Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax-Exemption v. The Indian Institute Of Banking & Finance

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYO.O.C.J. INCOME TAX APPEAL NO. 1935 OF 2017 Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax-Exemption..Appellant Versus The Indian Institute of Banking & Finance (Formerly known as The Indian Institute of Bankers)..Respondent ................... Mr. Suresh Kumar a/w Ms. Priyanka Tiwary & Sumandevi Yadavfor the Appellant Mr. Suresh Kumar a/w Ms. Priyanka Tiwary & Sumandevi Yadavfor the Appellant Mr.Nitesh Joshi a/w Mr. Sameer Dalal for the RespondentMr.Nitesh Joshi a/w Mr. Sameer Dalal for the Respondent ................... CORAM : UJJAL BHUYAN & MILIND N. JADHAV, JJ. DATE : JANUARY 29, 2020. P.C.: 1.Heard Mr. Suresh Kumar, learned standing counsel,revenue for the appellant and Mr. Sameer Dalal, learnedcounsel for the respondent - assessee. 2.This appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act,1961 ("the Act" for short) is preferred by the revenueagainst the order dated 23.6.2016 passed by the Income TaxAppellate Tribunal, Mumbai "I" Bench, Mumbai ("Tribunal"for short) in Income Tax Appeal No. 3087/M/2013 for the assessment year 2009-10. 3. Though a number of questions have been proposed,basically the controversy revolves around as to whetherTribunal was justified in holding that respondent - assessee isa charitable association and is eligible for deduction underSection 11 of the Act. 4.Mr. Suresh Kumar has taken us through the impugnedorder passed by the Tribunal where from we find thatTribunal had followed its own order in the case of theassessee itself in Income Tax Appeal No. 5725/Mum/2012 forthe assessment year 2008-09 dated 11.2.2015. In the orderpassed by the Tribunal on 11.2.2015, it was held thatrespondent - assessee was an institute for charitable purposeas defined under Section 2(15) of the Act. 5.On a query by the Court, Mr. Suresh Kumar submitsthat against the aforesaid order dated 11.2.2015, revenuehad preferred an appeal before this Court which wasregistered as Income Tax Appeal No. 1368 of 2015. By order dated 28.3.2018, this Court had dismissed the said appeal byholding that there was no error in the view taken by theTribunal and no substantial question of law arises therefrom.It was held as under:- "8.The grievance of the Revenue before us is that the activitycarried out by the respondent-assessee is in the nature of runningCoaching Classes or Center and therefore the benefit of Section 11of the Act cannot be extended to the respondent. 9.We find that this objection/grievance of the Revenue has beentaken up for the first time across the bar. There is no such objectiontaken before the authorities by the Revenue. Besides, nothing hasbeen shown to us why it should be considered as a coaching class.Further, we find that the impugned order of the Tribunal has onlyapplied the decision of this Court in Samudra Institute of MaritimeStudies Trust (supra) to conclude that the activities which are run bythe respondent-institute is an educational activity and not in thenature of running a Coaching Center or a Class. The Revenue is notable to point why it would not apply. We may also point out that thegrant or refusal to grant exemption under Section 10(22) and/or(23C) of the Act cannot govern the application of Section 11 of theAct. In any case, we are informed that no appeals in respect ofSection 10(22) and/or (23c)(vi) of the Act are pending disposal. 10.In the above view, the question as proposed does not give riseto any substantial question of law as the impugned order has onlyapplied the decision of this Court in Samudra Institute of MaritimeStudies Trust (supra) to the facts of the present case. 11.Accordingly, the Appeal is dismissed. No order as to costs." 6.In the light of the above, no substantial question of lawarises in the present appeal as well. The appeal isaccordingly dismissed. However, there shall be no order asto cost. [ MILIND N. JADHAV, J. ] [ UJJAL BHUYAN, J. ] 10.In the above view, the question as proposed does not give riseto any substantial question of law as the impugned order has onlyapplied the decision of this Court in Samudra Institute of MaritimeStudies Trust (supra) to the facts of the present case. 11.Accordingly, the Appeal is dismissed. No order as to costs." 6.In the light of the above, no substantial question of lawarises in the present appeal as well. The appeal isaccordingly dismissed. However, there shall be no order asto cost. [ MILIND N. JADHAV, J. ] [ UJJAL BHUYAN, J. ] Digitallysigned byRavindraRavindraM.M.AmberkarAmberkarDate:2020.01.3114:47:10+0530