Ita/774/2016 Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Exemption) v. Versu Indian Walding Society

$~7 *IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI+ITA 774/2016, CM APPL. 41232/2016 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION)..... Appellant Through:Mr.P.RoyChaudhuri,SeniorStanding Counsel with Mr. Vibhuti Malhotra,Advs.versu INDIAN WALDING SOCIETY..... RespondentThrough:None. CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHATHON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAJMI WAZIRIO R D E R%08.11.2016 CM APPL. 41232/2016 (Exemption) Allowed, subject to all just exceptions. ITA 774/2016 The question urged in this appeal is whether the ITAT fell into errorin permitting registration to the assessee under Section 12A of the Act. It is argued that the expression “education” does not encompass thethings incidentally imparted by the assessee.The ITAT in this case hasupheld the assessee’s contention of its registration under Section 12A. Theassessee’s activities extended to offering flexible class room/distancelearning programmes in various aspects of welding and related technologythat suit the requirement of various levels; promoting professional exchangeof information/experience and advanced training within and among various countries across the globe; and entering into arrangements for providingmembers of the society with advice and assistance on all matters connectedwith the objectives of the society. The ITAT held that taking intoconsideration the overall objectives of the assessee’s society and the natureof its activities, there was no doubt that such objectives were charitable innature.The ITAT relied upon the Supreme Court’s judgment inLokaShikshana Trust 101 ITR 234 and after considering the aims and objectivesof the assessee held that undoubtedly it imparted educational instructionswhich fall under the broad description of education. The Revenue contendsthat education is the systematic imparting of instructions and offering shorttime courses to enhance professional capabilities does not fall within thatexpression. This Court is of the opinion that there is no infirmity in the impugnedorder.Education in its broadest sense is imparting instructions andknowledge which enhances the capabilities of an individual; that in thepresent case the instructions imparted were related in time or confined totechnical or professional abilities, does not in any way de-tract from itsessential purpose i.e. to educate and enhance the capabilities of theindividual,receiving the instructions. No substantial question of law arises in this appeal. The appeal is,therefore, dismissed. S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J NOVEMBER 08, 2016/acm NAJMI WAZIRI, J