Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

3. Brief facts of the case are that during the course of assessment proceedings, upon inquiry from the AO, the assessee vide letter dated 20.10.2010 submitted that the income of the assessee was exempt under section 10(23C) (iiiad) of the Act. The AO after perusal of the details submitted by the assessee observed that the assessee has conducted 7 courses out of which only two courses were recognized and fees were determined by the Government. Further the AO noticed that the registration certificate under section 12A was issued to the assessee in the name of Multipurpose Education Society and not in the name of the assessee and same was position with regard to registration with the Charity Commissioner. The AO further observed that in respect of five courses which were not recognized by the Government, the assessee was charging fees on the commercial basis and earned surplus from the said courses and accordingly issued show cause notice to the assessee dated 9.12.2010 calling upon the assessee to show cause as to why the exemption u/s 10(23C) (iiiad) should not be denied, which was replied by the assessee vide letter dated 14.12.2010. The AO was not satisfied with the explanation so rendered by the assessee and came to the conclusion that the assessee charged fees on commercial basis in respect of five course and also that the assessee was running the courses in the name of CMC whose fees were prescribed by CMC Ltd., which itself was a commercial organization and the assessee was acting as a franchisee of that company. The AO observed that the assessee made a profit of Rs.2,93,527/-. It was stated by the ld. AR that it was factually incorrect as this was total course fees received by the assessee and not the profit and finally denied exemption as claimed by the assessee by holding that the activities of the assessee were in the nature of commercial within the meaning of section 2(13) of the Act and determined the total income of the assessee at Rs.10,81,259/- vide order dated 30.12.2010 passed under section 143(3) of the Act. Aggrieved by the order of the AO, the assessee preferred an appeal before the FAA, who dismissed the appeal of the assessee by considering all the details and submissions as made before him which have been incorporated in para 3.2 to 3.9 and dismissed the appeal of the assessee observing and holding as under :

3.11 The details furnished by the appellant clearly show that the appellant institute does not exist solely for educational purposes and charges fees in line with the norms of commercial institutes. To be eligible ujs.l0(23C) (iiiad), the decisive test of 'sole purpose of education' has not been fulfilled by the appellant. The A.O. has rightly relied on the judgment in the case of Bihar Institute of Mining & Mining Surveying vs. CIT 208 ITR 608 (Patna) wherein it was held that "arranging private tuitions would not also entitle the institution to be treated as an educational institution". I find that the appellant is charging commercial rates in respect of 5 out of 7 courses undertaken by it. The appellant is running. the private course "CMC Ltd."

where the fees are as prescribed by CMC Ltd. itself.' Therefore, where the appellant is acting as a franchise of CMC Ltd. itself. Therefore, where the appellant is acting as a franchise of CMC Ltd, I am of the opinion that ht appellant has not full filled the requisite criteria required for section 10(23C)9iiia). The various case laws cited by the appellant are not applicable to this case since in those cases the decisive "test of the sole purpose of education was established. Having failed to do so, the appellant was rightly denied the benefit of section 10(23C)(iiiad) by the AO. Hence, the ground of appeal filed by the appellant is dismissed."