2002 (4) TMI 229 - AT - Income Tax

Tribunal grants tax exemption to educational society under Section 10(22)

NEW ERA EDUCATION SOCIETY. Versus DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION).

The Tribunal allowed the appeal, directing the Assessing Officer to grant exemption under Section 10(22) of the IT Act to the educational society. It held ... - Issues Involved:1. Denial of exemption under Section 10(22) of the IT Act.2. Justification of supervisory allowances paid to certain members.3. Interest-free loans to members and relatives.4. Unsigned and unsupported vouchers.5. Personal expenses debited to the income and expenditure account.6. Donation of Rs. 25,000.Detailed Analysis:1. Denial of Exemption under Section 10(22) of the IT Act:The main ground of appeal was the denial of exemption under Section 10(22) of the IT Act. The assessee-society, running multiple schools, was not registered under Section 12A nor recognized under Section 80-G of the IT Act. The AO denied the exemption on the grounds that the society was distributing funds among family members in the form of supervisory allowances and advancing loans without interest, indicating a profit motive. The CIT(A) confirmed the AO's findings, leading to the appeal.2. Justification of Supervisory Allowances Paid to Certain Members:The AO questioned the payment of supervisory allowances to Mrs. Usha Chopra, Mrs. Vandana Chawla, and Mrs. Aradhana Sondhi, noting that no specific extra responsibilities were mentioned to justify these payments. The AO concluded that these payments indicated a profit motive. However, the assessee argued that these payments were for legitimate administrative and supervisory roles related to the educational activities of the schools. The Tribunal agreed with the assessee, noting the qualifications and contributions of these individuals to the educational institutions.3. Interest-Free Loans to Members and Relatives:The AO observed that substantial loans were given to society members and their relatives without charging interest, suggesting funds were being siphoned off. The assessee clarified that interest at 10% was charged on these loans and provided a detailed explanation of the loans, including their recovery. The Tribunal found that the loans were not interest-free and were related to educational purposes, thus rejecting the AO's objection.4. Unsigned and Unsupported Vouchers:The AO noted certain vouchers were unsigned or not supported by bills, implying mismanagement of funds. The assessee explained that these expenses were related to the school's activities, including refreshments for staff and guests, and gifts for dignitaries and staff members. The Tribunal accepted the explanation, recognizing that such expenditures were part of the educational activities and not indicative of profit-making.5. Personal Expenses Debited to the Income and Expenditure Account:The AO highlighted personal expenses debited to the society's account, such as clothes, groceries, and medical expenses, suggesting these were not related to educational purposes. The assessee argued that these expenses were for staff and student activities, medical reimbursements as per school rules, and other educational purposes. The Tribunal found the expenses justified and related to the school's activities, dismissing the AO's objections.6. Donation of Rs. 25,000:The AO questioned a donation of Rs. 25,000 made by the society, arguing it was not for educational purposes. The assessee clarified that the donation was made to another educational institution. The Tribunal accepted this explanation, noting that such donations did not violate the educational objectives of the society.Conclusion:The Tribunal concluded that the society existed solely for educational purposes and not for profit. The AO and CIT(A) were not justified in denying the exemption under Section 10(22) of the IT Act. The Tribunal directed the AO to allow the exemption, emphasizing the consistency of such exemptions in previous assessment years and the educational nature of the society's activities. The appeal filed by the assessee was allowed.