Ita/107/2009 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Central) v. M/S.sabarigiri Educational And Cultural

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM WEDNESDAY, THE 17TH JUNE 2009 / 27TH JYAISHTA 1931 ITA.No. 107 of 2009() --------------------- ITA.1088/2004 of I.T.A.TRIBUNAL,COCHIN BENCH .................... APPELLANT: -------------------- THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(CENTRAL),COCHIN. BY ADV. SRI.JOSE JOSEPH, SC, FOR INCOME TAX RESPONDENT(S): --------------- M/S.SABARIGIRI EDUCATIONAL AND CULTURAL SOCIETY, ANCHAL, KOLLAM. THIS INCOME TAX APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 17/06/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR &C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JJ.....................................................................I.T. Appeal No.107 of 2009 .................................................................... .................................................................... Dated this the 17th day of June, 2009. JUDGMENT Ramachandran Nair, J. Appeal is filed by the department against the order of theTribunal confirming the order of the C.I.T. (Appeal) declaringrespondent's eligibility for exemption from payment of Income Taxunder Section 10(22) of the Income Tax Act. Standing Counselsubmitted that exemption claimed by the respondent was under Section11(1)(a) and since registration was not granted under Section 12A,respondent is not entitled to exemption. However, it is seen from theorders of the authorities below particularly, the detailed order issued bythe C.I.T. (Appeal) that respondent made an alternate claim that it isentitled to exemption under Section 10(22) as it was engaged inrunning educational institutions namely, schools. The AssessingOfficer though did not entertain the claim as it was not made in theoriginal return, did not give any finding that respondent has utilisedfunds for any other purpose. In fact, it is seen from records that exemption claimed under Section 11(1)(a) was allowed in previousyears without objection and that is the reason why assessee continuedto claim under the said provision for 1996-97 also. When this isdeclined after belated rejection of application for registration filedunder Section 12A by the Commissioner, the assessee made alternateclaim of exemption under Section 10(22) which is a statutory benefitavailable to them. Since Commissioner (Appeals) and the Tribunalfound on facts that respondent was engaged in educational activities,exemption was rightly granted. We do not find any substantialquestion of law arising from the order of the Tribunal. The appeal isconsequently dismissed. C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIRJudge C.K.ABDUL REHIM Judge