×Latest Case Laws on Income Tax by various Income Tax Appellate Tribunals in India
These are the latest case laws decided by various Income Tax Appellate Tribunals (ITAT) of India on Income Tax which have been published recently. The case laws are open for discussion and we invite expert comments from our members on its applicability and effect on relevant issues.
This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of ld. CIT(E), Ja pur dated 14.09.2016 withdrawing the approval granted to the assessee u/s 10(23C)(vi) of the Income Tax Act.
2. The assessee is a University established under a statute by the State of Rajasthan vide Act No. 6 of 2008 namely, Singhania University Pacheri Bari (Jhunjhunu) Act, 2008. The assessee University was granted exemption under Section 10(23C)(vi) of the Income Tax Act vide Notification No.06/2009 dated 29.07.2009 for the Assessment Year 2009-10 onwards. During the assessment proceedings for the A.Y. 2013-14, the Assessing officer made a reference to the Ld. CIT(E) for withdrawal of exemption under Section 10(23C)(vi) of the Income Tax Act. Thereafter, a show cause notice no. F.No./10/CIT(E)/JPR/Withdwl-10(23C)(vi)/2015-16/648 dated 3.05.2016 was issued asking the assessee University to show cause as to why the exemption granted under Section 10(23C)(vi) of the Income Tax Act should not be withdrawn. The assessee University submitted its reply dated 06.06.2016 to the aforesaid show cause notice However, the Ld. CIT(E) vide impugned order dated 14.09.2016 withdrawan the exemption given to the assessee University under Section 10(23C)(vi) of the Income Tax Act from the A.Y 2013-14 and onwards which is under challenge before us.
3. In its appeal, the assessee University has raised the following grounds of appeal:
“1 That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT (Exemptions) erred in withdrawing, from assessment year 2013-14 onwards, exemption granted to the appellant under section 10(23C)(vi) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (`the Act').
2. That the CIT (Exemptions) erred grossly on facts and in law in treating the Appellant, a self-regulated autonomous statutory body established by an Act of State Legislature, as a society and passing the impugned order based on that.
3. That the CIT (Exemptions) erred on facts and in law in overlooking that the Appellant is a separate and distinct class from 'other educational institution existing solely for the educational purposes and not for purposes of profit'.
4. That the CIT (Exemptions) erred on facts and in law in overlooking that being separate and distinct classes, 'other educational institutions' are established as Trust or Society and may have objectives other than education, however, Assessee like all other universities in the country is established by an Act of State Legislature and cannot carry out any activity other than education.
5. That the CIT (Exemptions) erred on facts and in law in withdrawing exemption alleging that activities of the appellant were not genuine:
5.1 That the CIT (Exemptions) erred on facts and in law in holding that the exemption u/s 10(23C) (vi) was proved to the Appellant for running only specific courses and that fresh approval was required to be sought on addition of every new course .
5.2 That the CIT (Exemptions) erred on facts and in law and acted without jurisdiction in overlooking that the Appellant is governed by the UGC Act, which has overriding effect over State Act, and as such entitles the Appellant to impart education in all courses as per Section 22 of the UGC Act as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Maharshi Mahesh Yogi Vedic Vishwidyalaya v. State of M.P. & Ors. reported in (2013) 15 SCC 677.
5.3 That the CIT (Exemptions) erred on facts and in law and acted without jurisdiction in overlooking that the Appellant is empowered to award degrees in all courses of education which are sui-generis valid and is not required to obtain prior approval of other authorities as held by the Hon'ble Apex Court and various High Courts.
6. That the CIT (Exemptions) erred on facts and in law alleging that the appellant was not existing solely for educational purposes on the ground that the appellant was running a hospital:
6.1 That the CIT (Exemptions) erred on facts and in law in holding that the expense debited in the relevant assessment year was towards construction of a hospital whereas the expense was debited towards construction of a building comprising of classrooms, labs and library which is evident from the Tehsildar report, relied upon by the CIT (Exemptions), itself.
6.2 That the CIT (Exemptions) erred on facts and in law in not appreciating that practical training and hospital teaching amounts to imparting education.
6.3 That the CIT (Exemptions) erred on facts and in law in overlooking that it is the function of the Appellant to provide for health care facilities to its staff and students.”
4. At the outset, the ld. AR sought permission to raise the following additional ground of appeal:
”That the impugned order passed by CIT(E), Jaipur is bad in law as show cause notice dated 03/11-05-2016, U/s 10(23C)(vi) is issued and signed by the Income Tax Officer (Hqrs.) as it should have been issued and signed by CIT(E).”
5. The ld. AR of the assessee has submitted that the additional ground is legal in nature and all relevant facts are available on record as emerging out of the notice issued by the ITO (Hqr.) u/s 10(23C)(vi) of the Act. Since, no new facts are required to be evaluated nor any further enquiry is needed and the issue raised in the additional ground can be adjudicated on the basis of the facts and material available on record and by applying the provisions of law, therefore, the additional