the view taken by the Tribunal. The appeal stands dismissed. It is made clear that theamount which was added was a capital receipt. (Dinesh Mehta), J. (K.S. Jhaveri), J. BM Gandhi 9