University denied Section 10(23C) exemption as government grants only 3.50% of total receipts, fails substantial financing test

ITAT Indore denied exemption u/s 10(23C) to a university established under MP Vishwavidhalaya Adhiniyam, 1973. The AO found that government grants of Rs. 3.90 crores constituted only 3.50% of total receipts of Rs. 109 crores, failing the "substantially financed by government" requirement. The tribunal rejected the assessee's argument that examination fees from government-aided colleges should be considered government receipts, noting lack of evidence. However, ITAT allowed the alternative claim for exemption u/s 11/12, remanding the matter to AO for proper computation. Appeal allowed for statistical purposes.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Rejection of exemption under section 10(23C)(iiiab).
2. Alternative claim for exemption under sections 11 and 12.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Rejection of Exemption under Section 10(23C)(iiiab):

The primary grievance of the assessee was the disallowance of exemption under section 10(23C)(iiiab) by the Assessing Officer (AO). The AO observed that the total receipts of the assessee were approximately Rs. 109 crores, out of which the government grant was only Rs. 3.90 crores, which constituted a mere 3.50% of the total receipts. The AO concluded that the assessee did not meet the condition of being "wholly or substantially financed by the Government" as required under section 10(23C)(iiiab) and defined in Rule 2BBB of the Income-tax Rules, 1962, which prescribes that the government grant must exceed 50% of the total receipts. The AO relied on the decision of the ITAT in M.P. Rajya Open School, Bhopal Vs. DCIT (2013) 141 ITD 721 and denied the exemption.

During the appellate proceedings, the Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] upheld the AO's decision, reiterating that the government grant constituted only 3.50% of the total receipts and the assessee earned a net profit of Rs. 24.68 crores. The CIT(A) also emphasized that each assessment year is independent, and the exemption granted in the previous year does not automatically apply to the current year.

Before the tribunal, the assessee argued that the requirement of "substantially financed by the Government" was not clearly defined in the section or rules before the introduction of Rule 2BBB, which is applicable from the assessment year 2015-16 onwards. The assessee contended that the examination fees received from affiliated institutions and colleges, which in turn received grants from the Government, should be considered as government-financed receipts. However, the tribunal found no merit in this argument, noting that the affiliated colleges or students receiving grants do not equate to the assessee being financed by the Government. The tribunal concluded that the assessee did not satisfy the requirement of being "substantially financed by the Government" and upheld the disallowance of exemption under section 10(23C)(iiiab).

2. Alternative Claim for Exemption under Sections 11 and 12:

The assessee made an alternative claim for exemption under sections 11 and 12, citing that it had received registration under section 12A(1)(aa) read with section 12AA from the assessment year 2019-20 onwards. The assessee relied on the proviso to section 12A(2), which allows the provisions of sections 11 and 12 to apply to any preceding assessment year for which assessment proceedings are pending before the AO on the date of registration, provided the objects and activities of the trust or institution remain the same.

The tribunal agreed with the assessee's interpretation, referencing the decision of the ITAT, Ahmedabad in Shri Bhanushali Mitra Mandal Trust Vs. ITO, ITA No. 2515/Ahd/2015, which held that the amendment to section 12A by Finance Act, 2014, intended to provide relief to genuine charitable organizations. The tribunal noted that the assessee's registration under section 12AA for the assessment year 2019-20 onwards, combined with the pending appeal for the assessment year 2014-15, satisfied the conditions of the proviso to section 12A(2). Consequently, the tribunal allowed the alternative claim for exemption under sections 11 and 12.

However, the tribunal remanded the matter back to the AO to verify the necessary information for computation of exemption under sections 11 and 12, emphasizing the need for proper application and accumulation of income as per the provisions.

Conclusion:

The tribunal upheld the disallowance of exemption under section 10(23C)(iiiab) due to the assessee not being "substantially financed by the Government." However, it allowed the alternative claim for exemption under sections 11 and 12, directing the AO to verify the necessary details and compute the exemption accordingly.

---